UNITARIANISM IN AMERICAA History of its Origin and Development

BY

GEORGE WILLIS COOKE

MEMBER OF THE AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION, AMERICAN ASSOCIATIONFOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF SCIENCE, AMERICAN ACADEMY OFPOLITICAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCE, ETC. 

PREFACE. 

The aim I have had in view in writing this book has been to give a historyof the origin of Unitarianism in the United States, how it has organizeditself, and what it has accomplished. It seemed desirable to deal morefully than has been done hitherto with the obscure beginnings of theUnitarian movement in New England; but limits of space have made itimpossible to treat this phase of the subject in other than a cursorymanner. It deserves an exhaustive treatment, which will amply repay thenecessary labor to this end. The theological controversies that led to theseparation of the Unitarians from the older Congregational body have beenonly briefly alluded to, the design of my work not requiring an amplertreatment. It was not thought best to cover the ground so ably traversed byRev. 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 byRev. John White Chadwick, in his Old and New Unitarian Beliefs. The attempthere made has been to supplement these works, and to treat of the practicalside of Unitarianism, --its organizations, charities, philanthropies, andreforms. 

With the theological problems involved in the history of Unitarianism thisvolume deals only so far as they have affected its general development. Ihave endeavored to treat of them fairly and without prejudice, to state theposition of each side to the various controversies in the words of thosewho have accepted its point of view, and to judge of them as phases of alarger religious growth. I have not thought it wise to attempt anythingapproaching an exhaustive treatment of the controversies produced by thetranscendental movement and by "the Western issue. " If they are to be dealtwith in the true spirit of the historical method, it must be at a periodmore remote from these discussions than that of one who participated inthem, however slightly. I have endeavored to treat of all phases ofUnitarianism without reference to local interests and without sectionalpreferences. If my book does not indicate such regard to what is nationalrather than to what is provincial, as some of my readers may desire, it isdue to inability to secure information that would have given a broadercharacter to my treatment of the subject. 

The present work may appear to some of its readers to have been written ina sectarian spirit, with a purpose to magnify the excellences ofUnitarianism, and to ignore its limitations. Such has not been the purposeI have kept before me; but, rather, my aim has been to present the factscandidly and justly, and to treat of them from the standpoint of a studentof the religious evolution of mankind. Unitarianism in this countrypresents an attempt to bring religion into harmony with philosophy andscience, and to reconcile Christianity with the modern spirit. Its effortin this direction is one that deserves careful consideration, especially inview of the unity and harmony it has developed in the body of believers whoaccept its teachings. The Unitarian body is a small one, but it has ahistory of great significance with reference to the future development ofChristianity. 

The names of those who accept Unitarianism have not been given in this bookin any boastful spirit. A faith that is often spoken against may justifyitself by what it has accomplished, and its best fruits are the men andwomen who have lived in the spirit of its teachings. In presenting thenames of those who are not in any way identified with Unitarian churches, the purpose has been to suggest the wide and inclusive character of theUnitarian movement, and to indicate that it is not represented merely by abody of churches, but that it is an individual way of looking at the factsof life and its problems. 

In writing the following pages, I have had constantly in mind those whohave not been educated as Unitarians, and who have come into thisinheritance through struggle and search. Not having been to the manner bornmyself, I have sought to provide such persons with the kind of informationthat would have been helpful to me in my endeavors to know the Unitarianlife and temper. Something of what appears in these pages is due to thisdesire to help those who wish to know concretely what Unitarianism is, andwhat it has said and done to justify its existence. This will account forthe 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 theexhibit of Unitarianism in this country presented at the seventy-fifthanniversary of the formation of the American Unitarian Association. Thetime required for a careful verification of facts made it impossible tohave the book ready at that date. The delay in its publication has notfreed the work from all errors and defects, but it has given theopportunity for a more adequate treatment of many phases of the subject. Much of the work required in its preparation does not show itself in thefollowing pages; but it has involved an extended examination of manuscriptjournals and records, as well as printed reports of societies, newspapers, magazines, pamphlets, and books. Many of the subjects dealt with, nothaving been touched upon in any previous historical work, have demanded afirst-hand study of records, often difficult to find access to, and evenmore difficult to summarize in an interesting and adequate manner. 

I wish here to warmly thank all those persons, many in number and toonumerous to give all their names, who have generously aided me with theirletters and manuscripts, and by the loan of books, magazines, pamphlets, and newspapers. Without their aid the book would have been much lessadequate in its treatment of many subjects than it is at present. Though Iam responsible for the book as it presents itself to the reader, much ofits 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, whohave 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 ofindividualism developed by the Renaissance, the tendency to free inquirythat manifested itself in the Protestant Reformation, and the generalmovement of the English churches of the seventeenth century towardtoleration and rationalism. The individualism of modern thought and lifefirst found distinct expression in the Renaissance; and it was essentiallya new creation, and not a revival. Hitherto the tribe, the city, thenation, the guild, or the church, had been the source of authority, thecentre of power, and the giver of life. Although Greece showed a desire forfreedom of thought, and a tendency to recognize the worth of the individualand his capacity as a discoverer and transmitter of truth, it did not setthe individual mind free from bondage to the social and political power ofthe city. Socrates and Plato saw somewhat of the real worth of theindividual, but the great mass of the people were never emancipated fromthe old tribal authority as inherited by the city-state; and not one of thegreat dramatists had conceived of the significance of a genuineindividualism. [1]

[Sidenote: Renaissance. ]

The Renaissance advanced to a new conception of the worth and the capacityof the individual mind, and for the first time in history recognized thefull social meaning of personality in man. It sanctioned and authenticatedthe right of the individual to think for himself, and it developed clearlythe idea that he may become the transmitter of valid revelations ofspiritual truth. That God may speak through individual intuition andreason, and that this inward revelation may be of the highest authority andworth, was a conception first brought to distinct acceptance by theRenaissance. 

A marked tendency of the Reformation which it received from the Renaissancewas its acceptance of the free spirit of individualism. The Roman Churchhad taught that all valid religious truth comes to mankind through its owncorporate existence, but the Reformers insisted that truth is the result ofindividual insight and investigation. The Reformation magnified the worthof personality, and made it the central force in all human effort. [2] Togain a positive personal life, one of free initiative power, that may initself become creative, and capable of bringing truth and life to largerissues, was the chief motive of the Protestant leaders in their work ofreformation. The result was that, wherever genuine Protestantism appeared, it manifested itself by its attitude of free inquiry, its tendency toemphasize individual life and thought, and its break with the traditions ofthe past, whether in literature or in religion. The Reformation did not, however, bring the principle of individuality to full maturity; and itretained many of the old institutional methods, as well as a large degreeof their social motive. The Reformed churches were often as autocratic asthe Catholic Church had been, and as little inclined to approve ofindividual departures from their creeds and disciplines; but the motive ofindividualism they had adopted in theory, and could not wholly depart fromin practice. Their merit was that they had recognized and made a place forthe principle of individuality; and it proved to be a developing socialpower, however much they might ignore or try to suppress it. 

[Sidenote: Reformation. ]

In its earliest phases Protestantism magnified the importance of reason inreligious investigations, although it used an imperfect method in so doing. All doctrines were subjected more or less faithfully to this test, everyrite was criticised and reinterpreted, and the Bible itself was handled inthe freest manner. The individualism of the movement showed itself inLuther's doctrine of justification by faith, and his confidence in thevalidity of personal insight into spiritual realities. Most of all thistendency manifested itself in the assertion of the right of every believerto read the Bible for himself, and to interpret it according to his ownneeds. The vigorous assertion of the right to the free interpretation ofthe Word of God, and to personal insight into spiritual truth, led theirfollowers 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 drawntogether by an interest in individual leaders or by a common acceptance ofhair-splitting interpretations of religious truths. [3]

The Protestant Church inculcated the law of individual fidelity to God, anddeclared that the highest obligation is that of personal faith and purity. What separated the Catholic and the Protestant was not merely a question ofsocialism as against individualism, [4] but it was also a problem of outwardor inward law, of environment or intuition as the source of wholesometeaching, of ritualism or belief as the higher form of religiousexpression. The Protestants held that belief is better than ritual, faiththan sacraments, inward authority than external force. They insisted thatthe individual has a right to think his own thoughts and to pray his ownprayer, and that the revelation of the Supreme Good Will is to all whoinwardly bear God's image and to every one whose will is a centre of newcreative force in the world of conduct. They affirmed that the individualis of more worth than the social organism, the soul than the church, themotive than the conduct, the search for truth than the truth attained. 

These tendencies of Protestantism found expression in the rationalism thatappeared in England at the time of the Commonwealth, and especially at theRestoration. All the men of broader temper proclaimed the use of reason inthe discussion of theological problems. In their opinion the Bible was tobe interpreted as other books are, while with regard to doctrines theremust be compromise and latitude. We find such a theologian as Chillingworthrecognizing "the free right of the individual reason to interpret theBible. "[5] To such men as Milton, Jeremy Taylor, and Locke the free spiritwas essential, even though they had not become rationalists in the modernphilosophical sense. They were slow to discard tradition, and they desiredto establish the validity of the Bible; but they would not accept anyauthority until it had borne the test of as thorough an investigation asthey could give it. The methods of rationalism were not yet understood, butthe rational spirit had been accepted with a clear apprehension of itssignificance. 

[Sidenote: Toleration. ]

Toleration had two classes of advocates in the seventeenth century, --on theone hand, the minor and persecuted sects, and, on the other, such of thegreat leaders of religious opinion as Milton and Locke. The first clearassertion of the modern idea of toleration was made by the Anabaptists ofHolland, who in 1611 put into their Confession of Faith this declaration ofthe freedom of religion from all state regulation: "The magistrate is notto meddle with religion, or matters of conscience, nor compel men to thisor that form of religion, because Christ is King, and Lawgiver of thechurch and conscience. " When the Baptists appeared in England, theyadvocated this principle as the one which ought to control in the relationsof 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 Baptistchurch that had recently been organized there. The writer addressed theKing and Parliament with a statement of his conviction "that by fire andsword to constrain princes and peoples to receive that one true religion ofthe Gospel is wholly against the mind and merciful law of Christ. "[6] Hewent on to say that no king or bishop is able to command faith, that it ismonstrous for Christians to vex and destroy each other on account ofreligious differences. The leading Protestant bodies, especially theestablished churches, still held to the corporate idea of the nature ofreligious institutions; and, although they had rejected the domination ofthe Roman Church, they accepted the control of the state as essential tothe purity of the church. This half-way retention of the corporate spiritmade it impossible for any of the leading churches to give recognition tothe full meaning of the Protestant idea of the worth of the individualsoul, and its right to communicate directly with God. It remained for thepersecuted Baptists and Independents, too feeble and despised to aspire tostate influence, to work out the Protestant principle to its fullexpression in the spirit of toleration, to declare for liberty ofconscience, the voluntary maintenance of worship, and the separation ofchurch and state. 

After the Restoration, and again after the enthronement of William andMary, it became a serious practical problem to establish satisfactoryrelations between the various sects. All who were not sectarian fanaticssaw that some kind of compromise was desirable, and the more liberal wishedto include all but the most extreme phases of belief within the nationalchurch. When that national church was finally established on the lineswhich it has since retained, and numerous bodies of dissenters foundthemselves compelled to remain outside, toleration became more and moreessential, in order that the nation might live at peace with itself. Fromgeneration to generation the dissenters were able to secure for themselvesa larger recognition, disabilities were removed as men of all sects sawthat restrictions were useless, and toleration became the established lawin the relations of the various religious bodies to each other. 

[Sidenote: Arminianism. ]

The conditions which led to toleration also developed a liberalinterpretation of the relations of the church to the people, a broaderexplanation of doctrines, and a rational insight into the problems of thereligious life. One phase of this more comprehensive religious spirit wasshown in Arminianism, which was nothing more than an assertion ofindividualism in the sphere of man's relations to God. Calvinism maintainedthat man cannot act freely for himself, that he is strictly under thesovereignty of the Divine Will. The democratic tendency in Holland, whereArminianism had its origin, expressed itself in the declaration that everyman is free to accept or to reject religious truth, that the will isindividual and self-assertive, and that the conscience is not bound. Arminius and his coworkers accepted what the early Protestant movement hadregarded as essential, that religion should be always obedient to therational spirit, that nature should be the test in regard to all whichaffects human conduct, and that the critical spirit ought to be applied todogma and Bible. Arminius reasserted this freedom of the human spirit, andvindicated the right of the individual mind to seek God and his truthwherever they may be found. 

As Protestantism became firmly established in England, and the nationaccepted its mental and moral attitude without reserve, what is known asArminianism came to be more and more prevalent. This was not a body ofdoctrines, and it was in no sense a sectarian movement: it was rather amental temper of openness and freedom. In a word, Arminianism became amethod of religious inquiry that appealed to reason, nature, and the needsof man. It put new emphasis on the intellectual side of religion, and itdeveloped as a moral protest against the harsher features of Calvinism. Itgave to human feelings the right to express themselves as elements in theproblem of man's relations to God, and vindicated for God the right to bedeemed as sympathetic and loving as the men who worship him. 

While the Arminians accepted the Bible as an authoritative standard asfully as did the Calvinists, they were more critical in its study: theyapplied literary and historical standards in its interpretation, and theysubmitted it to the vindication of reason. They sought to escape from thetyranny of the Bible, and yet to make it a living force in the world ofconduct and character. They not only declared anew the right of privatejudgment, but they wished to make the Bible the source of inward spiritualillumination, --not a standard and a test, but an awakener of the divinelife in the soul. They sought for what is really essential in religioustruth, limited the number of dogmas that may be regarded as requisite tothe Christian life, and took the position that only what is of primeimportance is to be required of the believer. The result was thatArminianism 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 thelimits of one harmonizing and noble-minded church. 

[Sidenote: English Rationalists. ]

It was in such tendencies as these, as they were developed in Holland andEngland, that American Unitarianism had its origin. To show how true thisis, it may be desirable to speak of a few of the men whose books were mostfrequently read in New England during the eighteenth century. The prosewritings of Milton exerted great influence in favor of toleration and invindication of reason. Without doubt he became in his later years abeliever in free will and the subordinate nature of Christ, and he was trueto the Protestant ideal of an open Bible and a free spirit in man. Known asa Puritan, his pleas for toleration must have been read with confidence byhis coreligionists of New England; while his rational temper could not havefailed to have its effect. 

His vindication of the Bible as the religion of Protestants must havecommended Chillingworth to the liberal minds in New England; and there isevidence that he was read with acceptance, although he was of theestablished church. Chillingworth was of the noblest type of thelatitudinarians in the Church of England during the first half of theseventeenth century; for he was generously tolerant, his mind was broad andliberal, and he knew the true value of a really comprehensive and inclusivechurch, which he earnestly desired should be established in England. Hewished to have the creed reduced to the most limited proportions by givingemphasis to what is fundamental, and by the extrusion of all else. It washis desire to maintain what is essential that caused him to say: "I amfully assured that God does not, and therefore that man ought not, torequire any more of any man than this--to believe the Scripture to be God'sword, to endeavor to find the true sense of it, and to live according toit. "[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. Thechief fact in the Bible being Christ, he insisted that Christianity isloyalty to his spirit. "To believe only in Christ" is his definition ofChristianity, and he would add nothing to this standard. He would put nochurch or creed or council between the individual soul and God; and hewould direct every believer to the Bible as the free and open way of thesoul's access to divine truth. He found that the religion of Protestantsconsisted in the rational use of that book, and not in the teachings of theReformers or in the confessions they devised. It is the great merit ofChillingworth that he vindicated the spirit of toleration in a broad andnoble manner, that he was without sectarian prejudice or narrowness in hisdesire for an inclusive church, and that he spoke and wrote in a trulyrational temper. He applied reason to all religious problems, and heregarded it as the final judge and arbiter. Religious freedom received fromhim the fullest recognition, and no one has more clearly indicated thescope and purpose of toleration. 

Another English religious leader, much read in New England, was ArchbishopTillotson. It has been said of him that "for the first time since theReformation the voice of reason was now clearly heard in the high places ofthe church. "[8] He was an Arminian in his sympathies, and held that the wayof salvation is open to all who choose to accept its opportunities. Heexpressed himself as being as certain that the doctrine of eternal decreesis not of God as he was sure that God is good and just. His ground for thisopinion was that it is repugnant to the convictions of justice and goodnessnatural to men. He maintained that we shall be justified before God bymeans of the reformation that is wrought in our own lives. We have anintuition of what is right, and a natural capacity for living justly andrighteously. Experience and reason he made concomitant spiritual forceswith the Bible, and he held that revelation is but a republication of thetruths of natural religion. Tillotson was truly a broad churchman, who wasdesirous of making the national church as comprehensive as possible; and hewas 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 menhave such variety of principles, such several constitutions, educations, tempers, and distempers, hopes, interests, and weaknesses, degrees of lightand 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 Libertyof Prophesying, Chillingworth's Religion of Protestants, and Milton'sLiberty of Unlicensed Printing are the great expressions of the spirit oftoleration in the seventeenth century. Each was broad, comprehensive, andnoble 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. Heestimates every doctrine by its capacity to do men good. "[9]

Another advocate of toleration was John Locke, whose chief influence was asa rationalist in philosophy and religion. While accepting Christianity withsimple confidence, he subjected it to the careful scrutiny of reason. Hisphilosophy awakened the rationalistic spirit in all who accepted it, sothat many of his disciples went much farther than he did himself. Whileaccepting revelation, he maintained that natural knowledge is more certainin its character. He taught that the conclusions of reason are moreimportant than anything given men in the name of revelation. He did nothimself widely depart from the orthodoxy of his day, though he did notaccept the doctrine of the Trinity in the most approved form. 

One of the rationalistic followers of Locke was Samuel Clarke, whoattempted to apply the scientific methods of Newton to the interpretationof Christianity. He tried to establish faith in God on a purely scientificbasis. He declared that goodness does not exist because God commands it, but that he commands it because it is good. He interpreted the doctrine ofthe Trinity in a rationalistic manner, holding to its form, but rejectingits substance. 

These men were widely read in New England during the eighteenth century. InEngland they were accounted orthodox, and they held high positions eitherin the national church or in the leading dissenting bodies. They were notsectarian or bigoted, they wished to give religion a basis in common senseand ethical integrity, and they approved of a Christianity that ispractical and leads to noble living. 

When we consider what were the relations of the colonies to England duringthe first half of the eighteenth century, and that the New England churcheswere constantly influenced by the religious attitude of themother-country, [10] it is plain enough that toleration and rationalism werein large measure received from England. In the same school was learned thelesson of a return to the simplicity of Christ, of making him and his lifethe standard of Christian fellowship. The great leaders in England taughtpositively that loyalty to Christ is the only essential test of Christianduty; and it is not in the least surprising the same idea should have foundnoble advocacy in New England. That a good life and character are the trueindications of the possession of a saving faith was a thought too oftenuttered in England not to find advocacy in the colonies. 

In this way Unitarianism had its origin, in the teachings of men who werecounted orthodox in England, but who favored submitting all theologicalproblems to the test of reason. It was not a sectarian movement in itsorigin or at any time during the eighteenth century; but it was an effortto make religion practical, to give it a basis in reality, and to establishit as acceptable to the sound judgment and common sense of all men. It wasan application to the interpretation of theological problems of thatindividualistic spirit which was at the very source of Protestantism. Ifthe individual ought to interpret the Bible for himself, so ought he toaccept his own explanation of the dogmas of the church. In so doing, henecessarily becomes a rationalist, which may lead him far from thetraditions of the past. If he thinks for himself, there is an end touniformity of faith--a conclusion which such men as Chillingworth andJeremy Taylor were willing to accept; and, therefore, they desired anall-inclusive church, in order that freedom and unity of faith might beboth maintained. 

In its beginning the liberal movement in New England was not concerned withthe 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 theproblem of the Trinity, because it did not find that doctrine distinctlytaught in the New Testament. Accepting implicitly the words of Christ, itfound him declaring positively his own subordination to the Father, andpreferred his teaching to that of the creeds. To the early liberals thiswas simply a question of the nature of Christ, and did not lessen for themtheir implicit faith in his revelation or their recognition of the beautyand 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. Itsorigins are not to be found in the religious indifference and torpidity ofthe eighteenth century, but in the individualism and the rational temper ofthe men who settled Plymouth, Salem, and Boston. Its development iscoextensive with the origin and growth of Congregationalism, even with thatof Protestantism itself. So long as New England has been in existence, solong, at least, Unitarianism, in its motives and in its spirit, has been atwork in the name of toleration, liberty, and free inquiry. 

The many and wide divergences of opinion which were an essential result ofthe spirit and methods of Protestantism were shown from the first by thePilgrims and Puritans. In Massachusetts, stringent laws were adopted inorder to secure uniformity of belief and practice; but it was neverachieved, 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, andled a considerable company to Connecticut from Cambridge, Watertown, andDorchester. Sir Henry Vane could not always agree with those who guided thereligion and the politics of Boston; Roger Williams had another ideal ofchurch and state than that which had come to the Puritans; and Sir RichardSaltonstall would not submit himself to the aristocratic methods of theBoston preachers. 

These are but a few of the many indications of the individualistic spiritthat marked the first years of the Puritan colonies. It was a part of theProtestant inheritance, and was inherent in the very nature ofProtestantism itself. Although the Puritans had only in part, and withfaltering steps, come to the acceptance of the individualistic and rationalspirit in religion, yet they were on the way to it, however long they mightbe hindered by an autocratic temper. In fact, the Puritans throughout theseventeenth century in New England were trying at one and the same time touse reason and yet to cling to authority, to accept the Protestant idealand yet to employ the Catholic methods in state and church. In beingProtestants, they were committed to the central motive of individualism;but they never consistently turned away from that conception of the churchwhich 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 typesof church, the one socialistic or institutional and the otherindividualistic, the one making the corporate power of the church thesource of spiritual life, the other making the personal insight of theindividual man the fountain of religious truth. Such a church as that ofRome may be properly called socialistic because of its corporate nature, because it maintains that revelation is to, and by means of, aninstitution, an organic religious body. [1]

Catholicism, whether of Rome, Greece, or England, makes the church as agreat religious corporation the organ of religious expression. Such acorporation is the source of authority, the test of truth, the creator ofspiritual ideals. On the other hand, such a church as the Protestant may becalled individualistic because it makes the individual the channel ofrevelation. It emphasizes personality as of supreme worth, and it makesreligious institutions of little value in comparison. 

Practically, the difference between the socialistic and the individualisticchurch is as wide as it is theoretically. In all Catholic churches thechild is born into the church, with the right to full acceptance into it bymethods of tuition and ritual, whatever his individual qualities orcapacities. In all distinctly Protestant churches, membership must besought by individual preference or supernatural process. [2] The way to itis through individual profession of its creed or inward miraculoustransformation of character by the profoundest of personal experiences. Inall socialistic or Catholic churches--whether heathen, ethnic, orChristian--young people are admitted to membership after a definite periodof training and an initiation by means of an impressive ritual. In allProtestant churches, initiation takes place as the result of personalexperiences and mature convictions, and is therefore usually deferred untiladult life has been reached. 

When we bring out thus distinctly the ideals and methods of the twochurches, we are able to understand that the Puritans were theoreticallyProtestants, but that they practically used the methods of the Catholics. This will be seen more clearly when we take the individualistic tendenciesof the Puritans into distinct recognition, and place them in contrast withtheir socialistic practices. The Puritan churches were thoroughlyindividualistic in their admission of members, none being accepted intofull membership but those who had been converted by means of a personalexperience. In theory every male church member was a priest and king, authorized to interpret spiritual truth and to exercise politicalauthority. Therefore, in 1631 the General Court of Massachusetts (being thelegislative body) established the rule that only church members shouldexercise the right of suffrage. This law was continued on the statute booksuntil 1664, and was accepted in practice until 1691. 

Because the individual Christian was accounted a priest, however humble inlearning or social position, he had the right to join with others inordaining and setting apart to the ministry of God the man who was to leadthe church as its teacher or pastor, though this practice was abandoned asthe state-church idea developed, as it did in New England by a process ofreaction. Every man could read the Bible for himself, and give it suchmeaning as his own conscience and reason dictated. By virtue of hisChristian experience he had the personal right to find in it his own creedand the law of his own conduct. It was not only his right to do this, butit was also his duty. Revivalism was therefore the distinct outgrowth ofPuritanism, the expression of its individualistic spirit. It was the humanmeans of bringing the individual soul within reach of the supernaturalpower of God, and of facilitating that choice of the Holy Spirit by whichone was selected for this change rather than another. The means weresocial, it is true; but the end reached was absolutely individual, as anexperience 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 solarge an extent that they proceeded to establish what was a state church inmethod, if not in theory. Though they began with the idea that the churcheswere to be supported by voluntary contributions (and always continued thatmethod in Boston), yet in a few years they resorted to taxation for theirmaintenance, and enacted stringent laws compelling attendance upon them byevery resident of a town, whatever his beliefs or his personal interests. They forbade the utterance of opinions not approved by the authorities, andmade use of fines, imprisonment, and death in support of arbitrary lawsenacted for this purpose. These methods were the same as those used by theolder socialistic and state churches to compel acceptance of theirteachings and practices. They were based on the idea of the corporatenature of the church, and its right to control the individual in the nameof the social whole. 

The harshness of the Puritan methods was the result of this attempt tomaintain a new idea in harmony with an old practice. The Baptists wereconsistently individualists in rejecting infant baptism, acceptingconversion as essential to church membership, maintaining freedom ofconscience, and practising toleration as a fundamental social law. ThePuritans inconsistently combined conversion and infant baptism, --theProtestant right of private judgment with the Catholic methods of the statechurch, --a democratic theory of popular suffrage with a most aristocraticlimitation of that suffrage to church members. As late as 1674 only 2, 527men in all had been admitted to the exercise of the franchise inMassachusetts. One-sixth or one-eighth of the men were voters, the restwere disfranchised. The church and the state were controlled by this smallminority in a community that was theoretically democratic, both in religionand politics. 

It is not surprising that there began to be mutterings against suchrestrictions. It shows the strength of character in the Puritan communitiesof Massachusetts and New Haven that a large majority of the men submittedas long as they did to conditions thoroughly undemocratic. As a politicalmeasure, 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 asemi-membership in the churches could be secured, that gave the right ofsuffrage, but permitted no action within the church itself. [3] Manywriters on this period fail to understand the significance of the half-waycovenant; for they attribute to that legislation the disintegrating resultsthat followed. They forget that these half-members were not admitted to anypart in church affairs; and they refuse to see that the methods employed bythe Puritans were, because of their exclusiveness, of necessitydemoralizing. In fact, the half-way covenant was a result of thedisintegration that had already taken place as the issue of an attemptedcompromise between the institutional and the individualistic theories ofchurch government. 

[Sidenote: Seventeenth-century Liberals. ]

By arbitrary methods the Puritans succeeded in controlling church and stateuntil 1688, when the interference of the English authorities compelled themto practise toleration and to widen the suffrage. The words of Sir RichardSaltonstall to John Cotton and John Wilson show clearly that these methodswere not accepted by all, and even Saltonstall returned to England toescape the restrictions he condemned. "It doth not a little grieve myspirit to hear what sad things are daily reported of your tyranny andpersecutions in New England, " he wrote, "as that you fine, whip, andimprison men for their consciences. First you compel such to come into yourassemblies as you know will not join with you in your worship, and whenthey show their dislike thereof or witness against it, then you stir upyour magistrates to punish them for such (as you conceive) their publicaffronts. Truly, friends, this your practice of compelling any in mattersof worship to do that whereof they are not persuaded is to make them sin, and many are made hypocrites thereby, conforming in their outward man forfear of punishment. We pray for you and wish you prosperity in every way, hoped that the Lord would have given you so much light and love there, thatyou might have been eyes to God's people here, and not to practise thosecourses in wilderness which you went so far to prevent. These rigid wayshave laid you very low in the hearts of the saints. "[4]

Another man who withdrew to England from the narrow spirit of the Puritanswas William Pynchon, of Springfield, one of the best trained and ablest ofthe early settlers of Massachusetts. In 1650 he published a book on theMeritorious Price of our Redemption, in which he denied that Christ wassubject to the wrath of God or suffered torments in hell for the redemptionof men or paid the penalty for all human sins; but such teachings were tooliberal and modern for the leaders in church and state. [5] What is noworthodox, that Christ's sacrifice was voluntary, was then heretical andforbidden. 

If during the first half-century of New England no liberalism founddefinite utterance, it was because of its repression. It was in the air, even then, and it would have found expression, had there been opportunityor invitation. There were other men than Williams, Saltonstall, Pynchon, and Henry Vane, who believed in toleration, liberty of conscience, and arational interpretation of religion. In a limited way such men were HenryDunster and Charles Chauncy, the first two presidents of Harvard College, who both rejected infant baptism because it was not consistent with aconverted church membership. It was a small thing to protest against, andto suffer for as Dunster suffered; but the principle was great for which hecontended, the principle of individual conviction in religion. 

The better spirit of the Puritans appears in such a saying as that of SirHenry Vane, the second governor of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, that "allmagistrates are to fear or forbear intermeddling with giving rule orimposing their own beliefs in religious matters. "[6] To a similar purportwas the saying of Thomas Hooker, the founder of Connecticut, that "thefoundation of authority is laid in the free consent of the people. "[7] Inthe writings of John Robinson, the Pilgrim leader, a like greatness ofpurpose and thought appears, as where he says that "the meanest man'sreason, specially in matter of faith and obedience to God, is to bepreferred before all authority of all men. "[8] Robinson was a very strictCalvinist in doctrine; but he was tolerant in large degree, and thoroughlyconvinced of the worth of liberty of conscience. His liberality comes outin such words as these: "The custom of the church is but the custom of men;the sentence of the fathers but the opinions of men; the determinations ofcouncils but the judgments of men. "[9] How strong a believer in individualreason he was appears in this statement: "God, who hath made two greatlights for the bodily eye, hath also made two lights for the eye of themind; the one the Scriptures for her supernatural light, and the otherreason for her natural light. And, indeed, only these two are a man's own, and so is not the authority of other men. The Scriptures are as well mineas any other man's, and so is reason as far as I can attain to it. "[10]When he says that "the credit commending a testimony to others cannot begreater than is the authority in itself of him that gives it nor hisauthority greater than his person, "[11] he puts an end to all arbitraryauthority of priest and church. 

It will be seen from these quotations that the spirit of liberality existedeven in the very beginnings of New England, and in the convictions of themen who were its chief prophets and leaders. It was hidden away for a time, it may be, though it never ceased to find utterance in some form. Thebreadth of the underlying spirit finds expression in the compacts by whichlocal churches united their members. The liberality was incipient, apromise of the future rather than a realization in the present. 

The earliest churches of New England were not organized with a creed, butwith a covenant. Occasionally there was a confession of faith or a creedalstatement; but it was regarded as quite unnecessary because it was impliedin the general acceptance of the Calvinistic doctrines, and the use of theCambridge platform or other similar document. The covenant of a churchcould not be a statement of beliefs, because it was a vow between Christand his church, and a pledge of the individual members of the church withrelation to each other. The creed was implied, but it was not expressed;and, although all the churches were Calvinist at first, the nature of thecovenant was such that, when men grew liberal, there was no written creedaltest by which they could be held to the old beliefs. When Calvinism wasoutgrown, it could be slowly and silently discarded, both by individualmembers of a church and by the church itself, because it was not explicitlycontained in the covenant. The creed was rejected, but the covenant wasretained. 

As soon as authority was withdrawn from the Puritan leaders by the Englishcrown, the spirit of liberty began to show itself in many directions. In asermon preached in 1691, Samuel Willard, the minister of the Old SouthChurch in Boston, and afterwards president of Harvard College, gaveutterance to what was stirring in many minds at that time. He said that God"hath nowhere by any general indulgence given away this liberty of his toany other authority in the world to have dominion over the consciences ofmen or to give rules of worship, but hath, on the other hand, stronglyprohibited it and severely threatened any that shall presume to do it. " Heearnestly asserted that no authority is to be accepted but that of theBible, and that is to be free for each person's individual interpretation. "Hath there not, " Willard questions, "been too much of a pinning our faithon the credit or practice of others, attended on with a woful neglect toknow what is the mind of Christ?" Here was a spirit that not many yearslater was showing itself in the liberal movement that grew intoUnitarianism. The effort to free the consciences of men, and to bring allappeals to the Bible and to Christ, was what gave significance to theliberal movement of the next century. 

[Sidenote: Growth of Liberty in Church Methods. ]

There also began a movement to bring church and state into harmoniousrelations with each other, and to overcome the inconsistency of beingindividualist and socialist at the same moment. The theory of conversionbeing retained, it was proposed to make the ordinances of religion free toall, in order that they might bring about the supernatural change that wasdesired. This is the real significance of the position taken by SolomonStoddard, of Northampton, who taught that the Lord's Supper is a convertingordinance, and who in practice did not ask for a supernatural regenerationas preparatory to a limited church membership, though he regarded this asessential to full admission. The half-way covenant had been adopted beforeMr. Stoddard became the pastor of the church; but soon after his settlementthis limited form of admission was more clearly defined, and he admittedpersons into what he described as a "state of education. "[12] This "largecongregationalism, " as it was called, was in time accepted as meaning thatthose who have faith enough to justify the baptism of their children haveenough to admit them to full communion in the church. Mr. Stoddard appealedto the English practice in his defence of the broader principle which headopted. He also vindicated his position by reference to the practices ofthe leading Protestant countries in Europe. His methods, as outlined andinterpreted in his Appeal to the Learned, [13] were based more or lessexplicitly on the corporate idea of the church. 

Although Stoddard was a strict Calvinist, there can be no doubt that hismethod of open communion slowly led to theological modifications. Not onlydid it have a tendency to bring the state and church into closer relationswith each other, by making the membership in the two more nearly the same, but it led the way to the acceptance of the doctrine of moral ability, andtherefore to a modification of Calvinism. If it was a practical rather thana theological reason that caused Stoddard to adopt open communion, italmost inevitably led to Arminianism, because it implied, as he presentedits conditions, that man is able of his own free will to accept the termsof salvation which Calvinism had confined to the operation of thesovereignty of God alone. 

Another way in which the spirit of the time was showing itself may be seenin the fact that the parish, towards the end of the seventeenth century, onmore than one occasion refused to the church the selection of the minister;and church and parish met together for that purpose. This was the case inthe first church of Salem in 1672, and at Dedham in 1685. So long as churchmembers only were given the right of suffrage, the selection of theminister was wholly in their hands. As soon as the suffrage was extended, there was a movement to include all tax-payers amongst those who couldexercise this choice. In 1666 such a proposition was discussed inConnecticut, and not long after it became the law. In 1692 theMassachusetts laws gave the church the right to select the minister, butpermitted the parish to concur in or to reject such choice. During the nextcentury there was a growing tendency to enlarge the privileges of theparish, and to make that the controlling factor in calling the minister andin all that pertained to the outward life of the church and congregation. The result will be seen more and more in the influence of the parish in theselection of liberal men for the pulpit. 

A notable instance of the more liberal tendencies is seen in the formationof the Brattle Street Church of Boston in 1699. Although this churchaccepted the Westminster Confession of Faith and adopted the practicescommon to the New England churches at this period, it insisted upon thereading of the Bible without comment as a part of the church service. Therelation of religious experiences as preparatory to admission to the churchwas discarded, all were admitted to communion who were approved by thepastor, and women were permitted to take part in voting on all churchquestions. These and other innovations occasioned much discussion; and acontroversy ensued between the pastor Benjamin Colman and IncreaseMather. [14] The Salem pastors, Rev. John Higginson and Rev. Nicholas Noyes, addressed a letter to the Brattle Street congregation, in which theycriticised the church because it did not consult with other churches in itsformation, because it did not make a public profession of repentance onbehalf of its members, because baptism was administered on less stringentterms than was customary and too lax admission was given to the sacraments, and because the admission of females to full church activity had a directtendency "to subvert the order and liberty of the churches. " Though theBrattle Street Church was for a time severely criticised, it soon came intointimate relations with the other churches of Boston, and it ceased toappear as in any way peculiar. That it was organized on a broader basis ofmembership indicates very clearly that the old methods were notsatisfactory to all the people. [15]

[Sidenote: A Puritan Rationalist. ]

The influence of similar ideas is seen in the books of John Wise, ofIpswich, whose Churches' Quarrel Espoused was published in 1710, and hisVindication of the Government of the New England Churches in 1717. Hisfirst book was in answer to the proposition of a number of the ministers ofBoston to bring the churches under the control of associations. By thisremonstrance the plan was defeated, and the independence of the localchurch fully established. In republishing his book, he added theVindication, in order to give his ideas a more systematic expression. TheVindication is the most thoroughly modern book published in America duringthe eighteenth century. It has a literary directness and power remarkablefor the time. Wise gives no quotations indicating that he had read thegreat liberal writers of England, but he was familiar with Plato andCicero. 

In his first book he speaks of "the natural freedom of human beings, "[16]and says that "right reason is a ray of divine wisdom enstamped upon humannature. "[17] Again, he says that "right reason, that great oracle in humanaffairs, is the soul of man so formed and endowed by creation with acertain sagacity or acumen whereby man's intellect is enabled to take upthe true idea or perception of things agreeable with and according to theirnatures. "[18] In such utterances as these Wise was putting himself into thecompany of the most liberal minds of England in his day, though he may nothave read one of them. The considerations that were influencing Milton, Chillingworth, and Jeremy Taylor, in favor of toleration and a broadinclusiveness of spirit, evidently were having their effect upon this NewEngland pastor. 

It is not to be assumed that John Wise was a rationalist in the modernsense; but he gave to the use of reason a significance that is surprisingand refreshing, coming from the time and circumstances of his writing. Inhis Vindication we find him accepting reason and revelation as of equalvalidity. He appeals to the "dictates of right reason"[19] and the "commonreason of mankind"[20] with quite as much confidence as to the Bible. Hesays that all questions of government, religious as well as political, areto be brought to "the assizes of man's own intellectual powers, reason, andconscience. "[21] He assumes that God has created man capable of obeying hiswill and living in conformity with his law; for he says that, "if God didnot highly estimate man as a creature exalted by his reason, liberty, andnobleness of nature, he would not caress him as he does in order to hissubmission. "[22]

Wise says that the characteristic of man which is of greatest importance isthat he is "most properly the subject of the law of nature. "[23] He usesthis expression frequently and in a thoroughly modern sense. 

The second great characteristic of man, according to Wise, "is an originalliberty enstamped upon his rational nature. "[24] He indicates that he isnot inclined to discuss the merely theological problem of man's relationsto God, but, considered physically, man is at the head of creation, "and assuch is a creature of a very noble character. " [24] All the lower world issubject to his command, "and his liberty under the conduct of right reasonis equal with his trust. " [24] "He that intrudes upon this liberty violatesthe law of nature. " [24] The effect of such liberty is not to lead man intolicense, but to make him the rational master of his own conduct. Every manis therefore at liberty "to judge for himself what shall be most for hisbehoof, happiness, and well-being. "[25]

The third great characteristic of man is found in "an equality amongstmen, " [25] which is to be respected and vindicated by governments that arejust and humane. "By a natural right, " he says, "all men are born free;and, nature having set all men upon a level and made them equals, noservitude or subjection can be conceived without inequality. "[26] Again hesays that it is "a fundamental principle relating to government that, underGod, all power is originally in the people. "[27] This is true of the churchas well as of the state, and Wise says the Reformation was a cheat and aschism and a notorious rebellion if the people are not the source of powerin the church. 

Two other ideas presented by this leader show his modernness and hisoriginality. He says that "the happiness of the people is the object of allgovernment, "[28] and that the state should seek to promote "the peculiargood and benefit of the whole, and every particular member, fairly andsincerely. "[29] "The end of all good government, " he assures his readers, "is to cultivate humanity, and promote the happiness of all, and the goodof every man in all his rights, his life, liberty, estate, and honor, without injury or abuse done to any. " [29] That government will seek thegood of all is likely to be the case, because man has it as a fundamentallaw of his nature that he "maintain a sociableness with others. "[30] "Fromthe principles of sociableness it follows as a fundamental law of naturethat man is not so wedded to his own interest but that he can make thecommon good the mark of his aim, and hence he becomes capacitated to enterinto a civil state by the law of nature. "[31] This attraction of man to hiskind enables him to yield so much of his freedom as is necessary to makethe state an efficient social power, "in which covenant is included thatsubmission and union of wills by which a state may be conceived to be butone person. "[32] This thoroughly modern idea of the social body, as beinganalogous in its nature to the individual man, is nobly expressed by Wise, who says that "a civil state is a compound moral person, whose will is thewill of all, to the end it may use and apply the strength and riches ofprivate persons toward maintaining the common peace, security, andwell-being of all, which may be conceived as though the whole state was nowbecome but one man. "[33]

It is not surprising that the writings of John Wise had no immediate effectupon the theological thinking of the time, but they must have had theirinfluence. Just before the opening of the Revolution they were republishedbecause of their vindication of the spirit of human liberty and democracy. What Wise wrote to promote was congregational independence, and this mayhave been the reason why his theological attitude was never called inquestion. It is true enough that he questioned none of the Calvinisticdoctrines in his books; but his political views were certain to disturb theold beliefs, and to give incentives to free discussion in religion. 

[Sidenote: Harvard College. ]

The centre of the liberalizing tendencies of the last years of theseventeenth century was Harvard College. That institution was organized ona basis as broad as that of the early church covenants, with no creed ordoctrinal requirements. The original seal bore the motto Veritas; but, asthe state-church idea grew, this motto was succeeded by In Christi gloriam, and then by Christo et Ecclesiae, though neither of these later mottoes wasauthoritatively adopted. The early charters were thoroughly liberal inspirit and intent, so much so as to be fully in harmony with the presentattitude of the university. [34] Under the Puritanic development, however, this liberality was discarded, only to be restored in 1691, when Williamand Mary gave to Massachusetts a new and broader charter. From that time anew life entered into the college, that put it uncompromisingly on theliberal side a century later. Even under the rule of Increase Mather, seconded by the influence of his son Cotton, a broader spirit declareditself in the culture imparted and in the method of free inquiry. [35]

Samuel Willard, the successor to Increase Mather in the presidency, was ofthe liberal party in his breadth of mind and in his sound judgment. He wasfollowed in 1708 by John Leverett, one of the founders of the BrattleStreet Church, a man in whom the liberal spirit became a controlling motivein his management of the college. [36] It is not strange that the men whohad been shut out from the suffrage and from active participation in themanagement of the churches, should now come forward to claim their rights, and to make their influence felt in college, church, and state. It was thedistinct beginning of the liberal movement in New England, the time fromwhich Unitarianism really took its origin. 

[1] Kuno Francke, Social Forces in German Literature, 105. "No mediaeval man ever thought of himself as a perfectly independent being founded only on himself, or without a most direct and definite relation to some larger organism, be it empire, church, city, or guild. No mediaeval man ever doubted that the institutions within which he lived were divinely established ordinances, far superior and quite inaccessible to his own individual reason and judgment. No mediaeval man would ever have admitted that he conceived nature to be other than the creation of an extramundane God, destined to glorify its creator and to please the eye of man. It was reserved for the eighteenth century to draw the last consequences of individualism; to see in man, in each individual man, an independent and complete entity; to derive the origin of state, church, and society from the spontaneous action of these independent individuals; and to consider nature as a system of forces sufficient unto themselves. When we speak of individualism in the declining centuries of the Middle Ages, we mean by it that these centuries initiated the movement which the eighteenth century brought to a climax. "

[2] Williston Walker, the Creeds and Platforms of Congregationalism, 246. "From the first the fathers of New England insisted that the children of church members were themselves members, and as such were justly entitled to those church privileges which were adapted to their state of Christian development, of which the chief were baptism and the watchful discipline of the church. They did not enter the church by baptism; they were entitled to baptism because they were already members of the church. Here then was an inconsistency in the application of the Congregational theory of the constitution of a church. While affirming that a proper church consisted only of those possessed of personal Christian character, the fathers admitted to membership, in some degree at least, those who had no claim but Christian parentage. " That is, in theory they were Protestants, but in practice they were Catholics. 

[3] The ecclesiastical historians say that the half-way covenant had no effect on suffrage. Dexter, Congregationalism as Seen in its Literature, 468, says: "I am aware of no proof that half-way covenant members of the church by that relation did acquire any further privileges in the state. " Williston Walker, New Englander, cclxiii. , 93, February, 1892, takes ground that "added political privilege was no consequence of the dispute. " On the other hand, the secular historians as strongly assert that the suffrage was widened. John Fiske, Beginnings of New England, 250, says the half-way covenant "entitled to the exercise of political rights those who were unqualified for participation in the Lord's Supper. " Alexander Johnston, Connecticut, 227, says "it really gave every baptized person voice in church government. " J. A. Doyle, The Puritan Colonies, II. , 98, asserts that "it broke down the hard barrier which fenced in political privileges. " The true explanation is given by George H. Haynes, Representation and Suffrage in Massachusetts, 1620-1691, 54, published in Johns Hopkins University Studies in Historical and Political Science, Vol. XII. , Nos. VIII. And IX. Haynes says that the half-way covenant, as first formulated in 1657, "virtually recognized a partial church-membership in persons who had made no formal profession and subscribed to no creed. In 1662 the same opinion was reaffirmed by the clergy, and the General Court ordered the result of the Synod to be printed and 'commended the same unto the consideration of all the churches and people of this jurisdiction. ' Here ended legislative action on the matter. This was no statutory change of the basis of the franchise; but, as individual churches gradually adopted more liberal conditions of admission and were therein sanctioned by the General Court, it resulted that the operation of the religious test became less odious and the suffrage was not a little broadened. "

[4] Henry Bond, Early Settlers of Watertown, II. 916; Convers Francis, Historical Sketch of Watertown, 135. 

[5] Mason A. Green, History of Springfield, 113; E. H. Byington, The Puritan in England and New England, 185. 

[6] A Healing Question. 

[7] Alexander Johnston, Connecticut: A Study of a Commonwealth-Democracy, 72, Hooker's sermon preparatory to forming a government. 

[8] The Works of John Robinson, American edition of 1851, I. , 53. 

[9] Ibid. , 47. 

[10] Ibid. , 54. 

[11] Ibid. , 56. 

[12] J. R. Trumbull, History of Northampton, I. 213. 

[13] An Appeal to the Learned, being a vindication of the right of visible saints to the Lord's Supper, though they be destitute of a saving work of God's Spirit in their hearts, Boston, 1709. See also his Doctrine of Instituted Churches, Boston, 1700. 

[14] Dwight, Life of Edwards, 300. 

[15] S. K. Lothrop, History of Brattle Street Church, 7-40; E. Turrell, Life of Benjamin Colman, D. D. , 96, 125, 178, 180. 

[16] The Churches' Quarrel Espoused, edition of 1860, 140. 

[17] Ibid. , 143. 

[18] Ibid. , 145

[19] The Churches' Quarrel Espoused, edition of 1860, 32. 

[20] Ibid. , 58. 

[21] Ibid. , 72. 

[22] Ibid. , 65. 

[23] Ibid. , 30. 

[24] Ibid. , 33. 

[25] The Churches' Quarrel Espoused, edition of 1860, 34. 

[26] Ibid. , 37. 

[27] Ibid. , 64. 

[28] Ibid. , 54. 

[29] Ibid. , 55. 

[30] Ibid. , 32. 

[31] The Churches' Quarrel Espoused, edition of 1860, 32. 

[32] Ibid. , 39. 

[33] Ibid. , 40. 

[34] Josiah Quincy, History of Harvard University, i. 44-54. 

[35] Ibid. , 65, 200. 

[36] Josiah Quincy, in the seventh chapter of his History, gives a detailed account of this movement. It is also dealt with by Brooks Adams in his chapter on the founding of the Brattle Street Church, in his Emancipation of Massachusetts, though he gives it a somewhat exaggerated and biassed importance. Most of the facts appear in Lothrop's History of the Brattle Street Church. 

III. 

THE GROWTH OF DEMOCRACY IN THE CHURCHES. 

From the moment when the Puritan control of the church and state in NewEngland was so far weakened as to permit of free intellectual and religiousactivity the democratic spirit began to manifest itself. The old régime hadso fixed itself upon the people that the progress was slow, but none theless it was steady and sure. So far as the new spirit influenced doctrines, it was called Arminianism, the technical theological name for democracy inreligion at this time. 

[Sidenote: Arminianism. ]

Arminianism is a dead issue at the present day, for the Calvinists haveaccepted all that it taught when the name first came into vogue. Every kindof reaction from Calvinism in the New England of the first half of theeighteenth century took this designation, however; and to the Calvinists itwas a word of disapproval and contempt. Toleration, free inquiry, the useof reason, democratic methods in church and state, were all named by thiscondemning word. Vices, social depravities, love of freedom and the world, assertion of personal independence, had the same designation. It is nowdifficult to understand how bitter was the feeling thus produced, how keenthe hurt that was given the men who tried to defend themselves and theirbeliefs from this odium. 

What the word "Arminian" legitimately meant, then, is what we now mean byliberalism. Primarily theological and doctrinal, it meant much more thanthe rejection of the doctrine of decrees and the autocratic sovereignty ofGod or the acceptance of the freedom of the will and the spiritual capacityof man. First of all, it was faith in man; and then it was the assertion ofhuman liberty and equality. In a theological sense it did not have so widea purport, but in a practical and popular sense it grew into thesemeanings. 

In order fully to comprehend what Arminianism was in the eighteenthcentury, the student must remember that it was the theological expressionof the democratic spirit, as Calvinism was of the autocratic. The doctrineof the sovereignty of God is but the intellectual reflection of kingshipand the belief that the king can do no evil. The doctrine of decrees, astaught by the Calvinist, was the spiritual side of the assertion of thedivine right of kings. On the other hand, when the people claim the rightto rule, they modify their theology into Arminianism. From an age of theabsolute rule of the king comes the doctrine of human depravity; and withthe establishment of democracy appears the doctrine of man's moralcapacity. 

[Sidenote: The Growth of Arminianism. ]

As early as 1730 Arminianism had come to have an influence sufficient tosecure its condemnation and to awaken the fears of the stricter Calvinists. Jonathan Edwards said of the year 1734 that "about this time began thegreat noise that was in this part of the country about Arminianism. "[1] AtNorthampton the leader of the opposition to Jonathan Edwards was an openArminian, a grandson of Solomon Stoddard, and a cousin of Edwards. He was ayoung man of talent and education, and well read in theology. In a letterwritten in 1750, Edwards said, "There seems to be the utmost danger thatthe younger generation will be carried away with Arminianism as with aflood. " In another letter of the same year he said that "Arminianism andPelagianism[2] have made a strange progress within a few years. "[3] Inhis farewell sermon, Edwards spoke of the prevalence of Arminianism when hesettled in Northampton, and of its rapid increase in the succeeding years. He said that Arminian views were creeping into almost all parts of theland, and that they were making a progress unknown before. [4] In a letterof 1752 Edwards said that the principles of John Taylor, of Norwich, one ofthe early English Unitarians, were gaining many converts in the colonies. Taylor's works were made use of by Solomon Williams in his reply to Edwardson the qualifications necessary to communion. [5]

It was owing to the rapid growth of Arminianism that Edwards undertook hiswork on free will. In the preface to that work he said that "the termCalvinistic is, in these days, among most, a term of greater reproach thanthe term Arminian. " That Edwards exaggerated the extent of this defectionfrom Calvinism is probable, and yet it is very plain that it was this moreliberal attitude of the Northampton church which caused his dismissal. WhatStoddard had taught and practised was as yet powerful there, and Edwards'sopposition to his grandfather's teachings undoubtedly led to the failure ofhis local work. 

[Sidenote: Robert Breck. ]

The council which dismissed Edwards from Northampton decided against him bya majority of one; and that one vote may have been cast by Robert Breck, ofSpringfield. If this were the case, there was something of poetic justicein it; for only a few years earlier Edwards had used his influence againstthe settlement of Breck because the latter was an Arminian. In 1734 afierce church quarrel took place in Springfield, that involved many of theministers of Massachusetts and Connecticut, invoked the aid of the countycourt, and was finally settled by the legislature of Massachusetts, whenMr. Breck was ordained. [6] He was charged with denying the authenticity ofparts of the Bible, with discarding the necessity of Christ's satisfactionto divine justice for sin, with maintaining that the heathen who live up tothe light of nature would be saved, and that the contrary doctrine washarsh. Breck refused to admit that he held these opinions, as thus stated;but he was regarded by many as an Arminian and a heretic. It was said of himthat he would read any book, orthodox or otherwise, that would clear up asubject. That he departed to any considerable extent from the generallyaccepted faith of the time there is no evidence, but he was probably whatwas often called "a moderate Calvinist. " He did not favor the methods ofWhitefield, and he thoroughly distrusted the revival introduced by him. Soon after Breck's settlement the Springfield church followed the BrattleStreet Church of Boston in discarding the relation of religious experiencesas preliminary to admission to the church. It voted that it "did not lookupon the making a relation to be a necessary term of communion. "[7] At thevery time that Edwards was preaching of the awful fate of sinners in thehands of an angry God, Breck was teaching that God is good and loving, andthat his salvation is freely open to all who may wish for it. It has beentruly said of these two men that "one had the heart and the other theintellect of theology. " With all his logic and power of thought andmarvellous spiritual insight, Edwards failed at Northampton because ofconditions beyond the control of his strenuous will. Robert Breck gainedyear by year in his personal influence in Springfield, his cheerful andprogressive teaching made a deep impression on the community, and before hedied he saw a great change for the better in the people for whom hediligently labored. Perhaps we could not have a plainer indication of thechange that was going on than is found in the experiences of these twomen. [8]

When Whitefield visited Harvard College in 1740, he was received in a mostfriendly manner; yet he afterwards criticised the teaching there on theground that it was not sufficiently devout and earnest, and that the pupilswere not examined as to their religious experiences. [9] These charges weredenied by the president and tutors, and he was not again welcomed to thecollege. 

That there was a substantial basis for some of Whitefield's criticisms ofHarvard there can be no doubt. In 1737, when Edward Holyoke was proposed asa candidate for the presidency, he met with a strong opposition from thestrict Calvinists. After the opposition had spent itself, he was electedunanimously; and this act was received with marked approval by the GeneralCourt, from which body his maintenance was obtained. President Quincy saysof President Holyoke that his religious principles coincided with themildness and catholicity which characterized the government of the college. This evidently refers to the growing liberality of the college, and itsunwillingness to lend its aid to extreme theological opinions. Thatmoderateness of temper and that attitude of toleration which characterizedthe leading men in England had shown themselves at Cambridge, and with astrength that could not be overcome. "In Boston and its vicinity and alongthe seaboard of Massachusetts, clergymen of great talent and religiouszeal, " says President Quincy, "openly avowed doctrines which were variouslydenounced by the Calvinistic party as Arminianism, Arianism, Pelagianism, Socinianism, and Deism. The most eminent of these clergymen were alumni ofHarvard, active friends and advocates of the institution, and in habits ofintimacy and professional intercourse with its government. Their religiousviews, indeed, received no public countenance from the college; butcircumstances gave color for reports, which were assiduously circulatedthroughout New England, that the influences of the institution were notunfavorable to the extension of such doctrines. "[10]

At the commencement of 1737 candidates for degrees proposed to prove thatthe doctrine of the Trinity was not contained in the Old Testament, thatcreation did not exist from eternity, and that religion is not mysteriousin its nature. Much alarm was caused to the conservative party by thenegative form given these questions, which, it was said, "had the plainface of Arianism. " This criticism the faculty tried to quiet, but theirsympathies were evidently on the side of the graduates. [11] In 1738, when aprofessor of mathematics was chosen, it was proposed to examine him as to"his principles of religion"; but, after a long debate, this propositionwas rejected. After these and other efforts to control the religiousposition of the college the strict Calvinists for the time withdrew theirefforts and concentrated them upon Yale College, in which institution thefaculty were now required for the first time to accept the Assembly'sCatechism and Confession of Faith. 

When the legislature of Connecticut, during the great awakening, passed alaw prohibiting ministers from preaching as itinerants, several of themembers of the Senior Class subscribed the money necessary for thepublication of an edition of Locke's essay On Toleration. When this wasknown to the faculty, they forbade the publication; and all the studentsapologized but one, who learned a few days before commencement that hisname was to be dropped from the roll of graduates. He went to the facultywith the statement that he was of age, that he possessed ample means, andthat he would carry his case to a hearing before the crown in England. In afew days he was quietly informed that he would be permitted to graduate. This is but a straw, and yet it shows clearly enough the direction of thecurrent at this time. A demand for toleration was made because it was feltthat there was a need for it. 

[Sidenote: Books Read by Liberal Men. ]

The names of no less than thirty-three ministers have been given who, during the period from 1730 to 1750, did not teach the Calvinisticdoctrines in their fulness, and who had adopted more or less distinctlysome form of Arminianism or Arianism. These men were among the best known, most successful, and most scholarly men in Eastern Massachusetts, thoughthey were not wholly confined to that neighborhood. We find here and theresome hint of the books these men read; and in that way we not onlyascertain the cause of their departure from Calvinism, but we also obtainsome clew to the nature of their opinions. Among the charges brought byWhitefield against Harvard in 1740 was that "Tillotson and Clarke are readinstead of Shepard and Stoddard, and such like evangelical writers. "[12]Dr. Wigglesworth, the divinity professor at Harvard, said that Tillotsonhad not been taken out of the college library in nine years, and Clarke notin two; and he gave a long list of evangelical writers who were frequentlyread. In spite of this disclaimer, however, it is evident that the methodsof the rationalistic writers were coming into vogue at Harvard, and thateven Dr. Wigglesworth did not teach theology in the manner of the author ofthe Day of Doom. 

Writing in 1759, Dr. Joseph Bellamy, one of the chief followers andexpositors of the teachings of Jonathan Edwards, said that the teachings ofthe liberal men in England had crossed the Atlantic; "and too many in ourchurches, and even among our ministers, have fallen in with them. Bookscontaining them have been imported; and the demand for them has been sogreat as to encourage new impressions of some of them. Others have beenwritten on the same principles in this country, and even the doctrine ofthe Trinity has been publicly treated in such a manner as all who believethat doctrine must judge not only heretical, but highly blasphemous. "[13]

It is said of Charles Chauncy, of the First Church in Boston, that hisfavorite authors were Tillotson and Baxter. [14] Far more suggestive is theaccount we have of the books read by Jonathan Mayhew of the West Church inBoston, the first open antagonist of Calvinism in New England. Soon after1740 he was reading the works of the great Protestant theologians of theseventeenth century, including Milton, Chillingworth, and Tillotson; andthe eighteenth-century works of Locke, Samuel Clarke, Taylor, Wollaston, and Whiston. He also probably read Cudworth, Butler, Hutcheson, Leland, andother authors of a like character, some of them deists. Not one of thesewriters was a Calvinist for they found the basis of religion either inidealism or in rationalism. 

The biographer of Mayhew says it "is evident from some of his discoursesthat he was a great admirer of Samuel Clarke, whose voluminous works werein his day much read by the liberal clergy. " Clarke's Boyle lectures, delivered in 1704-5, showed that natural and revealed religion wereessentially one, that moral action in man is free, and that Christianity isthe religion of reason and nature. At a later period he defended the twopropositions, that "no article of Christian faith delivered in the holyScriptures is disagreeable to right reason, " and that "without liberty ofhuman actions there can be no real religion or morality. " Even if one suchman as Jonathan Mayhew read Clarke's work in the Harvard Library, itjustified the alarm felt by Whitefield lest the students should be led awayfrom their Calvinist faith. [15]

[Sidenote: The Great Awakening. ]

It was "the great awakening" that showed how marked had been the growth ofliberal opinions throughout New England in the forty years preceding. Silently, a great change had gone on, with little open expression ofdissent from Calvinism, and without a knowledge on the part of most of theliberal men that they had in any way departed from the faith of thefathers. It was only with the coming of Whitefield and the revival thatthis change came to have recognition, and that even the slightestseparation into parties took place. 

The revival was an attempt to reintroduce the stricter Calvinism of theearlier time, with its doctrines of justification by faith alone, supernatural regeneration, and predestination made known to the believer bythe Holy Ghost. The liberal party objected to the revival because it wasopposed to the good old customs of the Congregational churches of NewEngland. The itinerant methods of the revivalists, the shriekings, faintings, and appeals to fear and terror, were condemned as not in harmonywith the established methods of the churches. In his book against therevivalists, Dr. Chauncy said that "now is the time when we areparticularly called to stand for the good old way, and bear testimonyagainst everything that may tend to cast a blemish on true primitiveChristianity. "[16]

When the great awakening came to an end, the liberal party was far strongerthan before, partly because the members of it had come to know each otherand to feel their own power, partly because men had been led to declarethemselves who had never before perceived their own position, and partlybecause the agitation had set men to thinking, and to making such scrutinyof their beliefs as they had never made before. The testimonies of HarvardCollege and various associations of ministers against the methods of therevivalists were signed by sixty-three men, while those in favor of therevival were signed by one hundred and ten. These numbers represent thecomparative strength of the two parties. It must be said, however, that theleading men in nearly every part of New England were among those opposingthe revival methods, while in Eastern Massachusetts at least two-thirds ofthe ministers were of the liberal party. [17]

The strong feeling caused by the revival soon subsided, and no divisionbetween the Calvinist and the Arminian parties took place. The progressivetendencies went quietly on, step by step the old beliefs were discarded;but it was by individuals, and not in any form as a sectarian movement. Therelations of the church to the state at this time would have made such aresult impossible. 

[Sidenote: Cardinal Beliefs of the Liberals. ]

Looking over the whole field of the theological advance from 1725 to 1760, we find that three conclusions had been arrived at by the men of theliberal movement. The first of these was that what they stood for as a bodywas a recovery and restoration of primitive Christianity in its simplicityand power. It was said of Dr. Mayhew by his biographer that he "was a greatadvocate of primitive Christianity, and zealously contended for the faithonce delivered to the saints. "

The second opinion, to which they gave frequent utterance, was that theBible is a divine revelation, the true source of all religious teaching, and the one sufficient creed for all men. In his sermon against theenthusiasm of the revivalists, Chauncy said that a true test of allreligious excitement, and of every kind of new teachings, was to be foundin their "regard to the Bible, and its acknowledgment that the thingstherein contained are the commandments of God. " "Keep close to theScripture, " was his admonition to his congregation, "and admit of nothingfor an impression of the spirit but what agrees with that unerring rule. Fix it in your minds as a truth you will invariably abide by, that theBible is the grand test by which everything in religion is to be tried. "

The third position of the men of the liberal movement was that Christ isthe only means of salvation, and they yielded to him unquestioning loyaltyand faith. Turning away from the creeds of men, as they did in so far asthey could see their way, they concentrated their convictions upon Christ, and found in him the spiritual and vital centre of all faith that liveswith true power to help men. Mayhew held that God could not have forgivenmen their sins without the atonement of Christ, for his life and his gospelare the means of the great reconciliation by which man and God are broughtinto harmony with each other. 

[Sidenote: Publications defining the Liberal Beliefs. ]

In three publications may be seen what the Arminians had to teach that wasopposed to Calvinism. In 1744 appeared in Boston a book of two hundred andeight pages by Rev. Experience Mayhew, one of a devoted family ofmissionaries to the Indians of Martha's Vineyard. He called his book "GraceDefended, in a Modest Plea for an important Truth: namely, that the offerof Salvation made to sinners comprises in it an offer of the Grace given inRegeneration. " Mr. Mayhew claimed that he was a Calvinist, yet he rejectedthe teaching that every act of the unregenerate person is equal in thesight of God to the worst sin, and claimed that even the sinner can live sowell and so justly as to favor his being accepted of God. Mayhew maintainedthat Christ died for all men, not for the elect only. [18] He claimed that"God cannot be truly said to offer salvation to sinners without offering tothem whatsoever is necessary on his part, in order to their salvation. "[19]Mayhew was usually credited with being an Arminian; for he positivelyrejected the doctrine of election, and he defended the principle of humanfreedom in the most affirmative manner. 

In 1749 Lemuel Briant (or Bryant), the minister in that part of Braintreewhich became the town of Quincy, published a sermon which he entitled TheAbsurdity and Blasphemy of Depreciating Moral Virtue. It condemned relianceon Christ's merits without effort to live his life, and showed that it isthe duty of the Christian to live righteously. Briant said that to hold anyother view was hurtful and blasphemous. He claimed that "the great rule theScriptures lay down for men to go by in passing judgment on their spiritualstate is the sincere, upright, steady, and universal practice of virtue. ""To preach up chiefly what Christ himself laid the stress upon (and whetherthis was not moral virtue let every one judge from his discourses) mustcertainly, in the opinion of all sober men, be called truly and properly, and in the best sense, preaching of Christ. "

A pamphlet of thirty pages appeared in 1757, written by Samuel Webster, theminister of Salisbury, with the title "A Winter Evening's Conversation uponthe doctrine of Original Sin, wherein the notion of our having sinned inAdam, and being on that account only liable to eternal Damnation, is provedto be Unscriptural. " It is in the form of a dialogue between a minister andthree of his parishioners, and gives, as few other writings of theeighteenth century do, a clear and explicit statement of the author'sopinions in a readable and interesting form. That all have sinned in Adamthe minister pronounces "a very shocking doctrine. " "What! make them firstto open their eyes in torment, and all this for a sin which certainly theyhad no hand in, --a sin which, if it comes upon them at all, certainly iswithout any fault or blame on their parts, for they had no hand inreceiving it!" That Adam is our federal head, and that we sinned because hesinned, he calls "a mere castle in the air. " "Sin and guilt are personalthings as much as knowledge. I can as easily conceive of one man'sknowledge being imputed to another as of his sins being so. No imputationin either case can make the thing to be mine which is not mine any morethan one person may be another person. " He declares that this doctrine ofimputation causes infidelity. "It naturally leads men into everydishonorable thought of God which gives a great and general blow toreligion. " It impeaches the holiness of God, "for it supposes him to makemillions sinners by his decree of imputation, who would otherwise have beeninnocent. " That it was his decree alone "that made all Adam's posteritysinners is the very essence of this doctrine. " "And so Christians areguilty of holding what even heathen would blush at. " That God "shouldpronounce a sentence by which myriads of infants, as blameless as helpless, were consigned over to blackness of darkness to be tormented with fire andbrimstone forever, is not consistent with infinite goodness. " "Howdreadfully is God dishonored by such monstrous representations as these!"Such a being cannot be loved by us, for every heart rebels against it. "Alldescriptions of the Divine Being which represent him in an unamiable lightdo the greatest hurt to religion that can be, as they strike at love, whichis the fulfilling of the law. I am persuaded that many of those who thinkthey believe this doctrine do not really believe it, or else they do notconsider how it represents their heavenly Father. " The pamphlet concludeswith the acceptance of this broader teaching by the parishioners, but itwas the cause of controversy in pulpits and by means of pamphlets. Bellamydenied the teachings of Webster, and Chauncy defended them. So bold apamphlet as this showed how men had come to reason without compromise aboutthe old doctrines, and gave evidence that the growing spirit of humanitywould no longer accept what was harsh and cruel. 

[Sidenote: Phases of Religious Progress. ]

The New England churches were thus not standing still as regards doctrines, moral conduct, the methods of worship, or the relations they held to thestate; but step by step they were moving away from the methods and theideas of the fathers. The "lining out" of hymns was slowly abandoned, andsinging by note took its place. The agitation that followed this attempt atreform was great and wide-spread. The introduction of an organized andtrained choir was also in the nature of a genuine reform. When the liberalThomas Brattle offered an organ to the new church in Brattle Street, it wasvoted "that they do not think it proper to use the same in the publicworship of God. " The instrument was, however, accepted by King's Chapel;and an organist was secured from London. It was not until 1770 that thechurch in Providence procured an organ, the first used in a Congregationalchurch in New England. 

When Dr. Jonathan Mayhew died, in 1766, Dr. Chauncy prayed at his funeral;and this was said to have been the first prayer ever made at a funeral inBoston, so strong was the Puritan dislike of the customs of the CatholicChurch. [20] In this way, as well as in others, the new liberalism brokedown the old customs, and introduced those with which we are familiar. Perhaps the most marked tendency of this kind was the introduction of thereading of the Bible into the services of the churches as a part of theorder of worship. This innovation was distinctly due to the liberal men andthe high esteem in which they held the Scriptures as a means of givingsobriety and reasonableness to their religion. The First Church in Boston, in May, 1730, voted that the reading of the Scriptures, instead of the oldPuritan way of expounding them, be thereafter discretionary with theministers of that church, but "that the mind of the church is that largerportions should be publicly read than has been used. "[21] As we have seen, the Brattle Street Church had already led in this reform, having adoptedthis practice in 1699. This custom of reading the Bible as a part of theservice of worship came slowly into general acceptance, for there was astrong feeling against it. When a Bible was presented to the parish inMendon, in 1767, a serious commotion resulted because of the strong feelingagainst the Church of England then prevalent; and the donor gave it to theminister until such time as the church might wish to use it. It was as lateas 1785 that a copy of the Bible was given to the First Church in Dedham, with the request that the reading of it should be made a part of theexercises of the Lord's day; and the parish instructed the minister to readsuch portions of it as he thought "most desirable" and of "such length asthe several seasons of the year and other circumstances" might renderproper. In the West Church of Medway it was not until 1806 that thispractice was established, and two of the Salem churches began it the sameyear. The reading of the Bible at ordination services did not becomecustomary until an even later date. [22]

Such are some of the practical innovations which accompanied the doctrinaldevelopment that was taking place. Liberality in one direction broughttoleration and progress in others. Some of these changes were due to thefact that the prejudices against the Catholic Church and the Church ofEngland had, in a measure, disappeared, because there was nothing to keepthem alive. Others were due to the intellectual influences that came intothe colonies from England. Still others resulted from the shiftingrelations of church and state, and were the effect of attempts to adjustthose relations more satisfactorily. 

[1] Narrative of Surprising Conversions, edition of 1808, 13. 

[2] Denial of original sin, from Pelagius, an ascetic preacher of the fifth century. 

[3] Dwight, Life of Edwards, 307, 336, 410, 413. 

[4] Ibid. , 649. 

[5] Ibid. , 495. 

[6] Green, History of Springfield. 

[7] Ibid. , 255. 

[8] E. H. Byington, The Puritan in England and New England, devotes a chapter to the controversy over Breck's settlement; but he does not treat of the theological problems involved. 

[9] Whitefield's Seventh Journal, 28. 

[10] History of Harvard University, 52. 

[11] History of Harvard University, 23, 26. 

[12] Whitefield's Journal, seventh part, 28. 

[13] Historical Magazine, new series, IX. 227, April, 1871. 

[14] W. B. Sprague, Annals of the Unitarian Pulpit, II. 

[15] Levi L. Paine, A Critical History of the Evolution of Trinitarianism, 99. "Samuel Clarke and others took the ground that God is unipersonal, and hence that the Son is a distinct personal being, distinguishing God the Father as the absolute Deity from the Son whom they regarded as God in a relative or secondary sense, being derived from the Father, and having his beginning from Him. "

[16] Seasonable Thoughts, 337. 

[17] Alden Bradford, in his Memoir of the Life and Writings of Rev. Jonathan Mayhew, D. D. , gives a list of "the clergymen who openly opposed or did not teach and advocate the Calvinistic doctrines" at the time of Mayhew's ordination, in 1747. These were: Dr. Appleton, Cambridge; Dr. Gay, Hingham; Dr. Chauncy, Boston; William Rand, Kingston; Nathaniel Eelles, Scituate; Edward Barnard, Haverhill; Samuel Cooke, West Cambridge (now Arlington); Jeremiah Fogg, Kensington, N. H. ; Dr. A. Eliot, Boston; Dr. Samuel Webster, Salisbury; Lemuel Briant, Braintree; Dr. Stevens, Kittery, Me. ; Dr. Tucker, Newbury; Timothy Harrington, Lancaster; Dr. Gad Hitchcock, Pembroke; Josiah Smith, Pembroke; William Smith, Weymouth; Dr. Daniel Shute, Hingham; Dr. Samuel Cooper, Boston; Dr. Mayhew, Boston; Abraham Williams, Sandwich; Anthony Wibird, Braintree (now Quincy); Dr. Cushing, Waltham; Professor Wigglesworth, Harvard College; Dr. Symmes, Andover; Dr. John Willard, Connecticut; Amos Adams, Roxbury; Dr. Barnes, Scituate; Charles Turner, Duxbury; Dr. Dana Wallingford, Conn. ; Ebenezer Thayer, Hampton, N. H. ; Dr. Fiske, Brookfield; Dr. Samuel West, Dartmouth (now New Bedford); Dr. Hemenway, Wells. Among those who took part in the ordination of Jonathan Mayhew, and therefore presumably of the same theological opinions, were Hancock, Lexington; Cotton, Newton; Cooke, Sudbury; Prescott, Danvers (now Salem). To these may be added, says Bradford, though of a somewhat later date: Dr. Coffin, Buxton; Drs. Howard, West, Lathrop, and Belknap, Boston; Dr. Henry Cummings, Billerica; Dr. Deane, Portland; Thomas Cary, Newburyport; Dr. Fobes, Raynham; Timothy Hilliard, Cambridge; Thomas Haven, Reading; Dr. Willard, Beverly. Dr. Ezra Ripley added the names of Hedge, of Warwick, and Foster, of Stafford. This makes fifty-two in all, but probably as many more could be added by careful search. 

[18] Grace Defended, 43. 

[19] Ibid. , 60. 

[20] Alice Morse Earle, Customs and Fashions in Old New England, 364, 367. See H. M. Dexter, Congregationalism as seen in its Literature, 458. 

[21] A. B. Ellis, History of the First Church in Boston, 199. 

[22] New England Magazine, February, 1899. A. H. Coolidge on Scripture Reading in the Worship of the New England Churches. 

IV. 

THE SILENT ADVANCE OF LIBERALISM. 

The progressive tendencies went silently on; and step by step the oldbeliefs were discarded, but always by individuals and churches, and not byassociations or general official action. Even before the middle of theeighteenth century there was not only a questioning of the doctrine ofdivine decrees, the conception that God elects some to bliss and some toperdition in accordance with his own arbitrary will, but there was alsodeveloping a tendency to reject the tritheism[1] which in New England tookthe place of a philosophical conception of the Trinity, such as had beenheld by the great thinkers of the Christian ages. In part this doubt aboutthe Trinity was the result of a more thoughtful study of the Bible, wherethe doctrine taught by the leading theologians of the old school in NewEngland does not appear; and in part it was the result of the reading ofthe works of the English divines of the more liberal school. Something ofthis tendency was also due to the spirit of free inquiry, and the rationalinterpretation of religion, that were beginning to make themselves feltamongst those not wholly committed to the old ways of thinking. 

It was characteristic of those who questioned the doctrine of the Trinity, as then taught, that they insisted on stating their beliefs in the languageof the New Testament, especially in that of Jesus himself. They found himteaching his own dependence on his Father, claiming for himself only aninferior and subordinate position. Believing in his pre-existence, hissupernatural character and mission, they held that he was the creator ofthe world or that creation took place by means of the spirit that was inhim, and that every honor should be paid him except that of worshipping himas the Supreme Being. As in the ancient family the son was alwayssubordinate to his father, so the Son of God presented in the New Testamentis less exalted than his Father. This conception of Christ is technicallycalled Arianism, from the Alexandrian presbyter of the fourth century whofirst brought it into prominence. 

[Sidenote: Subordinate Nature of Christ. ]

The Arian heresy did not necessarily follow the Arminian, but much the samecauses led to its appearance. Many of the leading men in England had becomeArians, including Milton, Locke, Taylor, Clarke, Watts, and others; and thereading of their books in New England led to an inquiry into thetruthfulness of the doctrine of the Trinity. As early as 1720 the preachersof convention and election sermons were insisting upon a recognition ofChrist in the old way, showing that they were suspicious of heresy. [2]Most of the Arians retained the other doctrines in which they had beeneducated, even putting a stronger emphasis upon them than before. Rarelywas the subordinate nature of Christ made in any way prominent inpreaching. It was held so strictly subsidiary to the cardinal doctrines ofincarnation and atonement that only the most intelligent and watchful coulddetect any difference between those who were Arians and those who werestrict Trinitarians. Now and then a man of more pronounced convictions andutterance was shunned by his ministerial neighbors, but this rarelyoccurred and had little practical effect. So long as a preacher gavesatisfaction to his own congregation, and had behind him the voters and thetax-list of his town, his heresies were passed by with only comment andgossip. 

We find here and there definite indications of the doctrinal changes thatwere taking place, as in the republication of Emlyn's Humble Inquiry intothe Scripture Account of Jesus Christ, which appeared in Boston in 1756. Thomas Emlyn, the first English preacher who called himself a Unitarian, published his Humble Inquiry in 1702; and in 1705 he established aUnitarian congregation in London. This distinctively Unitarian book made anable defence of the doctrine of the subordinate nature of Christ. Moresignificant than the republication of the book itself was the prefacewritten for it by a Boston layman, addressed to the ministers of the town, in which he said that he found its teaching "to be the true, plain, unadulterated doctrine of the Gospel. " He also intimated that "many of hisbrethren of the laity in the town and country were in sympathy with him andsincerely desirous of knowing the truth. " "In New Hampshire Province, "wrote Dr. Joseph Bellamy, in 1760, "this party have actually, three yearsago, got things so ripe that they have ventured to new model our ShorterCatechism, to alter or entirely leave out the doctrine of the Trinity, ofthe decrees, of our first parents being created holy, of original sin, Christ satisfying divine justice, effectual calling, justification, etc. "[3]

[Sidenote: Some of the Liberal Leaders. ]

The farther advance in the liberal movement may be most easily traced inthe lives and teachings of three or four men. Rev Ebenezer Gay, who wassettled in Hingham in 1717, was the first man in New England to arrive at aclear statement of opinions quite outside of and distinct from Calvinism. Writing of the years from 1750 to 1755, John Adams said that at that timeLemuel Briant, of Braintree, Jonathan Mayhew, of the West Church in Boston, Daniel Shute, of Hingham, John Brown, of Cohasset, and perhaps equal toall, if not above all, Ebenezer Gay, of Hingham, were Unitarians. [4] Therapid sale of Emlyn's book would prove the truthfulness of this statement. It was not by any sudden process that these men had come to what may becalled Unitarianism, though, more properly, Arianism; and not as a mereresult of a reaction from Calvinism. A new time had come, and with it newhopes and thoughts. The burdening sense of the spiritual world thatbelonged to the men of the seventeenth century did not belong to those ofthe eighteenth. Men had come to see that God must manifest himself inreason, common sense, nature, and the facts of life. 

In the life and teachings of such a man as Ebenezer Gay we catch a newinsight into the spirit that was active in New England throughout theeighteenth century for the realization of a larger faith. He was a man of astrong, original, vigorous nature, a born leader of men, and one whoimpressed his own character upon those with whom he came into contact. Heopposed the revival, and he made the men of his own association think withhim in their opposition to it. Years before the revival, however, he was aliberal in theology, and had found his way into Arminianism. With thespirit of free inquiry he was in fullest sympathy. He was strongly opposedto creeds and to all written articles of faith. He condemned in the mostforcible terms the young man who, on the occasion of his ordination, "engages to preach according to a rule of faith, creed, or confession whichis merely of human prescription or imposition. " In his convention sermon of1746 he denounced those who "insist upon the offensive peculiarities of theparty they espoused rather than upon the more mighty things in which we areall agreed. " It has been said of him that, after the middle of the century, "his discourses will be searched in vain for any discussions ofcontroversial theology, any advocacy of the peculiar doctrines regarded asorthodox, or the expression of any opinions at variance with those of hissuccessor, Dr. Ware. "[5]

The sermon on Natural Religion as distinguished from Revealed, which Dr. Gay delivered as the Dudleian lecture at Harvard, in 1759, showed thereasonable and progressive spirit of his preaching. He claimed that thereis no antagonism between natural and revealed religion, and that, whilerevealed religion is an addition to the natural, it is not built on theruins, but on the everlasting foundations of it. Revelation can teachnothing contrary to natural religion or to the dictates of reason. "Nodoctrine or scheme of religion, " he said, "should be advanced or receivedas Scriptural and divine which is plainly and absolutely inconsistent withthe perfections of God, and the possibility of things. Absurdities andcontradictions, are not to be obtruded upon our faith. No pretence ofrevelation can be sufficient for the admission of them. The manifestabsurdity of any doctrine is a stronger argument that it is not of God thanany other evidence can be that it is. "

Jonathan Mayhew, the son of Experience Mayhew, of Martha's Vineyard, wassettled over the West Church of Boston in 1747. He was even then known as aheretic, who had read the most liberal books of the English philosophersand theologians, and who had boldly accepted their opinions as his own. Onthe occasion of his ordination not one of the Boston ministers was present, although a number of them were well known for their liberal opinions. Theordination was postponed, and later several men of remoter parishes joinedin inducting this young independent into his pulpit. No Boston ministerwould exchange pulpits with him, and he was not invited to join theministerial association. He was shunned by the ministers, and he wasdreaded by the orthodox; but he was gladly heard by a large congregation, which grew in numbers and intelligence as the years went on. He had amonghis hearers many of the leading men of the town, and to him gathered thosewho were most thoughtful and progressive. Boston has never had in any ofits pulpits a man of nobler, broader, more humane qualities, or one with amind more completely committed to seeking and knowing the truth, or with amore unflinching purpose to speak his own mind without fear or favor. Hisinfluence was soon powerfully felt in the town, and his name came to standfor liberty in politics as well as in religion. His sermons were rapidlyprinted and distributed widely. They were read in every part of New Englandwith great eagerness; they were reprinted in England, and brought him alarge correspondence from those who admired and approved of his teaching. Though he died in 1766, at the age of forty-six, his work and his influencedid not die with him. 

The cardinal thought of Jonathan Mayhew with reference to religion was thatof free inquiry. Diligent and free examination of all questions, he felt, was necessary to any acquisition of the truth. He believed in liberty andtoleration everywhere, and this made him accept in the fullest sense thedoctrine of the freedom of the will. In man he found a self-determiningpower, the source of his moral and intellectual freedom. He said that weare more certain of the fact that we are free than we are of the truth ofChristianity. This belief led him to the rejection of the Calvinisticdoctrine of inability, and to a strong faith in the moral and spiritualpossibilities of human nature. He described Christianity as "a practicalscience, the art of living piously and virtuously. "[6] He had quite freedhis mind from bondage to creeds when he said that, "how much soever any manmay be mistaken in opinion concerning the terms of salvation, yet if he ispractically in the right there is no doubt but he will be accepted ofGod. "[7] He held that no speculative error, however great, is sufficientto exclude a good and upright man from the kingdom of heaven, who livesaccording to the genuine spirit of the gospel. To him the principle ofgrace was always a principle of goodness and holiness; and he held thatgrace can never be operative as a saving power without obedience to thatrighteousness and love which Christ taught as essential. [8] He declaredthat "the doctrine that men may obtain salvation without ceasing to do eviland learning to do well, without yielding a sincere obedience to the lawsof Christianity, is not so properly called a doctrine of grace as it is adoctrine of devils. "[9] He said, again, that we cannot be justified by afaith that is without obedience; for it is obedience and good works thatgive to faith all its life, efficacy, and perfection. [10]

[Sidenote: The First Unitarian. ]

Dr. Mayhew accepted without equivocation the right of private judgment inreligion, and he practised it judicially and with wise insight. Heunhesitatingly applied the rational method to all theological problems, andto him reason was the final court of appeal for everything connected withreligion. His love of freedom was enthusiastic and persistent, and he waszealously committed to the principle of individuality. He believed in theessential goodness of human nature, and in the doctrine of the DivineUnity. He was the first outspoken Unitarian in New England, not merelybecause he rejected the doctrine of the Trinity, but because he acceptedall the cardinal principles developed by that movement since his day. Hewas a rationalist, an individualist, a defender of personal freedom, andtested religious practices by the standard of common sense. His sermonswere plain, direct, vigorous, and modern. A truly religious man, Mayhewtaught a practical and humanitarian religion, genuinely ethical, andfaithful in inculcating the motive of civic duty. 

Dr. Mayhew's words may be quoted in regard to some of the religious beliefscommonly accepted in his day. "The doctrine of a total ignorance andincapacity to judge of moral and religious truths brought upon mankind bythe disobedience of our first parents, " he wrote, "is withoutfoundation. "[11] "I hope it appears, " he says, "that the love of God and ofour neighbor, that sincere piety of heart, and a righteous, holy andcharitable life, are the weightier matters of the gospel, as well as of thelaw. "[12] "Although Christianity cannot, " he asserts, "with any proprietyor justice be said to be the same with natural religion, or merely arepublication of the laws of nature, yet the principal, the most importantand fundamental duties required by Christianity are, nevertheless, the samewhich were enjoined under the legal dispensation of Moses, and the samewhich are dictated by the light of nature. "[13] His great love ofintellectual and spiritual freedom finds utterance in such a statement asthis: "Nor has any order or body of men authority to enjoin any particulararticle of faith, nor the use of any modes of worship not expressly pointedout in the Scriptures; nor has the enjoining of such articles a tendency topreserve the peace and harmony of the church, but directly thecontrary. "[14] Such sentences as the following are frequent on Mayhew'spages, and they show clearly the trend of his mind: "Free examination, weighing arguments for and against with care and impartiality, is the wayto find truth. " "True religion flourishes the more, the more peopleexercise their right of private judgment. "[15] "There is nothing morefoolish and superstitious than a veneration for ancient creeds anddoctrines as such, and nothing is more unworthy a reasonable creature thanto value principles by their age, as some men do their wines. "[16]

Mayhew insisted upon the strict unity of God, "who is without rival orcompetitor. " "The dominion and sovereignty of the universe is necessarilyone and in one, the only living and true God, who delegates such measuresof power and authority to other beings as seemeth good in his sight. " Hedeclared that the not preserving of such unity and supremacy of God on thepart of Christians "has long been just matter of reproach to them"; and hesaid the authority of Christ is always "exercised in subordination to God'swill. "[17] His position was that "the faith of Christians does notterminate in Christ as the ultimate object of it, but it is extendedthrough him to the one God. "[18] The very idea of a mediator impliessubordination as essential to it. [19] His biographer says he did not acceptthe notion of vicarious suffering, and, that he was an Arian in his viewsof the nature of Christ. "He was the first clergyman in New England whoexpressly and openly opposed the scholastic doctrine of the Trinity. Several others declined pressing the Athanasian Creed, and believedstrictly in the unity of God. They also probably found it difficult toexplain their views on the subject, and the great danger of losing theirgood name served to prevent their speaking out. But Dr. Mayhew did notconceal or disguise his sentiments on this point any more than on others, such as the peculiar tenets of Calvinism. He explicitly and boldly declaredthe doctrine irrational, unscriptural, and directly contradictory. "[20] Hetaught the strict unity of God as early as 1753, "in the most unequivocaland plain manner, in his sermons of that year. "[21] What most excitedcomment and objection was that, in a foot-note to the volume of his sermonspublished in 1755, Mayhew said that a Catholic Council had elevated theVirgin Mary to the position of a fourth person in the Godhead, and added, by way of comment: "Neither Papists nor Protestants should imagine thatthey will be understood by others if they do not understand themselves. Norshould they think that nonsense and contradictions can ever be too sacredto be ridiculous. " The ridicule here was not directed against the doctrineof the Trinity, as has been maintained, but the foolish defences of it madeby men who accepted its "mysteries" as too wonderful for reason to dealwith in a serious manner. This boldness of comment on the part of Mayhewwas in harmony with his strong disapproval of creed-making in all itsforms. He condemned creeds because they set up "human tests of orthodoxyinstead of the infallible word of God, and make other terms of Christiancommunion than those explicitly pointed out by the Gospel. "[22]

Dr. Mayhew was succeeded in the West Church by Rev. Simeon Howard in 1767, who, though he was received in a more friendly spirit by the ministers ofthe town, was not less radical in his theology than his predecessor. Dr. Howard was both an Arminian and an Arian, and he was "a believer neither inthe Trinity, nor in the divine predestination of total depravity, andnecessary ruin to any human soul. "[23] He was of a gentle and conciliatorytemper, but his preaching was quite as thorough-going in its intellectualearnestness as was Dr. Mayhew's. 

[Sidenote: A Pronounced Universalist. ]

Another preacher on the liberal side was Dr. Charles Chauncy of the FirstChurch in Boston, whose ministry lasted from 1727 to 1787. He was the mostvigorous of the opponents of the great awakening, both in his pulpit andthrough the press. He wrote a book on certain French fanatics, with thepurpose of showing what would be the natural results of the excesses of therevival; he preached a powerful sermon on enthusiasm, to indicate thedangers of religious excitement, when not controlled by common sense andreason; and he travelled throughout New England to gain all the informationpossible about the revival, its methods and results, and published hisSeasonable Thoughts on the State of Religion in New England in 1743. He hadbeen influenced by the reading of Taylor, Tillotson, Clarke, and the otherlatitudinarian and rationalistic writers of England; and he found therevival in its excesses repugnant to his every thought of what was true anddevout in religion. 

Dr. Chauncy was not an eloquent preacher; but he was clear, earnest, andhonest. Many of his sermons were published, and his books numbered nearly adozen. As early as 1739 he preached a sermon in favor of religioustoleration. At a later period he said, "It is with me past all doubt thatthe religion of Jesus will never be restored to its primitive purity, simplicity, and glory, until religious establishments are so brought downas to be no more. "[24] It was this conviction which made him oppose in hispulpit and in two or three books the effort that was made just before theRevolution to establish the English Church as the state form of religion inthe colonies. He said, in 1767, that the American people would hazardeverything dear to them--their estates, their lives--rather than suffertheir necks to be put under the yoke of bondage to any foreign power instate or church. [25]

In his early life Dr. Chauncy was an Arminian, but slowly he grew to theacceptance of distinctly Unitarian and Universalist doctrines. Near the endof his life he Published four or five books in which he advanced veryliberal opinions. One of these, published in Boston in 1784, was on TheBenevolence of the Deity fairly and impartially Considered. This bookfollowed the same method and purpose as Butler's Analogy, and aimed to showthat God has manifested his goodness in creation and in the life of man. Hesaid that our moral self-determination, or free will, is our one great giftfrom God. He discussed the moral problems of life in order to prove thebenevolence of God, maintaining that the goodness we see in him is of thesame nature with goodness in ourselves. The year following he published abook on the Scriptural account of the Fall and its Consequences, in whichhe rejected the doctrine of total depravity, and interpreted the new birthas a result of education rather than of supernatural change. Thus hebrought to full statement the logical result of the half-way covenant andthe teachings of Solomon Stoddard, as well as of the connection of churchand state in New England. He saw that the method of education is the onlyone that can justly be followed in the preparation of the young foradmission to a church that is sustained in any direct way by the state. 

Dr. Chauncy's great work as a preacher and author[26] was brought to itsclose by his books in favor of universal salvation. In 1783-84 he publishedin Boston two anonymous pamphlets advocating the salvation of all men, andthese pamphlets made no little stir. In 1784 he published in London a workwhich he called The Mystery hid from Ages and Generations, made manifest bythe Gospel Revelation; or, The Salvation of All Men the Grand Thing aimedat in the Scheme of God: By One who wishes well to the whole Human Race. Inthis book Dr. Chauncy made an elaborate study of the New Testament, inorder to prove that salvation is to be universal. Christ died for all, therefore all will be saved; because all have sinned in Adam, therefore allwill be made alive in Christ. He looked to a future probation, to a longperiod after death, when the opportunity of salvation will be open to all. He maintained that the misery threatened against the wicked in Scripture isthat of this intermediate state between the earthly life and the time whenGod shall be all in all. He held that sin will be punished hereafter inproportion to depravity, and that none will be saved until they come intowilling harmony with Christ, who will finally be able to win all men tohimself, otherwise the power of God will be set at naught and his good willtowards men frustrated of its purpose. In the future state of discipline, punishment will be inflicted with salutary effect, and thus the moralrecovery of mankind will be accomplished. 

[Sidenote: Other Men of Mark. ]

Another leader was Dr. Samuel West, of Dartmouth, now New Bedford, where hewas settled in 1760, and where he preached for more than forty years. [27]He rejected the doctrines of fore-ordination, election, total depravity, and the Trinity. In preaching the election sermon of 1776, he took theground of an undisguised rationalism. "A revelation, " he said, "pretendingto be from God, that contradicts any part of natural laws ought immediatelyto be rejected as imposture; for the deity cannot make a law contrary tothe law of nature without acting contrary to himself, --a thing in thestrictest sense impossible, for that which implies contradiction is not anobject of Divine Power. " The cardinal idea of West's; position, as of thatof most of the liberal men of his time, was stated by him in one sentence, when he said, "To preach Christ is to preach the whole system of divinity, as it consists of both natural and revealed religion. "[28]

In 1751 Rev. Thomas Barnard, of Newbury, was dismissed from his parishbecause he was regarded as unconverted by the revivalistic portion of hiscongregation; and in 1755 he was settled over the First Church in Salem. Hewas an Arminian, and at the same time an Arian of the school of SamuelClarke. His son Thomas was settled over the North Church of Salem in 1773, which church was organized especially for him by his admirers in the FirstChurch. He followed in the theological opinions of his father, but probablybecame somewhat more pronounced in his Arian views, so that, after hisdeath, Dr. Channing called him a Unitarian. It is not surprising that theyounger Barnard should have been liberal in his opinions and spirit, whenwe find his theological instructor, Rev. Samuel Williams, at hisordination, saying to him in the sermon preached on that occasion, "Be ofno sect or party but that of good men, and to all such (whatever theirdifferences among themselves) let your heart be opened. " On another similaroccasion Mr. Williams said that it had always been his advice to examinewith caution and modesty, "but with the greatest freedom all religiousmatters. "[29] It was said of the younger Barnard that he believed "thefinal salvation of no man depended upon the belief or disbelief of thosespeculative opinions about which men, equally learned and pious, differ. "When it was said to him by one of his parishioners, "Dr. Barnard, I neverheard you preach a sermon upon the Trinity, " the reply was, "And you neverwill. "[30]

In 1779 Rev. John Prince was settled over the First Church in Salem, as thecolleague of the elder Barnard. He was an Arian, but in no combative ordogmatic manner. He was a student, a lover of science, and an advancedthinker and investigator for his time. In 1787 he invited the Universalist, Rev. John Murray, into his pulpit, then an act of the greatestliberality. [31] Another lover of science, Rev. William Bentley, was settledover the East Church of Salem, as colleague to Rev. James Diman, in 1782. The senior pastor was a strict Calvinist, but the parish called as hiscolleague this young man of pronounced liberal views in theology. As earlyas 1784 Mr. Bentley was interested in the teachings of the EnglishUnitarian, William Hazlitt, [32] who at that time visited New England. Andin 1786 he was reading Joseph Priestley's book against the Trinity withapproval. He soon after commended Dr. Priestley's short tracts as giving agood statement of the simple doctrines of Christianity. [33] He insistedupon free inquiry in religion from the beginning of his ministry, and notlong after he began preaching he became substantially a Unitarian. [34] In1789 he maintained that "the full conviction of a future moral retribution"is "the great point of Christian faith. "[35] It has been claimed that Mr. Bentley was the first minister in New England to take distinctly theUnitarian position, and there are good reasons for this understanding ofhis doctrinal attitude. [36] Dr. Bentley corresponded with scholars inEurope, as he also did with Arab chiefs in their own tongue. He knew of thereligions of India, and he seems to have given them appreciativerecognition. The shipmasters and foreign merchants of Salem, as they camein contact with the Oriental races and religions, discarded their dogmaticChristianity; and these men, almost without exception, were connected withthe churches that became Unitarian. It may be accepted as a veryinteresting fact that "the two potent influences shaping the ancientPuritanism of Salem into Unitarianism were foreign commerce and contactwith the Oriental religions. "[37]

The formation of a second parish in Worcester, in 1785, was a significantstep in the progress of liberal opinion. This was the first time when atown, outside of Boston, was divided into two parishes of theCongregational order on doctrinal grounds. On the death of the minister ofthe first parish several candidates were heard, and among them Rev. AaronBancroft, who was a pronounced Arminian and Arian. The majority preferred aCalvinist; but the more intelligent minority insisted upon the settlementof Mr. Bancroft, --a result they finally accomplished by the organization ofa new parish. It was a severe struggle by which this result was broughtabout, every effort being made to defeat it; and for many years Mr. Bancroft was almost completely isolated in his religious opinions. [38]

[Sidenote: The Second Period of Revivals. ]

It must not be understood that there was any marked separation in thechurches as yet on doctrinal grounds. Calvinism was mildly taught, andministers of all shades of opinion exchanged pulpits freely with eachother. They met in ministerial associations, and in various duties ofordinations, councils, and other ecclesiastical gatherings. The preachingwas practical, not doctrinal; and controverted subjects were for the mostpart not touched upon in the pulpits. About 1780, however, began a revivalof Calvinism on the part of Drs. Bellamy, Emmons, Hopkins, and others; andespecially did it take a strenuous form in the works of Samuel Hopkins. TheNew Divinity, as it was sometimes called, taught that unconditionalsubmission to God is the duty of every human being, that we should bewilling to be damned for the glory of God, and that the attitude of Godtowards men is one of unbounded benevolence. This newer Calvinism was fullof incentives to missionary enterprise, and was zealous for the making ofconverts. Under the impulse of its greater enthusiasm there began, about1790, a series of revivals which continued to the middle of the nineteenthcentury. This was the second great period of revivalism in New England. Itwas far better organized than the first one, while its methods were moresystematic and under better guidance; and the results were great in thebuilding of churches, in establishing missionary outposts, and in awakeningan active religious life amongst the people. It aroused much opposition tothe liberals, and it made the orthodox party more aggressive. Just as thegreat awakening developed opposition to the liberals of that day, andserved to bring into view the two tendencies in the Congregationalchurches, so this new revival period accentuated the divergencies betweenthose who believed in the deity of Christ and those who believed in hissubordinate nature, and led to the first assuming of positions on bothsides. There can be little doubt that it put a check upon the friendlyspirit that had existed in the churches, and that it began a division whichultimately resulted in their separation into two denominations. [39]

Such details of individual and local opinion as have here been given areall the more necessary because there was at this time no consensus ofbelief on the part of the more liberal men. Each man thought for himself, but he was very reluctant to depart from the old ways in ritual anddoctrine; and if the ministers consulted with each other, and gave eachother confidential assistance, there was certainly nothing in the way ofpublic conference or of party assimilation and encouragement. A visitor toBoston in 1791 wrote of the ministers there that "they are so diverse intheir sentiments that they cannot agree on any point in theology. Some areCalvinists, some Universalists, some Arminians, and one, at least, is aSocinian. "[40] Another visitor, this time in 1801, found the range ofopinions much wider. In all the ministers of Boston he found only one rigidTrinitarian; one was a follower of Edwards, several were Arminians, twowere Socinians, one a Universalist, and one a Unitarian. [41] This writersays it was not difficult to find out what men did not believe, but therewas as yet no public line of demarcation among the clergy. There being nooutward pressure to bring men into uniformity, no institution or body ofmen with authority to require assent to a standard of orthodoxy, littleattention was given to merely doctrinal interests. The position taken wasthat presented by Rev. John Tucker of Newbury, in the convention sermon of1768, when he said that no one has any right whatever to legislate inbehalf of Christ, who alone has authority to fix the terms of the Gospel. He said that, as all believers and teachers of Christianity are "perfectlyupon a level with one another, none of them can have any authority even tointerpret the laws of this kingdom for others, so as to require theirassent to such interpretation. " He also declared that as "every Christianhas and must have a right to judge for himself of the true sense andmeaning of all gospel truths, no doctrines, therefore, no laws, noreligious rites, no terms of acceptance with God or of admission toChristian privileges not found in the gospel, are to be looked upon by himas any part of this divine system, nor to be received and submitted to asthe doctrines and laws of Christ. "[42] Of Rev. John Prince, the ministerof the First Church in Salem during the last years of the century, it wassaid that he never "preached distinctly upon any of the points ofcontroversy which, in his day, agitated the New England churches. "[43] Theminister of Roxbury, Rev. Eliphalet Porter, said of the Calvinisticbeliefs, that there was not one of them he considered "essential to theChristian faith or character. "[44]

[Sidenote: King's Chapel becomes Unitarian. ]

These quotations will indicate the liberty of spirit that existed in theNew England churches of the later years of the eighteenth century, especially in the neighborhood of Boston, and along the seacoast; and alsothe diversity of opinion on doctrinal subjects among the ministers. It isimpossible here to follow minutely the stages of doctrinal evolution, but afew dates and incidents will serve to indicate the several steps that weretaken. The first of these was the settlement of Rev. James Freeman overKing's Chapel in 1782, and his ordination by the congregation in 1787, theliturgy having been revised two years earlier to conform to the liberalopinions of the minister and people. These changes were brought aboutlargely through the influence of Rev. William Hazlitt, the father of theessayist and critic of the same name, who had been settled over several ofthe smaller Unitarian churches in Great Britain. In the spring of 1783 hevisited the United States, and spent several months in Philadelphia. Hegave a course of lectures on the Evidences of Christianity in the collegethere, which were largely attended. He preached for several weeks in acountry parish in Maryland, he had invitations to settle in Charleston andPittsburg, and he had an opportunity to become the president of a collegeby subscribing to the doctrinal tests required, which he would not do; for"he would sooner die in a ditch than submit to human authority in mattersof faith. "[45] In June, 1784, he preached in the Brattle Street Church ofBoston, and he anticipated becoming its minister; but his pronounceddoctrinal position seems to have made that impossible. He also preached inHingham, and some of the people there desired his settlement; but the agedDr. Gay would not resign. It would appear that he preached for Dr. Chauncy, for Mr. Barnes in Salem, and also in several pulpits on Cape Cod. He gavein Boston his course of lectures on the Evidences of Christianity, and itwas received with much favor by large audiences. The winter of 1784-85 wasspent by Mr. Hazlitt in Hallowell, Me. , in which place was a small group ofwealthy English Unitarians, led by Samuel Vaughan, by whom Mr. Hazlitt hadbeen entertained in Philadelphia. Mr. Hazlitt returned to Boston in thespring of 1785, and had some hope of settling in Roxbury. In the autumn, however, finding no definite promise of employment, he returned to England. He afterward corresponded with Dr. Howard, of the West Church in Boston, and with Dr. Lathrop, of West Springfield. The volumes of sermons hepublished in 1786 and 1790 were sold in this country, and one or two ofthem republished. 

It would appear that Mr. Hazlitt's positive Unitarianism made it impossiblefor him to settle over any church in Boston or its neighborhood. In 1784 heassisted Dr. Freeman in revising the Prayer Book, the form of prayer usedby Dr. Lindsey[46] in the Essex Street Chapel in London being adapted tothe new conditions at King's Chapel. He also republished in Philadelphiaand Boston many of Dr. Priestley's Unitarian tracts, while writing muchhimself for publication. [47] In his correspondence with TheophilusLindsey, Dr. Freeman wrote of Mr. Hazlitt as a pious, zealous, andintelligent minister, to whose instructions and conversation he wasparticularly indebted. [48] "Before Mr. Hazlitt came to Boston", Dr. Freeman wrote, "the Trinitarian doxology was almost universally used. Thathonest, good man prevailed upon several respectable ministers to omit it. Since his departure the number of those who repeat only Scripturaldoxologies has greatly increased, so that there are now many churches inwhich the worship is strictly Unitarian. "[49]

Beginning with the year 1786, several of the liberal men in Boston were incorrespondence with the leading Unitarian ministers in London, and theirletters were afterward published by Thomas Belsham in his Life ofTheophilus Lindsey. From this work we learn that Dr. Lindsey presented hisown theological works and those of Dr. Priestley to Harvard College, andthat they were read with great avidity by the students. [50] One of theBoston correspondents, writing in 1783, names James Bowdoin, governor ofMassachusetts in 1785 and 1786, General Benjamin Lincoln, and General HenryKnox as among the liberal men. He said: "There are many others besides, inour legislature, of similar sentiments. While so many of our great men arethus on the side of truth and free inquiry, they will necessarily influencemany of the common people. "[51] He also said that people were lessfrightened at the Socinian name than formerly, and that this form ofChristianity was beginning to have some public advocates. The only ministerwho preached in favor of it was Mr. Bentley, of Salem, who was described as"a young man of a bold, independent mind, of strong, natural powers, and ofmore skill in the learned languages than any person of his years in thestate. " Mr. Bentley's congregation was spoken of as uncommonly liberal, notalarmed at any improvements, and pleased with his introduction into thepulpit of various modern translations of the Scriptures, especially of theprophecies. [52]

[Sidenote: Other Unitarian Movements. ]

In March, 1792, a Unitarian congregation was formed in Portland under theleadership of Thomas Oxnard, who had been an Episcopalian. Having beensupplied with the works of Priestley and Lindsey through the generosity ofDr. Freeman, he became a Unitarian; and his personal intercourse with Dr. Freeman gave strength to his changed convictions. A number of persons ofproperty and respectability of character joined him in accepting his newfaith. In writing to his friend in November, 1788, Mr. Oxnard said: "Icannot express to you the avidity with which these Unitarian publicationsare sought after. Our friends here are clearly convinced that the Unitariandoctrine will soon become the prevailing opinion in this country. Threeyears ago I did not know a single Unitarian in this part of the countrybesides myself; and now, entirely from the various publications you havefurnished, a decent society might be collected in this and the neighboringtowns. "[53] In 1792 an attempt was made to introduce a revised liturgyinto the Episcopal church of Portland; and, when this was resisted, amajority of the congregation seceded and formed a Unitarian society, withMr. Oxnard as the minister. This society was continued for a few years, andthen ceased to exist. The members joined the first Congregational church, which in 1809, became Unitarian. [54] Also in 1792 was organized aUnitarian congregation in Saco, under the auspices of Hon. Samuel Thatcher, a member of Congress and a Massachusetts judge. [55] Mr. Thatcher had beenan unbeliever, but through the reading of Priestley's works he became asincere and rational Christian. He met with much opposition from hisneighbors, and an effort was made to prevent his re-election to Congress;but it did not succeed. The Saco congregation was at first connected withthat at Portland, and it seems to have ceased its existence at the sametime. [56]

In 1794 Dr. Freeman wrote that Unitarianism was making considerableprogress in the southern counties of Massachusetts. In Barnstable hereported "a very large body of Unitarians. "[57] Writing in May, 1796, hestates that Unitarianism is on the increase in Maine, that it is making aconsiderable increase in the southern part of Massachusetts, and that a fewseeds have been sown in Vermont. He thinks it may be losing ground in someplaces, but that it is growing in others. "I consider it, " he writes, "asone of the most happy effects which have resulted from my feeble exertionsin the Unitarian cause, that they have introduced me to the knowledge andfriendship of some of the most valuable characters of the present age, menof enlightened heads and benevolent hearts. Though it is a standing articleof most of our social libraries, that nothing of a controversial charactershould be purchased, yet any book which is presented is freely accepted. Ihave found means, therefore, of introducing into them some of the UnitarianTracts with which you have kindly furnished me. There are few persons whohave not read them with avidity; and when read they cannot fail to make animpression upon the minds of many. From these and other causes theUnitarian doctrine appears to be still upon the increase. I am acquaintedwith a number of ministers, particularly in the southern part of thisstate, who avow and publicly preach this sentiment. There are others morecautious, who content themselves with leading their hearers by a course ofrational but prudent sermons gradually and insensibly to embrace it. Thoughthis latter mode is not what I entirely approve, yet it produces goodeffects. For the people are thus kept out of the reach of false opinions, and are prepared for the impressions which will be made on them by morebold and ardent successors, who will probably be raised up when these timidcharacters are removed off the stage. The clergy are generally the firstwho begin to speculate; but the people soon follow, where they are so muchaccustomed to read and enquire. "[58]

In 1793 was published Jeremy Belknap's biography of Samuel Watts, who wasan Arian, or, at least, held to the subordinate nature of Christ. This bookhad a very considerable influence in directing attention to the doctrine ofthe Trinity, and in inducing inquiring men to study the subject criticallyfor themselves. In 1797 Dr. Belknap became the minister of the FederalStreet Church in Boston, and his preaching was from that time distinctlyUnitarian. Dr. Joseph Priestley removed to Philadelphia in 1794, and he wasat first listened to by large congregations. His humanitariantheology--that is, his denial of divinity as well as deity toChrist--probably had the effect of limiting the interest in his teachings. However, a small congregation was established in Philadelphia in 1796, formed mostly of English Unitarians. A congregation was gathered atNorthumberland in 1794, to which place Priestley removed in that year. 

In the year 1800 a division took place in the church at Plymouth, owing tothe growth there of liberal sentiments. These began to manifest themselvesas early as 1742, as a reaction from the intense revivalism of thatPeriod. [59] Rev. Chandler Bobbins, who was strictly Calvinistic in histheology, was the minister from 1760 until his death in 1799. In 1794 aconsiderable number of persons in the parish discussed the desirability oforganizing another church, in order to secure more liberal preaching. Itwas recognized that Mr. Robbins was an old man, that he was very muchbeloved, and that in a few years the opportunity desired would be presentedwithout needless agitation; and the effort was therefore deferred. InNovember, 1799, at a meeting held for the election of a new pastor, twenty-three members of the church were in favor of Rev. James Kendall, theonly candidate, while fifteen were in opposition. When the parish voted, two hundred and fifty-three favored Mr. Kendall, and fifteen were opposed. In September, 1800, the conservative minority, numbering eighteen males andthirty-five females, withdrew; and two years later they organized thesociety now called the Church of the Pilgrimage. The settlement of Mr. Kendall, a pronounced Arminian, [60] was an instance of the almost completeabandonment of Calvinism on the part of a congregation, in opposition tothe preaching from the pulpit. In spite of the strict confession of faithwhich Dr. Robbins had persuaded the church to adopt, the parish outgrew theold teachings. Mr. Kendall, with the approval of his church, soon grew intoa Unitarian; and it was fitting that the church of the Mayflower, thechurch of Robinson and Brewster, should lead the way in this advance. 

As yet there was no controversy, except in a quiet way. Occasionally sharpcriticism was uttered, especially in convention and election sermons; butthere was no thought of separation or exclusion. The liberal men showed atendency to magnify the work of charity; and they were, in a limiteddegree, zealous in every kind of philanthropic effort. More distinctly, however, they showed their position in their enthusiasm for the Bible andin their summing up of Christianity in loyalty to Christ. Towards allcreeds and dogmas they were indifferent and silent, except as theyoccasionally spoke plainly out to condemn them. They believed in andpreached toleration, and their whole movement stood more distinctly forcomprehensiveness and latitudinarianism than for aught else. They were notgreatly concerned about theological problems; but they thoroughly believedin a broad, generous, sympathetic, and practical Christianity, that wouldexemplify the teachings of Christ, and that would lead men to a pure andnoble moral life. 

[Sidenote: Growth of Toleration. ]

That toleration was not as yet fully accepted in Massachusetts is seen inthe fact that the proposed Constitution of 1778 was defeated because itprovided for freedom of worship on the part of all Protestantdenominations. The dominant religious body was not yet ready to put itselfon a level with the other sects. In the Constitutional Convention of 1779the more liberal men worked with the Baptists to secure a separation ofstate and church. Such men as Drs. Chauncy, Mayhew, West, and Shute weredesirous of the broadest toleration; and they did what they could to secureit. As early as 1768, Dr. Chauncy spoke in plainest terms in opposition tothe state support of religion. "We are in principle, " he wrote, "againstall civil establishments in religion. It does not appear to us that God hasentrusted, the state with a right to make religious establishments. But letit be heedfully minded we claim no right to desire the interposition of thestate to establish the mode of worship, government or discipline, weapprehend is most agreeable to the mind of Christ. We desire no otherliberty than to be left unrestrained in the exercise of our principles, inso far as we are good members of society.... The plain truth is, by thegospel charter, all professed Christians are vested with precisely the samerights; nor has our denomination any more a right to the interposition ofthe civil magistrate in their favor than any other; and whenever thisdifference takes place, it is beside the rule of Scripture, and the genuinedictates, of uncorrupted reason. "[61] All persons throughout the state, ofwhatever religious connection, who had become emancipated from the Puritanspirit, supported him in this opinion. They were in the minority as yet, and they were not organized. Therefore, their efforts were unsuccessful. 

Another testing of public sentiment on this subject was had in theMassachusetts convention which, in 1788, ratified the Constitution of theUnited States. The sixth article, which provides that "no religious testsshall ever be required as a qualification to any office, " was the occasionof a prolonged debate and much opposition. Hon. Theophilus Parsons took theliberal side, and declared that "the only evidence we can have of thesincerity and excellency of a man's religion is a good life, " precisely theposition of the liberal men. By several members it was urged, however, thatthis article was a departure from the principles of our forefathers, whocame here for the preservation of their religion, and that it would admitdeists and atheists into the general government. 

In these efforts to secure religious toleration as a fundamental law of thestate and nation the Baptist denomination took an active and a leadingpart. Not less faithful to this cause were the liberal men among theCongregationalists, while the opposition came almost wholly from theCalvinistic and orthodox churches. Such leaders on the liberal side as Dr. David Shute of the South Parish in Hingham, Rev. Thomas Thatcher of theWest Parish in Dedham, and Dr. Samuel West of New Bedford, were loyallydevoted in the convention to the support of the toleration act of theConstitution. In the membership of the convention there were seventeenministers, and fourteen of them voted for the Constitution. The opinions ofthe fourteen were expressed by Rev. Phillips Payson, the minister ofChelsea, who held that a religious test would be a great blemish on theConstitution. He also said that God is the God of the conscience, and forhuman tribunals to encroach upon the consciences of men is impious. [62] Asthe Constitution was ratified by only a small majority of the convention, and as at the opening of its sessions the opposition seemed almostoverwhelming, the position taken by the more liberal ministers was a sureindication of growing liberality. The great majority of the people, however, were still strongly in favor of the old religious tests andrestrictions, as was fully indicated by subsequent events. The Revolutionoperated as a liberalizing influence, because of the breaking of oldcustoms and the discussion of the principles of liberty attendant upon theadoption of the state and national constitutions. The growth of democraticsentiment made a strong opposition to the churches and their privileges, and it caused a diminution of reverence for the authority of the clergy. The twenty years following the Revolution showed a notable growth inliberal opinions. 

Universalism presented itself as a new form of Calvinism, its advocatesclaiming that God decreed that all should be saved, and that his will wouldbe triumphant. In many parts of the country the doctrine of universalsalvation began to be heard during the last two decades of the eighteenthcentury, and the growth of interest in it was rapid from the beginning ofthe nineteenth. This movement began in the Baptist churches, but it soonappeared in others. At first it was undefined, a protest against the harshteaching of future punishment. It was a part of the humanitarian awakeningof the time, the new faith in man, the recognition that love is divinerthan wrath. Many persons found escape from creeds that were hateful to theminto this new and more hopeful interpretation of religion. Persons of everyshade of protest, and "infidelity, " and free thinking, found their way intothis new body; and great was the condemnation and hatred with which it wasreceived on the part of the other sects. In time this movement clarifieditself, and it has had a positive influence for piety and for nobler viewsof God and the future. 

Of much the same nature was the movement within the fellowship of theFriends led by Thomas Hicks. It was Unitarian and reformatory, influencedby the growing democracy and zeal for humanity the age was everywheremanifesting. 

In the border states between north and south began, during the last decadeof the eighteenth century, a movement in favor of discarding all creeds andconfessions. It favored a return to the Bible itself as the greatProtestant book, and as the one revealed word of God. Without learning orculture, these persons sought to make their faith in Christ more real by anevangelical obedience to his teachings. Some of them called themselvesDisciples, holding that to follow Christ is quite enough. Others said thatno other name than Christian is required. They were Biblical in theirtheology, and unsectarian in their attitude towards the forms and ritualsof the church. In time these scattered groups of earnest seekers for abetter Christian way, from Maine to Georgia, came to know each other and toorganize for the common good. 

With the rapid growth of Methodism the Arminian view of man was widelyadopted. The Baptists received into their fellowship in all parts of NewEngland, at least, many who were not deeply in sympathy with their strictrules, but who found with them a means of protesting against the harshermethods of the "standing order" of Congregationalists. Their demand fortoleration and liberty of conscience began to receive recognition after theRevolution, and their influence was a powerful one in bringing about theseparation of state and church. Those who were dissatisfied with a churchthat taxed all the people, and that was upheld by state authority, foundwith the Baptists a means of making their protest heard and felt. 

In all directions the democratic spirit was being manifested, andconditions which had been upheld by the restrictive authority of Englandhad to give way. The people were now speaking, and not the ministers only. It was an age of individualism, and of the reassertion of the tendency thathad characterized New England from the first, but that had been held incheck by autocratic power. There was no outbreak, no rapid change, noiconoclastic overturning of old institutions and customs, but the peoplewere coming to their own, thinking for themselves. In reality, the peoplewere conservative, especially in New England; and they moved slowly, therewas little infidelity, and steadily were the old ideals maintained. Yet theindividualism would assert itself. Men held the old creeds in distinctlypersonal ways, and the churches grew into more and more of independency. 

The theological development of the eighteenth century took two directions:that of rationalism and a demand for free inquiry, as represented byJonathan Mayhew and William Bentley; and that of a philanthropic protestagainst the harsh features of Calvinism, as represented by Charles Chauncyand the Universalists. The demand that all theological problems should besubmitted to reason for vindication or readjustment was not widely urged;but a few men recognized the worth of this claim, and applied this methodwithout hesitation. A larger number followed them with hesitating steps, but with a growing confidence in reason as God's method for man's findingand maintaining the truth. The other tendency grew out of a benevolentdesire to justify the ways of God to man, and was the expression of adeepening faith that the Divine Being deals with his children in a fatherlymanner. That God is generous and loving was the faith of Dr. Chauncy, as itwas of the Universalists and of the more liberal party among theCalvinists. Their philanthropic feelings toward their fellow-men seemed tothem representative of God's ways of dealing with his creatures. 

[1] Levi L. Paine, A Critical History of the Evolution of Trinitarianism, 105. "Nathaniel Emmons held tenaciously to three real persons. He said, 'It is as easy to conceive of God existing in three persons as in one person. ' This language shows that Emmons employed the term 'person' in the strict literal sense. The three are absolutely equal, this involving the metaphysical assumption that in the Trinity being and person are not coincident. Emmons is the first theologian who asserts that, though we cannot conceive that three persons should be one person, we may conceive that three persons may be one Being, 'if we only suppose that being may signify something different from person in respect to Deity. '"

[2] E. H. Gillett, History and Literature of the Unitarian Controversy. Historical Magazine, April 1871; second series, IX. 222. 

[3] Letter to Scripturista by Paulinus, 18. 

[4] William S. Pattee, A History of Old Braintree and Quincy, 222. When a copy of Dr. Jedediah Morse's little book on American Unitarianism was sent to John Adams, he acknowledged its receipt in the following letter:--

 QUINCY, May 15, 1815. 

 _Dear Doctor_, --I thank you for your favor of the 10th, and the pamphlet enclosed, entitled American Unitarianism. I have turned over its leaves, and found nothing that was not familiarly known to me. In the preface Unitarianism is represented as only thirty years old in New England. I can testify as a witness to its old age. Sixty-five years ago my own minister, the Rev. Lemuel Briant; Dr. Jonathan Mayhew, of the West Church in Boston; the Rev. Mr. Shute, of Hingham; the Rev. John Brown, of Cohasset; and perhaps equal to all, if not above all, the, Rev. Mr. Gay, of Hingham, were Unitarians. Among the laity how many could I name, lawyers, physicians, tradesmen, farmers! But at present I will name only one, Richard Cranch, a man who had studied divinity, and Jewish and Christian antiquities, more than any clergyman now existing in New England. 

 JOHN ADAMS. 

 Also see C. F. Adams, Three Episodes of Massachusetts History, 643; and J. H. Allen, An Historical Sketch of the Unitarian Movement since the Reformation, 175. 

[5] History of Hingham, I. , Part II. , 24, Memoir of Ebenezer Gay, by Solomon Lincoln. 

[6] Sermons, 1755, 83. 

[7] Ibid. , 103. 

[8] Ibid. , 119. 

[9] Ibid. , 125. 

[10] Ibid. , 245. 

[11] Sermons, 1755, 50. 

[12] Ibid. , 82. 

[13] Sermons, 1755, 83. 

[14] Ibid. , 65. 

[15] Ibid. , 62. 

[16] Ibid. , 63. 

[17] Ibid, 268, 269. 

[18] Sermons, 1755, 275, 276. 

[19] A. Bradford, Memoir of the Life and Writings of Rev. Jonathan Mayhew, D. D. , 36. 

[20] Ibid. , 464. 

[21] Letter from his daughter, quoted by Bartol, The West Church and its Ministers, 129. 

[22] Sermons, 293

[23] C. A. Bartol, The West Church and its Ministers. 

[24] Reply to Dr. Chandler, quoted in Sprague's Annals of the Unitarian Pulpit, 9. 

[25] Remarks upon a Sermon of the Bishop of Landaff, quoted by Sprague. 

[26] Chauncy's many published sermons and volumes are carefully enumerated by Paul Leicester Ford in his Bibliotheca Chaunciana, a List of the Writings of Charles Chauncy. He gives the titles of sixty-one books and pamphlets published by Chauncy, and of eighty-eight about him or in reply to him. 

[27] Sprague's Annals, 49; W. J. Potter, History of the First Congregational Society, New Bedford. 

[28] Sprague's Annals. 42. 

[29] George Batchelor, Social Equilibrium, 263, 264. 

[30] Ibid. , 265. 

[31] Sprague's Annals, 131. 

[32] Father of the essayist of the same name. 

[33] Joseph Priestley, 1733-1804, was one of the ablest of English Unitarians. Educated in non-conformist schools, in 1755 he became a Presbyterian minister. In 1761 he became a tutor in a non-conformist academy, and in 1767 he was settled over a congregation in Leeds. He was the librarian of Lord Shelburne from 1774 until he was settled in Birmingham as minister, in 1780. In 1791 a mob destroyed his house, his manuscripts, and his scientific apparatus, because of his liberal political views. After three years as a preacher in Hackney, he removed to the United States in 1794, and settled at Northumberland in Pennsylvania, where the remainder of his life was spent. He published one hundred and thirty distinct works, of which those best remembered are his Institutes of Natural and Revealed Religion, A History of the Corruptions of Christianity, and A General History of the Christian Church to the Fall of the Western Empire. He was the discoverer of oxygen, and holds a high place in the history of science. He was a materialist, but believed in immortality; and he believed that Christ was a man in his nature. 

[34] C. S. Osgood and H. M. Batchelder, Historical Sketch of Salem, 86. "He took strong Arminian grounds; and under his lead the church became practically Unitarian in 1785, and was one of the first churches in America to adopt that faith. "

[35] George Batchelor, Social Equilibrium, 270. 

[36] Ibid. , 267. 

[37] Ibid. , 283. 

[38] E. Smalley, The Worcester Pulpit, 226, 232. 

[39] See the Unitarian Advocate and Religious Miscellany, January, 1831, new series, III. 27, for Aaron Bancroft's recollections of this period. In the same volume was published Ezra Ripley's reminiscences, contained in the March, April, and May numbers. They are both of much importance for the history of this period. Also the third volume of first series, June, 1829, gives an important letter from Francis Parkman concerning Unitarianism in Boston in 1812. 

[40] Life of Ashbel Green, President of Princeton College, 236. 

[41] Life of Archibald Alexander, 252. 

[42] Convention Sermon, 12, 13. 

[43] Sprague, Annals of Unitarian Pulpit, 131. 

[44] Ibid. , 159. 

[45] This is the statement of his daughter. 

[46] Theophilus Lindsey, 1723-1808, was a curate in London, then the tutor of the Duke of Northumberland, and afterward a rector in Yorkshire and Dorsetshire. In 1763 he was settled at Catterick, in Yorkshire, where his study of the Bible led him to doubt the truth of the doctrine of the Trinity. In 1771 he joined with others in a petition to Parliament asking that clergymen might not be required to subscribe to the thirty-nine articles. When it was rejected a second time he resigned, went to London, and opened in a room in Essex Street, April 1774, the first permanent Unitarian meeting in England. A chapel was built for him in 1778, and he preached there until 1793. He published, in 1783, An Historical View of the State of the Unitarian Doctrine and Worship from the Reformation to our own Times, two volumes of sermons, and other works. In 1774 he published a revised Prayer Book according to the plan suggested by Dr. Samuel Clarke, which was used in the Essex Street Chapel. 

[47] Four Generations of a Literary Family: The Hazlitts in England, Ireland, and America, 23, 26, 30, 40, 43, 50; Lamb and Hazlitt: Further Letters and Records, 11-15. 

[48] Monthly Repository, III. , 305. Mr. Hazlitt "arrived at Boston May 15, 1784; and, having a letter to Mr. Eliot, who received him with great kindness, he was introduced on that very day to the Boston Association of Ministers. The venerable Chauncy, at whose house it happened to be held, entered into a familiar conversation with him, and showed him every possible respect as he learned that he had been acquainted with Dr. Price. Without knowing at the time anything of the occasion which led to it, ordination happened to be the general subject of discussion. After the different gentlemen had severally delivered their opinions, the stranger was requested to declare his sentiments, who unhesitatingly replied that the people or the congregation who chose any man to be their minister were his proper ordainers. Mr. Freeman, upon hearing this, jumped from his seat in a kind of transport, saying, 'I wish you could prove that, Sir, ' The gentleman answered that 'few things could admit of an easier proof. ' And from that moment a thorough intimacy commenced between him and Mr. Freeman. Soon after, the Boston prints being under no _imprimatur_, he published several letters in supporting the cause of Mr. Freeman. At the solicitation of Mr. Freeman he also published a Scriptural Confutation of the Thirty-nine Articles. Notice being circulated that this publication would appear on a particular day, the printer, apprised of this circumstance, threw off a hundred papers beyond his usual number, and had not one paper remaining upon his hands at noon. This publication in its consequences converted Mr. Freeman's congregation into a Unitarian church, which, as Mr. Freeman acknowledged, could never have been done without the labors of this gentleman. "

[49] American Unitarianism, from Belsham's Life of Lindsey, 12, _note_. 

[50] American Unitarianism, 16. 

[51] American Unitarianism, note. 

[52] Ibid. , 20. 

[53] American Unitarianism, 17. 

[54] "Oxnard was a merchant, born in Boston in 1740, but settled in Portland, where he married the daughter of General Preble, in 1787. He was a loyalist, and fled from the country at the outbreak of the war. He returned to Portland in 1787. A few years later, 1792, the Episcopal church being destitute of a minister, he was engaged as lay reader, with the intention of taking orders. His Unitarianism put a sudden end to his Episcopacy, but not to his preaching. He gathered a small congregation in the school-house, and preached sometimes sermons of his own, but more often of other men. He died in 1799. " John C. Perkins, How the First Parish became Unitarian, --historical sermon preached in Portland. 

[55] American Unitarianism, 18. 

[56] Ibid. , 17, 20. 

[57] American Unitarianism, 24. 

[58] American Unitarianism, 22. 

[59] Church Records, in MS. , II. 7. 

[60] Rev. Thomas Robbins, Diary for October 13, 1799, I. 97, heard Mr. Kendall, and said: "He appears to be an Arminian in full. I fear be will lead many souls astray. " See John Cuckson, A Brief History of the First Church in Plymouth, eighth chapter. 

[61] Chauncy against Chandler, 152. 

[62] These particulars are taken from the Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts held in the year 1788, and which finally ratified the Constitution of the United States, Boston, 1856. 

V. 

THE PERIOD OF CONTROVERSY. 

In the spring of 1805 Rev. Henry Ware, who had been for nearly twenty yearspastor of the first church in the town of Hingham, was inaugurated as theHollis Professor of Divinity at Harvard College. The place had been madevacant by the death of Professor David Tappan, who was a moderateCalvinist; that is, one who recognized the sovereignty of God, but allowedto man a limited opportunity for personal effort in the process ofsalvation. It was assumed by the conservative party that a Calvinist wouldbe appointed, because the founder of this important professorship, it wasclaimed, was of that way of thinking, and so conditioned his gift as torequire that no one but a Calvinist should hold the position. This wasstrenuously denied by the liberals, who maintained that Hollis was not onlyliberal and catholic in his own theology, but that he made no suchrestrictions as were claimed. [1] When the nomination of Mr. Ware waspresented to the overseers, it was strongly opposed; but he was elected bya considerable majority. A pamphlet soon appeared in opposition to him, andthis was the beginning of a controversy that lasted for a quarter of acentury. [2]

This war of pamphlets was made more furious by Rev. John Sherman's One Godin One Person Only, and Rev. Hosea Ballou's Treatise on the Atonement, bothof which appeared in 1805. Mr. Sherman's book was described in The MonthlyAnthology as "one of the first acts of direct hostility against theorthodox committed on these western shores. "[3] The little book by HoseaBallou had small influence on the current of religious thinking outside theUniversalist body, to which he belonged, and probably did not at all enterinto the controversy between the orthodox and the liberalCongregationalists. It was, however, the first positive statement of thedoctrine of the atonement in a rational form, not as expiatory, but asreconciling man to the loving authority of God. Within a decade it broughtthe leading Universalists to the Unitarian position. [4] These works werefollowed, in 1810, by Rev. Noah Worcester's Bible News of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, which presented clearly and forcibly an Arian view of theTrinity, or the subordination of Christ to God. These definitions of theirposition on the part of the liberals were met by the publication of ThePanoplist, which was begun by Dr. Jedidiah Morse, of Charlestown, Mass. , in1805. This magazine interpreted the orthodox positions, and devoted itselfzealously to the defence of the old ideas, as understood by its editors. Itwas not vehemently aggressive, but was largely devoted to general religiousinterests, and to the promotion of a higher spirit of devotion. It wasfollowed by The Spirit of the Pilgrims, which was more combative, and insome degree intolerant. In the year 1808 the Andover Theological School wasfounded, the result of a reconciliation between the Hopkinsians and theCalvinists of the old type, affording an opportunity for theologicaltraining on the part of those who could not accept the liberal attitude ofHarvard. 

Most of the liberal men of this time refused to bring their beliefs to thetest of exact definition. It was their opinion that no theologicalstatement can have high value in relation to Christian attainments. Underthese conditions were trained the men who became the leaders in the earlyUnitarian movement. William Ellery Channing, who was settled over theFederal Street Church in June, 1803, was distinctly evangelical, and of aprofound and earnest piety. Slowly he grew to accept the liberal attitude, as the result of his love of freedom, his lofty spirituality of nature, andhis tolerant and generous cast of mind. He gave spiritual and intellectualdirection to the new movement, guided its philanthropic efforts, andbrought to noble issue its spiritual philosophy. Early in the year 1804, Joseph Stevens Buckminster was settled over the Brattle Street Church; and, though he preached but a little over six years before a blighting diseasetook him away, yet he left behind a tradition of great pulpit gifts and awonderfully attractive personality. Another to die in early manhood wasSamuel Cooper Thacher, who was settled at the New South in 1811, and whowas long remembered for his scholarship and his zeal in the work which hehad undertaken. Charles Lowell went to the West Church in 1806, and henobly sustained the traditions for liberality and spiritual freedom thathad gathered about that place of worship. In 1814 appeared Edward Everett, at the age of twenty (which had been that of Buckminster when he enteredthe pulpit), as the minister of the Brattle Street Church, to charm withhis eloquence, learning, grace, and power. Francis Parkman began his careerat the New North in 1812, --"a man of various information, a kind spirit, singular benevolence, polished yet simple manners, fine literarytaste. "[5] A few years later John Gorham Palfrey became the minister ofthe Brattle Street Church, and James Walker was settled over the HarvardChurch in Charlestown. Among the laymen in the churches to which these menpreached were many persons of distinction. The liberal fellowship, therefore, was of the highest social and intellectual standing. The pietyof the churches was serious, if not profound; and the religion presentedwas simple, sincere, intellectual, and earnestly spiritual. 

[Sidenote: The Monthly Anthology. ]

The practical and tolerant aims of the liberals were shown by the manner inwhich they began to give expression publicly to their position. In TheMonthly Anthology they first found voice, although that publication wasstarted without the slightest controversial purpose. Begun by a young manas a monthly literary journal in 1803, when he found it would not supporthim, he abandoned it;[6] and the publishers asked Rev. William Emerson, the minister of the First Church in Boston, to take charge of it. Heconsented to do so, and gathered about him a company of friends to aid himin its management. Their meetings finally grew into The Anthology Club, which continued the publication through ten volumes. Among the members wereWilliam Emerson, Samuel Cooper Thacher, Joseph S. Buckminster, and JosephTuckerman, pastors of churches in Boston and vicinity of the liberalschool. There was also John S. J. Gardiner, the rector of Trinity Church, who was the president of the club throughout the whole period of itsexistence, and one of the most frequent contributors to the periodical. Themembers were not drawn together by any sectarian spirit, but by a commonaim of doing something for literature, and for the advancement of culture. The Monthly Anthology was the first distinctly literary journal publishedin this country. It had an important influence in developing theintellectual tastes of New England, and of giving initiative to itsliterary capacities. The spirit of The Monthly Anthology was broad andcatholic. Naturally, therefore, in its pages the liberals made their firstprotest against party aims and methods. In a few instances theologicalproblems were discussed, the extreme Trinitarian doctrines were criticised, and the liberal attitude was defended. 

[Sidenote: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, Piety, and Charity. ]

In the year 1806 Rev. William Emerson began the publication of TheChristian Monitor, in his capacity as the secretary of the Society forpromoting Christian Knowledge, Piety, and Charity, a society then newlyfounded by residents of Boston and its vicinity for the purpose ofpublishing enlightened and practical tracts and books. This series of smallbooks, each containing one hundred and fifty or two hundred pages, andissued quarterly, was begun for the purpose of publishing devotional worksof a practical and liberal type. The first number contained prayers anddevotional exercises for personal or family use, and there followed BishopNewcombe's Life and Character of Christ, a condensed reproduction of Law'sSerious Call, Bishop Hall's Contemplations, Erskine's Letters to theBereaved, and two or three volumes of sermons on religious duties and theeducation of children. 

Besides The Christian Monitor this society issued a series of ReligiousTracts which had a considerable circulation. Then it undertook thepublication of books for children, and for family reading. In aiming topublish works of pure morality and practical piety, its methods werethoroughly catholic and liberal; for it was unsectarian, and yet earnestlyChristian. The spirit and methods of this society were thoroughlycharacteristic of the time when it was organized, and of the men who gaveit life and purpose. Not dogma, but piety, was what they desired. In thetruest sense they were unsectarian Christians, zealous for good works and adevout life. [7]

[Sidenote: General Repository. ]

The Monthly Anthology and The Christian Monitor represented the mild andundogmatic attitude of the liberals, their shrinking from all controversy, and their desire to devote their labors wholly to the promotion of atolerant and catholic Christianity. The beginning of the controversialspirit on the liberal side found expression in The General Repository andReview, which was begun in Cambridge by Rev. Andrews Norton, in April, 1812. In the first number of this quarterly review the editor said that thediscussion of the doctrine of the Trinity "in our own country has hithertobeen chiefly confined to private circles, " and cited the books of JohnSherman and Noah Worcester as the only exceptions. The review opened, however, with a defence of liberal Christianity which was aggressive andoutspoken. In later issues an energetic statement was made of the liberalposition, the controversial articles were able and explicit, and in amanner hitherto quite unknown on the part of what the editor called"catholic Christians. " One of the numbers contained a long and interestingsurvey of the religious interests of the country, and summed up in anadmirable manner the prospects for the liberal churches. After thepublication of the sixth number, Mr. Norton withdrew from the work tobecome the librarian of Harvard College; and it was continued through twomore issues by "a society of gentlemen. " To this journal Mr. Norton was byfar the largest contributor; but other writers were Edward Everett, and hisbrother, Alexander H. Everett, Joseph S. Buckminster, John T. Kirkland, Sidney Willard, George Ticknor, Washington Allston, John Lowell, NoahWorcester, and James Freeman, most of them connected with Harvard Collegeor with the liberal churches in Boston. It is evident, however, that theliberal public was not yet ready for so aggressive and out-spoken ajournal. 

[Sidenote: The Christian Disciple. ]

What was desired was something milder, less aggressive, of a distinctlyreligious and conciliatory character. To this end Drs. Channing, CharlesLowell, and Tuckerman, and Rev. S. C. Thatcher, with whom was afterwardsassociated Rev. Francis Parkman, planned a monthly magazine that should beliberal in its character, but not sectarian or dogmatic. They invited Rev. Noah Worcester, whose Bible News had cost him his pulpit, to remove fromNew Hampshire to Boston to become its editor. Although Mr. Worcester'sbeliefs affiliated him with the Hopkinsians in everything except hisattitude in regard to the inferiority of Christ to God, yet he wascompelled to withdraw from his old connections, and to find new fields ofactivity. He began The Christian Disciple as a religious and familymagazine, the first number being issued in May, 1813. It was not designedfor theological discussion or distinctly for the defence of the liberalposition. Its tone was conciliatory and moderate, while it zealouslydefended religious liberty and charity. Its aim was practical andhumanitarian, to help men live the Christian life, as individuals, and intheir social relations. When it touched upon controverted questions, it wasin an expository manner, with the purpose of instructing its readers, andof leading them to a higher appreciation of true religion. As hisbiographer well said of Noah Worcester, he made this work "distinguishedfor its unqualified devotedness to the individual rights of opinion, andthe sacred duty of a liberal regard to them in other men. "[8]

Dr. Worcester was not so much a theologian as a philanthropist; and, if hewas drawn into controversy, it was accidentally, and much to his surpriseand disappointment. It was not for the sake of defending his own positionsthat he replied to his critics, but in the name of truth, and from anexacting sense of duty. His gentle, loving, and sympathetic nature unfittedhim for intellectual contentions; and he much preferred to devote himselfto philanthropies and reforms. In the briefest way The Christian Disciplereported the doings of the liberal churches and men, but it gave much spaceto all kinds of organizations of a humanitarian character. It advocated thetemperance reform with earnestness, and this at a time when there were fewother voices speaking in its behalf. It devoted many pages to thecondemnation of slavery, and to the approval of all efforts to secure itsmitigation or its abolition. It gave large attention to the evils of war, asubject which more and more absorbed the interest of the editor. Itcondemned duelling in the most emphatic terms, as it did all forms ofaggressiveness and inhumanity. In spirit Dr. Worcester was as much anon-resistant as Tolstoď, and for much the same reasons. More extendedreports of Bible societies were given than of any other kind oforganization, and these societies especially enlisted the interest of Dr. Worcester and his associates. 

With the end of 1818 Dr. Worcester withdrew from the editorship of TheChristian Disciple, to devote himself to the cause of peace, the interestsof Christian amity and goodwill, and the exposition of his own theologicalconvictions. The management of the magazine came into the hands of itsoriginal proprietors, who continued its publication. 

Under the new management the circulation of the magazine increased. Atfirst the younger Henry Ware became the editor, and he carried the workthrough the six volumes published before it took a new name. It became moredistinctly theological in its purpose, and it undertook the task ofpresenting and defending the views of the liberals. In 1824 The ChristianDisciple passed into the hands of Rev. John Gorham Palfrey, and he changedits name to The Christian Examiner without changing its general character. At the end of two years Mr. Francis Jenks became the editor, but in 1831 itcame under the control of Rev. James Walker and Rev. Francis W. P. Greenwood. Gradually it became the organ of the higher intellectual life ofthe Unitarians, and gave expression to their interest in literature, general culture, and the philanthropies, as well as theological knowledge. The sub-title of Theological Review, which it bore during the first fivevolumes, indicated its preference for subjects of speculative religiousinterest; but during the half-century of its best influence it was theGeneral Review or the Religious Miscellany, showing that it was theologicalonly in the broadest spirit. 

[Sidenote: Dr. Morse and American Unitarianism. ]

Reluctant as the liberal men were, to take a denominational position, andto commit themselves to the interests of a party in religion, or even towithdraw themselves in any way from the churches with which they had beenconnected, they were compelled to do so by the force of conditions theycould not control. One of the first distinct lines of separation was causedby the refusal of the more conservative men to exchange pulpits with theirliberal neighbors. This tendency first began to show itself about the year1810; and it received a decided impetus from the attitude taken by Rev. John Codman, who in 1808 became the minister of the Second Church inDorchester. He refused to exchange with several of the liberal ministers ofthe Boston Association, although he was an intimate friend of Dr. Channing, who had directed his theological training, and also preached his ordinationsermon. The more liberal members of his parish attempted to compel him toexchange with the Boston ministers without regard to theological beliefs;and a long contention followed, with the result that the more liberal partof his congregation withdrew in 1813, and formed the Third ReligiousSociety in Dorchester. [9] The withdrawal of ministerial courtesies ofthis kind gradually increased, especially after the controversies thatbegan in 1815, though it was not until many years later that exchangesbetween the two parties ceased. 

In 1815 Dr. Jedidiah Morse, the editor of The Panoplist, and the author ofvarious school books in geography and history, published in a little bookof about one hundred pages, which bore the title of American Unitarianism, a chapter from Thomas Belsham's[10] biography of Theophilus Lindsey, inwhich Dr. Lindsey's American correspondents, including prominent ministersin Boston and other parts of New England, had declared their Unitarianism. Morse also published an article in The Panoplist, setting forth that theseministers had not the courage of their convictions, that, while they wereUnitarians, they had withheld their opinions from open utterance. Hisobject was to force them to declare themselves, and either to retract theirheresies or else to state them and to withdraw from the churches with whichthey had been connected. In a letter addressed to Rev. Samuel C. Thacher, Dr. Channing gave to the public a reply to these charges of insincerity andwant of open-mindedness. He said that, while many of the ministers andmembers of their congregations were Unitarians, they did not accept Dr. Belsham's type of Unitarianism, which made Christ a man. He declared thatno open declaration of Unitarianism had been made, because they were not inlove with the sectarian spirit, and because they were quite unwilling toindulge in any form of proselyting. "Accustomed as we are, " he wrote, "tosee genuine piety in all classes of Christians, in Trinitarians andUnitarians, in Calvinists and Arminians, in Episcopalians, Methodists, Baptists, and Congregationalists, and delighting in this character whereverit appears, we are little anxious to bring men over to our peculiaropinions. "[11]

The publication of Dr. Morse's book, however, gave new emphasis to thespirit of separation which was soon to compel the formation of a newdenomination. It was followed four years later by Dr. Channing's Baltimoresermon and by other positive declarations of theological opinion. [12] Fromthat time the controversy raged fiercely, and any possibility ofreconciliation was removed. Before this time those who were not orthodoxhad called themselves Catholic, Christians or Liberal Christians todesignate their attitude of toleration and liberality. The orthodox hadcalled them Unitarians; and especially was this attempted by Dr. Morse inthe introduction to his American Unitarianism, in order to fasten upon themthe objectionable name given to the English liberals. It was assumed thatthe American liberals must agree with the English in their materialism andin their conception of Christ as a man. Dr. Channing repudiated thisassumption, and declared it unjust and untrue; but he accepted the wordUnitarian and gave it a meaning of his own. Channing defined the word tomean only anti-Trinitarianism; and he accepted it because it seemed to himpresumptuous to use the word liberal as applied to a party, whereas it maybe applicable to men of all opinions. 

[Sidenote: Evangelical Missionary Society. ]

Of more interest than these contentions in behalf of theological opinionsis the way in which the liberal party brought itself to the task ofmanifesting its own purposes. Its first organizations were tentative andinclusive, without theological purpose or bias. No distinct lines weredrawn, and to them belonged orthodox and liberal alike. Their soledistinguishing attitude was a catholicity of temper that permitted the freeactivity of the liberals. One of the first organizations of this kind wasthe Evangelical Missionary Society, which was formed by several of theministers resident in Worcester and Middlesex Counties. The first meetingwas held in Lancaster, November 4, 1807, when a constitution was adoptedand the society elected officers. "The great object of this Society, " saidthe constitution, "is to furnish the means of Christian knowledge and moralimprovement to those inhabitants of our own country who are destitute orpoorly provided. " The growth of the country, even in New England (for theoperations of the society were confined to that region), developed manycommunities in which the population was scattered, and without adequatemeans of education and religion. To aid these communities in securing goodteachers and ministers was the purpose of the society. It refused to sendforth itinerants, but carefully selected such towns as gave promise ofpermanent growth, and sent to them ministers instructed to organizechurches and to promote the building of meeting-houses. In this way it wasthe means of establishing a number of churches in Maine, New Hampshire, andMassachusetts. It also sent a number of teachers into new settlements inMaine, who were successful in training many of their pupils for teaching inthe public schools. In several instances minister and teacher were combinedin one person, but the work was none the less effective. 

In 1816 this society was incorporated, its membership was broadened toinclude the state, and active aid and financial support were given it bythe churches in Boston and Salem. It was not sectarian, though, after itsincorporation, its membership was more largely recruited from liberals. Intime it became distinctly Unitarian in its character, and such it hasremained to the present day. Very slowly, however, did it permit itself tolose any of its marks of catholicity and inclusiveness. In the end itsmembership was confined to Unitarians because no one else wished to sharein its unsectarian purposes. At the present time this society does a quietand helpful work in the way of aiding churches that have ceased to beself-supporting because of the shifting conditions of population, and inaffording friendly assistance to ministers in times of distress or when oldage has come upon them. 

[Sidenote: The Berry Street Conference. ]

The first meeting of the liberal ministers for organization was held in thevestry of the Federal Street Church[13] on the evening of May 30, 1820, which immediately preceded election day, the time when anniversary meetingswere usually held. The ministers of the state then gathered in Boston tohear the election sermon, and for such counselling of each other as theircongregational methods made desirable. At this meeting Dr. Channing gave anaddress stating the objects that had brought those present together, andthe desirability of their drawing near each other as liberal men for mutualaid and support. "It was thought by some of us, " he said, "that theministers of this commonwealth who are known to agree in what are calledliberal and catholic views of Christianity needed a bond of union, a meansof intercourse, and an opportunity of conference not as yet enjoyed. It wasthought that by meeting to join their prayers and counsels, to report thestate and prospects of religion in different parts of the commonwealth, tocommunicate the methods of advancing it which have been found mostsuccessful, to give warning of dangers not generally apprehended, to seekadvice in difficulties, and to take a broad survey of our ecclesiasticalaffairs and of the wants of our churches, much light, strength, comfort, animation, zeal, would be spread through our body. The individuals whooriginated this plan were agreed that, whilst the meeting should beconfined to those who harmonize generally in opinion, it should beconsidered as having for its object, not simply the advancement of theirpeculiar views, but the general diffusion of practical religion and of thespirit of Christianity. "

As this address indicates in every word of it the liberal men weresensitively anxious to put no fetters on each other; and their reluctanceto circumscribe their own personal freedom was extreme. This was the causethat had thus far prevented any effectual organization, and it now withheldthe members from any but the most tentative methods. Having escaped fromthe bondage of sect, they were suspicious of everything that in any mannergave indication of denominational restrictions. 

[Sidenote: The Publishing Fund Society. ]

In May, 1821, a year later than the foundation of the Berry StreetConference, several gentlemen in Boston, "desirous of promoting thecirculation of works adapted to improve the public mind in religion andmorality, " met and established a Publishing Fund. The publishing committeethen appointed consisted of Dr. Joseph Tuckerman, Dr. John Gorham Palfrey, and Mr. George Ticknor. The Publishing Fund Society refused to printdoctrinal tracts or those devoted in any way to sectarian interests. Themembers of the society made declaration that their publications had nothingto do with any of the isms in religion. Their great object was the increaseof practical goodness, the improvement of men in all that truly exalts andennobles them or that qualifies them for usefulness and happiness. Most oftheir tracts were in the form of stories of a didactic character, in whichthe writers assumed the broad principles of Christian theology and ethicswhich are common to all the followers of Christ, without meddling withsectarian prejudice or party views. In such statements as these thepromoters of this work indicated their methods, their aim being to furnishgood reading to youth, and to those in scattered communities who could nothave access to books that were instructive. Besides the tracts of this kindthe society also published a series for adults, which were of a morestrictly devotional character, and yet did not omit to provideentertainment and instruction. [14] This society continued its work formany years, and it issued a considerable number of tracts and books thatwell served the purpose for which they were designed. 

[Sidenote: Harvard Divinity School. ]

One important result of the theological discussions of the time was theorganization of the Divinity School in connection with Harvard College. Theeighteenth-century method of preparation for the ministerial office was tostudy with some settled pastor, who directed the reading of the student, gave him practical acquaintance with the labors of a pastor, and initiatedhim into the profession by securing for him the "approbation" of theministerial association with which he was connected. Another method was forthe student to continue his residence in Cambridge, and follow histheological studies under the guidance of the president and the Hollisprofessor, making use of the library of the college. When Rev. Henry Warewas inducted into the Hollis professorship, it was seen that some moresystematic method of theological study was desirable. He gradually enlargedthe scope of his activities, and in 1811 he began a systematic courser ofinstruction for the resident students in theology. Ware "was one of thosegenuine lovers of reform and progress, " as John Gorham Palfrey said, "whoare always ready for any innovation for the better; who, in the pursuit ofwhat is truly good and useful, are not only content to move on with theage, but desirous to move on before it. "[15] This effort of his to improvethe methods of theological study proved to be the germ of the existingDivinity School. 

The Hollis professorship of divinity was founded by Thomas Hollis, ofLondon, in 1721. Samuel Dexter, of Boston, established a lectureship ofBiblical criticism in 1811. Both the professorship and the lectureship weredesigned for the undergraduates, and not primarily for students intheology. In 1815, however, it became apparent to some of the liberals thata school wholly devoted to the preparation of young men for the ministrywas needed. 

Those who subscribed to the $30, 000 secured for this purpose were in 1816formed into the Society for the Promotion of Theological Education inHarvard University. This society rendered efficient aid to the school forseveral years. At a meeting held at the Boston Athenaeum, July 17, 1816, Rev. John T. Kirkland became its president, Rev. Francis Parkman, recordingsecretary, Rev. Charles Lowell, corresponding secretary, and JonathanPhillips, treasurer. The society was supported by annual subscriptions, life subscriptions, and donations. The school began its work in 1816, withRev. Andrews Norton as the Dexter lecturer on Biblical criticism, Rev. J. T. Kirkland as instructor in systematic theology, Rev. Edward Everett in thecriticism of the Septaugint, Professor Sidney Willard in Hebrew, andProfessor Levi Frisbie in ethics. In 1819 Mr. Norton was advanced to aprofessorship, and thereafter devoted his whole time to the school; andduring that year the school was divided into three classes. In 1824 theSociety for the Promotion of Theological Education took the generaldirection of the school, arranging the course of study and otherwiseassuming a supervision, which continued until 1831, when the schoolreceived a place as one of the departments of the University. In 1826 abuilding was erected for the school by the society, which has borne thename of Divinity Hall. In 1828 a professorship of pulpit eloquence andpastoral care was established by the society, and in 1830 the younger HenryWare entered upon its duties. [16] He was succeeded in 1842 by Rev. ConversFrancis. In 1830 Rev. John Gorham Palfrey became the professor of Biblicalliterature, and soon after the instructor in Hebrew. Rev. George RapallNoyes, in 1840, took the Hancock professorship of Hebrew and the Dexterlectureship in Biblical criticism. 

Though organized and conducted by the Unitarians, the Divinity School wasfrom the first unsectarian in its purpose and methods; for the Society forthe Promotion of Theological Education, on its organization, put into itsconstitution this fundamental law: "It being understood that everyencouragement be given to the serious, impartial and unbiassedinvestigation of Christian truth, and that no assent to the peculiaritiesof any denomination, be required either of the students or professors orinstructors. "

[Sidenote: The Unitarian Miscellany. ]

The first outspoken periodical on the liberal side that aimed at beingdistinctly denominational was published in Baltimore. Dr. Freeman preachedin that city in 1816, with the result that during the following year achurch was organized there. It was there in 1819, on the occasion of theordination of Rev. Jared Sparks as the first minister of this church, thatDr. Channing gave utterance to the first great declaration of the Unitarianposition, in a sermon that has never been surpassed in this country as anintellectual interpretation of the highest spiritual problems. 

In January, 1821, Rev. Jared Sparks began the publication in Baltimore ofThe Unitarian Miscellany and Christian Monitor; and for three years he wasits editor. For another three years it was conducted by his successor inthe Baltimore pulpit, Rev. Francis W. P. Greenwood, who continued it untilhe became the minister of King's Chapel, when it ceased to exist. Duringthe six years of its publication this magazine was ably edited. It wascontroversial in a liberal spirit, it was positively denominational, and ithad a large and widely extended circulation. It reported all prominentUnitarian events, and those of a liberal tendency in all religious bodies. Attacks on Unitarianism were repelled, and the Unitarian position wasexplained and vindicated. Mr. Sparks was as aggressive as Andrews Nortonhad been, and was by no means willing to keep to the quiet and reticentmanner of the Unitarians of Boston. When he was attacked, he replied withenergy and skill; and he carried the war into the enemies' camp. Hismagazine was far more positive than anything the liberals had hitherto putforth, and its methods were viewed with something of suspicion in theconservative circles of Massachusetts. He published a series of letters onthe Episcopal Church in The Unitarian Miscellany, which he enlarged and putinto a book. [17] Another series of letters was on the comparative moraltendencies of Trinitarian and Unitarian doctrines, and these grew into avolume. [18] Both were in reply to attacks made upon him, and both wereregarded with suspicion and doubt by the men about Cambridge; but, in time, they came to see that his method was sincere, learned, and honest. 

In The Unitarian Miscellany, as in all their utterances of this time, theUnitarians manifested much anxiety to maintain their position as the trueexpounders of primitive Christianity. They did not covet a place outsidethe larger fellowship of the Christian faith. A favorite method ofvindicating their right to Christian recognition was by the publication ofthe works of liberal orthodox writers of previous generations. Such anattempt was made by Jared Sparks in his Collection of Essays and Tracts inTheology, with Biographical and Critical Notices, issued in Boston from1823 to 1826. In the general preface to these six volumes, Mr. Sparks saidthat "the only undeviating rule of selection will be that every articlechosen shall be marked with rational and liberal views of Christianity, andsuited to inform the mind or improve the temper and practice, " and that theseries was "designed to promote the cause of sacred learning, of truth andcharity, of religious freedom and rational piety. " In the first volume wereincluded Turretin's essay on the fundamentals of religious truth, a numberof short essays by Firmin Abauzit, Francis Blackburne's discussion of thevalue of confessions of faith, and several essays by Bishop Hoadley. Thatthese writings have now no significance, even to intelligent readers, doesnot detract from the value of their publication; for they had a livingmeaning and power. Other writers, drawn upon in the succeeding volumes wereIsaac Newton, Jeremy Taylor, John Locke, Isaac Watts, William Penn, andMrs. Barbauld. The catholicity of the editor was shown in the wide range ofhis authors, whose doctrinal connections covered the whole field ofChristian theology. 

In the publication of The Unitarian Miscellany, Mr. Sparks had the businessaid of the Baltimore Unitarian Book Society, formed November 19, 1820, which was organized to carry on this work, and to disseminate other liberalbooks and tracts. This society distributed Bibles, "and such other books ascontain rational and consistent views of Christian doctrines, and arecalculated to promote a correct faith, sincere piety, and a holy practice. "In the year 1821 was formed the Unitarian Library and Tract Society of NewYork; and similar societies were started in Philadelphia and Charlestonsoon after, as well as in other cities. Some of these societies publishedbooks, tracts, and periodicals, all of them distributed Unitarianpublications, and libraries were formed of liberal works. The mostsuccessful of these societies, which soon numbered a score or two, was thatin Baltimore. This society extended its missionary operations with theprinted page widely, sending tracts into every part of the country, thedemand for them having become very large. Its periodical had an extendedcirculation, its cheapness, its popular character, and its outspokenattitude on doctrinal questions serving to make it the most successful ofthe liberal publications of the time. [19]

[Sidenote: The Christian Register. ]

On April 20, 1821, was issued the first number of The Christian Register, the regular weekly publication of which began with August 24 of that year. Its four pages contained four columns each, but the third of these pageswas given to secular news and advertisements. The first page was devoted togeneral religious subjects, the second discussed those topics which were ofspecial interest to Unitarians, while the fourth was given to literarymiscellanies. Almost nothing of church news was reported, and only in alimited way was the paper denominational. It was a general religiousnewspaper of a kind that was acceptable to the liberals, and it defendedand interpreted their cause when occasion demanded. The paper was startedwholly as an individual enterprise by its publisher, Rev. David Reed, whoacted for about five years as its editor. He had the encouragement of theleading Unitarians of Boston and its vicinity; and, when such men asChanning, Ware, and Norton wished to speak for the Unitarians, its columnswere open to them. Among the other early contributors were Kirkland, Story, Edward Everett, Walker, Dewey, Furness, Palfrey, Gannett, Noah Worcester, Greenwood, Bancroft, Sparks, Alexander Young, Freeman, Burnap, Pierpont, Noyes, Lowell, Frothingham, and Pierce. 

In his prospectus the publisher spoke of the growth of the spirit of freereligious inquiry in the country; and he said that in all classes of thecommunity there was an eagerness to understand theological questions, andto arrive at and practice the genuine principles of Christianity. His idealwas a periodical that should present the same doctrines and temper as TheChristian Disciple, but that would be of a more popular character. "Thegreat object of The Christian Register, " he said to his readers, "will beto inculcate the principles of a rational faith, and to promote thepractice of genuine piety. To accomplish this purpose it will aim to excitea spirit of free and independent religious inquiry, and to assist inascertaining and bringing into use the true principles of interpreting theScriptures. "

For a number of years The Christian Register conformed to "the mild andamiable spirit" in which it began its career, rarely being aroused to anaggressive attitude, and seldom undertaking to speak for Unitarianism as adistinct form of Christianity. When the liberals were fiercely attacked, itspoke out, as, for instance, at the time when the Unitarians were chargedwith stealing churches from the orthodox. [20] Otherwise it was mild andplacid enough, given to expressing its friendly interest in every kind ofreform, from the education of women to the emancipation of slaves, thoroughly humanitarian in its attitude, not doctrinal or controversial, but faithfully catholic and tolerant. It was a well-conducted periodical, represented a wide range of interests, and was admirably suited tointerpret the temper and spirit of a rational religion. It is now theoldest weekly religious newspaper published in this country. As the leadingUnitarian periodical, it is still conducted with notable enterprise andability. 

Another periodical also deserves mention in this connection, and that isthe North American Review, which was begun by William Tudor, one of themembers of The Anthology Club, in May, 1815. While it was not religious inits character, it was from the first, and for more than sixty years, editedby Unitarians; and its contributors were very largely from that religiousbody. The same tendencies and conditions that led the liberals to establishThe Monthly Anthology, The Christian Disciple, and The Christian Examiner, gave demand amongst them for a distinctly literary and critical journal. They had gained that form of liberated and catholic culture which made suchworks possible, and to a large extent they afforded the public necessary totheir support. Mr. Tudor was succeeded as the editor of the review byProfessor Edward T. Channing, and then followed in succession EdwardEverett, Jared Sparks, Alexander H. Everett, John Gorham Palfrey, FrancisBowen, and Andrew P. Peabody, all Unitarians. Among the early Unitariancontributors were Nathan Hale, Joseph Story, Nathaniel Bowditch, W. H. Prescott, William Cullen Bryant, and Theophilus Parsons. For many years fewof the regular contributors were from any other religious body, not becausethe editors put restrictions upon others, but because those who wereinterested in general literary, historical, and scientific subjectsbelonged almost exclusively to the churches of this faith. 

[Sidenote: Results of the Division in Congregationalism. ]

The controversy which began in 1805 continued for about twenty years. Thepamphlets and books it brought forth are almost forgotten, and they wouldhave little interest at the present time. They gradually widened the breachbetween the orthodox and the liberal Congregationalists. It would bedifficult to name a decisive date for their actual separation. Theorganization of the societies, and the establishment of the periodicalsalready mentioned, were successive steps to that result. The most importantevent was undoubtedly the formation of the American Unitarian Association, in 1825; but even that important movement on the part of the Unitarians didnot bring about a final separation. Individual churches and ministerscontinued to treat each other with the same courtesy and hospitality asbefore. 

That the breach was inevitable seems to be the verdict of history; and yetit is not difficult to see to-day how it might have been avoided. TheUnitarians were dealt with in such a manner that they could not continuethe old connection without great discomfort and loss of self-respect. Theywere forced to organize for self-protection, and yet they did soreluctantly and with much misgiving. They would have preferred to remain asmembers of the united Congregational body, but the theological temper ofthe time made this impossible. It would not be just to say that there wasactual persecution, but there could not be unity where there was notcommunity of thought and faith. 

When the division in the Congregational churches came, one hundred andtwenty-five churches allied themselves with the Unitarians, --one hundred inMassachusetts, a score in other parts of New England, and a half-dozen westof the Hudson River. These churches numbered among them, however, many ofthe oldest and the strongest, including about twenty of the firsttwenty-five organized in Massachusetts, and among them Plymouth (organizedin Scrooby), Salem, Dorchester, Boston, Watertown, Roxbury, Hingham, Concord, and Quincy. The ten Congregational churches in Boston, with theexception of the Old South, allied themselves with the Unitarians. Otherfirst churches to take this action were those of Portsmouth, Kennebunk, andPortland. 

Outside New England a beginning was made almost as soon as the Unitarianname came into recognition. At Charleston, S. C. , the Congregational church, which had been very liberal, was divided in 1816 as the result of thepreaching of Rev. Anthony Forster. He was led to read the works of Dr. Priestley, and became a Unitarian in consequence. Owing to ill-health, hewas soon obliged to resign; and Rev. Samuel Gilman was installed in 1819. Rev. Robert Little, an English Unitarian, took up his residence inWashington in 1819, and began to preach there; and a church was organizedin 1821. While chaplain of the House of Representatives, in 1821-22, JaredSparks preached to this society fortnightly, and in the House Chamber onthe alternate Sunday. When he went to Charleston, in 1819, to assist in theinstallation of Mr. Gilman, he preached to a very large congregation in thestate-house in Raleigh; and the next year he spoke to large congregationsin Virginia. [21] More than a decade earlier there were individualUnitarians in Kentucky. [22] On his journey to the ordination of JaredSparks, Dr. Channing preached in a New York parlor; and on his return heoccupied the lecture-hall of the Medical School. The result was the FirstCongregational Church (All Souls'), organized in 1819, which was followedby the Church of the Messiah in 1825. In fact, many of the more intelligentand thoughtful persons everywhere were inclined to accept a liberalinterpretation of Christianity. 

Although the Congregational body was divided into two distinctdenominations, there were three organizations, formed prior to that event, which have remained intact to this day. In these societies Orthodox andUnitarian continue to unite as Congregationalists, and the sectarian linesare not recognized. The first of these organizations is the MassachusettsCongregational Charitable Society, which was formed early in the eighteenthcentury for the purpose of securing "support to the widows and children ofdeceased congregational ministers. " The second is the MassachusettsConvention of Congregational Ministers, also formed early in the eighteenthcentury, although its records begin only with the year 1748. It was formedfor consultation, advice, and counsel, to aid orphans and widows ofministers, and to secure the general promotion of the interests ofreligion. The convention sermon has been one of the recognized institutionsof Massachusetts, and since the beginning of the Unitarian controversy ithas been preached alternately by ministers of the two denominations. TheSociety for Propagating the Gospel among the Indians and Others in NorthAmerica was formed in 1787. The members, officers, and missionaries of thissociety have been of both denominations; and the work accomplished has beencarried on in a spirit of amity and good-will. These societies indicatethat co-operation may be secured without theological unity, and it ispossible that they may become the basis in the future of a closer sympathyand fellowship between the severed Congregational churches. 

[Sidenote: Final Separation of State and Church. ]

From the beginning the liberal movement had been more or less intimatelyassociated with that for the promotion of religious freedom and theseparation of state and church. Many of the states withdrew religion fromstate control on the adoption of the Federal Constitution. In New Englandthis was done in the first years of the century. Connecticut came to thisresult after an exciting agitation in 1818. Massachusetts was moretenacious of the old ways; but in 1811 its legislative body passed a"religious freedom act, " that secured individuals from taxation for thesupport of churches with which they were not connected. The constitutionalconvention of 1820 proposed a bill of rights that aimed to secure religiousfreedom, but it was defeated by large majorities. It was only when churchproperty was given by the courts to the parish in preference to the church, and when the "standing order" churches had been repeatedly foiled in theirefforts to retain the old prerogatives, that a majority could be securedfor religious freedom. In November, 1833, the legislature submitted to thepeople a revision of the bill of rights, which provided for the separationof state and church, and the voluntary support of churches. A majority wassecured for this amendment, and it became the law in 1834. Massachusettswas the last of all the states to arrive at this result, and a far greatereffort was required to bring it about than elsewhere. The support of thechurches was now purely voluntary, the state no longer lending its aid totax person and property for their maintenance. 

Thus it came about that Massachusetts adopted the principle and method ofRoger Williams after two centuries. For the first time she came to the fullrecognition of her own democratic ideals, and to the practical acceptanceof the individualism for which she had contended from the beginning. Shehad fought stubbornly and zealously for the faith she prized above allother things, but by the logic of events and the greatness of the principleof liberty she was conquered. The minister and the meeting-house were byher so dearly loved that she could not endure the thought of having themshorn of any of their power and influence; but for the sake of their truelife she at last found it wise and just to leave all the people free toworship God in their own way, without coercion and without restraint. 

Although the liberal ministers and churches led the way in securingreligious freedom, yet they were socially and intellectually conservative. Radical changes they would not accept, and they moved away from the oldbeliefs with great caution. The charge that they were timid was undoubtedlytrue, though there is no evidence that they attempted to conceal their realbeliefs. Evangelical enthusiasm was not congenial to them, and theyrejected fanaticism in every form. They had a deep, serious, and spiritualfaith, that was intellectual without being rationalistic, marked by strongcommon sense, and vigorous with moral integrity. They permitted a widelatitude of opinion, and yet they were thoroughly Christian in theirconvictions. Most of them saw in the miracles of the New Testament the onlypositive evidence of the truth of Christianity, which was to them anexternal and supernatural revelation. They were quite willing to followAndrews Norton, however, who was the chief defender of the miraculous, inhis free criticism of the Old Testament and the birth-stories in theGospels. 

The liberal ministers fostered an intellectual and literary expression ofreligion, and yet their chief characteristic was their spirituality. Theyaimed at ethical insight and moral integrity in their influence upon menand women, and at cultivating purity of life and an inward probity. Inlarge degree they developed the spirit of philanthropy and a fine regardfor the rights and the welfare of others. They were not sectarian orzealous for bringing others to the acceptance of their own beliefs; butthey were generous in behalf of all public interests, faithful to all civicduties, and known for their private generosity and faithful Christianliving. Under the leadership of Dr. Channing the Catholic Christians, asthey preferred to call themselves, cultivated a spirituality that wasdevout without being ritualistic, sincere without being fanatical. Thechurches around them, to a large degree, kept zealously to the externals ofreligion, and accepted physical evidences of the truthfulness ofChristianity; but Channing sought for what is deeper and more permanent. His preference of rationality to the testimony of miracles, spiritualinsight to external evidences, devoutness of life to the rites of thechurch, characterized him as a great religious leader, and developed forthe Catholic Christians a new type of Christianity. Whatever Channing'slimitations as a thinker and a reformer, he was a man of prophetic insightand lofty spiritual vision. In other ages he would have been canonized as asaint or called the beatific doctor; but in Boston he was a heretic and areformer, who sought to lead men into a faith that is ethical, sincere, andhumanitarian. He prized Christianity for what it is in itself, for itsinwardness, its fidelity to human nature, and its ethical integrity. Hismind was always open to truth, he was always young for liberty, and hissoul dwelt in the serene atmosphere of a pure and lofty faith. 

[1] Josiah Quincy, History of Harvard University, I. 230, Chapter XII; Christian Examiner, VII. 64; XXX. 70. 

[2] Jedidiah Morse, True Reasons on which the Election of a Hollis Professor of Divinity in Harvard College were opposed at the Board of Overseers. 

[3] III. 251, March, 1806. 

[4] Richard Eddy, Universalism in America, II. 87; Oscar F. Safford, Hosea Ballou: A Marvellous Life Story, 71. 

[5] O. B. Frothingham, Boston Unitarianism, 161. 

[6] Josiah Quincy, History of the Boston Athenaeum, 1. "In the year 1803 Phineas Adams, a graduate of Harvard College, of the class of 1801, commenced in Boston, under the name of _Sylvanus Per-se_, a periodical work entitled The Monthly Anthology or Magazine of Polite Literature. He conducted it for six months, but not finding its proceeds sufficient for his support, he abandoned the undertaking. Mr. Adams, the son of a farmer in Lexington, manifested in early boyhood a passion for elegant learning. He adopted literature as a profession; but, after the failure of his attempt as editor of The Anthology, he taught school in different places, till, in 1811, he entered the Navy as chaplain and teacher of mathematics. Here he became distinguished for mathematical science in its relation to nautical affairs. In 1812 he accompanied Commodore Porter in his eventful cruise in the Pacific, of which the published journal bears honorable testimony to Mr. Adams's zeal for promoting geographical and mathematical knowledge. He again joined Porter in the expedition for the suppression of piracy in the West Indies, and he died on that station in 1823, much respected in the service. "

[7] In October, 1888, this society gave up its organization, and the sum of $1, 265. 10 was given to the American Unitarian Association for the establishment of a publishing fund. 

[8] Unitarian Biography, I. 40, Memoir by Henry Ware, Jr. 

[9] William Allen, Memoir of John Codman, 81. 

[10] Thomas Belsham, 1750-1829, was a dissenting English preacher and teacher. In 1789 he became a Unitarian, and was settled in Birmingham. From 1805 to his death he preached to the Essex Street congregation in London. He wrote a popular work on the Evidences of Christianity, and he translated the Epistles of St. Paul. He was a vigorous and able writer. 

[11] Memoir of W. E. Channing, by W. H. Channing, I. 380. 

[12] Among the controversial works printed in Boston at this time was Yates's Vindication of Unitarianism, an English book, which was republished in 1816. 

[13] The entrance to the vestry of Federal Street Church was on Berry Street, hence the name given the conference. 

[14] Christian Examiner, I. 248. 

[15] American Unitarian Biography, Life of Henry Ware, I. 241. 

[16] James Walker, Christian Examiner, X. 129; John G. Palfrey, Christian Examiner, XI. 84; The Divinity School of Harvard University: Its History, Courses of Study, Aims and Advantages. 

[17] Letters on the Ministry, Ritual, and Doctrines of the Protestant Episcopal Church, addressed to Rev. William E. Wyatt, D. D. , in Reply to a Sermon, Baltimore, 1820. 

[18] Comparative Moral Tendency of Trinitarian and Unitarian Doctrines, addressed to Rev. Samuel Miller, Boston, 1823. 

[19] H. B. Adams, Life and Writings of Jared Sparks, I. 175. 

[20] Dr. George E. Ellis, in Unitarianism: Its origin and History, 147. The most prominent instance was that of the First Church in Dedham, and this was decided by legal proceedings. "The question recognized by the court was simply this: whether the claimants had been lawfully appointed deacons of the First Church; that is, whether the body which had appointed them was by law the First Church. The decision of the court was as follows: 'When the majority of the members of a Congregational church separate from the majority of the parish, the members who remain, although a minority, constitute the church in such parish, and retain the rights and property belonging thereto. ' This legal decision would have been regarded as a momentous one had it applied only to the single case then in hearing. But it was the establishment of a precedent which would dispose of all cases then to be expected to present themselves in the troubles of the time between parishes and the churches gathered within them. The full purport of this decision was that the law did not recognize a church independently of its connection with the parish in which it was gathered, from which it might sever itself and carry property with it. " It was in accordance with the practice in New England for at least a century preceding the decision in the Dedham case, and the decision was rendered as the result of this practice. 

[21] H. B. Adams, Life and Writings of Jared Sparks, gives a most interesting account in his earlier chapters of the origin of Unitarianism, especially of its beginnings in Baltimore and other places outside New England. 

[22] James Garrard, governor of Kentucky from 1796 to 1802, was a Unitarian. Harry Toulmin, president of Transylvania Seminary and secretary of the state of Kentucky, was also a Unitarian. 

VI. 

THE AMERICAN UNITARIAN ASSOCIATION. 

The time had come for the liberals to organize in a more distinctive form, in order that they might secure permanently the results they had alreadyattained. The demand for organization, however, came almost wholly from theyounger men, those who had grown up under the influence of the freer lifeof the liberal churches or who had been trained in the independent spiritof the Divinity School at Harvard. The older men, for the most part, werebound by the traditions of "the standing order":[1] they could not bringthemselves to desire new conditions and new methods. 

The spirit of the older and leading laymen and ministers is admirablyillustrated in Rev. O. B. Frothingham's account of his father in his bookentitled Boston Unitarianism. They were interested in many, public-spiritedenterprises, and the social circle in which they moved was cultivated andrefined; but they were provincial, and little inclined to look beyond thelimits of their own immediate interests. Dr. Nathaniel L. Frothingham, minister of the First Church in Boston, one of the earliest Americanstudents of German literature and philosophy, and a man of rational insightand progressive thinking, may be regarded as a representative of the besttype of Boston minister in the first half of the nineteenth century. In asermon preached in 1835, on the occasion of the twentieth anniversary ofhis settlement, Dr. Frothingham said that he had never before used the word"Unitarian", in his pulpit, though his church had been for thirty yearscounted as Unitarian. "We have, " he said, "made more account of thereligious sentiment than of theological opinions. " In this attitude he wasin harmony with the leading men of his day. [2]

Channing, for instance, was opposed to every phase of religiousorganization that put bonds upon men; and he would accept nothing in theform of a creed. He severely condemned "the guilt of a sectarian spirit, "and said that "to bestow our affections on those who are ranged under thesame human leader, or who belong to the same church with ourselves, and towithhold it from others who possess equal if not superior virtue, becausethey bear a different name, is to prefer a party to the church ofChrist. "[3] In 1831 he described Unitarianism as being "characterized bynothing more than by the spirit of freedom and individuality. It has noestablished creed or symbol, " he wrote. "Its friends think each forhimself, and differ much from each other. "[4] Later he wrote to a friend:"I distrust sectarian influence more and more. I am more detached from adenomination, and strive to feel more my connection with the UniversalChurch, with all good and holy men. I am little of a Unitarian, and standaloof from all but those who strive and pray for clearer light, who lookfor a purer and more effectual manifestation of Christian truth. "[5]

Many of the Unitarians were in fullest sympathy with Channing as to thefundamental law of spiritual freedom and as to the evils of sectarianism. Aconsiderable number of them were in agreement with him as to the coursepursued by the Unitarian movement. Having escaped from one sect, they werenot ready to commit themselves to the control of another. Therefore theywithheld themselves from all definitely organized phases of Unitarianism, and would give no active support to those who sought to bring the liberalstogether for purposes of protection and forward movement. Under thesecircumstances it was difficult to secure concert of action or to makesuccessful any definite missionary enterprise, however little ofsectarianism it might manifest. Even to the present time Unitarianism hasshown this independence on the part of local churches and this freedom onthe part of individuals. Because of this attitude, unity of action has beendifficult, and denominational loyalty never strong or assured. 

However, a different spirit animated the younger men, who persisted intheir effort to secure an organization that would represent distinctivelythe Unitarian thought and sentiment. The movement towards organization hadits origin and impulse in a group of young ministers who had been trainedat the Harvard Divinity School under Professor Andrews Norton. While Nortonwas conservative in theology and opposed to sectarian measures, histeaching was radical, progressive, and stimulating. His students acceptedhis spirit of intellectual progress, and often advanced beyond his moreconservative teachings. In the years between 1817 and 1824 James Walker, John G. Palfrey, Jared Sparks, Alexander Young, John Pierpont, Ezra S. Gannett, Samuel Barrett, Thomas R. Sullivan, Samuel J. May, Calvin Lincoln, and Edward B. Hall were students in the Divinity School; and all of thesemen were leaders in the movement to organize a Unitarian Association. Pierpont gave the name to the new organization, distinctly defining it asUnitarian. Gannett, Palfrey, and Hall served it as presidents; Gannett, Lincoln, and Young, as secretaries. Walker, Palfrey, and Barrett gave itfaithful service as directors, and Lincoln as its active missionary agent. A number of young laymen in Boston and elsewhere, mostly graduates ofHarvard College, were also interested in the formation of the neworganization. Among them were Charles G. Loring, Robert Rantoul, Samuel A. Eliot, Leverett Salstonstall, George B. Emerson, and Alden Bradford. Allthese young men were afterwards prominent in the affairs of the city orstate, and they were faithful to the interests of the Unitarian churcheswith which they were connected. 

[Sidenote: Initial Meetings. ]

The first proposition to form a Unitarian organization for missionarypurposes was made in a meeting of the Anonymous Association, a club towhich belonged thirty or forty of the leading men of Boston. They were allconnected with Unitarian churches, and were actively interested inpromoting the growth of a liberal form of Christianity. It appears from thejournal of David Reed, for many years the editor and publisher of TheChristian Register, that the members of this association were in the habitof meeting at each other's houses during the year 1824 for the purpose ofdiscussing important subjects connected with religion, morals, andpolitics. At a meeting held at the house of Hon. Josiah Quincy in theautumn of that year, attention was called to certain articles that had beenpublished in The Christian Register, and the importance was suggested ofpromoting the growth of liberal Christianity through the distribution ofthe printed word. A resolution was submitted, inquiring if measures couldnot be taken for uniting the efforts of liberal-minded persons to givegreater efficiency to the attempt to extend a knowledge of Unitarianprinciples by means of the public press; and a committee was appointed toconsider and report on the expediency of forming an organization for thispurpose. This committee consisted of Rev. Henry Ware, the younger, AldenBradford, and Richard Sullivan. Henry Ware was the beloved and devotedminister of the Second Church in Boston. His colleagues were older men, both graduates of Harvard College and prominent in the social and businesslife of Boston. The purpose which these men had in mind was well defined byDr. Gannett, writing twenty years after the event: "We found ourselves, " hesaid, "under the painful necessity of contributing our assistance to thepropagation of tenets which we accounted false or of forming an associationthrough which we might address the great truths of religion to ourfellow-men without the adulteration of erroneous dogmas. To take one ofthese courses, or to do nothing in the way of Christian beneficence, wasthe only alternative permitted to us. The name which we adopted has asectarian sound; but it was chosen to avoid equivocation on the one handand misapprehension on the other. "[6] The committee, under date ofDecember 29, 1824, sent out a circular inviting a meeting of allinterested, "in order to confer together on the expediency of appointing anannual meeting for the purpose of union, sympathy, and co-operation in thecause of Christian truth and Christian charity. " In this circular will befound the origin of the clause in the present constitution of the UnitarianAssociation defining its purposes. 

In response to this call a meeting was held in the vestry of the FederalStreet Church on January 27, 1825. Dr. Channing opened the meeting withprayer. Richard Sullivan was chosen moderator, and James Walker secretary. There were present all those who have been hitherto named in connectionwith this movement, together with many others of the leading laymen andministers of the liberal churches in New England. [7] The record of themeeting made by Rev. James Walker is preserved in the first volume of thecorrespondence of the Unitarian Association; and it enables us, inconnection with the more confidential reminiscences of David Reed, to givea fairly complete record of, what was said and done. Henry Ware, theyounger, in behalf of the committee, presented a statement of the objectsproposed by those desirous of organizing a national Unitarian society; andhe offered a resolution declaring it "desirable and expedient thatprovision should be made for future meetings of Unitarians and liberalChristians generally. " The adoption of this resolution was moved by StephenHigginson; and the discussion was opened by Dr. Aaron Bancroft, the learnedand honored minister of the Second Church in Worcester. He was fearful thatsufficient care might not be taken as to the manner of instituting theproposed organization, and he doubted its expediency. He was of the opinionthat Unitarianism was to be propagated slowly and silently, for it hadsucceeded in his own parish because it had not been openly advocated. Hedid not wish to oppose the design generally, but he was convinced that itwould do more harm than good. 

Dr. Bancroft was followed by Professor Andrews Norton, the greatlyrespected teacher of most of the younger ministers, who defended theproposed organization, and said that its purpose was not to makeproselytes. Then Dr. Charming arose, and gave to the proposition of thecommittee a guarded approval. He thought the object of the convention, ashe wished to call it, should be to "spread our views of religion, not ourmere opinions, for our religion is essentially practical. " The friendlyattitude of Channing gave added emphasis to the disapproval of theprominent laymen who spoke after him. Judge Charles Jackson, an eminentjustice of the Supreme Court of Massachusetts, thought there was danger inthe proposed plan, that it was not becoming to liberal Christians, that it, was inconsistent with their principles, and that it would not be beneficialto the community. He was ready to give his aid, to any specific work, buthe thought that everything could be accomplished that was necessary, without a general-association of any kind. The same opinion was expressedby George Bond, a leading merchant of Boston, who was afraid thatUnitarianism would become popular, and that, when it had gamed a majorityof the people of the country to its side, it would become as intolerant asthe other sects. For this reason he believed the measure inexpedient, andmoved an adjournment of the meeting. 

Three of the most widely known and respected of the older ministers alsospoke in opposition to the proposition to form an association of liberalChristians. These men were typical pastors and preachers, whose parisheswere limited only by the town in which they lived, and who preached thegospel without sectarian prejudice or doctrinal qualifications. Dr. JohnPierce, of Brookline, thought the measure of the committee "verydangerous, " and likely to do much harm in many of the parishes by arousingthe sectarian spirit. He spoke three times in the course of the meeting, opposing with his accustomed vehemence all attempt at organization. Dr. Abiel Abbot, of Beverly, thought that presenting a distinct object foropposition would arrest the progress of Unitarianism, for in hisneighborhood liberal Christianity owed everything to slow and silentprogress. Dr. John Allyn, of Duxbury, one of the most original and learnedministers of his time in New England, was opposed to the use of anysectarian name, especially that of Unitarian or Liberal. He was willing tojoin in a general convention, and he desired to have a meeting of delegatesfrom all sects. He expressed the opinion of several leading men who werepresent at this meeting, who favored an unsectarian organization, thatshould include all men of liberal opinions, of whatever name ordenominational connection. 

Those who were in favor of a Unitarian Association did not remain silent, and they spoke with clearness and vigor in approval of the proposition ofthe committee. Alden Bradford, who became the Secretary of State inMassachusetts, and wrote several valuable biographical and historicalworks, thought that Unitarians were too timid and did not wisely defendtheir position. He was followed by Andrews Norton in a vigorous declarationof the importance of the association, in the course of which he pointed outhow inadequately Unitarians had protected and fostered the institutionsunder their care, and declared that closer union was necessary. JaredSparks also earnestly favored the project, and said that what was proposedwas not a plan of proselyting. It was his opinion that Unitarians ought tocome forward in support of their views of truth, and that an associationwas necessary in order to promote sympathy among them throughout thecountry. Colonel Joseph May, who had been for thirty years a warden ofKing's Chapel, and a man held in high esteem in Boston, referred to thework already accomplished by the zeal and effort of the few Unitarians whohad worked together to promote liberal interests. The most incisive wordspoken, however, came from John Pierpont, who was just coming into his fameas an orator and a leader in reforms. "We have, " he declared, "and we musthave, the name Unitarian. It is not for us to shrink from it. Organizationis necessary in order to maintain it, and organization there must be. Thegeneral interests of Unitarians will be promoted by using the name, andorganizing in harmony with it. "

In the long discussion at this meeting it appears that, of the ministers, Channing, Norton, Bancroft, Ware, Pierpont, Sparks, Edes, Nichols, Parker, Thayer, Willard, and Harding were in favor of organization; Pierce, Allyn, Abbot, Freeman, and Bigelow, against it. Of the laymen, Charles Jackson andGeorge Bond were vigorously in opposition; and Judge Story, Judge White, Judge Howe, of Northampton, Alden Bradford, Leverett Salstonstall, StephenHigginson, and Joseph May spoke in favor. The result of the meeting was theappointment of a committee, consisting of Sullivan, Bradford, Ware, Channing, Palfrey, Walker, Pierpont, and Higginson, which was empowered tocall together a larger meeting at some time during the session of theGeneral Court. But this committee seems never to have acted. At the end ofhis report of this preliminary meeting James Walker wrote: "The meetingproposed was never called. As there appeared to be so much difference ofopinion as to the expediency and nature of the measure proposed, it wasthought best to let it subside in silence. "

The zeal of those favorable to organization, however, did not abate; andthe discussion went on throughout the winter. On May 25, 1825, at themeeting of the Berry Street Conference of Ministers, Henry Ware, theyounger, who had been chairman of the first committee, renewed the effort, and presented the following statement as a declaration of the purposes ofthe proposed organization:--

 It is proposed to form a new association, to be called The American Unitarian Society. The chief and ultimate object will be the promotion of pure and undefiled religion by disseminating the knowledge of it where adequate means of religious instruction are not enjoyed. A secondary good which will follow from it is the union of all Unitarian Christians in this country, so that they would become mutually acquainted, and the concentration of their efforts would increase their efficiency. The society will embrace all Unitarian Christians in the United States. Its operations would extend themselves through the whole country. These operations would chiefly consist in the publication and distribution of tracts, and the support of missionaries. 

It was announced that in the afternoon a meeting would be held for thefurther consideration of the subject. This meeting was held at fouro'clock, and Dr. Henry Ware acted as moderator. The opponents oforganization probably absented themselves, for action was promptly taken, and it was "_Voted_, that it is expedient to form a new society to becalled the American Unitarian Association. " All who were present expressedthemselves as in favor of this action. Rev. James Walker, Mr. Lewis Tappan, and Rev. Ezra S. Gannett were appointed a committee to draft a form oforganization. On the next morning, Thursday, May 26, 1825, this committeereported to a meeting, of which Dr. Nathaniel Thayer, of Lancaster, wasmoderator; and, with one or two amendments, the constitution prepared bythe committee was adopted. This constitution, with slight modifications, isstill in force. The object of the Association was declared to be "todiffuse the knowledge and promote the interests of pure Christianity. " Acommittee to nominate officers selected Dr. Channing for president; JosephStory, of Salem, Joseph Lyman, of Northampton, Stephen Longfellow, ofPortland, Charles H. Atherton, of Amherst, N. H. , Henry Wheaton, of NewYork, James Taylor, of Philadelphia, Henry Payson, of Baltimore, WilliamCranch, of Alexandria, Martin L. Hurlbut, of Charleston, asvice-presidents; Ezra S. Gannett, of Boston, for secretary; Lewis Tappan, of Boston, for treasurer; and Andrews Norton, Jared Sparks, and JamesWalker, for executive committee. 

When Mr. Gannett wrote to his colleague, Dr. Channing, to notify him of hiselection as president, there came a letter declining the proffered office. "I was a little disappointed, " Channing wrote, "at learning that theUnitarian Association is to commence operations immediately. I conversedwith Mr. Norton on the subject before leaving Boston, and found him soindisposed to engage in it that I imagined that it would be let alone forthe present. The office which in your kindness you have assigned to me Imust beg to decline. As you have made a beginning, I truly rejoice in yoursuccess. " Norton and Sparks also declined to serve as directors, ill-healthand previous engagements being assigned by them for their inability to actwith the other officers elected. The executive committee proceeded to fillthese vacancies by the election of Dr. Aaron Bancroft, of Worcester, aspresident, and of the younger Henry Ware and Samuel Barrett to theexecutive committee; and the board of directors thus constitutedadministered the Association during its first year. 

In the selection of Dr. Bancroft as the head of the new association a wisechoice was made, for he had the executive and organizing ability that waseminently desirable at this juncture. He was an able preacher, and one ofthe strongest thinkers in the Unitarian body. His biography of Washingtonhad made him widely known; and his volume of controversial sermons, published in 1822, had received the enthusiastic praise of John Adams andThomas Jefferson. When he was settled, he was almost an outcast inWorcester County because of his liberalism; but such were the strength ofhis character and the power of his thought that gradually he secured a widehearing, and became the most popular preacher in Central Massachusetts. After fifty years of his ministry he could count twenty-one vigorousUnitarian societies about him, all of which had profited by hisinfluence. [8] Although he was seventy years of age at the time heaccepted the presidency of the Unitarian Association, he was in the fullenjoyment of his powers; and he filled the office for ten years, giving itand the cause which the Association represented the impetus and weight ofhis sound judgment and deserved reputation. 

The executive work of the Association fell to the charge of the secretary, Ezra S. Gannett, who had been one of the most enthusiastic advocates of thenew organization. Gannett was but twenty-four years old, and had been butone year in the active ministry, as the colleague of Dr. Channing. He hadyouth, zeal, and executive force. Writing of him after his death, Dr. Bellows said: "He had rare administrative qualities and a statesmanlikemind. He would have been a leader anywhere. He had the ambition, thefaculties, and the impulsive temperament of an actor in affairs. He had thefervor, the concentration of will, the passionate enthusiasm of conviction, the love of martyrdom, which make men great in action. "[9] Throughout hislife Gannett labored assiduously for the Association, serving it in everycapacity refusing no drudgery, travelling over the country in itsinterests, and giving himself, heart and soul, to the cause it represented. The Unitarian cause never had a more devoted friend or one who made greatersacrifices in its behalf. To him more than to any other man it owes itsorganized life and its missionary serviceableness. 

Lewis Tappan, the treasurer, was a successful young business man. His termof service was brief; for two years after the organization of theAssociation he removed to New York, where he had an honorable career as oneof the founders of the Journal of Commerce, and as the head of the firstmercantile agency established in the country. He was later one of theanti-slavery leaders in New York, and an active and earnest member ofPlymouth Church in Brooklyn. [10]

The executive committee was composed of the three devoted young ministerswho had been foremost in organizing the Association. Barrett was thirty, Ware and Walker were thirty-one years of age; and all three had been inHarvard College and the Divinity School together. Samuel Barrett had justbeen chosen minister of the newly formed Twelfth Congregational Church ofBoston, which he served throughout his life. He was identified with allgood causes in Eastern Massachusetts, a founder of the BenevolentFraternity, and an overseer of Harvard College. Henry Ware, the younger, was, at the time of his election, the minister of the Second Church inBoston. Five years later he became professor in the Harvard DivinitySchool, and his memory is still cherished as the teacher and exemplar of ageneration of Unitarian ministers. James Walker was, in 1825, the ministerof the Harvard Church in Charlestown, and already gave evidence of thesanity and catholicity of mind, the practical organizing power, the widephilosophic culture, and the dignity of character which afterwarddistinguished him as professor in Harvard College, and as its president. 

Thus the organization started on its way, as the result of the determinedpurpose of a small company of the younger ministers and laymen. It took aname that separated it from all other religious organizations in thiscountry, so far as its members then knew. The Unitarian name had been firstdefinitely used in this country in 1815, to describe the liberal orCatholic Christians. They at first scornfully rejected it, but many of themhad finally come to rejoice in its declaration of the simple unity of God. As a matter of history, it may be said that the word "Unitarian" was usedin this doctrinal sense only; and it had none of the implications sincegiven it by philosophy and science. Those who used it meant thereby to saythat they accepted the doctrine of the absolute unity of God, and that theposition of Christ was a subordinate though a very exalted one. No one canread their statements with historic apprehension, and arrive at any otherconclusion. Yet these persons had no wish to cut themselves off fromhistoric Christianity; rather was it their intent to restore it to itsprimitive purity. 

[Sidenote: Work of the First Year. ]

If others were disinclined to action, the executive committee of theUnitarian Association was determined that something should be done. Attheir first, meeting, held in the secretary's study four days after theirelection, there were present Norton, Walker, Tappan, and Gannett. Theycommissioned Rev. Warren Burton to act as their agent in visitingneighboring towns to solicit funds, and a week later they voted to employhim as a general agent. The committee held six meetings during June; and atone of these an address was adopted, defining the purposes and methods ofthe Association. "They wish it to be understood, " was their statement, "that its efforts will be directed to the promotion of true religionthroughout our country; intending by this, not exclusively those viewswhich distinguish the friends of this Association from other disciples ofChrist; but those views in connection with the great doctrines andprinciples in which all Christians coincide, and which constitute thesubstance of our religion. We wish to diffuse the knowledge and influenceof the gospel of our Lord and Saviour. Great good is anticipated from theco-operation of persons entertaining similar views, who are now strangersto each other's religious sentiments. Interest will be awakened, confidenceinspired, efficiency produced by the concentration of labors. The spirit ofinquiry will be fostered, and individuals at a distance will know where toapply for information and encouragement. Respectability and strength willbe given to the class among us whom our fellow Christians have excludedfrom the control of their religious charities, and whom, by their exclusivetreatment, they have compelled in some measure to act as a party. " Theobjects of the Association were stated to be the collection of informationabout Unitarianism in various parts of the country; the securing of union, sympathy, and co-operation among liberal Christians; the publishing anddistribution of books inculcating correct views of religion; the employmentof missionaries, and the adoption of other measures that might promote thegeneral purposes held in view. 

At the end of the year the Association held its first anniversary meetingin Pantheon Hall, on the evening of June 30, 1826, when addresses were madeby Hon. Joseph Story, Hon. Leverett Salstonstall, Rev. Ichabod Nichols, andRev. Henry Coleman. The executive committee presented its report, whichgave a detailed account of the operations during the year. They gavespecial attention to their discovery of "a body of Christians in theWestern states who have for years been Unitarians, have encounteredpersecution on account of their faith, and have lived in ignorance ofothers east of the mountains who maintained many similar views of Christiandoctrine. " With this group of churches, which would consent to no othername than that of Christian, a correspondence had been opened; and, tosecure a larger acquaintance with them, Rev. Moses G. Thomas[11] hadvisited several of the Western states. His tour carried him throughPennsylvania, Ohio, Kentucky, Indiana, Illinois, and as far as St. Louis. His account of his journey was published in connection with the secondreport of the Association, and is full of interest. He did not preach, buthe carefully investigated the religious prospects of the states hejourneyed through; and he sought the acquaintance of the Christian churchesand ministers. He gave an enthusiastic account of his travels, and reportedthat the west was a promising field for the planting of Unitarian churches. He recommended Northumberland, Harrisburg, Pittsburg, Steubenville, Marietta, Paris, Lexington, Louisville, St. Louis, St. Charles, Indianapolis, and Cincinnati as promising places for the labors ofUnitarian missionaries, --places "which will properly appreciate theirtalents and render them doubly useful in their day and generation. "

During the first year of its existence the Unitarian Association endeavoredto unite with itself, or to secure the co-operation of, the Society for thePromotion of Christian Knowledge, Piety, and Charity, the EvangelicalMissionary Society, and the Publishing Fund Society; but theseorganizations were unwilling to come into close affiliation with it. TheEvangelical Missionary Society has continued its separate existence to thepresent time, but the others were absorbed by the Unitarian Associationafter many years. This is one indication of how difficult it was to securean active co-operation among Unitarians, and to bring them all into onevigorous working body. In concluding their first report, the officers ofthe Association alluded to the difficulties with which they had met thereluctance of the liberal churches to come into close affiliation with eachother. "They have strenuously opposed the opinion, " they said of theleaders of the Association, "that the object of the founders was to buildup a party, to organize an opposition, to perpetuate pride and bigotry. Hadthey believed that such was its purpose or such would be its effect, theywould have withdrawn themselves from any connection with so hateful athing. They thought otherwise, and experience has proved they did not judgewrongly. "

[Sidenote: Work of the First Quarter of a Century. ]

Having thus organized itself and begun its work, the Association wentquietly on its way. At no time during the first quarter of a century of itsexistence did it secure annual contributions from one-half the churchescalling themselves Unitarian, and it did well when even one-third of themcontributed to its treasury during any one year. The churches of Boston, for the most part, held aloof from it, and gave it only a feeble support, if any at all. They had so long accepted the spirit of congregationalexclusiveness, had so great a dread of interference on the part ofecclesiastical organizations, and so keenly suspected every attempt atco-operation on the part of the churches as likely to lead to restrictionsupon congregational independence, that it was nearly impossible to securetheir aid for any kind of common work. Very slowly the contributionsincreased to the sum of $5, 000 a year, and only once in the first quarterof a century did the total receipts of a year reach $15, 000. With so smalla treasury no great work could be undertaken; but the money given washusbanded to the utmost, and the salaries paid to clerks and the generalsecretary were kept to the lowest possible limit. 

Dr. Bancroft was succeeded in the presidency of the Association, in 1836, by Dr. Channing, who nominally held the position for one year; but at thenext annual meeting he declined to have his name presented as acandidate. [12] The office was then filled by Dr. Ichabod Nichols, ofPortland, who served from 1837 to 1844. He was the minister of the FirstChurch in Portland from 1809 to 1855, and then retired to Cambridge, wherehe wrote his Natural Theology and his Hours with the Evangelists. JosephStory, the great jurist, who had been vice-president of the Associationfrom 1826 to 1836, was elected president in 1844, and served for one year. He was followed by Dr. Orville Dewey, who was president from 1845 to 1847. He had been settled in New Bedford, and over the Church of the Messiah inNew York; and subsequently he had short pastorates in Albany, inWashington, and over the New South Church in Boston. His lectures and hissermons have made him widely known. In intellectual and emotional power hewas one of the greatest preachers the country has produced. Dr. Gannettserved as the president from 1847 to 1851, being succeeded by Dr. Samuel K. Lothop, who continued to hold the office until 1856. Dr. Lothrop was firstsettled in Dover, N. H. , but became the minister of the Brattle StreetChurch, Boston, in 1834, retaining that position until 1876. 

The office of secretary was held by Rev. Ezra S, Gannett until 1831. He wassucceeded in that year by Rev. Alexander Young, who held the position fortwo years. Dr. Young was the minister of the New South Church from 1825until his death, in 1854. His Chronicles of the Pilgrim Fathers, and otherworks, have given him a reputation as a historian. In 1829 the office offoreign secretary was created; and it was held by the younger Henry Warefrom 1830 to 1834, when it ceased to exist. Rev. Samuel Barnett wassecretary in 1833 and 1834, and recording secretary until 1837. In 1834 theoffice of general secretary was established, in order to secure theservices of an active missionary. Rev. Jason Whitman, who held thisposition for one year, had been the minister in Saco; and he was afterwardsettled in Portland and Lexington. Rev. Charles Briggs became the generalsecretary in 1835, and continued in office until the end of 1847. He hadbeen settled in Lexington, but did not hold a pastorate subsequent to hisconnection with the Association. In the mean time Rev. Samuel K. Lothropwas the assistant or recording secretary from 1837 to 1847. In 1847 Rev. William G. Eliot was elected the general secretary; but he did not serve, owing to the claims of his parish in St. Louis. Rev. Frederick WestHolland, who had been settled in Rochester, was made the general secretaryin January, 1848; and he held the position until the annual meeting of1860. Subsequently he was settled in East Cambridge, Neponset, NorthCambridge, Rochester, and Newburg. 

It was Charles Briggs who first gave definite purpose to the missionarywork of the Association. The annual report of 1850 said of him that he "hadled the institution forward to high ground as a missionary body, byunfailing patience prevailed over every discouragement, by inexhaustiblehope surmounted serious obstacles, by the most persuasive gentlenessconciliated opposition, and done perhaps as much as could be asked of soundjudgment, knowledge of mankind, and devotion to the cause, with thedrawback of a slender and failing frame. " In 1845 Rev. George G. Channingentered upon a service as the travelling agent of the Association, which hecontinued for two years. His duties required him to take an active interestin missionary enterprises, revive drooping churches, secure information asto the founding of new churches, and to add to the income of theAssociation. He was a brother of Dr. Channing, held one or two pastorates, and was the founder and editor of The Christian World, which he publishedin Boston as a weekly Unitarian paper from January, 1843, to the end of1848. 

At a meeting of the Unitarian Association held on June 3, 1847, the finalsteps were taken that secured its incorporation under the laws ofMassachusetts. In the revised constitution the fifteen vice-presidents werereduced to two, and the president and vice-presidents were made members ofthe executive committee, and so brought into intimate connection with thework of the Association. The directors and other officers were made anexecutive committee, by which all affairs of moment must be considered; andit was required to hold stated monthly meetings. These changes wereconducive to an enlarged interest in the work of the Association, and alsoto the more thorough consideration of its activities on the part of aconsiderable body of judicious and experienced officers. They were made inrecognition of the increasing missionary labors of the Association, andenabled it thenceforth to hold and to manage legally the moneys that cameunder its control. 

[Sidenote: Publication of Tracts and Books. ]

One of the first subjects to which the Association gave attention was thepublication of tracts, six of which were issued during the first year. Inconnection with their publication a series of depositaries was establishedfor their sale. David Reed of The Christian Register became the generalagent, while there were ten county depositaries in Massachusetts, four inNew Hampshire, three in Maine, and one each in Connecticut, New York City, Philadelphia, Charleston, and Washington. [13] For a number of years thetracts were devoted to doctrinal subjects. Several of Channing's ablestsermons and addresses were first printed in this form. Among the othercontributors to the first series were the three Wares, Orville Dewey, Joseph Tuckerman, James Walker, George Ripley, Samuel J. May, John G. Palfrey, Ezra S. Gannett, Samuel Gilman, George R. Noyes, William G. Eliot, Andrew P. Peabody, F. A. Farley, James Freeman Clarke, S. G. Bulfinch, GeorgePutnam, Joseph Allen, Frederic H. Hedge, Edward B. Hall, George E. Ellis, Thomas B. Fox, Charles T. Brooks, J. H. Morison, Henry W. Bellows, WilliamH. Furness, John Cordner, Chandler Robbins, Augustus Woodbury, and WilliamR. Alger. Ten or twelve tracts were issued yearly, those of the year havinga consecutive page numbering, so that, in fact, they appeared in the formof a monthly periodical, each tract bearing the date of its publication, and being sent regularly to all subscribers to the Association. In all, three hundred tracts appeared in this form in the first series, makingtwenty-six volumes. 

For nearly half a century none of the tracts of the Association werepublished for free distribution. They were issued at prices ranging fromtwo to ten cents each, according to the size, some of them having not morethan ten or twelve pages, while others had more than a hundred. So long asthere was an eagerness for theological reading, and an earnest intellectualinterest in the questions which divided the several religious bodies of thecountry from each other, it was not difficult to sell editions of from3, 000 to 10, 000 copies of all the tracts published by the Association. Fromthe first, however, there were many calls for tracts for free distribution. To meet this demand, there was formed in Boston, by a number of young menduring the year 1827, The Unitarian Book and Pamphlet Society, for "thegratuitous distribution of Unitarian publications of an approvedcharacter. " It undertook especially to distribute "such publications asshall be issued by the American Unitarian Association or recommended byit. " This society also circulated tracts printed by The Christian Registerand The Christian World, the call for such publications having led thepublishers of these periodicals to give their aid in meeting the demand forpamphlets on theological problems and on practical religious duties. Thesociety also distributed Bibles to the poor of the city and in more distantcountry places, furnishing them to missionaries and others who wouldundertake work of this kind. In the same manner they gave away largenumbers of books, their list for 1836 including Scougal's Life of God inthe Soul of Man, Ware's Formation of the Christian Character, and works byWorcester, Channing Whitman, and Greenwood. The call for aid wasconsiderable from the western and southern states; and books were sent toHavana, New Brunswick, and the Sandwich Islands. In the winter of 1840-41this society was reorganized, an urgent appeal was made to the churches foran increase of funds, and during the next few years its work was large andimportant. 

In the year 1848 was begun a special effort for the circulation ofUnitarian books, on the part of The Book and Pamphlet Society, The Societyfor Promoting Christian Knowledge, Piety, and Charity, as well as by theUnitarian Association. In that year the second of these organizations sentout circulars to 263 colleges and theological schools, offering to giveUnitarian books, to those desiring to receive them; and to 59 of theseinstitutions assortments of books worth from two dollars to one hundreddollars were forwarded. The first request came from the Catholic College atWorcester, and the last from the Wisconsin University at Madison. At thesame time the Association was pressing the sale and free distribution ofthe Works and the Memoir of Dr. Charming, as well as various books byPeabody, Livermore, Bartol, and others. 

The Association began to make use of colporters about the year 1847. Thenext year it had two young ministers engaged in this work, and by 1850 thiskind of missionary labor had increased to considerable proportions. Especially in the West was much use made of the colporter, and in this wayin many of the states the works of Channing were sold in large numbers. Bythese agents, tracts were given away with a free hand, and books were givento ministers and those who especially needed them. The Western ministers, almost without exception, served as colporters, selling books anddistributing them as important helps to their missionary labors. In manycommunities zealous laymen took part in this kind of service, and theseveral depositaries of books and tracts were used as centres from whichcolporters and others could draw their supplies. As early as 1835 a generaldepositary had been established in Cincinnati, and in 1849 one was openedin Chicago. 

The Association could not have undertaken any work that would have broughtin a larger or more immediate return in the way of religious education andspiritual growth than this of the publication of tracts and books. Previousto 1850 a doctrinal sermon was rarely preached in a Unitarian church, andthe tracts were the most important means of giving to the members ofestablished churches a knowledge of Unitarian theology. By the same meansmany other persons were made acquainted with the Unitarian beliefs, and theresult was to be seen in the formation of churches where tracts and bookshad been largely distributed. [14]

[Sidenote: Domestic Missions. ]

The work of domestic missions from the first largely claimed the attentionof the Association, and it was one the chief objects in its formation. During the summer of 1826 the members of the Harvard Divinity School weresent throughout New England to gather information, and to preach whereopportunity offered. The special object was to make ministers andcongregations acquainted with the purposes of the Association. It was foundthat there was much opposition to it, and that in many parishes thereexisted no desire to have its mission extended. 

Persons of all shades of belief were connected with many of the liberalparishes, some of the churches not having as yet ceased their relationswith the towns in which they were located; and the ministers were notwilling to have theological questions brought to the attention of theircongregations. "The great objection everywhere seems to be, " reported oneof the young men, who had travelled through many of the towns of centralMassachusetts, "that the clergymen do not like to awaken party spirit. People will go on quietly performing all external duties of religionwithout asking themselves if they are listening to the doctrine of theTrinity or not; but the moment you wish to act, they call up all their oldprejudices, and take a very firm stand. This necessarily creates divisionand dissension, and renders the situation of the minister veryuncomfortable. "[15] The ministers did not preach on theological subjects;and, while they were liberal themselves, they had not instructed theirparishioners in such a manner that they followed in the same path ofthinking which their leaders had travelled. 

It was evident, therefore, that there was work enough in New England forthe Association to accomplish, and such as would fully tax itsresources. [16] It had turned its eyes toward the West and South, however;and it was not willing to leave these fields unoccupied. In 1836 thegeneral secretary, Charles Briggs, spent eight months in these regions; andhe found everywhere large opportunities for the spread of Unitarianism. Promising openings were found at Erie, Cleveland, Toledo, Detroit, Marietta, Tremont, Jacksonville, Memphis, and Nashville, in which villagesor cities churches were soon after formed. It was reported at this timethat there was hardly a town in the West where there were not Unitarians, or in which it was not possible by the right kind of effort to establish aUnitarian church. 

As a result of the interest awakened by the tour of the general secretary, fourteen missionaries were put into the field in 1837. In 1838 twenty-threemissionaries visited eleven states, including New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Illinois, Missouri, Kentucky Alabama, and Georgia. [17] They weremen of experience in parish labors, but they did not go out to the newcountry to remain there permanently. They attracted large congregations, however, formed several societies which promised to be permanent, administered the ordinances, established Sunday-schools, and did much tostrengthen the churches. In 1839 seven preachers were sent into the west, and at the next anniversary there was an urgent call made by theAssociation for funds with which to establish a permanent missionary agentin the field. Something more was needed than a few Massachusetts ministerspreaching from town to town with no purpose of locating with any of thechurches they helped to organize. Ministers for the new churches wereurgently demanded, but few men from New England were willing to remove tothe west; and, though recruits came from the orthodox churches, this sourceof supply was not sufficient. 

The repeated calls made for larger resources with which to carry on thework of domestic missions resulted in meetings held in Boston during theyear 1841, at which pledges were made to a fund of $10, 000 yearly for fiveyears, to be used for missionary purposes. This sum was secured in 1843 andthe next four years, so that larger aid was given to missionary activitiesand to the building of churches. At the annual meeting of 1849 specialattention was given to the subject of domestic missions, and plans weredevised for largely extending all the activities in this direction. Muchinterest was taken in the western work during the following years, andslowly new churches came into existence. In 1849 Rev. Edward P. Bond wassent to San Francisco, where a number of New England people had held layservices and formed a church, and in a few years a strong society had grownup in that city. Mr. Bond also went to the Sandwich Islands; but he was notable to open a mission there, owing to ill-health. In the South the worklanguished, largely owing to the growth of anti-slavery sentiment in theNorth, with which Unitarians were generally in sympathy. 

From 1830 to 1850 the Unitarians were confronted by the greatestopportunity which has ever opened to them for missionary activities. Thevast region of the middle west was in a formative state, the people wereeverywhere receptive to liberal influences, other churches had not beenfirmly established, and there was urgent demand for leadership of aprogressive and rational kind. Here has come to be the controlling centreof American life, --in politics, education, and social power. A few of theleaders saw the opportunity, but the churches were not ready to respond totheir appeals. 

The work accomplished by the Association during the first twenty-five orthirty years of its existence, the period reviewed in this chapter, wassmall, compared with the opportunity and with the wishes of those who mosthad at heart the interests for the promotion of which it was established. Yet there was wanting in no year encouragement for its friends or somethingaccomplished that cheered them to larger efforts. In 1850, at thetwenty-fifth anniversary, historical addresses were delivered by SamuelOsgood, John G. Palfrey, Henry W. Bellows, Edward E. Hale, and LantCarpenter; and a hopeful review of the labors of the Association waspresented by the executive committee. First of all its efforts had beendirected to securing religious liberty. Then came its philanthropicenterprises, and finally its missionary labors. During the quarter of acentury one hundred churches that were weak and struggling, owing to theirsituation in towns of decreasing population or in cities not congenial totheir teachings, had been aided. More than fifty vigorous churches had beenplanted in the west and south, nearly all of them helped in some way by theAssociation. There was a renewed call for strong men to enter themissionary field, and it was uttered more urgently at this time than everbefore. Special pride was expressed in the high quality of the religiouswritings produced by Unitarians, and in the nobleness the men and women whohad been connected with denominational activities. [18]

[1] An eighteenth-century term for the Congregational churches, which were the legally established churches throughout New England, an supported by the towns. 

[2] Boston Unitarianism, 67. 

[3] Memoir of Dr. Channing, one-volume edition, 215. 

[4] Ibid. , 432. 

[5] Ibid. , 427. 

[6] Memoir of Ezra Stiles Gannett, by W. C. Gannett, 103. 

[7] The records give the following names: Drs. Freeman, Channing, Lowell, Tuckerman, Bancroft, Pierce, and Allyn; Rev. Messrs. Henry Ware, Francis Parkman, J. G. Palfrey, Jared Sparks, Samuel Ripley, A. Bigelow, A. Abbot, C. Francis, L. Capen, J. Pierpont, James Walker, Mr. Harding, and Mr. Edes; and the following laymen, --Richard Sullivan, Stephen Higginson, B. Gould, H. J. Oliver, S. Dorr, Colonel Joseph May, C. G. Loring, George Bond, Samuel A. Eliot, G. B. Emerson, C. P. Phelps, Lewis Tappan, David Reed, Mr. Storer, J. Rucker, N. Mitchell, Robert Rantoul, Alden Bradford, Mr. Dwight, Mr. Mackintosh, General Walker, Mr. Strong, Dr. John Ware, and Professor Andrews Norton. 

[8] John Brazer, The Christian Examiner, xx. 240; Alonzo Hill, American Unitarian Biography, i. 171. 

[9] The Liberal Christian, March 3, 1875. 

[10] Although Lewis Tappan took a zealous interest in the formation of the Unitarian Association, as he did in all Unitarian activities of the time, in the autumn of 1827 he withdrew from the Unitarian fellowship, and joined the orthodox Congregationalist. In a letter addressed to a Unitarian minister he explained his reasons for so doing. This letter circulated for some time in manuscript, and in 1828 was printed in a pamphlet with the title, Letter from a Gentleman in Boston to a Unitarian Clergyman of that City. Want of Piety among Unitarians, failure to sustain missionary enterprises, and the absence of a rigid business integrity he assigned as reasons for his withdrawal. This pamphlet excited much discussion, pro and con; and it was answered in a caustic review by J. P. Blanchard. 

[11] Moses George Thomas was a graduate of Brown and of the Harvard Divinity School, was settled in Dover, N. H. , from 1829 to 1845, Broadway Church in South Boston from 1845 to 1848, New Bedford 1848 to 1854, and was subsequently minister at large in the same city. 

[12] In writing to Charles Briggs from Newport, under date of July 30 1836, Dr. Channing wrote, "In the pressure of subjects, when I saw you, I forgot to say to you, that I cannot accept the office with which the Unitarian Association honored me. " That is the whole of what he wrote on the subject. No one else was elected to the office for year. It is evident, therefore, that his name should occupy the place of president. 

[13] The depositaries in Massachusetts were at Salem, Concord, Hingham, Plymouth, Yarmouth, Cambridge, Worcester, Northampton, Springfield, and Greenfield; in New Hampshire, at Concord, Portsmouth, Keene, and Amherst; in Maine, at Hallowell, Brunswick, and Eastport; and, in Connecticut, at Brooklyn. In 1828 the number had increased to twenty-five in Massachusetts, six in Maine, seven in New Hampshire, one in Rhode Island, four in New York, two in Pennsylvania, and two in Maryland. At the first annual meeting of the Unitarian Association a system of auxiliaries was recommended, which was inaugurated the next year. It was proposed to organize an auxiliary to the Association in every parish, and also in each county. These societies came rapidly into existence, were of much help to the Association in raising money and in distributing its tracts, and energetic efforts were made on the part of the officers of the Association to extend their number and influence. They continued in existence for about twenty years, and gradually disappeared. They numbered about one hundred and fifty when most prosperous. 

[14] During the first twenty-five years of the Association, 272 tracts of the first series were issued, and also 29 miscellaneous tracts and 37 reports. The number of copies published was estimated as 1, 764, 000, making an average of 70, 000 each year. Of these tracts, 103 were practical, and 93 doctrinal; and, of the doctrinal, one-half were on the Divine Unity, one-sixth on the Atonement, ten on Regeneration, five on the Ordinances, four on Human Nature, three on Retribution, and two on the Holy Spirit. In the Monthly Journal, May, 1860, Vol. I. Pp. 230-240, were given the titles and authors. 

[15] From a letter of Samuel K. Lothrop, afterward minister of the Brattle Street Church. 

[16] The following letter is of interest, not only because of the name of the writer, but because it gives a very good idea of the work done by the first missionaries of the Association. It is dated at Northampton, Mass. , October 9, 1827. "My dear Sir, --I designed when I left you to send some earlier notice of my doings than this; but as it has not been in my power to say much, I have said nothing. Mr. Hall is preparing an account of his own missions, but thinks it not worth while to send it to you till it is completed. The first Sabbath after my arrival I preached here. The second, for the convenience of the Greenfield people, an exchange was made, and I went to Deerfield, and Dr. Willard went to Colrain. There were some unfavorable circumstances which operated to diminish the audience, but they were glad to see and hear him. The fourth Sabbath (which followed the meeting of the Franklin Association) I preached at Greenfield, and Mr. Bailey went to Colrain. I enclose his journal. The fifth Sabbath at Deerfield, and Dr. Willard at Adams in Berkshire. I have not seen him since his return. I have told the Franklin Association I would remain here till November, and in consequence have been thus put to and fro, but expect to preach the three coming Sundays in Northampton. I have offered my services to preach lectures in the week, but circumstances have made it inexpedient in towns where it was proposed. The clergymen are very glad to see me, having feared that the mission was indefinitely postponed. They find the better sort of people in most of the towns inquisitive and favorably disposed to views of liberal Christianity. It is a singular fact, of which I hear frequent mention made, that in elections Unitarians are almost universally preferred when the suffrage is by ballot, and rejected when given by hand ballot. In Franklin county it is thought there is a majority of Unitarians. I have been much disappointed in being obliged to lead a vagrant life, as you know I came hither with different expectations, and hoped for leisure and retirement for study, which I needed much. But it would not do for a missionary to be stiff necked, and so I have been a shuttle. I have promised to go to New Bedford the first three Sundays of November. With great regard, your servant, R. Waldo Emerson. " From this letter it will be seen that Emerson supplied the pulpits at Northampton and Greenfield in order that the ministers in those towns might preach elsewhere. 

[17] Fourteenth Annual Report, 14. "They were the following: Rev. George Ripley, Boston; Rev. A. B. Muzzey, Cambridgeport; Rev. Samuel Barrett, Boston; Rev. Mr. Green, East Cambridge; Rev. Calvin Lincoln, Fitchburg; Rev. E. B. Willson, Westford; Dr. James Kendall, Plymouth; Rev. George W. Hosmer, Buffalo; Rev. Warren Burton, Dr. Thompson, Salem; Rev. J. P. B. Storer, Syracuse; Rev. Charles Babbidge, Pepperell; Rev. John M. Myrick, Walpole; Rev. J. D. Swett, Boston; Rev. A. D. Jones, Brighton; Rev. Henry Emmons, Meadville; Rev. J. F. Clarke, Louisville; Rev. F. D. Huntington, Rev. B. F. Barrett, Rev. G. F. Simmons, Rev. C. Nightingale, Mr. Wilson, of the Divinity School; and Mr. C. P. Cranch. Among the places where they preached are Houlton Me. ; Syracuse, Lockport, Lewiston, Pekin, and Vernon, N. Y. ; Philadelphia and Erie, Pa. ; Marietta, Zanesville, Cleveland, and Toledo, Ohio; Detroit, Mich. ; Owensburg, Ky. ; Chicago, Peoria, Tremont, Jacksonville, Hillsboro, and several other places in Illinois. "

[18] For a most interesting account of the growth of the denomination, see The Christian Examiner for May, 1854, lvi. 397, article by John Parkman. 

VII. 

THE PERIOD OF RADICALISM. 

Before the controversy with the Orthodox had come to its end, a somewhatsimilar conflict of opinions arose within the Unitarian ranks. The sameinfluences that had led the Unitarians away from the Orthodox were nowcausing the more radical Unitarians to advance beyond their moreconservative neighbors. English philosophy had given direction to theUnitarian movement in America; and now German philosophy was helping todevelop what has been designated as transcendentalism, which largely foundexpression within the Unitarian body. Beginning with 1835, the more liberalUnitarians were increasingly active. Hedge's[1] Club held its meetings, The Dial was published, Brook Farm lived its brief day of a reformedhumanity, Parker began his preaching in Boston, Emerson was lecturing andpublishing, and the more radical younger Unitarian preachers were bravelyspeaking for a religion natural to man and authenticated by the innerwitness of the truth. 

The agitation thus started went on its way with many varyingmanifestations, and with a growing incisiveness of statement andearnestness of feeling. The new teachings gained the interest and the faithof the young in increasing numbers. In pulpits and on the platform, innewspapers and magazines, in essays and addresses, this new teaching wasuttered for the world's hearing. The breeze thus created seems to havegrown into a gale, but The Christian Register and The Christian Examinergave almost no indication that it had blown their way. In the officialactions and in the publications of the Unitarian Association there was noword indicating that the discussion had come to its knowledge. All at once, however, in 1853, it came into the greatest prominence, as the result ofaction taken by the Unitarian Association; and, thenceforth, for a quarterof a century it was never absent as a disturbing element in theintellectual and religious life of the Unitarian body. 

The early Unitarians were believers in the supernatural and in the miraclesof the New Testament. They accepted without question the ideas on thissubject that had been entertained by all Protestants from the days ofLuther and Calvin. When Theodore Parker and the transcendentalists began toquestion the miraculous foundations of Christianity, many Unitarians werequite unprepared to accept their theories. They believed that the miraclesof the New Testament afford the only evidence for the truthfulness ofChristianity. This issue was distinctly stated in the twenty-eighth annualreport of the Unitarian Association for 1853, wherein an attempt was madeto defend the Unitarian body against the charge of infidelity andrationalism made by the Orthodox. The teachings of the transcendentalistsand radicals had been attributed to all Unitarians, and the leaders of theAssociation felt that it was time to define explicitly the position theyoccupied. Therefore they said, in the report of that year:--"We desire, ina denominational capacity, to assert our profound belief in the Divineorigin, the Divine authority, the Divine sanctions, of the religion ofJesus Christ. This is the basis of our associated action. We desire openlyto declare our belief as a denomination, so far as it can be officiallyrepresented by the American Unitarian Association, that God, moved by hisown love, did raise up Jesus to aid in our redemption from sin, did by himpour a fresh flood of purifying life through the withered veins of humanityand along the corrupted channels of the world, and is, by his religion, forever sweeping the nations with regenerating gales from heaven, andvisiting the hearts of men with celestial solicitations. We receive theteachings of Christ, separated from all foreign admixtures and lateraccretions, as infallible truth from God. "[2] At the same meeting aresolution was adopted, "without a dissenting voice, " which declared that"the Divine authority of the Gospel, as founded on a special and miraculousinterposition of God, is the basis of the action of the Association. "[3]

As these statements indicate, the majority of Unitarians were veryconservative at this time in their theological position and methods. Theywere nearly as hesitating and reticent in their beliefs as Unitarians asthey had been while connected with the older Congregational body. Thereason for this was the same in the later as in the earlier period, that apredominant social conservatism held them aloof from all that wasintellectually aggressive and theologically rationalistic. They hadoutgrown Tritheism, as it had been taught for generations in New England;they had refused to accept the fatalism that had been taught in the name ofCalvin, and they had rejected the ecclesiastical tyrannies that had beenimposed on men by the New England theology. But they had advanced only alittle way in accepting modern thought as a basis of faith, and in seekinga rational interpretation of the relations of God and man. Their belief ina superhuman Christ was theoretically weaker, but practically stronger, than that of the churches from which they had withdrawn; while the groundsof that belief were in the one instance the same as in the other. 

[Sidenote: Depression in Denominational Activities. ]

The activities of the Unitarian Association were largely interfered with bythese differences of opinion. The more conservative churches were unwillingto contribute to its treasury because it did not exclude the radicals fromall connection with it. The radicals, on, the other hand, withheld theirgifts because, while they were not excommunicated, they were regarded withsuspicion by many of the churches, and did not have the fullest recognitionfrom the Association. 

This controversy was emphasized by that arising from the reform movementsof the day, especially the agitation against slavery. Almost withoutexception the radicals belonged to the anti-slavery party, while theconservative churches were generally opposed to this agitation. As aresult, anti-slavery efforts became a serious cause of discord in theUnitarian churches, and helped to cripple the resources of the Association. When, as the climax of all, the civil war came on, the Association wasbrought to a condition of almost desperate poverty. Not more than twoscorechurches contributed to its treasury, and it was obliged, to curtail itsexpenses in every direction. [4]

Up to the year 1865 the Unitarians had not been efficiently organized; andthey had developed very imperfectly what has been called denominationalconsciousness, or the capacity for co-operative efforts. The UnitarianAssociation was not a representative body, and it depended wholly uponindividuals for its membership. Not more than one-fourth or, at thelargest, one-third of the Unitarian churches were represented in itssupport and in its activities. There were: Unitarian churches, and therewas a Unitarian movement; but such a thing as a Unitarian denomination, inany clearly defined meaning of the words, did not exist. This fact wasexplained by James Freeman Clarke in 1863, when he said that "thetraditions of the Unitarian body are conservative and timid. "[5] How thisattitude affected the Unitarian Association was pointedly stated by Mr. Clarke, after several years of experience as its secretary. "The Unitarianchurches in Boston, " he wrote, "see no reason for diffusing their faith. They treat it as a luxury to be kept for themselves, as they keep BostonCommon. The Boston churches, with the exception of a few noble and generousexamples, have not done a great deal for Unitarian missions. I have heard, it said that they do not wish to make Unitarianism too common. The churchin Brattle street contains wealthy and generous persons who have givenlargely to humane objects and to all public purposes; but we believe that, even while their pastor was president of the Unitarian Association, theynever gave a dollar to that Association for its missionary objects. Thesociety in King's Chapel was the first in the United States which professedUnitarianism. It is so wealthy that it might give ten or twenty thousanddollars a year to missionary objects without feeling it. It has always beenvery liberal to its ministers, to all philanthropic and benevolent objects, and its members have probably given away millions of dollars for public andsocial uses; but it never gives anything to diffuse Unitarianism. "[6]

Dr. Samuel K. Lothrop continued as the president of the UnitarianAssociation until the annual meeting of 1858, when Dr. Edward Brooks Hallwas elected to that position for one year. After short pastorates inNorthampton and Cincinnati, Dr. Hall had been settled over the First Churchin Providence in 1832, which position he held until his death in 1866. Atthe annual meeting of 1859 Dr. Frederic H. Hedge was elected president, andhe was twice re-elected. His interest in the Association was active, and heoften spoke at the public meetings. One of the ablest thinkers andtheologians that has appeared among Unitarians in this country, he alwaysrightly estimated the practical activities of organized religiousmovements. He was succeeded in 1862 by Dr. Rufus P. Stebbins, who held theoffice for three years. After a settlement in Leominster, Dr. Stebbins wasthe first president of the Meadville Theological School from 1844 to 1856. Then followed a pastorate in Woburn, after which he went to Ithaca andopened a mission for the students of Cornell University, which grew intothe Unitarian church in that town. From 1877 he was pastor at Newton Centreuntil his death in 1885. 

The secretary of the Association from 1850 to 1853 was Rev. Calvin Lincoln, who had been settled in Fitchburg for thirty-one years, and who was theminister of the First Church in Hingham from 1855 until his death in 1881. He was succeeded in 1853 by Rev. Henry A. Miles, who continued in officeuntil 1859. Dr. Miles was settled in Hallowell and Lowell before servingthe Association, and in Longwood and Hingham (Third Parish) afterward. Hislittle book on The Birth of Jesus has gained him recognition as atheologian of ability and a critic of independent judgment. For three yearsRev. James Freeman Clarke was the secretary; and in 1861 he was succeededby George W. Fox, who served in that capacity until the annual meeting of1865. Mr. Fox wrote the annual reports from 1862 to 1864, and efficientlyperformed all the duties of the secretary which could devolve upon alayman, with the exception of editing The Monthly Journal, a task which wascontinued by James Freeman Clarke. [7]

[Sidenote: Publications. ]

In spite of its restricted income during this troubled period, theAssociation was able, owing to its invested funds, [8] to increase itspublishing operations to a considerable extent. The number of tractspublished, however, was much smaller; and their monthly issue wasdiscontinued in order to publish The Quarterly Journal of the AmericanUnitarian Association, the first number of which appeared in October, 1853. During the first year each number contained ninety-six pages, which wereincreased to one hundred and ninety-two in 1854, but reduced to one hundredand thirty the following year. In 1860 this publication became The MonthlyJournal; and it was continued until December, 1869, each number containingforty-eight pages. The Journal was sent to all subscribers to the funds ofthe Association, to life members, to all churches contributing to itsfunds, as well as to regular subscribers. Its circulation in 1855 was7, 000, and it increased to 15, 000 before it was discontinued. It was usedlargely, however, for free distribution as a missionary document. 

The Journal served an important purpose during the seventeen years of itspublication, as a means of bringing the Association into touch with itsconstituency and of making the people acquainted with its work. Itpublished the records of the meetings of the executive committee as well asof the annual meeting, it gave numerous extracts from the correspondence ofthe secretary, it contained the news of the churches, and all thedenominational activities were kept constantly before its readers. In itspages were frequently published biographies of prominent Unitarians, notable addresses were printed, sermons appeared frequently, and abletheological articles. During the editorship of James Freeman Clarke itcontained the successive chapters of his Orthodoxy: Its Truths and Errors. It also printed one or more chapters of Alger's History of the Doctrine ofthe Future Life. The secretary of the Association was its editor, and hemade it at once a theological tract and a denominational newspaper. 

The increase in demand for Unitarian tracts and books had been so largethat early in 1854 the executive committee of the Association decided thata special effort should be made to meet it. They called a meeting inFreeman Place Chapel on the afternoon of February 1, which was largelyattended. An address was given by Dr. Lothrop, the president, who said thatChanning's works had reached a sale of 100, 000 copies, and Ware's Formationof Christian Character 12, 000, that there was an urgent call for liberalworks that would meet the spiritual needs of the age. A large number ofprominent ministers and laymen addressed the meeting, and expressedthemselves as thoroughly sympathy with its objects. A committee wasappointed to consider the proposition made by Dr. George E. Ellis, that afund of $50, 000 be raised for the publication of books. This committeereported a month later through its chairman, George B. Emerson, in favor ofthe project; and it was voted that the money should be raised. It waseasier to pass this vote, however, than to secure the money from thechurches; for in 1859, after five years of effort, the sum collected wasonly $28, 163. 33. 

The money secured, however, was immediately utilized in the publication ofa number of books. Three series of works were undertaken, the first ofthese being The Theological Library, in which were published Selectionsfrom the Works of Dr. Channing; Wilson's Unitarian Principles Confirmed byTrinitarian Testimonies; a one-volume edition of Norton's Statement ofReasons for not Believing the Doctrines of Trinitarians concerning theNature of God and the Person of Christ, with a memoir of the author by Dr. William Newell; a volume of Theological Essays selected from the writingsof Jowett, Tholuck, Guizot, Roland Williams, and others, and edited byGeorge R. Noyes; and Martineau's Studies of Christianity, a series ofmiscellaneous papers, edited by William R. Alger. The Devotional Library, the second of the three series, included The Altar at Home, a series ofprayers, collects, and litanies for family devotions, written by a largenumber of the leading Unitarian ministers, and edited by Dr. Miles, thesecretary of the Association; Clarke's Christian Doctrine of Prayer; ThomasT. Stone's The Rod and the Staff, a transcendentalist presentation ofChristianity as a spiritual life; The Harp and the Cross, a selection ofreligious poetry, edited by Stephen G. Bulfinch; Sears's Athanasia, orForegleams of Immortality; and Seven Stormy Sundays, a volume of originalsermons by well-known ministers, with devotional services, edited by MissLucretia P. Hale. A Biblical Library was also planned, to include a popularcommentary on the New Testament, a Bible Dictionary, and other works of alike character; but John H. Morison's Disquisitions and Notes on the Gospelof Matthew was the only volume published. 

[Sidenote: A Firm of Publishers. ]

In May, 1859, a young business man of Boston, James P. Walker, establishedthe firm of Walker, Wise & Co. , for the publication of Unitarian books. In1863 Horace B. Fuller joined the firm, and it became Walker, Fuller & Co. This firm took charge of all the publishing interests of the Association, and the head of the house was ambitious of bringing out all the liberalbooks issued in this country. Among the works published were: The NewDiscussion of the Trinity, a series of articles and sermons by Hedge, Clarke, Sears, Dewey, and Starr King; Lamson's Church of the First ThreeCenturies; Farley's Unitarianism Defined; Recent Inquiries in Theology, essays by Jowett, Mark Pattison, Baden Powell, and other English BroadChurchmen, edited by Dr. F. H. Hedge; Alien's Hebrew Men and Times; Dall'sWoman's Right to Labor; Muzzey's Christ in the Will, the Heart, and theLife; Ichabod Nichols's Sermons; Martineau's Common Prayer for ChristianWorship; Cobbe's Religious Demands of the Age; Ware's Silent Pastor;Frothingham's Stories from the Patriarchs; Clarke's Hour which Cometh andNow Is; Parker's Prayers; a second series The Altar at Home; Hedge's Reasonin Religion; Life of Horace Mann by his wife, as well as certain novels, historical works, and books for the young. The demand for liberal books wasnot large enough, however, even with the aid of the Association, to makesuch a business successful; and in the autumn of 1866 the publishing firmof Walker, Fuller & Co. Failed. In part the business was carried on for atime by Horace B. Fuller. 

[Sidenote: The Brooks Fund. ]

An important work in the distribution of books was inaugurated in 1859 inconnection with the Meadville Theological School, by means of the Fund forLiberal Christianity established at that time by Joshua Brooks of New York. He appointed as trustee of the fund Professor Frederick Huidekoper, whogave his services gratuitously to its care, and to the direction of thedistribution of books for which it provided. The sum given to this purposewas $20, 000, which was increased by favorable investments to $23, 000. Theoriginal purpose was to aid in any way that seemed desirable the cause ofliberal Christianity, and a part of the income was devoted to helpingstruggling societies. In time the whole income, with the approval of thedonor, was centred upon the distribution of books to settled ministers, irrespective of denomination. In 1877 the whole number of books that hadbeen distributed was 40, 000. At the present time about $1, 000 yearly aredevoted to this work, the recipients being graduates of the MeadvilleTheological School, and the ministers of any denomination who may ask forthem, provided they are settled west of the Hudson River. The demands uponthe funds have increased so rapidly that it has become necessary to reducethe amount of each gift. 

[Sidenote: Missionary Efforts. ]

The missionary activities of the Association did not actually cease even inthese dark days. In May, 1855, Rev. Ephraim Nute was sent to Kansas, whichwas then the battle-ground between the pro-slavery and the anti-slaveryforces of the nation. He established himself at Lawrence, and was the firstsettled pastor in the state. With the aid of the Association a church wasbuilt at Lawrence in 1859, which was the first in the state to receivededication and to be used as a permanent house of worship. Mr. Nute wentthrough all the trying scenes preceding the opening of the civil war, anddid his part in maintaining the cause of liberty. He was succeeded by Rev. John S. Brown in 1859, who labored in this difficult field for severalyears. 

A church was organized in San Francisco in 1849, without the aid of aminister; and there was gathered a large and prosperous congregation. In1850 Rev. Charles A. Farley took up the work; and he was succeeded by Rev. Joseph Harrington, Rev. Frederick T. Gray, and Rev. Rufus P. Cutler. ThomasStarr King preached his first sermon in the church April 28, 1860; and hespoke to crowded congregations until his death, March 4, 1864. On January10, 1864, a new church was dedicated, in the morning to the worship of God, and in the afternoon to the service of man. 

Among those who carried forward the Unitarian cause in the middle west wasRev. Nahor A. Staples, a brilliant preacher and a zealous worker, who wassettled in Milwaukee at the end of 1856, and who made his influence widelyfelt around him. In 1859 Rev. Robert Collyer began his work in Chicago as acity Missionary; and the next year Unity Church was organized, with him asthe pastor. In 1859 Rev. Charles G. Ames began his connection with theUnitarians at Minneapolis, and he subsequently labored at Bloomington. After a short pastorate in Albany he began general missionary labors on thePacific coast. A characteristic type of the western Unitarian was Rev. Ichabod Codding, who preached at Bloomington, Keokuk, and Baraboo, but whohad no formal settlement. He was a breezy, radical, and ardent preacher, bold in statement and picturesque in style, a zealous advocate of freedomfor the slave, and warmly devoted to other reforms. He was fitted admirablyfor the pioneer preaching to which he largely devoted himself; and hisstrong, vigorous, and aggressive ideas were acceptable to those who heardhim. 

[Sidenote: The Western Unitarian Conference. ]

There was organized in the church at Cincinnati, May 7, 1852, the AnnualConference of Western Unitarian Churches. At this meeting delegates werepresent from the churches in Buffalo, Meadville, Pittsburg, Wheeling, Cincinnati, Louisville, St. Louis, Cannelton, Quincy, Geneva, Chicago, andDetroit. Much enthusiasm was expressed in anticipation of this meeting, many letters were written, approving of the proposed organization, andlarge expectations were manifested as to its promised work. In harmony withthese large and generous anticipations of the influence of the conferencewas its statement of purposes, as presented in its constitution. It wasorganized for "the promotion of the Christian spirit in the severalchurches which compose it, and the increase of vital, practical religion;the diffusion of Gospel truth and the accomplishment of such works ofChristian benevolence as may be agreed upon; the support of domestic orhome missionaries, the publication of tracts, the distribution of religiousbooks, the promotion of theological education, and extending aid to suchsocieties as may need it. "

When the conference organized, Rev. William G. Eliot was elected thepresident, Mr. Charles Harlow and Rev. A. A. Livermore the recording andcorresponding secretaries. During the year $994. 22 were raised formissionary purposes, and three missionaries--Boyer, Conant, andBradley--were kept in the field, mainly in Illinois and Michigan. Thereports of these men, given at the second meeting of the conference, heldin St. Louis, were full of enthusiasm and courage. At this meeting theconstituency numbered nineteen churches, located in eleven states. Severalstruggling societies had been aided, assistance given to young menpreparing for the ministry, and many tracts and books had been distributed. A book depositary was opened in Cincinnati, and it was proposed toestablish one in every large city in the west. The call was for a muchlarger number of preachers, it being rightly maintained that only theliving man can reach the people in such a region. "The Unitarian ministeris _per se_ a bookseller and colporter also, and he can thus preach tomultitudes who never hear his voice. "

The early anticipations of a rapid advance of Unitarianism in the west werenot realized, partly owing to the want of ministers of energy and thenecessary staying qualities, and partly to the fact that tradition isalways far more powerful with the masses of men and women than reason. Before the organization of the conference new churches appeared atinfrequent intervals, though, if those that have ceased to exist werecounted, they would not be so remote from each other in time. [9] From thefirst there was in the west a distinctive attitude of freedom, which wasthe result in large, measure of its fluctuating conditions, and the absenceof fixed habits and traditions. In 1853 the missionaries of the conferencewere instructed that "in spirit and in aim the Conference would beChristian, not sectarian, and it does not, therefore, require of themsubscription to any human creed, the wearing of any distinctive name, orthe doing of any merely sectarian work. All that it requires is, that theyshould be Christians and do Christian work, that they should believe on theLord Jesus Christ as one who spake with authority and whose religion is thedivinely appointed means for the regeneration of man individually andcollectively, and that they should labor earnestly, intelligently, affectionately, and perseveringly to enthrone this religion in the heartsand make it, effective over the lives of men. " Such a statement as this, indeed, was quite as conservative as anything put forth by Unitarians inNew England; but behind it was an attitude of free inquiry that gave towestern Unitarianism distinctive characteristics. 

In 1854 a committee reported on the doctrinal basis of the conference, inthe form of a little book of sixty-five pages, bearing the title ofUnitarian Views of Christ. [10] It was widely circulated, and served anexcellent missionary purpose. When the conference accepted the report, inwhich it was declared that Jesus is the Son of God and the miracles of theNew Testament facts on which the gospel is based, a resolution wasunanimously passed, asserting that "we have no right to adopt any statementof belief as authoritative or as a declaration of the Unitarian faith, other than the New Testament. " In 1858 it was the opinion of the conferencethat "all who wish to take upon themselves the Christian name should be sorecognized. " The next year the conservatives and radicals came face toface, the one party asking for the old faith according to Channing, whileone or more of the other party asserted their disbelief in the miracles andin the resurrection of Christ. In 1860 the conference declared itselfwilling to "welcome as fellow laborers all who are seeking to learn and todo the will of the Father and work righteousness, and recommend that in allplaces, with or without preaching, they organize for religious worship andculture--the work of faith and the labor of love. "

The meeting at Quincy in 1860 was one of great interest and enthusiasm. Themissionary spirit rose high; and it was proposed to put into the field anaggressive worker, and to give him the necessary financial support. To thisend a missionary association was organized, with Rev. Robert Collyer as thepresident, and Artemas Carter, a successful business man of Chicago, as thetreasurer. Before the result desired could be realized, the war gave a verydifferent direction to all the interests of the western churches. Of thetwenty-nine ministers in the west at this time, sixteen went into thearmy, --twelve as chaplains, two as officers, and two as privates, --whileseveral others devoted themselves to hospital work for longer or shorterperiods. Rev. Augustus H. Conant, Rev. Leonard Whitney, Rev. Frederick R. Newell, and Rev. L. B. Mason answered with their lives to their country'scall. 

The period immediately following the close of the civil war was one ofgenerous giving and of great activity on the part of the western churches. From 1864 to 1866 the field was occupied by twenty-one new laborers, several new societies were organized, four old ones were resuscitated, seven new churches were built, and fifteen missionary stations were opened. The churches during these two years contributed $5, 000 to missionarypurposes and $13, 000 to Antioch College. The degree of success met with inthe efforts of the Western Conference depended in large degree upon theinterest and activity of the western churches themselves. When they devotedthemselves earnestly to missionary work, they contributed to it with a fairdegree of liberality, and that work prospered. When the conference wasasked to withdraw from the direction of that work by Rev. Charles Lowe, inorder to secure greater unity of missionary effort by bringing all work ofthis kind under the direction of the Association, the contributions of thechurches diminished, and the missionary activities in the west languished. However valuable the aid of the Unitarian Association, --and there can be noquestion that it was of the greatest importance, --local interest andco-operation were also essential to permanent success. Local activity andgeneral oversight were alike necessary. 

[Sidenote: The Autumnal Conventions. ]

For more than twenty years Autumnal Conventions, as they were called, wereheld in the larger cities, beginning at Worcester in 1842. These meetingsoriginated in the Worcester Association of Ministers at a meeting held July11, 1842, when the association considered the "desirableness of a meetingof Unitarians in the autumn for the purpose of awakening mutual sympathyand considering the wants of the Unitarian body. "[11]

At the invitation thereafter issued by the Worcester Association ofministers a convention was held in the church of the Second CongregationalParish in Worcester, October 18-20, 1842. On the first evening a sermon waspreached by Dr. Ezra S. Gannett, and a committee of business wassubsequently chosen. The next morning the convention organized, with Dr. Francis Parkman as president and Rev. Cazneau Palfrey as secretary. Aseries of resolutions were discussed, [12] and on the second evening asermon was preached by Dr. A. P. Peabody. No essays were read, and nothingbut the sermons were prepared beforehand. The Christian Register closed itsreport by saying that it could "give but a faint impression of the feelingwhich pervaded the meeting. The discussions were characterized by greatearnestness and seriousness, and were conducted, at the same time, withentire freedom and with candor and liberality toward the differences ofopinion which, amidst a general unanimity upon great principles, wereoccasionally elicited respecting details and methods. The expectations ofthose who called the convention were abundantly realized. "

The second of the Autumnal Conventions was held in Providence, October 2-4, 1843. On the first evening the theme of the sermon preached by Dr. Deweywas the spiritual ministry of Dr. Channing, and it produced a great anddeep impression. The resolutions discussed related to the duty, on the partof Unitarians, of making an explicit statement of their convictions, and anearnest application of them to life, and the need on the part of thedenomination for a more united and vigorous action as a religious body. Atthe third meeting held in Albany, a statement was made by Dr. Dewey thatexactly defined these gatherings, in their methods and purposes, when hesaid: "This and other conventions like it that are held in our body, I aminclined to think, have never been held before in the world. There isnothing like them to be found in the records of ecclesiastical history. Wemeet as distinct churches, on the pure democratic basis, which we believeto be the true basis of the church of Christ. We meet, without anyformalities--to institute, or correct no canons--without the slightestsystem whatever. We come to meditate, to assist each other in experience, by unfolding our own experience, by declaring our convictions. "

The subjects introduced at these meetings were practical, such as commandedthe interest of both ministers and laymen of the churches. The methodadopted allowed a free interchange of opinions, and the participation ofall in the discussions. So great was the interest awakened that thesemeetings were largely attended, and they were to a considerable degreehelpful in bringing the churches into vital relations with each other. [13]

At the session held in Brooklyn in 1862, great interest was manifested inthe vespers, then a novelty, that were arranged by Samuel Longfellow. Thismeeting was marked by its glowing patriotism, that rose to a white heat. Asermon of great power was preached by Dr. Bellows, interpreting the duty ofthe hour and the destiny of America. The resolutions and the discussionswere almost wholly along the lines of patriotic duty and devotion suggestedby the sermon. At the last of the Autumnal Conventions, held inSpringfield, Mass. , October 13-15, 1863, the sermons were preached by Rev. Edward Everett Hale and Rev. Octavius B. Frothingham, while the essays wereby Professor Charles Eliot Norton and Rev. James Freeman Clarke. 

The Autumnal Conventions came to an end, probably in part because the civilwar was more and more absorbing the energies of the people both in and outof the churches, and partly because the desire for a more efficientorganization had begun to make itself felt. In the spring of 1865 was heldthe meeting in New York that resulted in the organization of the NationalConference, the legitimate successor to the Autumnal Conventions. 

[Sidenote: Influence of the Civil War. ]

During the period of the civil war, Unitarian activities were largelyturned in new directions. Unitarians bore their full share in the councilsof the nation, in the halls of legislation, on the fields of battle, in thecare of the sick and wounded, and in the final efforts that brought aboutemancipation and peace. At least fifty Unitarian ministers entered the armyas chaplains, privates, officers, and members of the SanitaryCommission. [14]

The Unitarian Association also directed its attention to such work as itcould accomplish in behalf of the soldiers in the field and in hospitals. Books were distributed, tracts published, and hymn-books prepared to meettheir needs. Rev. John F. W. Ware developed a special gift for writing armytracts, of which he wrote about a dozen, which were published by theAssociation. As the war went on, the Association largely increased itsactivities in the army; and, when the end came, it had as many as seventyworkers in the field, distributing its publications, aiding the SanitaryCommission, or acting as nurses and voluntary chaplains in the hospitals. The end of the war served rather to increase than to contract its labors, aid being largely needed for several months in returning the soldiers totheir homes and in caring for those who were left in hospitals. 

Early in the summer of 1863 Rev. William G. Scandlin was sent to the Armyof the Potomac as the agent of the Association. Taken prisoner in July, hespent several months in Libby prison, where he was kindly treated andexercised a beneficent influence. He was followed in this work by Rev. William M. Mellen, who established a library of 3, 000 volumes at theconvalescent camp, Alexandria, and also distributed a large amount ofreading matter in the army. Rev. Charles Lowe served for several months aschaplain in the camp of drafted men on Long Island, his salary being paidby the Association. In November, 1864, he made a tour of inspection, as theagent of the Association, to the hospitals of Philadelphia, BaltimoreAnnapolis, Washington, Alexandria, Fortress Monroe, City Point, and theArmy of the Potomac, in order to arrange for the proper distribution ofreading matter and for such other hospital service as could be rendered. More than 3, 000 volumes of the publications of the Association weredistributed to the soldiers and in the hospitals, largely by Rev. J. G. Forman, of St. Louis, and Rev. John H. Heywood, of Louisville. Among thosewho acted as agents of the Association in furnishing reading to the armyand hospitals were Rev. Calvin Stebbins, Rev. Frederick W. Holland, Rev. Benjamin H. Bailey, Rev. Artemas B. Muzzey, Rev. Newton M. Mann, and Mr. Henry G. Denny. Rev. Samuel Abbot Smith worked zealously at Norfolk at thehospitals and in preaching to the soldiers, until disease and death broughthis labors to a close. What this kind of work was, and what itaccomplished, was described by Louisa Alcott in her Hospital Sketches, andby William Howell Reed in his Hospital Life in the Army of the Potomac. 

[Sidenote: The Sanitary Commission. ]

The Sanitary Commission has been described by its historian as "one of themost shining monuments of our civilization, " and as an expression oforganized sympathy that "must always and everywhere call forth the homageand admiration of mankind. " The organizer and leader of this greatphilanthropic movement for relieving human suffering was Dr. Henry W. Bellows, the minister of All Souls' Church in New York, the first Unitarianchurch organized in that city. The Commission was first suggested by Dr. Bellows, and he was its efficient leader from the first to the last. He wasunanimously selected as its president, when the government had beenpersuaded, largely through his influence, to establish it as an addition toits medical and hospital service. The historian of the Commission hasjustly said that he "possessed many remarkable qualifications for soresponsible, a position. Perhaps no man in the country exerted a wider ormore powerful influence over those who were earnestly seeking the bestmeans of defending our threatened nationality, and certainly never was amoral power of this kind founded upon juster and truer grounds. Thisinfluence was not confined to his home, the city of New York, althoughthere it was incontestably very great, but it extended over many otherportions of the country, and particularly throughout New England, wherecircumstances had made his name and his reputation for zeal and abilityfamiliar to those most likely to aid in the furtherance of the new scheme. This power was due, partly of course to the very eminent position which heoccupied as a clergyman, partly to the persistent efforts and enlightenedzeal with which he advocated all wise measures of social reform, perhaps tohis widely extended reputation as an orator, but primarily, and above all, to the rare combination of wide comprehensive views of great questions ofpublic policy with extraordinary practical sagacity, which enabled him soto organize popular intelligence and sympathy that the best practicalresults were attained while the life-giving principle was preserved. He hadthe credit of not being what so many of his profession are, an idéologue;he had the clearest perception of what could and what could not be done, and he never hesitated to regard actual experience as the best practicaltest of the value of his plans and theories. These qualities, so preciousand so exceptional in their nature, appeared conspicuously in the effortsmade by him to secure the appointment of the Commission by the Government, and it will be found that every page of its history bears the strongimpress of his peculiar and characteristic views. "[15]

These words of Charles J. Stillé, a member of the Sanitary Commission andits authorized historian, afterward the provost of the University ofPennsylvania, indicate the remarkable qualities of leadership possessed byDr. Bellows. These were undoubtedly added to and made more impressive byhis oratorical genius, that was of a very high order. Dr. Hedge spoke ofthe miraculous power of speech possessed by Dr. Bellows, when he was at hisbest, as being "incomparably better than anything he could have possiblycompassed by careful preparation or conscious effort, " and of "thoseexalted moments when he was fully possessed by his demon. "[16] He wasinexhaustible in his efforts for the success of the Commission, indirecting the work of committees and branches, in appealing to theindifferent, and in giving enthusiasm to all the forces under hisdirection. 

Of the nine original members of the Sanitary Commission, four wereUnitarians, --Dr. Bellows, Dr. Samuel G. Howe, Dr. Jeffries Wyman, andProfessor Wolcott Gibbs. In the number of those added later was Rev. JohnH. Heywood, for many years the minister of the Unitarian church inLouisville, who rendered efficient service in the western department. Inthe convalescents' camp at Alexandria "a wonderful woman, " Miss AmyBradley, had charge of the efficient labors of the Commission, "where fortwo and a half years she and her assistants rendered incalculable service, in distributing clothing among the needy, procuring dainties for the sick, accompanying discharged soldiers to Washington and assisting them inprocuring their papers and pay, furnishing paper and postage, and writingletters for the sick, forwarding money home by drafts that cost nothing tothe soldier, answering letters of inquiry to hospital directors, securingcertificates of arrears of pay and getting erroneous charges of desertionremoved (the Commission saved several innocent soldiers from being shot ascondemned deserters), distributing reading matter, telegraphing the friendsof very ill soldiers, furnishing meals for feeble soldiers in barracks whocould not eat the regulation food. Miss Bradley assisted 2, 000 men tosecure arrears of pay amounting to $200, 000. Prisoners of war, while inprison and when released by general exchange, were largely and promptlyrelieved and comforted by this department. "[17] Another effective workerwas Frederick N. Knapp, who had been for several years a Unitarianminister, and who was the leading spirit in the special relief service ofthe Commission, "and organized and controlled it with masterly zeal, humanity, and success. "[18] The work of Mr. Knapp was of great importance;for he was the confidential secretary of Dr. Bellows, and gave his wholetime to the service of the Commission. He was a methodical worker, anefficient organizer, and supplied those qualities of persistent industryand grasp of details in which Dr. Bellows was deficient. Without hisuntiring energy and skilful directing power the Commission would have beenless effective than it was in fact. Dr. Bellows also described William G. Scandlin as "one of the most earnest and effective of the SanitaryCommission agents. "

In the autumn of 1862 the Commission was greatly crippled in its workbecause it could not obtain the money with which to carry on its extensiveoperations, and it was saved from failure by the generosity of California, and the other Pacific states and territories. The remoteness of thesestates at that time made it impossible for them to contribute theirproportion of men, "and they indulged their patriotism and gave relief totheir pent-up sympathies with the national cause by pouring out their moneylike water. "[19] The first contribution was received by the SanitaryCommission on September 19, 1862, and was $100, 000: a fortnight later thesame sum was again sent; and similar contributions followed at shortintervals. These sums enabled the Commission to accomplish its splendidwork, and to meet the urgent needs of those trying days. How the Pacificcoast was able to contribute so largely to this work may be explained inthe words of Dr. Bellows, who fully understood the situation, and the vastimportance of the help afforded: "The most gifted and inspiring of thepatriots who rallied California and the Pacific coast to the flag of theUnion was undoubtedly Thomas Starr King, minister of the first Unitarianchurch in San Francisco. Born in New York, but reared in Massachusetts, hehad earned an almost national reputation for eloquence and wit, humanityand nobleness of soul, in the lecture-rooms and pulpits of the north andwest, when at the age of thirty-five, he yielded to the religious claims ofthe Pacific coast and transferred himself to California. There in fouryears he had built up as public speaker from the pulpit and platform aprodigious popularity. His temperament sympathetic, mercurial, andelectric; his disposition hearty, genial, and sweet; his mind versatile, quick, and sparkling; his tact exquisite, and infallible; with a voice asclear as a bell and loud and cheering as a trumpet, his nature andaccomplishments perfectly adapted to the people, and place, and the time. His religious profession disarmed many of his political enemies, hispolitical orthodoxy quieted many of his religious opponents. Generous, charitable, disinterested, his full heart and open hand captivated theCalifornia people, while his sparkling wit, melodious cadences, andrhetorical abundance perfectly satisfied their taste for intensity andnovelty and a touch of extravagance. It has been said by high authoritythat Mr. King saved California to the Union. California was too loyal atheart to make the boast reasonable; but it is not too much to say that Mr. King did more than any man, by his prompt, outspoken, uncalculatingloyalty, to make California know what her own feelings really were. He didall that any man could have done to lead public sentiment that wasunconsciously ready to follow where earnest loyalty and patriotism shouldguide the way. "[20]

Not less important in its own degree was the work done in St. Louis by Dr. William G. Eliot, minister since 1834 of the Unitarian church in that city. He became the leader in all efforts for aiding the soldiers, and was mostactive in forming and directing the Western Sanitary Commission, thatworked harmoniously with the national organization, but independently. Alarge hospital was established and maintained, a home for refugees wassecured, and a large camp for "contraband" negroes was established, chieflyunder the direction of Dr. Eliot, and largely maintained by his church. Hewas a potent force in keeping St. Louis and the northern portions ofMissouri loyal to the Union. The secretary of the Western SanitaryCommission, J. G. Forman, a Unitarian minister for many years, was mostfaithful and efficient in this work; and he subsequently became itshistorian. In the Freedman's Hospital at St. Louis labored with zeal andsuccess Rev. Frederick R. Newall; and he was also superintendent of theFreedman's Bureau in that city, his life being sacrificed to these devotedlabors. 

[Sidenote: Results of Fifteen Years. ]

The work done by the Unitarian Association during the civil war and underthe conditions it produced was not a large one, but it absorbed aconsiderable part of its energies for about five years. In all it printedover 3, 000 copies of three books for the soldiers, [21] distributed 750, 000tracts which it had prepared for them, [22] sent to the soldiers 5, 000copies weekly of The Christian Register and The Christian Inquirer, 1, 500copies of the Monthly Journal, 1, 000 of The Monthly Religious Magazine, and1, 000 of the Sunday-school Gazette. During the last year or two of the warits tracts went out at the rate of 50, 000 monthly. The tracts and theperiodicals therefore numbered a monthly distribution of about 75, 000copies. The seventy volunteer agents who brought these publications to thehands of the soldiers, together with the army chaplains, agents of theSanitary Commission, and the many nurses in the hospitals, made aconsiderable force of Unitarian missionaries developed by the exigencies ofthe war, and the attempts to meliorate its hard conditions. 

The period of fifteen years, from 1850 to 1865, which has been underconsideration in this chapter, was one of the greatest trial anddiscouragement to the Association. Its funds reached their lowest ebb, amissionary secretary could not be maintained, a layman performed thenecessary office duties, and no considerable aggressive work alongmissionary lines was undertaken. Writing in a most hopeful spirit of thesituation, in November, 1863, the editor of The Christian Register showedthat in 1848 the number of Unitarian churches was 201, while in 1863 it was205, an increase of four only in fifteen years. During this period fiftyparishes had gained pastors, but fifty had lost them. Several strongparishes, he said, had come into existence, and two in large places haddied. Most of those that had been closed were in small country towns. Nevertheless, with truth it could be said of these fifteen years ofdiscouragement and failure that every one of them was a seed-time for theharvest that was soon to be reaped. 

[1] Usually known as the Transcendental Club, sometimes as The Symposium. It was started in 1836 by Emerson, Ripley, and Hedge, and met at the houses of the members to discuss philosophical and literary subjects. It was called Hedge's Club because it met when Rev. F. H. Hedge came to Boston from Bangor, where he was settled in 1835. It also included Clarke, Francis, Alcott, Dwight, W. H. Channing, Bartol, Very, Margaret Fuller, and Elizabeth P. Peabody. 

[2] Twenty-eighth Report of the American Unitarian Association, 22. 

[3] Ibid. , 30. For other statements made at this time see pp. 22 and 26 of this report; Quarterly Journal, L 44, 228, 243, 275, 333; and O. B. Frothingham's Transcendentalism in New England, 123. John Gorham Palfrey said (Twenty-eighth Report, 31) that "the evidence of Christianity is identical with the evidence of the miraculous character of Jesus, " and that "his miraculous powers were the highest evidence that he came from God. " Parker replied to this report of the Association in his Friendly Letter to the Executive Committee. Of this report John W. Chadwick has said that it is "the most curious, not to say amusing, document in our denominational archives. " See The Organization of our Liberty, Christian Register, July 19, 1900. 

[4] In 1854 the receipts from all sources for the year preceding, except from sales of books and interest on investments, was $4, 267. 32. For the next two years there was a rapid gain, the sum reported in 1856 being $11, 615. 90; but there was a slight decrease the next year, and the financial panic of 1857 brought the donations down to $4, 602. 38, the amount reported at the annual meeting of 1858. Then there was a steady gain until the civil war began, after which the contributions were small, the general donations being only $3, 056. 03 in 1863, which sum was brought up to $5, 547. 73 by contributions for special purposes, more than one-third of the whole being for the Army Fund. 

[5] The Christian Register, October 17, 1863. 

[6] The Monthly Journal, I. 350. 

[7] Mr. Fox entered the employ of the Association in 1855 as a clerk, and then he became the assistant of the secretary by the appointment of the directors. From 1864 to the present time he has served as the assistant secretary. His services have been invaluable to the Association in many ways, because of his diligence, fidelity, unfailing devotion to its interests, and loyalty to the Unitarian cause. 

[8] The beginning of a general fund seems to have been made in 1835, and was secured by special subscriptions for the purpose of paying the salary of a general secretary or missionary agent. The treasurer reported in 1836 that during the previous year $2, 408. 37 had been collected for this purpose. 

[9] Of the churches now in existence the first in Chicago was organized in 1836, that at Quincy in 1840, Milwaukee and Geneva in 1842, Detroit in 1850. After the conference began its work, they appear more frequently, Keokuk coming into existence in 1853, Marietta in 1855, Lawrence in 1856, Unity of Chicago, Kalamazoo, and Buda in 1858, Bloomington in 1859. Then comes a blank during the war period, and a more rapid growth after it, especially when the National Conference had given impetus to missionary activities. Janesville was organized in 1864; Ann Arbor, Kenosha, and Baraboo, in 1865; Tremont, in 1866; Cleveland and Mattoon, in 1867; Unity of St. Louis, Kansas City, St. Joseph, Shelbyville, Davenport, Geneseo, Third of Chicago, and Sheffield, in 1868; Omaha, in 1869. 

[10] Written by William G. Eliot, of St. Louis. 

[11] Joseph Allen, The Worcester Association and its Antecedents, 268. 

[12] Through the business committee the following resolutions were submitted for the consideration of the convention, and they were taken up in order:--

 _Resolved_, That we acknowledge with profound gratitude the success which has attended our labors in the cause of religious freedom, virtue, and piety, and are encouraged to persevere with renewed zeal and energy. 

 _Resolved_, That in the character and life of Rev. William E. Channing, just removed from us, we acknowledge one of the richest gifts of God, in intellectual endowments, pure aspiration, moral courage, and disinterested devotion to the cause of truth, freedom, and humanity, and that in view of this, we feel out increased obligation to Christian fidelity and heavenward progress. 

 _Resolved_, That viewing with anxiety prevailing fanaticism and growing disregard of public trusts and private relations, we should earnestly labor for a higher religious principle, and especially urge the paramount claims of moral duty. 

[13] The places and dates of the Autumnal Conventions were as follows: Worcester, 1842; Provence, 1843; Albany, 1844; New York, 1845; Philadelphia, 1846; Salem, 1847; New Bedford, 1848; Portland, 1849; Springfield, 1850; Portsmouth, 1851; Baltimore, 1852; Worcester, 1853; Montreal, 1854; Providence, 1855; Bangor, 1856; Syracuse, 1857; Salem, 1858; Lowell, 1859; New Bedford, 1860; Boston, 1861; Brooklyn, 1862; Springfield, 1863. 

[14] The first regiments from Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Kansas, had as their chaplains Warren H. Cudworth, Augustus Woodbury, and Ephraim Nute. Charles Babbidge was the chaplain of the sixth Massachusetts regiment, that which was fired upon in Baltimore. The first artillery company from Massachusetts had as its chaplain Stephen Barker. Others who served as army chaplains were John Pierpont, Edmund B. Willson, Francis C. Williams, Arthur B. Fuller, Sylvan S. Hunting, Charles T. Canfield, Edward H. Hall, George H. Hepworth, Joseph F. Lovering, Edwin M. Wheelock, George W. Bartlett, John C. Kimball, Augustus M. Haskell, Charles A. Humphreys, Milton J. Miller, George A. Ball, William G. Scandlin, E. B. Fairchild, Samuel W. McDaniel, Frederick R. Newell, George W. Woodward, Stephen H. Camp, William D. Haley, Leonard Whitney, Gilbert Cummings, Nahor A. Staples, Carlton A. Staples, Martin M. Willis, John F. Moors, L. B. Mason, Robert Hassall, Liberty Billings, Daniel Foster, J. G. Forman, and Augustus H. Conant. Robert Collyer was chaplain-at-large in the Army of the Potomac. Charles J. Bowen, William J. Potter, Charles Noyes, James Richardson, and William H. Channing served as hospital chaplains. 

 Among the ministers who served as officers were: Hasbrouck Davis, who became a general; William B. Greene, colonel; Gerald Fitzgerald, who enlisted as a private, rose to the rank of first lieutenant, and was elected chaplain of his regiment; Edward I. Galvin, lieutenant, also elected chaplain; James K. Hosmer, who served through the war, at first as a private and then as a corporal, writing his experiences into The Color Guard and The Thinking Bayonet; George W. Shaw and Alvin Allen, privates. Thomas D. Howard and James H. Fowler were chaplains in colored regiments. After service as a chaplain of a Hew Hampshire regiment, Edwin M. Wheelock became a lieutenant in a colored regiment, as did Charles B. Webster. Thomas W. Higginson was colonel of a colored regiment, and in another Henry Stone was lieutenant colonel. It is doubtful if this list is complete, though an effort has been made to have it as nearly so as possible. Those who served in the army, and became ministers after leaving it, have not been included. So far as known, only ordained ministers are named. 

[15] History of the United States Sanitary Commission, being the General Report of its Work during the War of the Rebellion. 

[16] J. H. Allen, Our Liberal Movement in Theology, 210. 

[17] Henry W. Bellows, article on the Sanitary Commission, in Johnson's Cyclopedia, revised edition. 

[18] Ibid. 

[19] Henry W. Bellows, article on the Sanitary Commission, in Johnson's Cyclopedia, revised edition. 

[20] History of the Sanitary Commission. 

[21] Thoughts selected from Channing's Works, Ware's The Silent Pastor, and Eliot's Discipline of Sorrow. The Association also issued one number of the Monthly Journal as an Army Companion, which contained fifty hymns of a patriotic and religions character, with appropriate tunes, selections from the Bible, directions for preserving health in the army, and selections from addresses on the injustice of the rebellion and the spirit in which it should be put down. 

[22] Twenty tracts were published. The first was written by Dr. George Putnam; and was on The Man and the Soldier. The second was The Soldier of the Good Cause, by Prof. C. E. Norton. Others were A Letter to a Sick Soldier, by Rev. Robert Collyer; An Enemy within the Lines, by Rev. S. H. Winkley. Rev. John F. W. Ware wrote fourteen of these tracts, the following being some of the subjects: The Home to the Camp, The Home to the Hospital, Wounded and in the Hands of the Enemy, Traitors in Camp, A Change of Base, On Picket, The Rebel, The Recruit, A Few Words with the Convalescent, Mustered Out, A Few Words with the Rank and File at Parting. 

VIII. 

THE DENOMINATIONAL AWAKENING. 

The war had an inspiring influence upon Unitarians, awakening them to aconsciousness of their strength, and drawing them together to work forcommon purposes as nothing else had ever done. From the beginning they sawin the effort to save the Union, and in the spirit of liberty that animatedthe nation, an expression of their own principles. Whatever its effect uponother religious bodies, the war gave to Unitarians new faith, courage, andenthusiasm. For the first time they became conscious of their opportunity, and united in a determined purpose to meet its demands with fidelity totheir convictions and loyalty to the call of humanity. [1]

No Autumnal Convention having been held in 1864, owing to the failure ofthe committee appointed for that purpose to make the necessaryarrangements, a special meeting of the Unitarian Association was held inthe Hollis Street Church, Boston, December 6-7, at the call of theexecutive committee, "to awaken interest in the work of the Association bylaying before the churches the condition of our funds and the demand forour labor. " The attendance was large, and the tone of the meeting washopeful and enthusiastic. After Dr. Stebbins, the president, had stated thepurpose of the meeting, Dr. Bellows urged the importance of a moreeffective organization of the Unitarian body. His success with the SanitaryCommission had evidently prepared his mind for a like work on the part ofUnitarians, and for a strong faith in the value of organized effort inbehalf of liberal religion. His capacity as leader during the war hadprepared men to accept it in other fields of effort, and Unitarians wereready to use it in their behalf. The hopefulness that existed, in view ofthe success of the Union cause, and the enthusiastic interest in themethods of moral and spiritual reform that was manifested because of thetriumph of the spirit of freedom in the nation, led many to think that likeefforts in behalf of liberal Christianity would result in like successes. 

On the afternoon of the second day (a meeting in the evening of the firstday only having been held) James P. Walker, the publisher, gave a résumé ofthe activities of the Association during the forty years of its existence, and said that its receipts had been on the average only $8, 038. 88 yearly. He showed that much had been done with this small sum, and that the resultswere much larger than the amount of money invested would indicate. Hepointed out the fact that the demands upon the Association were rapidlyincreasing, and far more rapidly than the contributions. There was anurgent need for larger giving, he said, and for a more loyal support of themissionary arm of the denomination. He offered a series of resolutionscalling for the raising of $25, 000 during the year. Rev. Edward EverettHale said that $100, 000 ought to be given to the proposed object, and urgedthat more missionaries should be sent into the field. Thereupon Mr. HenryP. Kidder arose, and said: "It is often easier to do a great thing than asmall one. I move that this meeting undertake to raise $100, 000 for theservice of the next year. " Dr. Bellows then called the attention of theconference to the importance of considering the manner of securing thislarge sum and of devising methods to insure success. He proposed "that acommittee of ten persons, three ministers and seven laymen, should beappointed to call a convention, to consist of the pastor and two delegatesfrom each church or parish in the Unitarian denomination, to meet in thecity of New York, to consider the interests of our cause and to institutemeasures for its good. " The two resolutions were unanimously adopted, pledging the denomination to raise $100, 000, and to the holding of adelegate convention in New York. The president appointed, as members of thecommittee of arrangements for the convention, Rev. Henry W. Bellows, Messrs. A. A. Low, U. A. Murdock, Henry P. Kidder, Atherton Blight, EnochPratt, and Artemas Carter, Rev. Edward E. Hale, and Rev. Charles H. Brigham. 

The convention in New York was not waited for in order to make an effort tosecure the $100, 000 it was proposed to raise; and early in January thepresident of the Association, Dr. Rufus P. Stebbins, was authorized todevote his whole time to securing that sum. A circular was sent to thechurches saying that such a sum "was needed, and should and could beraised. " "The hour has come, " said the executive committee in their appealto the churches, "which the fathers longed to see, but were denied thesight, --of taking our true position among other branches of the church ofour Lord Jesus Christ in the spread and establishment of the Gospel. "

The response to this call was prompt and enthusiastic beyond any precedent. The war had made money plentiful, and it came easily to those who weresuccessful. Great fortunes had been rapidly gathered; and the country hadnever known an equal prosperity, even though the burden of the war had notyet been removed. In February the president of the Association was able toannounce that $28, 871. 47 had been subscribed by twelve churches. By the endof March the pledges had reached $63, 862. 63; and when the convention met inNew York, April 5, 1865, the contributions then pledged were only a fewthousand dollars short of the sum desired. By the end of May the sumreported was $111, 676. 74, which was increased by several hundred dollarsmore. 

[Sidenote: The New York Convention of 1865. ]

It was when this success was certain that the convention met in New York. The victory of the Union cause was then assured, and the utmost enthusiasmprevailed. Some of the final and most important scenes of the greatnational struggle were enacted while the convention was in session. Courageand hope ran high under these circumstances; and the convention was notonly enthusiastically loyal to the nation, but equally so to its owndenominational interests. For the first time in the history of theUnitarian body in this country the churches were directly represented at ageneral gathering. The number of churches represented was two hundred andtwo, and they sent three hundred and eighty-five delegates. Many otherpersons attended, however; and throughout all the sittings of theconvention the audience was a large one. Many women were present, thoughnot as delegates, the men only having official recognition in thisgathering. It is evident from the records, the newspaper reports, and thememories of those present, that the interest in this meeting was verylarge, and that the attendance was quite beyond what was anticipated by anyone concerned in planning it. The call to all the churches, and the givingthem an equality of representation in the convention, was doubtless one ofthe causes of its success. As a result, an able body of laymen appeared inthe convention, who were accustomed to business methods and familiar withlegislative procedure, and who carried through the work of the conventionwith deliberation and skill. 

On the first evening of the convention a sermon was preached by Dr. JamesFreeman Clarke that was a noble and generous introduction to itsdeliberations. He called for the exercise of the spirit of inclusiveness, abroad and tolerant catholicity, and union on the basis of the work to bedone. On the morning of April 5, 1865, at eleven o'clock, the conventionmet for the transaction of business in All Souls' Church, of which HenryWhitney Bellows was the minister. Hon. John A. Andrew, then the governor ofMassachusetts, was elected to preside over the convention; and among thevice-presidents were William Cullen Bryant, Rev. John Gorham Palfrey, Hon. Ebenezer Rockwood Hoar, Rev. Orville Dewey, and Rev. Ezra Stiles Gannett, while Rev. Edward Everett Hale was made the secretary. In Governor Andrewthe convention had as its presiding officer a man of a broad and generousspirit, who was insistent that the main purpose of the meeting should bekept always steadily in view, and yet that all the members and all thevarying opinions should have just recognition. In a large degree thesuccess of the convention was due to his catholicity and to his skill inreconciling opposing interests. 

The time of the convention was devoted almost wholly to legislating for thedenomination and to planning for its future work. On the morning of thesecond day the subject of organization came up for consideration, and thecommittee selected for that purpose presented a constitution providing fora National Conference that should meet annually, and that should beconstituted of the minister and two lay delegates from each church, together with three delegates each from the American Unitarian Association, the Western Conference, and such other bodies as might be invited toparticipate in its deliberations. This Conference was to be onlyrecommendatory in its character, adopting "the existing organizations ofthe Unitarian body as the instruments of its power. " The name of the neworganization was the subject of some discussion, James Freeman Clarkewishing to make the Conference one of Independent and Unitarian churches, while another delegate desired to substitute "free Christian" forUnitarian. The desire strongly manifested by a considerable number to makethe Conference include in its membership all liberal churches of whatevername not acceptable to the majority of the delegates, voted with a decidedemphasis to organize strictly on the Unitarian basis. 

As soon as the convention was organized, expression was given to the demandfor a doctrinal basis for its deliberations. Though several attempts weremade to bring about the acceptance of a creed, these met with completefailure. In the preamble to the constitution, however, it was asserted thatthe delegates were "disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ, " while the firstarticle declared that the conference was organized to promote "the cause ofChristian faith and work. " It was quite evident that a large majority ofthe delegates regarded the convention as Christian in its purposes anddistinctly Unitarian in its denominational mission. A minority desired aplatform that should have no theological implications, and that shouldpermit the co-operation of every kind of liberal church. The use of thephrase Lord Jesus Christ was strongly opposed by the more radical sectionof the convention, but the members of it were not organized or ready togive utterance to their protest in an effective manner. 

The convention gave its approval to the efforts of the UnitarianAssociation to secure the sum of $100, 000, and urged the churches, that hadnot already done so, to contribute. It also advised the securing of a likesum as an endowment for Antioch College, and commended to men of wealth theneeds of the Harvard and Meadville Theological Schools. The council of theConference was asked to give its attention to the necessity and duty ofcreating an organ for the denomination, to be called The Liberal Christian. A resolution looking to union with the Universalist body was presented, andone was passed declaring "that there should be recognition, fellowship, andco-operation between all those various elements in our population that areprepared to meet on the basis of Christianity. " James Freeman Clarke, Samuel J. May, and Robert Collyer were constituted a committee ofcorrespondence, to promote acquaintance, fraternity, and unity betweenUnitarians and all of like liberal faith. [2]

A resolution offered by William Cullen Bryant expressive of thanksgivingbecause of the near approach of peace, and for the opening made by theextinction of slavery for the diffusion of Christianity in its true spiritas a religion of love, mercy, and universal liberty, was unanimouslyadopted by a rising vote. 

The convention was a remarkable success in the number who attended itssessions, the character of the men who participated in its deliberations, and the skill with which the unsectarian sect had been organized foreffective co-operation and work. Its influence was immediately feltthroughout the denomination and upon all its activities. The change inattitude was very great, and the depressed and discouraged tone of manyUnitarian utterances for a number of years preceding and following 1860gave way to one of enthusiasm and courage. [3]

[Sidenote: New Life in the Unitarian Association. ]

The annual meeting of the Unitarian Association, that soon followed, feltthe new stir of life, and the awakening to a larger consciousness of power. The chief attention was directed to meeting the new opportunities that hadbeen presented, and to preparing for the larger work required. Dr. Rufus P. Stebbins, who had been for three years the president, and who had beenactively instrumental in securing the large accession to the contributionsof the year, was elected secretary, with the intent that he should devotehimself to pushing forward the missionary enterprises of the Association. He refused to serve, and accepted the position only until his successorcould be secured. In a few weeks, the executive committee elected Rev. Charles Lowe to this office, and he immediately entered upon its duties. Heproved to be eminently fitted for the place by his enthusiastic interest inthe work to be accomplished, and by his skill as an organizer. Hiscatholicity of mind enabled him to conciliate, as far as this was possible, the conservative and radical elements in the denomination, and to unitethem into an effective working body. Educated at Harvard College andDivinity School, Lowe spent two years as a tutor in the college, and thenwas settled successively over parishes in New Bedford, Salem, andSomerville. His experience and skill as an army agent of the Associationsuggested his fitness for the larger sphere of labor into which he was nowinducted. For six most difficult and trying years he successfully conductedthe affairs of the Association. 

For the first time in the history of the Association its income was such asto enable it to plan its work on a large scale, and in some degreecommensurate with its opportunities. During the year and a half precedingthe first of June, 1866, there was contributed to the Association about$175, 000, to Antioch College $103, 000, to the Boston Fraternity of Churches$22, 920, to the Children's Mission $42, 000, to the Freedman's Aid Societies$30, 000, to the Sunday School Society $2, 500, to The Christian Register$15, 000, and to the Western Conference $6, 000, making a total of about$400, 000 given by the denomination to these religious, educational, andphilanthropic purposes; and this financial success was truly indicative ofthe new interest in its work that had come to the Unitarian body. 

[Sidenote: The New Theological Position. ]

Although the New York convention voted that $100, 000 ought to be raised in1866, because the needs of the denomination demanded it, yet only $60, 000were secured. The reaction that followed the close of the war had set in, the financial prosperity of the country had begun to lessen, and theenthusiasm that had made the first great effort of the denomination soeminently successful did not continue. A chief cause for the waninginterest in the denomination itself was the agitation, in regard to thetheological position of the Unitarian body that began almost immediatelyafter the New York convention. 

The older Unitarians held to the Bible and the teachings of Jesus as thegreat sources of spiritual truth as strongly as did the orthodox, and theydiffered from them only as to the purport of the message conveyed. This maybe seen in a creed offered to the New York convention, by a prominentlayman, [4] almost immediately after it was opened on the first morning. In this proposed creed it was asserted that Unitarians believe "in oneLord, Jesus Christ; the Son of God and his specially appointed messenger, and representative to our race; gifted with supernatural power, approved ofGod by miracles and signs and wonders which God did by him, and thus bydivine authority commanding the devout and reverential faith of all whoclaim the Christian name. " Although this creed was not adopted by theconvention, it expressed the belief of a majority of Unitarians. To thesame purport was the word spoken by Dr. Bellows, when he said: "Unitariansof the school to which I belong accept Jesus Christ with all their heartsas the Sent of God, the divinely inspired Son of the Father, who by hismiraculously proven office and his sinless life and character was fitted tobe, and was made revealer of the universal and permanent religion of thehuman race. "[5] These quotations indicate that the more conservativeUnitarians had not changed their position since 1853, when they madeofficial statement of their acceptance of Christianity as authenticated bymiracles and the supernatural. In fact, they held essentially to theattitude taken when they left the older Congregational body. 

On the other hand, the transcendentalists and the radical Unitariansproposed a new theory of the nature of religious truth, and insisted thatthe spiritual message of Christianity is inward, and not outward, directlyto 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 newerconception of the nature and method of religion. He did not wholly abandonthe miraculous, but it grew to have less significance for him with eachyear. The Unitarian conception of religion as natural to man, which wasmaintained strenuously from the time of Jonathan Mayhew, made it probable, if not certain, that a merely external system of religion would beultimately outgrown. In his lecture on self-denial Channing stated thisposition in the clearest terms. "If, " he said, "after a deliberate andimpartial use of our best faculties, a professed revelation seems to usplainly to disagree with itself or to clash with great principles which wecannot question, we ought not to hesitate to withhold from it our belief. Iam surer that my rational nature is from God, than that any book is anexpression of his will. This light in my own breast is his primaryrevelation, and all subsequent ones must accord with it, and are in factintended to blend with and brighten it. "[6]

Channing was not alone in accepting Christianity as a spiritual principlethat is natural and universal. As early as 1826 Alvan Lamson had defendedthe proposition that miracles are merely local in their nature, and thatattention should be chiefly given to the tendency, spirit, and object ofChristianity. He claimed that it bore on the face of it the marks of itsheavenly origin, and that, when these are fully accepted, no other form ofevidence is required. [7] In 1834 James Walker, in writing on ThePhilosophy of Man's Spiritual Nature in regard to the Foundations of Faith, had taken what was essentially the transcendentalist view of the origin andnature of religion. He contended for the "religion in the soul" that isauthenticated "by the revelations of consciousness. "[8] In 1836 ConversFrancis, in, describing the religion of Christ as a purely internalprinciple, maintained the "quiet, spirit-searching character ofChristianity, " as "a kingdom wholly within the soul of man. "[9]

When Convers Francis became a professor in the Harvard Divinity School, in1842, the spiritual philosophy had recognition there; and he had aconsiderable influence upon the young men who came under his guidance. Though of the older way of thinking, George R. Noyes, who became aprofessor in the school in 1840, was always on the side of liberty ofinterpretation and expression. For the next two decades the Divinity Schoolsent out a succession of such men as John Weiss, Octavius B. Frothingham, Samuel Longfellow, William J. Potter, and Francis E. Abbot, who were joinedby William Henry Channing, Samuel Johnson, David A. Wasson, and others, whodid not study there. These men gave a new meaning to Unitarianism, took itaway from miracles to nature, discarded its evidences to rely on intuition, rejected its supernatural deity for an immanent God who speaks through alllife his divine word. 

During the interval between the New York convention and the first sessionof the National Conference, which was held in Syracuse, October 10-11, 1866, the questions which separated the conservatives and radicals werefreely debated in the periodicals of the denomination, and also in sermonsand pamphlets. The radicals organized for securing a revision of theconstitution; and on the morning of the first day Francis E. Abbot, thenthe minister at Dover, N. H. , offered a new preamble and first article assubstitutes for those adopted in New York, in which he stated that "theobject of Christianity is the universal diffusion of love, righteousness, and truth, " that "perfect freedom of thought, which is at once the rightand duty of every human being, always leads to diversity of opinion, and istherefore hindered by common creeds or statements of faith, " and thattherefore the churches assembled in the conference, "disregarding allsectarian or theological differences, and offering a cordial fellowship toall who will join them in Christian work, unite themselves in a commonbody, to be known as The National Conference of Unitarian and IndependentChurches. "

At the afternoon session Mr. Abbot's amendment was rejected; but on themotion of James Freeman Clarke the name was changed to The NationalConference of Unitarian and Other Christian Churches. A resolution statingthat the expression "Other Christian Churches was not meant to excludereligious societies which have no distinctive church organization, and arenot nominally Christian, if they desire to co-operate with the Conferencein 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 theNational Conference was that the radical men on the railroad trainreturning to Boston held a consultation, and resolved to organize anassociation that would secure them the liberty they desired. Aftercorrespondence and much planning a meeting was held in Boston, at the houseof Rev. Cyrus A. Bartol, on February 5, 1867, to consider what should bedone. After a thorough discussion of the subject the Free ReligiousAssociation was planned; and the organization was perfected at a meetingheld in Horticultural Hall, Boston, May 30, 1867. Some of those who tookpart in this movement thought that all religion had been outgrown, but themajority believed that it is essential and eternal. What they sought was toremove its local and national elements, and to get rid of its merelysectarian 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 discussionwas 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. Ofthese persons, one-half had been Unitarian ministers, and about one-thirdof them were still settled over Unitarian parishes. Mr. Frothingham waselected president of the new organization, and Rev. William J. Pottersecretary. The purposes of the Association were "to promote the interestsof pure religion, to encourage the scientific study of theology and toincrease fellowship in the spirit. " In 1872 the constitution was revised bychanging the subject of study from theology to man's religious nature andhistory, and by the addition of the statement that "nothing in the name orconstitution of the Association shall ever be construed as limitingmembership by any test of speculative opinion or belief, --or as definingthe position of the Association, collectively considered, with reference toany such opinion or belief, --or as interfering in any other way with thatabsolute freedom of thought and expression which is the natural right ofevery rational being. "

The original purpose of the Free Religious Association, as defined in itsconstitution and in the addresses delivered before it, was the recognitionof the universality of religion, and the representation of all phases ofreligious opinion in its membership and on its platform. The circumstancesof its organization, however, in some measure took it away from thisbroader position, and made it the organ of the radical Unitarian opinion. Those Unitarians who did not find in the American Unitarian Association andthe National Conference such fellowship as they desired became active inthe 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, andThe Index, edited by Francis E. Abbot, at first in Toledo and then inBoston. It also found expression at the Sunday afternoon meetings held inHorticultural Hall, Boston, for several winters, beginning in 1868-69; inthe conventions held in several of the leading cities of the northernstates; at the gatherings of the Chestnut Street Club; and in the annualmeetings of the Free Religious Association held in Boston duringanniversary week. Little effort was made to organize churches, and only twoor three came into existence distinctly on the basis of Free Religion. Inconnection with The Index, Francis E. Abbot organized the Liberal League topromote the interests of Free Religion, with about four hundred localbranches; but this organization proved ineffective, and soon ceased itsexistence. 

The withdrawal of the radicals into the Free Religious Association did notquiet the agitation in the Unitarian ranks, partly because some of the mostactive workers in that Association continued to occupy Unitarian pulpits, and partly because a considerable radical element did not withdraw in anymanner. The conferences had an unfailing subject for exciting discussion, and the Unitarian body was at this time in a chronic condition ofagitation. As in the days of the controversy about the Trinity, the moreconservative 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 reconciliationbetween the two wings of the denomination. In an attitude of generous goodwill and with a noble desire for inclusiveness and peace, James FreemanClarke proposed an addition to the constitution of the Conference, in whichit was declared "that we heartily welcome to that fellowship all who desireto work with us in advancing the kingdom of God. " Such a broad invitationwas not acceptable to the majority; and, after an extended debate, thisamendment was withdrawn, and the following, offered by Edward Everett Hale, and essentially the same as that presented by Mr. Clarke, with theexception 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 largelyoccupied with the vexing problem of the basis of fellowship; and thesecretary, Charles Lowe, read a conciliatory and explanatory address. Hesaid that the wide differences of theological opinion existing in thedenomination were "an inevitable consequence of the great principle onwhich Unitarianism rests. That principle is that Christian faith andChristian union can coexist with individual liberty. "[10] Rev. George H. Hepworth, then the minister of the Church of the Messiah in New York, askedfor an authoritative statement of the Unitarian position, urging thisdemand with great insistence; and he presented a resolution calling for acommittee of five to prepare "a statement of faith, which shall, as nearlyas may be, represent the religious opinions of the Unitarian denomination. "

While Dr. Bellows had been the leader in securing the adoption of theChristian basis for the National Conference, and the insertion into thepreamble of its constitution of the expression of faith in the Lordship ofJesus Christ, he was strongly opposed to any attempt to impose a creed uponthe denomination, however attenuated it might be. He has been often chargedwith inconsistency, and it is difficult to reconcile his position in 1870with that held in 1865. What he attempted to secure, however, was theutmost of liberty possible within the limits of Christianity; and, when hehad committed the Unitarian body to the Christian position, he desirednothing more, believing that a creed would be inconsistent with the libertyenjoyed by all Unitarians. Without doubt his address at this meeting, inopposition to Mr. Hepworth's proposal, made it impossible to secure a votein favor of a creed. "We want to represent a body, " he said, "that presentsitself 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 giveit the character of being cast into a positive mould. You must eitherabandon that great work you have done, as the only body in Christendom thatoccupies the position of absolute and perfect liberty, with some measure ofChristian faith, or you must continue to occupy that position and thank Godfor it without hankering after some immediate victories that are so stronga temptation to many in our denomination. " When the resolution in favor ofa 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, butrefused 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 asmuch energy as if this were not already a lost cause. At the session heldin New York, October, 1870, the subject came up for extended consideration, several amendments to the constitution were proposed, and, after aprolonged 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 theattention of Rev. O. B. Frothingham, the president of the Free ReligiousAssociation, that his name was in the list of Unitarian ministers publishedin the Year Book of the Unitarian Association, he expressed surprise thatit should have been continued there, and asked for its removal. The sameaction was taken by Francis E. Abbot, the editor of The Index, and othersof the radicals. This action was in part the result of the attitude takenby Rev. Thomas J. Mumford, editor of The Christian Register, who in 1872insisted that the word "Religious" had no proper place in the name of theFree Religious Association, and who invited those Unitarians "who haveceased 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 theUnitarian Association and the editor of its Year Book, wrote to several ofthe radicals, calling their attention to the action of Mr. Frothingham inrequesting the removal of his name, and asked if their names remained inthat publication "with their knowledge and consent. " In a subsequent letterto William J. Potter, the minister of the Unitarian church in New Bedfordand the secretary of the Free Religious Association, he explained that "theYear Book lists of societies and ministers are simply a directory, preparedby the Association for the accommodation of the denomination, and that theAssociation does not undertake to decide the question as to what are or arenot Unitarian societies or ministers, but merely puts into print facts, inthe 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 anydenominational name. The officers of the Association thereupon instructedthe editor of the Year Book to remove Mr. Potter's name from the list ofUnitarian ministers published therein. The reason for this action wasstated in a letter from the editor to Mr. Potter, announcing that his namehad been removed. The letter said, "While there might be no desire todefine Christianity in the case of those who claim that they are in anysense 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 anyquestion as to how broad a range of opinion the name may properly bestretched to cover. "[11]

There followed a vigorous discussion of the action of the Association indropping Mr. Potter's name, it being recognized that no more thoroughlyreligious man was to be found in the denomination, and that none more trulyexemplified the Christian spirit, whatever might be his wish as to the useof the Christian name. At the sixth session of the National Conference, held at Saratoga in September, 1874, the Essex Conference protested againstthe erasure of the name of a church in long and regular fellowship with theUnitarian Association from its Year Book; and a resolution offered by Dr. Bellows, indorsing the action of the officers of the National Conference ininviting the New Bedford church to send delegates, was passed withoutdissent. At the session of the Western Conference held in Chicago during1875, resolutions were passed protesting against the removing of the nameof any person from the accredited list of Unitarian ministers until herequested it, had left the denomination, joined some other sect, or beenadjudged guilty of immorality. As a result of this discussion and of thebroad sympathies and inclusive spirit of the conference, the followingplatform, 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--thatis, of a large majority of Unitarians at this time--may be accuratelydefined in the words of Charles Lowe, who said: "I admit that we make abelief in Christianity a test of fellowship. No stretch of liberality willmake me wish to deny that a belief in Jesus Christ is the absolutelyessential qualification. But I will oppose, as a test, any definition ofChristianity, any words about Christ, for Christ himself, as the principlesof our fellowship and union. "[12] These words exactly define what wassought for, which was liberty within the limits of Christianity. Theprimary insistence was upon discipleship to Jesus Christ, but it wasmaintained that loyalty to Christ is compatible with the largest degree ofpersonal liberty. 

Fundamentally, this controversy was a continuation of that which hadagitated New England from the beginning, that had divided those opposed to"the great awakening" of the middle of the eighteenth century from thosewho favored it, that led the Unitarians away from the Orthodox, and thatnow divided radical and conservative Unitarians. The advance was alwaystowards a more pronounced assertion of individualism, and a more positiverejection of tradition, organization, and external authority. Indeed, itwas towards this end that Unitarianism had directed its energies from thebeginning; and the force of this tendency could not be overcome becausesome called for a creed, and more had come to see the need of an efficientorganization for practical purposes. 

What the radicals desired was freedom, and the broadest assertion ofindividuality. It was maintained by Francis E. Abbot that "the spiritualideal of Free Religion is to develop the individuality of the soul in thehighest, fullest, and most independent manner possible. "[13] The otherdistinctive principle of the radicals was that religion is universal, thatall religions are essentially, the same, and that Christianity is simplyone of the phases of universal religion. David A. Wasson defined religionas "the consciousness of universal relation, "[14] and as "the sense ofunity with the infinite whole, " adding that "morals, reason, freedom, arebound up with it. "[15] This means, in simple statement, that religion isnatural to man, and that it needs no authentication by miracle orsupernatural manifestation. It means that all religions are essentially thesame in their origin, and that none can claim the special favor of God intheir manner of presentation to the world. According to this conception ofreligion, as was stated by. William J. Potter, Christianity is"provisional, preparatory, educational, containing, alongside of the mostvaluable truth, much that is only human error and bigotry and superstitiousimagination. "[16] "The spiritual ideal of Christianity, " said Francis E. Abbot, "is the suppression of self and perfect imitation of Jesus theChrist. The spiritual ideal of Free Religion is the development of self, and the harmonious education of all its powers to the highest possibledegree. "[17]

Through all this controversy what was sought for was a method ofreconciling fellowship with individuality of opinion, of establishing achurch in which freedom of faith for the individual shall have fullrecognition. In a word, the Unitarian body had a conviction that traditionis compatible with intuition, institutions with personal freedom, andco-operation with individual initiative. The problems involved were toolarge for an immediate solution; and what Unitarians accepted was an ideal, and not a fact fully realized in their denominational life. The doctrinalphases of the controversy have always been subsidiary to this largersearch, this desire to give to the individual all the liberty that iscompatible with his co-operation with others. The result of it has been toteach the Unitarian body, in the words of Francis E. Abbot at Syracuse, in1866, that "the only reconciliation of the duties of collective Christianactivity and individual freedom of thought lies in an efficientorganization for practical Christian work, based rather on unity of spiritthan on uniformity of belief. "[18]

[Sidenote: Missionary Activities. ]

During this period of controversy, from 1865 to 1880, the UnitarianAssociation had at its head several able men, who were actively interestedin its work. The president for 1865-66 was Rev. John G. Palfrey; and he wassucceeded, in 1867, by Hon. Thomas D. Eliot, of New Bedford, who was inboth houses of the Massachusetts legislature, and then for a number ofyears in the lower house of Congress. From 1870 to 1872 the president wasMr. Henry Chapin, of Worcester, an able lawyer and judge, loyally devotedto 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 wasdeeply 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 tenyears. He was prominent in the banking interests of Boston, gave muchattention to the charities of the city, and was an efficient worker in theSouth Congregational Church. 

Rev. Charles Lowe, the secretary from 1865 to 1871, wisely directed theactivities of the Association through the early period of the greatawakening of the denomination, and kept it from going to pieces on theScylla and Charybdis of creed and radicalism. He was followed at a mostcritical and difficult time by Rev. Rush R. Shippen, who continued to holdthe office until 1881. The reaction succeeding the great prosperity thatfollowed the close of the civil war brought great burdens of debt to manyindividuals, and to cities, states, and the nation. These troublesdistracted attention from spiritual interests, and joined with variousother calamities in making this a trying time for churches and religiousorganizations. 

The discussions as to the theological position of the denominationnaturally resulted in more or less of disorganization, and made itimpossible to secure the unity of effort which is essential to any positivemissionary growth. In spite of these drawbacks, however, denominationalinterests slowly advanced. During this period the Unitarian Associationbegan to receive a considerable increase of its funds from legacies, --aresult of its enlarged activities, and of the new interest awakened by theformation of the National Conference. 

A few facts may be mentioned to illustrate the never-failing generosity ofUnitarian givers when specific needs are presented. In October, 1871, occurred the great fire in Chicago and the burning of Unity Church in thatcity, which was aided with $60, 000 in rebuilding; while the Third Churchand All Souls' were helped liberally in passing through this crisis. Thefollowing year the Boston fire crippled sadly the resources of theAssociation, and instead of the $150, 000 asked for only $42, 000 werereceived. Yet in 1876 the church in Washington was built, and $30, 000 werecontributed to that purpose by the denomination. In 1879; the denominationgave $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 ChristianUnion in Boston, $90, 000 to the Harvard Divinity School, $20, 000 to theProspect Hill School at Greenfield, and $30, 000 towards the ChanningMemorial Church in Newport. 

During these trying times the administration of Unitarian affairs in thewest was in judicious hands, In 1865 Rev. Charles G. Ames began thosemissionary efforts on the Pacific coast that have led on to theestablishment of a considerable number of churches in that section of thecountry. In central Illinois the devoted labors of Jasper L. Douthit from1868 to the present time have produced wide-reaching results in behalf of agenuine religion, temperance, good government, and education. In 1868 Rev. Carlton A. Staples was made the missionary agent of the Association in thewest, with headquarters in Chicago, where a book-room was established. Hewas succeeded in 1872 by Rev. Sylvan S. Hunting, who was a tireless workerin the western field for many years. In 1874 Rev. Jenkin Lloyd Jones becamethe missionary of the Wisconsin Conference, and the next year of theWestern Conference. For ten years Mr. Jones labored in this position withenthusiasm for the Unitarian cause in the west. 

[Sidenote: College Town Missions. ]

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

The success of Mr. Brigham led to the founding of other college townchurches, that at Ithaca, the seat of Cornell University, being establishedin 1866. In 1878 such a mission was begun at Madison for the students ofthe University of Wisconsin, and another at Iowa City for the University ofIowa. 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 ofextending Unitarianism as a modern interpretation of Christianity. 

[Sidenote: Theatre Preaching. ]

Another interest developed by the awakening of 1865 was the popularizationof Unitarianism by the use of theatres. In January, 1866, was begun in theCooper Institute, New York, a Sunday evening course of lectures by Clarke, Bellows, Osgood, Frothingham, Putnam, Chadwick, and Joseph May, which waslargely attended. Some of the most important doctrinal subjects werediscussed. A few weeks later a similar course was undertaken in Washingtonwith like success. In March, 1867, the Suffolk Conference undertook such aseries of lectures in the Boston Theatre, which was crowded to its utmostcapacity. Then followed courses of sermons or lectures in Lawrence, NewBedford, Salem, Springfield, Providence, Chicago, and San Francisco, aswell as in other places. The council of the National Conference, in 1868, commended this as an important work that should be encouraged. Rev. AdamsAyer was made an agent of the Association to organize such meetings, andtheir success was remarkable for several years. In 1869 Rev. Charles Lowespoke of "that wonderful feature of our recent experience, " and urged thatthese meetings should be so organized as to lead to definite results. 

An earnest effort was made to organize the theatre congregations intounsectarian societies. It was proposed to form Christian unions that shouldwork for Christian improvement and usefulness. The first result of thiseffort was the reorganization of the Boston Young Men's Christian Union inthe spring of 1868. A similar institution was formed in Providence, topromote worship, education, hospitality and benevolence. Unions were alsoformed 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 forthe Unitarian Association, a number of local conferences were held inMassachusetts. The first of these met at Somerville, November 14, and wasprimarily a meeting of the Cambridge Association of Ministers, includingall the lay delegates to the New York convention from the churches whichthat association represented. The result of this meeting was an increase ofcontributions to the Unitarian Association, and the determination toorganize permanently to facilitate that work. Dr. E. E. Hale has stated thatthe initial suggestion of these meetings came from a conversation betweenDr. Bellows and Dr. E. H. Sears, in which the latter said "that a veryimportant element in any effort which should reveal the Unitarian church toitself would be some plan by which neighboring churches would be broughttogether more familiarly. "[20]

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

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

At the Syracuse meeting of the National Conference, in 1866, Dr. Bellowsreported for the council in favor of local organizations, auxiliary to thenational body. "No great national convention of any kind succeeds, " it wasdeclared, "which is not the concurrence of many local conventions, each ofwhich has duties of detail and special spheres of influence upon whoseco-operation the final and grand success of the whole depends. " A series ofresolutions, calling for the formation of local conferences, "to meet atfixed periods, at convenient points, for the organization of missionarywork, " was presented by Dr. E. E. Hale. In order to carry into effect theintent of these resolutions, Charles Lowe devised a plan of organization, which declared that the object of the local conference "shall be to promotethe 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 fundsfor various Christian purposes. " The work of organizing such localmissionary bodies was taken up at once, and proceeded rapidly. The firstone was organized at Sheboygan, Wis. , October 24, 1866; and nearly all thechurches were brought within the limits of such conferences during the nexttwo years. [23]

In the local conferences, as in the National Conference, two purposescontended for expression that were not compatible with each other aspractical incentives to action. The one looked to the uniting of allliberal individuals and denominations in a general organization, and theother aimed at the promotion of distinctly Unitarian interests. In theNational Conference the denominational purpose controlled in shaping itspermanent policy; but the other intent found expression in the addition of"Other Christian Churches" to the name, though in only the most limited waydid such churches connect themselves with the Conference. [24] The localconferences made like provision for those not wishing to call themselvesdistinctly Unitarian. Such desire for co-operation, however, was in a largedegree ineffective because of the fact that the primary aim in the callinginto existence of such conferences was an increase in the funds of theUnitarian Association. 

[Sidenote: Fellowship and Fraternity. ]

Under the leadership of the National Conference the Unitarian bodyunderwent material changes in its internal organization and in itsrelations to other denominations. Not only did it bring the churches to acttogether in the local conferences and in its own sessions, but it taughtthen to co-operate for the protection of their pulpits against adventurersand immoral men. Before it was organized, the excessive spirit ofindependency in the churches would permit of no exercise of control as totheir selection of ministers to fill their pulpits. At the fourth sessionof the National Conference, held in New York in October, 1870, the council, through Dr. Bellows, suggested that the local conferences refuse toacknowledge as ministers men of proven vices and immoralities. To carry outthe spirit of this suggestion, Dr. Hale presented a resolution, which wasadopted, asking the local conferences to appoint committees of fellowshipto examine and to act upon candidates for the ministry. In October, 1870, the New York and Hudson River Conference created such a committee "toexamine the testimonials of such as desire to become members of theconference and enter the Unitarian ministry. "

The seventh session of the National Conference, held at Saratoga in 1876, provided for the appointment of a committee of fellowship, and the list ofnames of those appointed to its membership appears in the printed report;but there is no record that the committee ever organized. In 1878 thecouncil reported at considerable length on the desirableness ofestablishing such a committee; and, again, a committee of fellowship wasappointed "to take into immediate consideration the subject of theintroduction into the Unitarian ministry of those persons who seek anentrance into that ministry from other churches. " This committee consistedof twelve persons, three each for the eastern, middle, western, and Pacificstates. 

At the session of 1880 the council of the Conference stated that it hadcreated a substitute for the old ecclesiastical council, that was calledtogether from the neighboring ministers and churches whenever a ministerwas to be inducted into office. That method was costly and had dropped intodesuetude; but the new method of a committee of fellowship saved trueCongregational methods and freed the churches from unworthy men. At thissession the committee reported that it had adopted a uniform plan ofaction; but a resolution was passed recommending that each local conferenceestablish its own committee of fellowship. Having once been instituted, however, the committee of the National Conference came slowly to berecognized as the fit means of introducing ministers into the Unitarianfellowship. Its authority has proven beneficent, and in no senseautocratic. It has shown that churches may co-operate in this way withoutintruding upon each others' rights, and that such a safeguarding of thepulpits of the denomination is essential to their dignity and morality. In1896 the Minnesota Conference went one step further, and provided for acommittee of fellowship with power to exclude for "conduct unbecoming aminister. "

[Sidenote: Results of the Denominational Awakening. ]

The most marked feature in the history of Unitarianism in this countryduring the period from 1865 to 1880 was the organization of the NationalConference as the legislative body of the denomination, and the adjustmentto it of the American Unitarian Association as its executive instrument. Attendant upon this organizing movement was the termination of thetheological discussion that had begun twenty years earlier between theconservatives and radicals, the supernaturalists and the idealists, ortranscendentalists. In 1865 the large majority of Unitarians wereconservatives and supernaturalists, but in 1880 a marked change in beliefhad come about, that had apparently given the victory to the more moderateof the radicals. The majority of Unitarians would no longer assert thatmiracles are necessary to faith in Christ and the acceptance of histeachings as worthy of credence. 

The change that came about during these years was largely due to theleadership of Henry W. Bellows. What he did was to keep actively alive inthe Unitarian body its recognition of its Christian heritage, while at thesame time he boldly refused assent to its being committed to any definitecreed. He insisted upon the right of Unitarians to the Christian name, andto all that Christianity means as a vital spiritual force; but at the sametime he refused to accept any limits for the Christian tradition andheritage, and left them free for growth. Sometimes apparently reactionaryand conservative, he was at other times boldly radical and progressive. Thecause of this seeming inconsistency was to be found in those gifts ofimagination and emotion that made him a great preacher; but theinconsistency was more apparent than real, for in his leadership hemanifested a wisdom and a capacity for directing the efforts of others thathas never been surpassed in the history of religion and philanthropy inthis country. He was both conservative and radical, supernaturalist andtranscendentalist, a believer in miracles with a confident trust in thefunctions of reason. He saw both before and after, knew the worth of thepast, and recognized that all the roots of our religious life are foundtherein, and yet courageously faced the future and its power to transformour faith by the aid of philosophy and science. Consequently, hissympathies were large, generous, and inclusive. Sometimes autocratic inword and action, his motives were catholic, and his intentions broad andappreciative. He gave direction to the newer Unitarianism in its efforts toorganize and perpetuate itself. Had it been more flexible to his organizingskill, it would have grown more rapidly; but, with all its individualismand dislike of proselyting, it has more than doubled in strength since1865. He showed the Unitarian body that freedom is consistent withorganized effort, and that personal liberty is no more essential thanco-ordinated action. He may be justly described as the real organizer ofthe Unitarian body in this country. 

[1] Henry W. Bellows, in Monthly Journal, iv. 336: "These two years of war have witnessed a more rapid progress in liberal opinions than the whole previous century. The public mind has opened itself as it has never been open before. " In vi. 3, he said: "There are great and striking changes going on. Men are breaking away from old opinions, and there is a great work for us to do. " This was said in December, 1864. William G. Eliot, Monthly Journal, iv. 349: "The war has proved that our Unitarian faith works well in time of trial. No other church has been so uniformly and thoroughly loyal, and no other church has done more for the sick and dying. " Many other similar words could be quoted. 

[2] James Freeman Clarke reported for this committee at the Syracuse session of 1866, and stated that its members had conferred with Christians, Universalists, Methodists, Congregationalists, and others. The committee made several suggestions as to what could be done to promote general fellowship, and recommended that the title of the National Conference be so changed as to permit persons of other religions bodies to find a place within it, if they so desired. The committee was reappointed; and at the third session of the Conference it reported that it had visited the annual gatherings of the Universalists, Methodists, and Free Religionists, and had been cordially welcomed. They were received into the pulpits of different denominations, they found everywhere a cordial spirit of fellowship and a breaking down of sectarian barriers. At this session the Conference expressed its desire "to cultivate the most friendly relations with, and to encourage fraternal intercourse between, the various liberal Christian bodies in this country. " A committee of three was appointed "to represent our fraternal sentiments and to consider all questions which relate to mutual intercourse and co-operation. "

 This committee reported through Edward E. Hale that it had been well received at two Methodist conferences and at several state conventions of the Universalists. Especially had it been welcomed by the African Methodist Church, which was the beginning of cordial relations between the two bodies for several years. The committee reported, however, that "there are but few regularly organized bodies in this country which, in their formal action, express much desire for intercourse or co-operation with us as an organized branch of the church. " A resolution offered by the committee, expressing the desire of the National Conference "to cultivate the most friendly relations with all Christian churches and to encourage fraternal intercourse between them, " was adopted. The members of the committee appointed in 1870 attended the session of the American Board of Foreign Missions in 1871; and they were received with courtesy, Athanase Coquerel addressing the board as their representative. The committee reported that "in every direction, from clergymen and laymen of different Protestant churches, we have received informal expressions of what we believe to be a very general desire that there might be a more formal and public expression of the fellowship which undoubtedly really exists between the different Protestant communions. "

 At the session of the National Conference held in 1874 the council suggested the propriety of preparing a register of the free or liberal churches of the world, and it enumerated the various bodies that might be properly included; but no action was taken on this recommendation. At this session an amendment to the by-laws, offered by Dr. Hale, was adopted, providing for a fellowship committee with other churches. This committee was not appointed, and the amendment was not printed in its proper place in the report. Apparently, the interest in efforts of this kind had exhausted itself, partly because any active co-operation with the more conservative churches was impossible, and partly because the growth of denominational feeling directed the energies of the National Conference into other channels. 

[3] The sessions of the National Conference have been held as follows: 1, New York, April 5-6, 1865; 2, Syracuse, October 10-11, 1866; 3, New York, October 7-9, 1868; 4, New York, October 19-21, 1870; 5. Boston, October 22-25, 1872; 6, Saratoga, September 15-18, 1874; 7, Saratoga, September 12-15, 1876; 8, Saratoga, September 17-20, 1878; 9, Saratoga, September 21-24, 1880; 10, Saratoga, September 18-22, 1882; 11, Saratoga, September 22-26, 1884; 12, Saratoga, September 20-24, 1886; 13, Philadelphia, October 28-31, 1889; 14, Saratoga, September 21-25, 1891; 15, Saratoga, September 24-27, 1894; 16, Washington, October 21-24, 1895; 17, Saratoga, September 20-23, 1897; 18, Washington, October 16-19 1899; 19, Saratoga, September 23, 1901. A meeting was held in Chicago, in 1893, in connection with the Parliament of Religions. The presidents of the National Conference have been Hon. John A. Andrew, who served in 1866; Hon. Thomas D. Eliot, whose term of service lasted to 1869; Judge Ebenezer R. Hoar, from 1869 to 1878, and again from 1882 to 1884; Hon. John D. Long, from 1878 to 1882; Judge Samuel F. Miller, 1884 to 1891; Mr. George William Curtis, 1891 to 1894; and Hon. George F. Hoar, 1894 to 1901. Hon. Carroll D. Wright was elected to the office in 1901. The secretaries have been Rev. Edward Everett Hale, Rev. George Batchelor, Rev. Russell N. Bellows, Rev. William H. Lyon, and Rev. Daniel W. Morehouse. The first chairman of the council was Rev. Henry W. Bellows, D. D. , who served to 1872, and again from 1876 to 1878; Professor Charles Carroll Everett, D. D. , from 1874 to 1876; Rev. Edward Everett Hale, D. D. , from 1880 to 1882, and from 1891 to 1894; Rev. James De Normandie, D. D. , from 1884 to 1889; Rev. Brooke Herford, D. D. , from 1889 to 1891; Rev. George Batchelor, from 1894 to 1895; Rev. Minot J. Savage, D. D. , from 1895 to 1899; and Rev. Howard N. Brown, from the later year to 1901, when Rev. Thomas R. Slicer was elected. 

[4] A. A. Low, a member of the first Unitarian congregation in Brooklyn, N. Y. 

[5] Lecture delivered in Cooper Institute, New York, on Unitarian Views of Christ, published in The Christian Examiner, November, 1866, xxxi, 310. 

[6] Works, iv. 110. 

[7] The Christian Examiner, March-April, 1826, iii. 136. 

[8] First Series of Tracts of A. U. A. No. 87. 

[9] First Series of A. U. A. Tracts, No. 105, April, 1836. 

[10] Forty-fifth Annual Report of the American Unitarian Association, 11, 14. 

[11] This correspondence was published in full in The Christian Register for December 13 and 20, 1873, Mr. Potter's letter protesting against the action of the Association being printed on the later date. 

[12] Memoir of Charles Lowe, 454, 458. 

[13] Freedom and Fellowship in Religion, 261. 

[14] Freedom and Fellowship in Religion, 24. 

[15] Ibid. , 42. 

[16] Ibid. , 216. 

[17] Fifty Affirmations, 47. 

[18] Report of the Second Meeting of the National Conference, 20. 

[19] Memoir of Charles H. Brigham, with Sermons and Lectures. 

[20] Christian Register. March 15, 1900, lxxxix. 300; Twenty-fifth Anniversary of the Worcester Conference, 7, address by Dr. Hale. See Memoir of Charles Lowe, 372. 

[21] Church Exchange, May, 1899, vi. 59. 

[22] This association of ministers was organized August 17, 1819, and was orthodox, but found itself Unitarian when the denominational change took place. 

[23] See Appendix for a complete list of the local conferences and the dates of their organization. 

[24] In a small number of instances such churches did join the Conference, but the number was too small to be in any degree significant. 

IX. 

GROWTH OF DENOMINATIONAL CONSCIOUSNESS. 

The period from 1880 to the present time is marked by a growingdenominational unity. Gradually Unitarians have come to the acceptance oftheir fellowship as a religious body, and to a recognition of theirdistinct mission. The controversy between the conservatives and theradicals was transferred to the west in 1886, and continued to have at itsbasis the problem of the relation of the individual to religiousinstitutions and traditions. The conservative party maintained thatUnitarians are Christians, and gave recognition to that continuity of humandevelopment by which every generation is connected with and draws its lifefrom those which precede it, and is consciously dependent upon them. On theother hand, the radical party was not willing to accept traditions andinstitutions as having a binding authority over individuals. Some of themwere reluctant to call themselves Christians, not because they rejected themore important of the Christian beliefs, but because they were not willingto bind any individual by the action of his fellows. It was their claimthat religion best serves its own ends when it is free to act upon theindividual without compulsion of any kind from others, and that itsattractions should be without any bias of external authority. 

[Sidenote: "The Western Issue. "]

At the meeting of the Western Conference held in Cleveland in 1882, arrangements were made looking to its incorporation, and its object wasdefined to be "the transaction of business pertaining to the generalinterests of the societies connected with the Conference, and the promotionof rational religion. " It was voted that the motto on the conference sealshould be "Freedom, Fellowship, and Character in Religion, " which was thesame as that of the Free Religious Association, with the addition of theword "character. " These results were reached after much discussion, and bythe way of compromise. The issues thus raised were brought forward again atSt. Louis, in 1885, when Rev. J. T. Sunderland, the secretary and missionaryof the conference, deplored the growing spirit of agnosticism andscepticism in the Unitarian churches of the west. His report caused adivision of opinion in the conference; and in the controversy that ensuedthe conservatives were represented by The Unitarian, edited by Rev. BrookeHerford and Rev. J. T. Sunderland, and the radicals by Unity, edited by Rev. J. Ll. Jones and Rev. W. C. Gannett. 

At the Western Conference meeting of 1886, held in Cincinnati, thecontroversy found full expression. The session was preceded a few daysbefore by the publication of a pamphlet on The Western Issue from the penof Mr. Sunderland, in which he contended for the theistic and Christiancharacter of the conference. A resolution offered by Rev. Oscar Clute, "that the primary object of this Conference is to diffuse the knowledge andpromote the interests of pure Christianity, " was rejected by a considerablemajority. Another, offered by Mr. Sunderland--"that, while rejecting allcreeds and creed limitations, the Conference hereby expresses its purposeas a body to be the promotion of a religion of love to God and love toman"--was also rejected. That presented by William C. Gannett was carriedby a majority of thirty-four to ten, and declared that

 the Western Unitarian Conference conditions its fellowship on no dogmatic tests, but welcomes all who wish to join it to establish truth, righteousness, and love in the world. 

The result was a pronounced division between the two parties within theconference; and a considerable number of churches, including some of theoldest and strongest, withdrew from co-operation in the work of theConference. At the session of 1887, held in All Souls' Church, Chicago, aneffort was made to bring about a reconciliation; but this was notcompletely secured. [1] A resolution was carried, however, by a majorityof fifty-nine to three, reaffirming Mr. Gannett's, declaration adopted atCincinnati, but also accepting a statement in regard to fellowship anddoctrines, which was called The Things Most Commonly Believed To-day amongUs, and read as follows:--

 In all matters of church government we are strict Congregationalists. We have no creed in the usual sense; that is, articles of doctrinal belief which bind our churches and fix the conditions of our fellowship. Character has always been to us the supreme matter. We have doctrinal beliefs, and for the most part hold such beliefs in common; but above all doctrines we emphasize the principles of freedom, fellowship, and character in religion. These principles make our all-sufficient test of fellowship. All names that divide religion are to us of little consequence compared with religion itself. Whoever loves truth and loves the good is, in a broad sense, of our religious fellowship; whoever loves the one or lives the other better than ourselves is our teacher, whatever church or age he may belong to. So our church is wide, our teachers many, and our holy writings large. 

 With a few exceptions we may be called Christian Theists: Theists as worshipping the One-in-All, and naming that One, God our Father; Christian, because revering Jesus as the highest of the historic prophets of religion; these names, as names, receiving more stress in our older than in our younger churches. The general faith is hinted well in words which several of our churches have adopted for their covenant: "In the freedom of the truth, and in the spirit of Jesus Christ, we unite for the worship of God and the service of man. " It is hinted in such words as these: "Unitarianism is a religion of love to God and love to man. " "It is that free and progressive development of historic Christianity which aspires to be synonymous with universal ethics and universal religion. " But because we have no creed which we impose as test of fellowship, specific statements of belief abound among us, always somewhat differing, always largely agreeing. One such we offer here:--

 We believe that to love the Good and live the Good is the supreme thing in religion. We hold reason and conscience to be final authorities in matters of religious belief. We honor the Bible and all inspiring scriptures, old and new. We revere Jesus and all holy souls that have taught men truth and righteousness and love, as prophets of religion. We believe in the growing nobility of man. We trust the unfolding universe as beautiful, beneficent, unchanging Order; to know this order is truth; to obey it is right and liberty and stronger life. We believe that good and evil inevitably carry their own recompense, no good things being failure, and no evil things success; that heaven and hell are states of being; that no evil can befall the good man in either life or death; that all things work together for the victory of Good. We believe that we ought to join hands and work to make the good things better and the worst good, counting nothing good for self that is not good for all. We believe that this self-forgetting, loyal life awakes in man the sense of union, here and now, with things eternal--the sense of deathlessness; and this is to us an earnest of the life to come. We worship One-in-All, --that Life whence suns and stars derive their orbits and the soul of man its Ought, --that Light which lighteth every man that cometh into the world, giving us power to become the sons of God, --that Love with whom our souls commune. This One we name the Eternal God, our Father. 

This action not satisfying the remonstrants, the controversy went on withconsiderable vigor for three or four years. Both parties to it werecharacteristically Unitarian in their attitude and in their demands. Bothsought the truth with an attempt at unbiassed judgment; and neither wishedto disfellowship the other, or to put any restrictions upon its expressionof its opinions. Much heat was engendered by the controversy, but light wasdesire by both parties with sincere purpose. The conflict was finallybrought to an end by the action of the National Conference at its sessionof 1894, held at Saratoga, though this result had been practically reachedin 1892. A committee on the revision of the constitution had been appointedby the council of the session of 1891; and this committee reported thefollowing preamble, which was unanimously adopted as a substitute for thepreamble of 1865 and 1868:--

 The Conference of Unitarian and other Christian Churches was formed in the year 1865, with the purpose of strengthening the churches and societies which should unite in it for more and better work for the kingdom of God. These churches accept the religion of Jesus, holding, in accordance with his teaching, that practical religion is summed up in love to God and love to man. The Conference recognizes the fact that its constituency is Congregational in tradition and polity. Therefore, it declares that nothing in this constitution is to be construed as an authoritative test; and we cordially invite to our working fellowship any who, while differing from us in belief, are in general sympathy with our spirit and our practical aims. 

This preamble to the new constitution proved to be so far acceptable toboth parties in the Western Conference, as well as to their sympathizerselsewhere, that harmony was restored throughout the denomination. While theUnitarian body thus retained its use of the Christian name and itsinsistence upon loyalty to the teachings of Jesus, yet it put aside everyform of dogmatic test and of creedal statement. Its fellowship was madevery broad in its character, and all were invited to join it who sodesired. 

[Sidenote: Fellowship with Universalists. ]

At the annual meeting of the Unitarian Association in 1899 resolutions werepassed looking to joint action between Unitarians and Universalists withreference to furthering their common interests. A committee was appointedto confer with a similar committee of the Universalist General Conventionfor the purpose of considering "plans of closer co-operation, devise waysand means for more efficient usefulness. " In October this proposal wasaccepted by the General Convention, and a committee appointed. At theannual meeting of the Unitarian Association in 1900 the report of thejoint committee was presented, in which it was declared that "closerco-operation is desirable and practicable"; but the committee expressed thewish to go on record "as not desiring nor expecting to disturb in any waythe separate organic autonomy of the two denominations. We seekco-operation, not consolidation, unity, non union. " The committeerecommended that it be given authority to consider the cases in which thetwo denominations are jointly interested, such as opportunities ofinstituting churches or missions in new fields, the circulation of tractsand books, the holding of joint meetings of ministers and churches, orother efforts to promote intellectual agreements and deep faiths of theheart, and to recommend the appropriate action to the proper organizations. At the next sessions of the Unitarian Association and of the UniversalistGeneral Convention these recommendations were accepted, and permanentmembers of the joint committee were appointed. This committee has enteredupon its duties, and important results may be anticipated in the promotionof harmony and co-operation. 

[Sidenote: Officers of the American Unitarian Association. ]

Mr. Henry P. Kidder continued as the president of the Unitarian Associationuntil the annual meeting of 1886. He was then succeeded by Hon. George D. Robinson, who held the office for only one year. He had been in both housesof the Massachusetts legislature, in the national House from 1877 to 1883, and was governor of Massachusetts from 1884 to 1886. His successor was Hon. George S. Hale, from 1887 to 1895, who was a distinguished lawyer, and wasgreatly interested in charities and reforms. Hon. John D. Long was thepresident from 1895 to 1897. He had been in the lower house of theMassachusetts legislature, was lieutenant governor in 1879, governor in1880-82, in the national House from 1883 to 1889, and from 1897 to 1902 wasSecretary of the Navy. Hon. Carroll D. Wright held the office from 1897 to1900. He was in the Massachusetts Senate in 1871 and 1872, was chief of theMassachusetts bureau of statistics from 1873 to 1888, superintendent of theUnited States census in 1880, has been commissioner of the national Bureauof Labor since 1885, and in 1902 became president of Clark College atWorcester. At the annual meeting of 1900 it was thought best to make achange in the nature of the presidency, in order that the head of theAssociation might become its chief executive officer. In that way it wassought to add dignity and efficiency to the position of the executiveofficer, as well as to meet the greatly increased work of the Associationby this addition to its salaried force. The secretary, Rev. Samuel A. Eliot, was elected to the presidency. 

In 1881 Rev. Grindall Reynolds became the secretary of the Association. Hehad previously held pastorates in Jamaica Plain and Concord. He had rareexecutive abilities, was gifted with sound common sense and a judicialtemper; and he had a most efficient business capacity. Under his leadershipthe growth of the Unitarian denomination was more rapid than it had been atany earlier period; and this was largely due to his zeal, energy, andwisdom. 

In December, 1894, Rev. George Batchelor became the secretary, and hecontinued in office until November, 1897, when he became the editor of TheChristian Register. He had previously held pastorates in Salem, Chicago, and Lowell. He was succeeded, January 1, 1898, by Rev. Samuel A. Eliot, whohad been settled over churches in Denver and Brooklyn, and who became thepresident of the Association in 1900. Rev. Charles E. St. John, who hadbeen settled in Northampton and Pittsburg, became the secretary at theannual meeting of 1900. 

[Sidenote: The American Unitarian Association as a Representative Body. ]

In the report of the council of the National Conference at the session of1880, Dr. Bellows pointed out the fact that the American UnitarianAssociation was "not a union of churches, but an association of individualsbelonging to Unitarian churches, who became members of it and entitled tovote by signing its constitution and the annual payment of one dollar. ThisAssociation never had, and has not now, any explicit relation to ourchurches as churches, but only to such individuals as choose to becomevoluntary subscribers to its funds, and members by signing itsconstitution, and to such churches as choose to employ its services. "

This statement led to the appointment of a committee "to consider how theNational Conference and the American Unitarian Association can moreeffectually co-operate without sacrifice of the advantages belonging toeither. " The committee reported in 1882 in favor of so changing the charterof the Association that a church might become a member. At the annualmeeting of the Association in 1884, after a prolonged discussion, itsby-laws were so amended that, while the life membership was retained, thesum creating it was raised from $30 to $50; and churches were givenrepresentation on the condition of regular yearly contributions to itstreasury, two of such contributions being necessary to establish a churchin this right. Since that time the delegates from churches haveconsiderably outnumbered the life members voting at the annual meetings. This has practically given the churches the controlling voice in theactivities of the Association. 

The giving a representative character to the Association had the effect ofincreasing the contributions made to its support by the churches. Under theleadership of Dr. Bellows, at the National Conference in 1884, there begana movement looking to the establishment of a conference in every state andthe employment of a missionary by every such conference. This plan has notyet been fully carried out; but in 1885 and the following years missionarysuperintendents were appointed by the Association for five general sectionsof the country, and, with some variations, this, system has continued inoperation to the present time. [2]

[Sidenote: The Church Building Loan Fund. ]

The work of building churches was greatly facilitated by the establishment, in 1884, of a Church Building Loan Fund. The proposition to create such afund was first brought forward by the finance committee at a meeting of thedirectors of the Unitarian Association on February 11, 1884. At the Marchmeeting a committee was appointed to mature plans; and at the meeting ofthe National Conference in September, held at Saratoga, a resolution waspassed asking the Association to set apart $25, 000 for this purpose, andpledging the Conference to add $20, 000 to this sum. At the November meetingof the directors of the Association the organization of the fund wascompleted, a board of trustees was created, and the sum of $43, 000 wasreported as secured. The fund was steadily increased by contributions fromthe churches and by gifts and legacies until in 1900 it amounted to$142, 820. 92. Up to May, 1900, an aggregate sum of $294, 310 had beendisbursed, in one hundred loans to ninety societies, chiefly to aid in theerection of new church edifices. [3]

[Sidenote: The Unitarian Building in Boston. ]

For several years after the organization of the American UnitarianAssociation the records give no indication of the place of meeting of thedirectors. During the latter part of 1825, and in 1826, David Reed was thegeneral agent of the Association; and his place of business was at 81Washington Street. It is probable that the directors met at the study ofthe secretary or at the place of business of the agent. In December, 1826, the firm of Bowles & Dearborn, booksellers, became the agents, their storebeing first at 72 and then at 50 Washington Street. Here all Unitarianpublications were kept on sale, the name of "general repositary" beinggiven to their stock of books, tracts, periodicals, and other publicationsof a liberal character. In 1829 the agent was Leonard C. Bowles, evidentlya continuation of Bowles & Dearborn. 

In 1830 the depositary was removed to 135 Washington Street, and was underthe management of the firm of Gray & Bowen, who were paid $144. 44 for theirservices. In 1831 the place of business of this firm was 141 WashingtonStreet; and the sum it received from the Association was $200, which wasthe next year increased to $300. Leonard C. Bowles, located at 147Washington Street, again became the agent in 1836. In 1837 James Munroe &Co. Appear as the publishers of the annual report, but they are notmentioned as agents or as having charge of the repositary. The sum of $150was paid in that year for the rent of a room for the general secretary, Rev. Charles Briggs; and the location of the room is probably indicated bythe record that in 1838 Munroe & Co. Were paid $133. 34 for rent of room andclerk hire, their store being at 134 Washington Street. Here theheadquarters of the Association were at last established, for theycontinued in this place until 1846. In 1839 the rental paid was $300, andfor the six succeeding years it was $200. Surely, these were the days ofsmall things; but here the Association carried on such activities as it hadin hand, and the Unitarian ministers met for conversation and consultation. 

In 1846 Crosby, Nichols & Co. Became the agents of the Association, firstat 118 and then at 111 Washington Street. This firm brought out severalUnitarian books, and issued The Christian Examiner and other Unitarianperiodicals. For a number of years they were intimately associated withUnitarian interests, and the theological and literary traditions of thetime connect them with many of the leading men and movements of Boston. Inthe rear of their store the Association had its office, its meeting-placefor the directors and other officers, as well as for the Monday gatheringsof ministers. 

After these many wanderings from the rear of one bookstore to another theAssociation at last secured an abode of its own. On March 9, 1854, roomsfor the use of the Association were opened at 21 Bromfield Street. On thisoccasion a small company came together, and listened to an address by Dr. Samuel K. Lothrop, the president of the Association. Another change wasmade in October, 1859, when Walker, Wise & Co. Undertook the book-selling, and publishing work of the Association at 21 Bromfield Street. 

In the year 1865 there came to the Association an opportunity for securinga building of its own. The sum of $16, 000 was paid for a house at 26Chauncy Street, which was occupied in the spring of 1866. The enlargedactivities of the Association at this time here found the housing theyneeded. Affiliated organizations also found a home in this building, especially the Sunday School Society, the Christian Register Association, and The Monthly Religious Magazine. 

The theatre meetings, begun in Boston in 1866, having suggested the need ofa larger denominational building, The Monthly Journal of November, 1867, proposed the erection of a building with a spacious hall for these greatpopular meetings, smaller rooms for social gatherings, offices for theAssociation and other affiliated societies, and an attractive bookstore. "In short, we would have it comprise all that might properly belong to adenominational headquarters or home. We would have it in a convenient andconspicuous situation, and every way worthy of our position. " This dream ofMr. Lowe's he brought forward again in his annual report of 1870, when hesaid: "The building now occupied by the Association has become whollyinadequate to its uses; and steps were taken more than a year ago by itsfriends in Boston towards providing more suitable accommodations, and atthe same time providing in connection with it for such other uses as mightmake the building to be erected worthy to be the headquarters of thedenomination in the city which gave it birth. " Mr. Shippen called attentionto the needs of the Association in his report of 1872, saying that theproject of a large hall had been abandoned, but that there was urgentdemand for a building suited to the business and social needs of thedenomination in Boston. 

The great fire of November, 1872, brought this project to a suddentermination. The Chauncy Street building was for many hours in danger ofbeing burned, out it was finally saved. Its market value was much increasedby the fire, however; and in February, 1873, it was sold for $37, 000. Purchase was soon made, at a cost of $30, 000, of the estate at 7 TremontPlace, belonging to Hon. Albert Fearing, who had been active in the work ofthe Association and prominent in the Unitarian circles of Boston. Thisbuilding, entered by the Association in May, 1873, was somewhat larger thanits predecessor and in some respects better suited to the needs of theAssociation; yet the secretary, at the annual meeting held in the samemonth, called for the more convenient building, which should serve "as aworthy centre in this city for the various charitable and missionaryactivities of our faith. "[4]

In his report of 1880 Mr. Shippen again presented his demand for a suitablehome for the Association and its kindred organizations. This appeal wasrenewed in the following year by Mr. Reynolds, who urged "the need of adenominational house in Boston, which should be commodious, accessible, easily found, and where all our charities and all our works should find ahome. " "Very fitting it is, " he added, "that such a house should be namedafter him who, by his personal influence in life and by the power of hiswritten word after his death, has been the mightiest single force for thediffusion of rational Christianity. "

In January, 1882, the Unitarian Club of Boston was organized; and it soonafter took up the task of erecting the desired building. The initiative wastaken at a meeting of the club held December 13, 1882, when Mr. Henry P. Kidder offered to head a subscription for this purpose with the sum of$10, 000. The proposal was received with much enthusiasm, and a committeewas appointed, consisting of Henry P. Kidder, Charles Faulkner, Charles W. Eliot, William Endicott, Jr. , Francis H. Brown, M. D. , Dr. John Cordner, Arthur T. Lyman, Henry Grew, Thomas Gaffield, and Rev. Grindall Reynolds, to whom authority was given to raise funds, purchase a lot, and erect abuilding. It was arranged by this committee that the Association shouldcontribute $50, 000 from the sale of its Tremont Place building, and thatthe club should raise $150, 000. Subscriptions were opened February 9, 1883;and in November over $154, 000 had been secured. A suitable lot waspurchased at the corner of Beacon and Bowdoin Streets, and the erection ofthe building was begun in 1884. A prolonged labor strike delayed thecompletion of the building, so that the service of its dedication, whichhad been arranged for the evening of May 25, 1886, was held in TremontTemple. The presiding officer on that occasion was George William Curtis;and addresses were made by Drs. Frederic H. Hedge, Andrew P. Peabody, andHoratio Stebbins. In July the building was occupied by the Association. "The denominational house is but brick and stone, " said Mr. Reynolds in hisreport of 1886; "but it is brick and stone which testify to the new hope, vigor, life, which have been coming in these later years into our body, andwithout which it could not have been reared. It is brick and stone whichare the pledges of a noble future, which stimulate to good work, andfurnish the means of doing it. "[5]

[Sidenote: Growth of the Devotional Spirit. ]

The last twenty years of the nineteenth century saw an increased use of thesimpler Christian rites in Unitarian churches. In that time a distinctadvance was made in the acceptableness of the communion service, andprobably in the number of those willing to join in its observance. Theabandonment of its mystical features and its interpretation as a simplememorial service, that would help to cherish loved ones gone hence, and thesaintly and heroic of all ages, as well as the one great leader of theChristian body, has given it for Unitarians a new spiritual effectiveness. The same causes have led to the adoption of the rite of confirmation in aconsiderable number of churches. Gradually the idea has grown that whatRev. Sylvester Judd called "the birthright church" is the true one, andthat it is desirable that all children should be religiously trained, andadmitted to the church at the age of adolescence. Mr. Judd gave nobleutterance to this conception of a church in a series of sermons publishedafter his death, [6] as well as in a sermon prepared for the Thursdaylecture in Boston. [7] The same idea was elaborated by Rev. Cyrus A. Bartol in his Church and Congregation: A Plea for their Unity, [8] whereinhe contended for the union of church and parish, the opening of thecommunion to all as a rite accepted by the whole congregation, and not by afew church members, and the education of children as constituent members ofthe church from birth. 

It was not until much later, however, that the rite of confirmation cameinto use, [9] largely because of the interpretations of the purposes andmethods of Christian nurture presented by Bushnell, Bartol, and Judd. Thisrite could have meaning only as the expression of social responsibility onthe part of parents and church alike, that true religion is not merely aquestion of individual opinion, but that there is high worth in thosespiritual forces that are carried forward from generation to generation, and must descend from parent to child if they have effective power. In aword, the use of the confirmation rite is an abandonment of extremeindividualism, and is an acceptance of the socialistic conception ofspiritual development. [10] This is distinctly a return to the conceptionof a church maintained by Solomon Stoddard at the beginning of theeighteenth century, and to that broader Congregationalism he desired to seeestablished throughout New England. It was also theoretically that of thePuritan founders of New England, who maintained that all children Of churchmembers were also members of the church, but who inconsistently insistedupon a supernatural conversion in order to full membership. It is even morepositively an acceptance of the theory of Christian nurture held by theCatholic and the Episcopal churches. That theory is based on the socialconception of the church, that it is an organic body, and that every childis born into it and is to be trained as a member by nature and by right. 

There has also been a marked change in the forms of Sunday worship, especially in the general adoption of responsive readings or more elaboraterituals. The tendency has been away from the bare and unattractive serviceof the Puritan churches, which was the acme of individualism in worship, towards the more social conception that brings the whole congregation tojoin in the act and in the spirit of devotion. This social conception ofworship had its first distinct expression in a Unitarian church when JamesFreeman Clarke organized the Church of the Disciples, in 1843. [11] Hisexample was a potent force in introducing into many churches a richer andmore expressive form of worship. Another influence was that of SamuelLongfellow, who became the minister of the Second Unitarian Church inBrooklyn, in 1853. He soon after introduced vesper services in place of thesecond sermon in the afternoon, making them largely devotional in theircharacter. "His own taste and deep feeling were largely a condition of thefull success of the vespers, " says his biographer, "which were seldomelsewhere so impressive or seemed so genuine as a devotional act. Theyneeded, for their perfect effect, the influence of a leader with whomworship was an habitual mental attitude, and who, combined with theinstinct of religion the art of a poet and of a musician. "[12] The form ofservice thus initiated was adopted in many other churches, and slowly hadits influence in giving greater beauty and spiritual expressiveness toworship in Unitarian churches. 

About 1885 the tendency to adopt a more social and a more aesthetic form ofworship came to assert itself more distinctly. To its furtherance Rev. Howard N. Brown gave, perhaps, greater emphasis than any other person; butthere were others who took an active part in the movement. The oldCongregational demand for simplicity, however, was very great; and therewas strong feeling against anything like ritualism. The use of some kind ofliturgy became quite general in the face of this objection, and aconsiderable number of books of a semi-ritual character were published. Themost elaborate work of this nature was compiled by a committee appointed bythe Unitarian Association, and published by it in 1891. What is to berecognized in this tendency is not the more general use of liturgies, however simple or however elaborate, but the growth in Unitarian churchesof the worshipping spirit. With the development of a rational theologythere has been a corresponding evolution of a simple but earnest attitudeof devotion. 

The devotional spirit of Unitarians, however, has found its most emphaticand beautiful expression in religious hymns and poems. The older Unitarianpiety found voice in the hymns of the younger Henry Ware, Norton, Pierpont, Frothingham, Peabody, Lunt, Bryant, and many others. It was rational andyet Christian, simple in sentiment and yet it found in the New Testamenttraditions its themes and its symbolisms. Then followed the oldertranscendentalists, who sought in the inward life and the soul's onenesswith God the chief motives to spiritual expression. The hymns and thereligious poems of Furness, Hedge, Longfellow, Johnson, Clarke, Very, Brooks, and Miss Scudder, [13] have an interior and spiritual qualityseldom found in devotional poetry. They are not the mere utterances ofconventional sentiments or the repetition of ecclesiastical symbolisms, butthe voicing of deep inward experiences that reveal and interpret the truelife of the soul. Of the same character are the hymns and religious poemsof Gannett, Hosmer, and Chadwick, who have but accentuated the tendenciesof their predecessors. It is the more radical theology that has voiceditself in the religious songs of these men, but with a mystical orspiritual insight that fits them to the needs of all devout, worshippers. It is these genuinely poetical interpretations of the spiritual life thatmost often claim utterance in song on the part of Unitarian congregations. A body of worshippers that can produce such a hymnology must possess alarge measure of genuine piety and devotion. 

[Sidenote: The Seventy-fifth Anniversary. ]

Many of the tendencies of the Unitarian movement found utterance on theoccasion of the seventy-fifth anniversary of the American UnitarianAssociation. The meetings were held in Tremont Temple, May 22, 1900; andthe attendance was large and enthusiastic, many persons coming from distantparts of the country. This meeting brought into full expression thedenominational consciousness, and showed the harmony that had been securedas the result of the controversies of many years. As never before, it wasrealized that the Unitarian body has a distinct mission, that it hasorganic and vital power, and that its individual members are united by acommon faith for the promotion of the interests of a rational andhumanitarian religion. 

This was also a notable occasion because it brought togetherrepresentatives from nearly all the countries in which Unitarianism existsin an organized form, thus clearly indicating that it is a cosmopolitanmovement, and not one of merely local significance. At the morning sessionaddresses were made by the representatives from Hungary, Great Britain, Germany, Belgium, India, and Japan. In the afternoon addresses weredelivered by the missionaries of the Association. Other meetings of muchinterest were held during the week, that were of value as interpretationsof the past of Unitarianism in this country. 

During this anniversary week, on May 26, 1900, upon the suggestion of Rev. S. A. Eliot, there was organized The International Council of Unitarian andOther Liberal Religious Thinkers and Workers, its object being "to opencommunication with those in all lands who are striving to unite purereligion and perfect liberty, and to increase fellowship and co-operationamong them. " Professor J. Estlin Carpenter, of Oxford, England, wasselected as the president, and Rev. Charles W. Wendte, who shortly afterbecame the minister of the Parker Memorial in Boston, was made thesecretary. The executive committee included representatives from the UnitedStates, Great Britain, Japan, Hungary, Germany, France, Italy, Belgium, andSwitzerland. The first annual meeting was held in London, May 30 and 31, 1901, with delegates present from the above-named countries, as well asfrom Holland, Norway, India, Denmark, Australia, and Canada. [14]

The anniversary exercises, as well as the organization of the InternationalCouncil, gave concrete emphasis to the growing interest in Unitarian ideasand principles in many parts of the world. They gave the sense of a largefellowship, and kindled new enthusiasm. As interpreted by these meetings, the Unitarian name has largely ceased to be one of merely theologicalsignification, and has come to mean "an endeavor to unite for common andunselfish endeavors all believers in pure religion and perfectliberty. "[15]

[1] The Unitarian, June, 1887, II. 156. For historical accounts of this controversy see Mrs. S. C. Ll. Jones's Western Unitarian Conference: Its Work and its Mission, Unity Mission Tract, No. 38; W. C. Gannett's The Flowering of Christianity, Lesson XII. , Part IV. ; and The Unitarian, II. And III. A Western Unitarian Association was organized in Chicago, June 21, 1886. Some of the older and leading churches were connected with it, including those at Meadville, Ann Arbor, Louisville, Shelbyville, Church of the Messiah and Unity in Chicago, Church of the Messiah in St. Louis, Keokuk, and others. Hon. George W. McCrary was elected the president, and Mrs. Jonathan Slade the recording secretary. In October, 1887, Rev. George Batchelor became the Western agent of the American Unitarian Association. He was succeeded the next year by Rev. George W. Cutter. In September, 1890, Rev. T. B. Forbush was made the Western superintendent of the American Unitarian Association, with headquarters in Chicago; and he held this position until 1896. During the period covered by these dates Rev. J. R. Effinger was the general missionary of the Western Unitarian Conference, and he was succeeded by Rev. F. L. Hosmer and Rev. A. W. Gould. In 1896 the Western churches were reunited in the Western Conference, and its secretary has been the superintendent of the American Unitarian Association. As defining the position of the American Unitarian Association during this period of controversy, it may be recalled that in June, 1886, the directors adopted a resolution, in which they said they "would regard it as a subversion of the purpose for which its funds have been contributed, as well as of the principles cherished by its officers, to give assistance to any church or organization which does not rest emphatically on the Christian basis. "

[2] New England, Middle States and Canada, Western States, Southern States, and Pacific Coast. 

[3] These loans are made without interest under established conditions, one of which is that they must be repaid in ten annual instalments. 

[4] Annual Report of 1873, 7. 

[5] The building seemed to be ample, when it was first occupied, for any growth that was likely to be made for many years to come. At the present time, only sixteen years later, it is crowded; and an extension is urgently demanded. It does not now afford room for the work required, and much of that work is done at a considerable disadvantage because of the want of room. The promise for the immediate future is that much more room will be required in order to facilitate the growing work of the Association. 

[6] The Church: in a Series of Sermons, Boston, 1857. 

[7] The Birthright Church: A Discourse, printed for the Association of the Unitarian Church of Maine, Augusta, 1854. Mr. Judd's conception of the church as a social organism was shown in the name given to the organization formed under his leadership in 1852, called The Association of the Unitarian Church in Maine. In the preamble to the constitution he wrote: "We, the Unitarian Christians of Maine, ourselves, and our posterity are a Church.... We are a church, not of creeds, but of the Bible; not of sect, but of humanity; seeking not uniformity of dogma, but communion in the religious life. We embrace in our fellowship all who will be in fellowship with us. " In defining a local church, he says: "These Christians, with their families, uniting for religious worship, instruction, growth, and culture, having the ordinances and a pastor, constitute a parochial church. "

[8] Boston, 1858. 

[9] Probably Dr. William G. Eliot, of St. Louis, was the first Unitarian minister to make a systematic use of this rite. He prepared a brief manual for use in his church, the preface to which bears date of December 6, 1868. Seth C. Beach, while minister in Dedham, printed a paper on the subject in the Unitarian Review, January, 1886. He held a confirmation service in the Dedham church, April 25, 1886. At a meeting of the Western Sunday School Society, held in Cincinnati, May 12, 1889, Rev. John C. Learned, read a paper on The Sacrament of Confirmation. 

[10] The views of Bartol and Judd are appropriate to a state church, wherein they first found expression; and their motive is always distinctly social. 

[11] Life of J. F. Clarke, by E. E. Hale, 145

[12] Memoir of Samuel Longfellow, by Joseph May, 193. 

[13] Miss Scudder's best hymns were all written while she was a Unitarian. Unitarian hymnology has been nobly treated by Dr. Alfred P. Putnam, in his Singers and Songs of the Liberal Faith, Boston, 1875. It is understood that he is preparing a second volume. The tendency to a deeper recognition of the spirit of worship has found fitting expression in The Spiritual Life: Studies of Devotion and Worship, George H. Ellis, 1898. 

[14] The addresses and papers of this meeting were published under the title of Liberal Religious Thought at the Beginning of the Twentieth Century, London, 1901. They give the most complete account yet published of the various liberal movements in many parts of the world, and the book is one of great interest and value. 

[15] From the first circular of the International Council. 

X. 

THE MINISTRY AT LARGE. 

One of the most important of the philanthropies undertaken by the earlyUnitarians was the ministry to the poor and unchurched in Boston, usuallyknown as the ministry at large. It began in 1822, came under the directionof the American Unitarian Association and the shaping hand of Dr. JosephTuckerman in 1826, and was taken in charge by the Benevolent Fraternity ofChurches in 1834. It was not begun by Tuckerman, though its origin isusually attributed to him. Even before 1822 attempts had been made toestablish missions amongst the poor by the evangelical denominations; buttheir work was not thoroughly organized, and it had reached no efficientresults when Tuckerman entered upon his labors. The work of Tuckerman wasto take up what had been tentatively begun by others, give it a definitepurpose and method, and so to inform it with his own genius for charitythat it became a great philanthropy in its intent and in its methods. 

[Sidenote: Association of Young Men. ]

When the Hancock Grammar School-house in the north end of Boston was beingerected, a young man, in passing it on a September evening, said to acompanion, "Why cannot we have a Sunday-school here?" The proposition wasreceived with favor, and the two discussed plans while they continued theirwalk. They met frequently to mature their methods of procedure, and theyinvited others to join them in the undertaking. On the evening of October2, 1822, these two young men--Frederick T. Gray and Benjamin H. Greene--metwith Moses Grant, William P. Rice, and others, to give more carefulconsideration to their purpose of forming a society for mutual religiousimprovement. [1]

These young men met with little encouragement, and for some time there wassmall prospect of their succeeding in their undertaking. They continued tomeet weekly, however; and on November 27 they formed The Association ofYoung Men for their own Mutual Improvement and for the ReligiousInstruction of the Poor. In 1824 the name was changed to The Associationfor Religious Improvement. The members met at each other's houses weekly, for the purpose of considering topics which related to their own personalimprovement or to the wants of the community, always keeping in view thefact that their own religious growth must lie at the foundation of anygreat good which could be done by them for society. By degrees their numberincreased; and during the six years following, as appears from the records, the subjects to which their meetings were successively devoted were thedesirableness of employing a missionary and building a mission-house, thecondition and wants of vagrant children, the diffusion of Christianity inIndia, the importance of issuing tracts and other religions publications, the means and best method of improving our state prisons, the utility offorming a Unitarian Association, the best means to be adopted to abolishintemperance, the character of theatrical entertainments, the want ofinfant schools, and the best methods which could be taken to aid in thepromotion of peace. All of these subjects were then comparatively new, andthey were but just beginning to attract attention. Their importance was byno means generally understood, and least of all was the place which theywere soon to occupy in public estimation anticipated. [2] The Associationwas discontinued in December, 1835. 

[Sidenote: Preaching to the Poor. ]

One of the first enterprises entered upon by this society was the securingof preaching for the poor and those connected with no religiousorganization. In this effort they had the co-operation of the younger HenryWare, then the minister of the Second Church, and of John G. Palfrey, thenthe minister of the Brattle Street Church. In November, 1822, Henry Warebegan these meetings; and four series of them were held throughout thewinter, in Charter Street, in Hatters' or Creek Square, in Pitts Court, andin Spring Street. The Charter Street meetings were at first held in a roomof a primary school, and then in a small chapel that had been built by abenevolent man for teaching and preaching purposes. In this place Mr. Warewas assisted by Dr. Jenks of the Christian denomination, and the chapel wasafterwards occupied by the latter as a minister at large. The meetings inPitts Court were also held in a school-room. Those in Hatters' Squareoccupied a room in a large tenement house and "here the accommodations, andprobably the audience, were of a humbler character than elsewhere. "[3]

[Sidenote: Tuckerman as Minister to the Poor. ]

Early in the year 1826 Dr. Joseph Tuckerman expressed his willingness todevote himself to this ministry; and the American Unitarian Association wasappealed to, that the necessary financial support might be secured. Dr. Tuckerman had been for twenty-five years the parish minister in Chelsea, but his health was such that he had been obliged to relinquish thatposition. On September 4 the sum of $600 was appropriated to the support ofDr. Tuckerman for one year as a missionary among the poor in Boston; andWare, Barrett, and Gannett were made a committee to ascertain what amountof money could be raised for this purpose. It was thought wise not to usethe regular funds of the Association for so special and local an object. The women of the Boston churches were therefore appealed to in behalf ofthis cause; and during the first year contributions were received fromthose connected with the congregations of the Brattle Street, FederalStreet, West, New South, New North, Twelfth, and Chauncey Place Churches, amounting to $712. These contributions by the women of the churches werecontinued until the Benevolent Fraternity was organized. 

Tuckerman entered upon his work November 5, 1826. On the evening of thatday he met with the Association for, Religious Improvement, and discussedwith its members the work to be undertaken. He began at once the visitingof the poor and the study of their condition in the several parts of thecity, though confining himself largely to the north end. In making hisfirst quarterly report to the Unitarian Association, February 5, 1827, hesaid that he had taken fifty families into his pastoral charge. He hadgiven special attention to the children, had arranged that those should besent to school who had not previously attended, and provided them withshoes and clothes where these were necessary. He had also aided the sick, provided necessaries for those who were helpless and deserving, securedwork for those out of employment, and given religious consolation andcorrection where these were required. 

After Dr. Tuckerman had entered upon his work of visiting the poor, theYoung Men's Association arranged to have him resume the discontinuedevening meetings. They accordingly secured the use of a room up two flightsof stairs, in what was known as the "Circular Building, " at the corner ofMerrimac and Portland Streets. In this rude place, that had been used as apaint-shop, services were begun on Sunday evening, December 3, 1826. Tuckerman recorded in his diary that he had "a large and very attentiveaudience";[4] and on the same evening he met at the house of Dr. Channing"a large circle of ladies and gentlemen, who formed a society to help himvisit. "[5] As soon as services were begun in the Circular Building, itwas proposed to form a Sunday-school; and on a very cold December day seventeachers and three children met to inaugurate it. They hovered about thelittle stove, by means of which the room was warmed, and began their work. The school grew rapidly, soon filled the room, and was given the name ofthe Howard School. Very soon, also, this room became too small toaccommodate the attendants at the preaching services. In recognition ofthis need the Friend Street Free Chapel was erected, and opened for use onNovember 1, 1828. 

[Sidenote: Tuckerman's Methods. ]

During the first year of his ministry Dr. Tuckerman reported quarterly tothe American Unitarian Association, and then semi-annually. In all therewere printed four of the quarterly reports and fifteen of the others. Itwas not his custom in these reports to confine himself to an account of hiswork, which usually received only a brief statement at the end; but hediscussed important topics relating to the condition of the poor and theirneeds. His third quarterly report was devoted to a consideration of theremedies to be used for confirmed intemperance. Others of the topics uponwhich he reported were the condition of the poor in cities, the duties of aminister at large (a title invented by him, which he preferred to that ofcity or domestic missionary), the effects of poverty on the moral life ofthe poor, the means of relieving pauperism, the causes of poverty and thesocial remedies, the several classes amongst the poor and the best means ofreaching each of them, the means to be employed for the recovery of thosesunk in pauperism, poor laws and outdoor relief. Among the subjects hediscussed incidentally, and sometimes at considerable length, were the dutyof providing seats for the poor in the churches at a small rental, theemployment of children, education as a means of saving children fromgrowing up to a life of vagrancy and pauperism, the wages of the poor andhow they can be increased. [6] He was especially interested in therescuing of children from ignorance and vice, and he strongly advocated theestablishment of schools for the instruction of dull children and thosewhose education had been neglected. Through his efforts the Broad StreetInfant School was established, in order to reach the younger children ofthe poor. In 1829 he made a careful study of the religious condition of thepoor; and he found that out of a population of 55, 000, which the city thencontained, there were 4, 200 families, or about 18, 000 persons, who were notconnected with any of the churches or who did not attend them with anydegree of regularity. This gave him an opportunity to urge upon the publicmore strongly than before the importance of procuring free chapels, and asufficient number of ministers to care for this large unchurchedpopulation. One or two ministers had labored amongst the poor before hebegan his work, and three or four had entered upon the same line of effortsince he had done so; but these workers were too few in number to meet thelarge demands made upon them. 

In carrying on his work, Dr. Tuckerman sought out all who were in need ofhis services, without distinction of nationality, color, creed, socialposition, or moral condition. If he gave the preference to any, it wasthose who were the most wretched and debased. "It is the first object ofthe ministry at large, never to be lost sight of, " he wrote, "and to whichno other is to be preferred, as far as shall be possible to extend itsoffices to the poor and the poorest, to the low and the lowest, to the mostfriendless and most uncared for, the most miserable. "[7] He recognizedthe individuality of the poorest and the most vicious: he sought to fosterit, and to make it the basis of moral reform and social recovery. 

[Sidenote: Organization of Charities. ]

The influence of Tuckerman's work was soon felt outside the city in whichit was carried on. The people of the state came to take an interest in it, and to feel that its principles should be applied throughout thecommonwealth. Therefore, a commission was appointed by the lower house ofthe state legislature, February 29, 1832, to inquire into the condition ofthe poor in all parts of the state, and to make such report as might be thebasis of needed legislation. Dr. Tuckerman was made a member of thiscommission. The work of investigation largely fell upon him, as well as thewriting of the report. His suggestions were accepted, and the results werebeneficent. In the mean time the work of visiting the poor was carried onby a young man, Charles F. Barnard, then a student in the Divinity School, who entered upon his duties in April. In October he was joined by FrederickT. Gray, the founder of the Association for Religious Improvement and ofthe first Sunday-schools for the poor. These workers were ordained in theFederal Street Church on the evening of November 5, 1834, after havingthoroughly tested their capacities for the task they had assumed. 

Dr. Tuckerman set forth all the principles which have since been describedunder the name of "scientific charity, " and he put them all into practice. In the spring of 1832 he organized a company of visitors to the poor, themembers of which were to act as friends and advisers of those who wereneedy. In October, 1833, he brought about a union of the ministers at largeof all denominations for purposes of consultation and mutual helpfulness. This union resulted in a meeting held in February, 1834, at which thoseinterested in the proper care of the poor took counsel together as to thebest methods to be followed. At a later meeting in March, it was decided tosecure the aid of all the charitable societies in the city with a view totheir co-operation and the prevention of the duplication of relief. Therewas accordingly organized the Association of Delegates from the BenevolentSocieties of Boston, the objects of which were "to adopt measures for themost effectual prevention of fraud and deception in the applicants forcharity; to obtain accurate and thorough information with regard to thesituation, character, and wants of the poor; and generally to interchangeknowledge, experience, and advice upon all the important subjects connectedwith the duties and responsibilities of Benevolent Societies. " Theprinciple upon which this organization acted was that "the public goodrequires that the character and circumstances of the poor should bethoroughly investigated and known by those who administer our publiccharities, in order that all the relief which a pure and enlargedbenevolence dictates may be freely bestowed, and that almsgiving may notencourage extravagance or vice, nor injuriously affect the claims ofsociety at large upon the personal exertions and moral character of itsmembers. " The first annual report of this Association, which appeared inOctober, 1835, was written by Dr. Tuckerman, and was one of the best heproduced. He laid down certain rules he had accepted as the results of hisexperience: that beggary was to be broken up; that all misapplications ofcharity should be reported to the board of visitors; that those asking foralms should be relieved only at their homes and after investigation; thatindustry, forethought, economy, and self-denial were to be fostered inorder to prevent pauperism, and that no help should be given where it ledto dependence and reliance upon charity. Registration, investigation, prevention of duplication of alms, and the fostering of self-help were themethods brought to bear by Dr. Tuckerman in the organization of thisAssociation. [8]

[Sidenote: Benevolent Fraternity of Churches. ]

In the spring of 1834 the part of the ministry at large in Boston supportedby Unitarians consisted of Dr. Tuckerman's work in visiting and ministeringto the poor in their own homes, two chapels, in which Barnard and Graypreached and conducted their Sunday-schools, and the office of the Visitorsto the Poor. In order more effectually to organize the support of thiswork, the Benevolent Fraternity of Churches was then suggested. The Second, Brattle Street, New South, New North, King's Chapel, Federal Street, HollisStreet, Twelfth, and Purchase Street Churches entered upon the work; andthere was organized in each a society for the purpose of aiding theministry at large. Each of these societies was privileged to send fivedelegates to a central body that should undertake the support and directionof that ministry. At a meeting held April 27, 1834, an organization of suchdelegates was effected. It was distinctly stated that "it was not the wishto add another to the eleemosynary institutions of the city to which thepoor might resort either for the supply of the comforts or for the reliefof necessities which belong to their bodily condition"; but the object ofthe Fraternity was described as being "the improvement of the moral stateof the poor and irreligious of this city by the support of the ministry atlarge, and by other means. "[9]

[Sidenote: Other Ministers at Large. ]

Dr. Tuckerman continued his work of visiting the poor, so far as his healthpermitted, until his death, which occurred April 20, 1840. His assistantsand successors continued the work of visitation outside of their owncongregations. In August, 1844, Rev. Warren Burton was assigned to thisspecial form of ministry, and to that of a systematic investigation of thecondition of the poor. He gave much attention to the needs of children, andmade inquiry as to intemperance, licentiousness, and other forms of socialdegeneration. He was a diligent and successful worker until his ministrycame to an end in October, 1848. For about a year, in 1847, Rev. WilliamWare also devoted himself to the house-to-house ministry; but failinghealth compelled his withdrawal. In April, 1845, Rev. Andrew Bigelow tookcharge of the Pitts Street Chapel for a few months; and then for thirty-twoyears, until his death, in April, 1877, he continued to visit the poor. With the assistance of his wife, he went about to the homes of the people, administering to their physical needs, acting as their friend and adviser, and giving them such moral instruction and spiritual consolation as waspossible. 

For about one year, beginning in March, 1856, Rev. A. Rumpff visited Germanfamilies in behalf of the Fraternity. He was succeeded in 1857 by Rev. A. Übelacker, who continued the work for two or three years. From 1860 to 1864Professor J. B. Torricelli carried on a ministry amongst the Italians, Spaniards, Greeks, and other natives of southern Europe resident in Boston. After the death of Dr. Bigelow this personal ministry was discontinued, owing to the increase in the number of other agencies for doing this kindof work. 

[Sidenote: Ministry at Large in Other Cities. ]

The work of the ministry at large was not confined to Boston. The originalvote of the Unitarian Association establishing it was that it should beaided in New York as well. In December, 1836, Rev. William Henry Channingentered on such a ministry in New York; and it was continued there for someyears. It was also established in Charlestown, Roxbury, Cambridge, Salem, Portsmouth, Portland, Lowell, New Bedford, Providence, Worcester, andelsewhere in New England. With the aid of the Unitarian Association it wasundertaken in Baltimore, Cincinnati, Louisville, and St. Louis. In 1845Rev. Lemuel Capen was carrying on the ministry in Baltimore, Rev. W. H. Farmer in Louisville, and Rev. Mordecai de Lange in St. Louis. The ministryat large was begun in Cincinnati in 1830, and was in charge for a shorttime of Christopher P. Cranch, who was succeeded by Rev. James H. Perkins, a most efficient worker, who soon became the popular minister of theUnitarian church in that city. It was established in St. Louis in 1840, anda day school for colored children was opened in 1841. A mission-house wasbuilt, and Rev. Charles H. A. Dall was put in charge. In 1841 the MissionFree School was founded, and now has a matron, nursery, kindergarten, Sunday-school, with lectures and entertainments. Dall was succeeded byMordecai de Lange, Corlis B. Ward, Carlton A. Staples, and Thomas L. Eliot. The City Mission, as it was called, grew so large that in 1860 no onedenomination could carry it on; and it became the St. Louis ProvidentAssociation, which has done an extensive and important work. [10]

In July, 1850, was formed the Association of Ministers at Large in NewEngland, of which Rev. Charles F. Barnard was for many years the president, and Rev. Horatio Wood, of Lowell, the secretary. It met quarterly, oroftener, essays were read on subjects connected with the work ofministering to the poor, and the special phases of that work werediscussed. In the spring of 1841 Rev. Charles F. Barnard began thepublication of the Journal of the Ministry at Large as a sixteen-pageoctavo monthly, which was continued until 1860, part of the time as TheRecord; but during the later years it was issued irregularly. 

In 1838 Dr. Tuckerman published The Principles and Results of the Ministryat Large in Boston, which embodied an account of his work for twelve years, and the conclusions at which he had arrived. It did much to give directionand purpose to the ministry, and to extend its influence. It can be readwith interest and profit at the present time; for it contains all theprinciples since put into practice in many forms of charitable activity. Dr. Andrew P. Peabody truly said of Tuckerman's enterprise in behalf of thepoor that it "was the earliest organized effort in that direction. Itssuccess and its permanent establishment as an institution were due to itsfounder's strenuous perseverance, his self-sacrifice, his apostolic fervorof spirit, and the power of his influence. "[11] Joseph Story spoke of theministry at large as being one of "extraordinary success. " "I deem it, " hewrote, "one of the most glorious triumphs of Christian charity over thecold and reluctant doubts of popular opinion. " The labors of Dr. Tuckerman"initiated a new sphere of Protestant charity, " as his nephew wellsaid. [12] "This has been the most characteristic, the best organized, andby far the most successful co-operative work that the Unitarian body hasever attempted by way of church action, " was the testimony of Dr. JosephHenry Allen. [13]

[1] The record of the first meeting states the objects for which the young men met, as follows: "Feeling impressed with the importance of giving religious instruction to the youths of that class of our poor who are destitute of any regard for their future well-being, and who, from being under the care of vicious parents, have no attention paid to their moral conduct; and also wishing to become acquainted with those persons of the different religious societies who profess to be followers of the same Master, they agreed to associate themselves. Having great reason to believe that God will bless their humble efforts for the spread of pure religion and virtue, and looking to Him for guidance, the meeting was organized. "

[2] Ephraim Peabody, Christian Examiner, January, 1853, LIV. 93. 

[3] John Ware, Life of Henry Ware, Jr. , 132-135. 

[4] The secretary of the Association for Religious Improvement made this record of the meeting: "December 3, 1826. The Lectures under the conduct of the Association commenced this evening at 6-1/2 o'clock at Smith's circular building, corner of Merrimack and Portland Streets, which was very fully attended by those for whom it was intended. The services were of the first order. Rev. Dr. Tuckerman officiated. "

[5] Eber R. Butler, Lend a Hand, V. 693, October, 1890. 

[6] The substance of these reports has been reproduced in a book edited by E. E. Hale in 1874, Joseph Tuckerman on the Elevation of the Poor. 

[7] The Principles and Results of the Ministry at Large in Boston, 61. 

[8] Ministry at Large in Boston, 124. 

[9] The following is a list of the churches now maintained by the Benevolent Fraternity of Churches, with the date when each was formed, or when it came under Unitarian management: Bulfinch Place Church, successor to Wend Street Chapel (1828); Pitts Street Chapel (1836), 1870. North End Union (begun in 1837); Hanover Street Chapel (1854); Parmenter Street Chapel (1884), 1892. Morgan Chapel, 1884. Channing Church, Dorchester, successor to Washington Village Chapel, 1854. The Suffolk Street Chapel (1837), succeeded by the New South Free Church (1867), continues its life in the Parker Memorial, 1889. The Warren Street Chapel (1832), now known as the Barnard Memorial Church, continues its work, but is not under the direction of the Benevolent Fraternity. In 1901 the churches constituting the Benevolent Fraternity were the First Church, Second Church, Arlington Street Church, South Congregational Church, King's Chapel, Church of the Disciples; First Parish, Dorchester; First Parish, Brighton; Hawes Church South Boston; First Parish, West Roxbury; First Congregational Society, Jamaica Plain. 

[10] In 1830 the British and Foreign Unitarian Association began to consider the value of this ministry, and in 1832 the first mission was opened in London. In 1835 was formed the London Domestic Mission Society for the purpose of carrying on the work in that city. In 1833 a similar movement was made in Manchester, and in 1835 was organized the Liverpool Domestic Mission Society. The visit of Dr. Tuckerman to England in 1834 gave large interest to this movement. He then met Mary Carpenter, and she was led by him to begin her great work of charity. It was during the next year that she entered upon the work in Bristol that made her name widely known. In 1847 there were two ministers at large in London, two in Birmingham, and one each in Liverpool, Bristol, Leeds, Manchester, Halifax, and Leicester. The writings of Dr. Tuckerman were translated into French by the Baron de Gerando, a leading philanthropist and statesman of that day, who praised them highly, and introduced their methods into Paris and elsewhere. Of Tuckerman's book on the ministry at large M. De Gerando said that it throws "invaluable light upon the condition and wants of the indigent and the influence which an enlightened charity can exert. " He also said of Tuckerman that "he knew the difference between pauperism and poverty, " thus recognizing one of those cardinal distinctions made by the philanthropist in his efforts to aid the poor to self-help and independence. 

[11] Memorial History of Boston, III. 477. 

[12] Sprague's Annals of the Unitarian Pulpit, 345, the words quoted being from the pen of Henry T. Tuckerman, the well-known essayist. 

[13] Our Liberal Movement in Theology, 59. 

XI. 

ORGANIZED SUNDAY-SCHOOL WORK. 

The first Sunday-schools organized in this country distinctly for purposesof religious training were by persons connected with Unitarian churches. Several schools had been opened previously, but they were not continued orwere organized in the interests of secular instruction. In the summer of1809 Miss Hannah Hill, then twenty-five years of age, and Miss Joanna B. Prince, then twenty, both teachers of private schools for small children, and connected with the First Parish in Beverly, Mass. , of which Dr. AbielAbbot was the pastor, opened a school in one room of a dwelling-house forthe religious training of the children who did not receive such teaching athome. In the spring of 1810 the same young women reopened their school in alarger room, using the Bible as their only book of instruction. Sessionswere held in the morning before church, and in the afternoon following theclose of the services. [1]

The first season about thirty children attended, but the interest grew; andin 1813 the school occupied the Dane Street chapel, and became a union ortown school. Jealousies resulted, and a school was soon established by eachchurch in the town. In 1822 the First Parish received the original schoolunder its sole care, and it was removed to the meeting-house. 

A Sunday-school was begun in Concord in the summer of 1810, under theleadership of Miss Sarah Ripley, daughter of Dr. Ezra Ripley, the ministerof the town. On Sunday afternoons she taught a number of children in herfather's house, since known as the "Old Manse. " About five years later aschool was opened at the centre of the town, near the church, by threeyoung women. In 1818 a Sunday-school was begun in connection with thechurch itself, which absorbed the others, or of which they formed thenucleus. [2]

A teacher of a charity school supported by the West Church in Boston wasthe first person to open a Sunday-school in that city. In October, 1812, the teacher of this school, Miss Lydia K. Adams, then a member of the WestParish, according to the statement of Dr. Charles Lowell, minister of thechurch at the time, "having learned on a visit to Beverly that some youngladies of the town were in the practice of giving religious instruction topoor children on the Sabbath, consulted her minister as to the expediencyof giving like instruction to the children of her school, and to those whohad been members of it, on the same day. The project was decidedlyapproved, and immediately carried into effect. " In December of the sameyear, Miss Adams was compelled by ill-health to leave her school; andladies of the West Church took charge of it, and in turn instructed thechildren, both on the week-days and the Sabbath, till a suitable permanentteacher could be obtained. On this event they relinquished the immediatecare of the week-day school, but continued the instruction of theSunday-school, till it was transferred to the church, and was enlarged bythe addition of "children of a different description, " in 1822. [3]Sunday-schools were also begun in Cambridgeport, in 1814; Wilton, N. H. , in1816; and Portsmouth, in 1818. The latter school had the enthusiasticsupport of Nathaniel A. Haven, a young lawyer and rising politician, whodevoted himself with great zeal and success to such instruction of theyoung. [4]

The Association of Young Men for Mutual Improvement and for the ReligiousInstruction of the Poor began the work of forming Sunday-schools for thechildren of the poor in Boston during the year 1823. A school was begun inthe Hancock School-house, then recently built for grammar-schoolpurposes. [5] Soon after they opened a school in Merrimac Street, calledthe Howard Sunday-school, in connection with the work of Dr. Tuckerman; andin 1826 the Franklin Sunday-school was begun by the same persons and forthe same purposes. In connection with these schools was formed the SundaySchool Benevolent Society, composed of charitable women, who provided suchchildren as were needy with suitable clothing. 

In 1825 a parish Sunday-school was organized in connection with the TwelfthCongregational Church, of which Rev. Samuel Barrett was the minister. Itwas reorganized in 1827, with the object of giving "a religious educationapart from all sectarian views, as systematically as it is given to thesame children in other branches of learning. "[6] In July, 1828, TheChristian Register spoke of "the rapid and extensive establishment ofSunday-schools by individuals attached to Unitarian societies, " and saidthat in the course of two or three years "large and respectableSunday-schools have been established by Unitarians in various parts of thecity. Several of these are parish schools, under the immediate guidance ofthe pastors. Others are more general in their plan, receiving children fromall quarters. "

[Sidenote: Boston Sunday School Society. ]

At a meeting of the teachers of the Franklin Sunday-school held December16, 1826, it was proposed that there be organized an association of all theteachers connected with Unitarian parishes in Boston and the vicinity. OnFebruary 27, 1827, a meeting was held in the Berry Street vestry for thispurpose; and on April 18 a constitution was adopted for the Boston SundaySchool Society. The schools joining in this organization were the Hancock, Franklin, and Howard, and those connected with the West, Federal Street, Hollis Street, and Twelfth Congregational Churches. Dr. Joseph Tuckermanwas elected president; Moses Grant, vice-president; Dr. J. F. Flagg, corresponding secretary; and Rev. Frederick T. Gray, recording secretary. The first annual meeting was held November 28, 1827; and the above-namedofficers were re-elected. On December 12 a public meeting was held in theFederal Street Church, which was well filled. Reports of the work of theschools, including that at Cambridgeport, were read; and addresses weremade. 

The objects of the Sunday School Society were the helping of teachers, theextending of the interests of the schools, and the publishing of books. Itwas difficult to procure suitable books for use in Sunday-schools and fortheir libraries, and the prices were very high. In the autumn of 1828arrangements were made for the publishing of books, the American UnitarianAssociation co-operating therein by providing a capital of $300 for thispurpose, the profits going to the Sunday School Society, and the moneyborrowed being returned without interest. This connection was abandoned in1831 because it was found that the Unitarian name on the title-page of thebooks hindered their sale. In April, 1828, was issued the first number ofthe Christian Teacher's Manual, a small monthly, of which Mrs. Eliza LeeFollen was the editor, intended for the use of families and Sunday-schools. According to the preface the subjects chiefly considered were the bestmethods of addressing the minds of children, suggestions to teachers, explanations of Scripture, religious instruction from natural objects, histories taken from real life, stories and hymns adapted to children, andaccounts of Sunday-schools. 

The Manual was continued for two years; and it was followed by TheScriptural Interpreter, edited by Rev. Ezra S. Gannett. The editor of theInterpreter preferred to publish it under his own name, because he did "notwish it to be considered the organ or the representative of a denominationof Christians. " "It will have one object, " he said, "to furnish the meansof acquaintance with the true sense and value of Scripture, andparticularly of the New Testament; but whatever will promote this objectwill come within the scope the publication. " It was issued bi-monthly, andwas continued for five years. It was wholly devoted to the exposition ofthe Bible, a systematic series of translations and interpretations of theGospels forming a distinct feature of its pages. A considerable part of itwas prepared by the editor, who drew freely upon expository works. Amongthe contributors were William H. Furness, Orville Dewey, Alexander Young, Edward B. Hall, James Walker, Henry Ware, Jr. , and J. P. Dabney. In 1836, Dr. Gannett's health having failed, the magazine was edited by TheodoreParker, George E. Ellis, and William Silsbee, then students in the HarvardDivinity School. 

One important feature of the work of the Sunday School Society was theextension of the cause it represented. In December, 1829, reports werepresented at the annual meeting from nearly fifty schools; and it wasthought desirable that they should be brought into closer relations withthe society. Accordingly, Frederick T. Gray, the secretary, visited many ofthese schools. The next year, as a result, a considerable number of thoseoutside the city connected themselves with the society; and the lists ofvice-presidents and directors were enlarged to include them in itsoperations. Afterwards this work was carried on by a committee of thesociety, the members of which visited the schools, giving addresses, and inother ways helping to give strength and purpose to the work in which theywere engaged. Schools were visited in Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Kentucky, and other states. To givebetter opportunity for the attendance of delegates from schools outside thecity, the yearly meeting was changed from December to anniversary week inMay. 

The society published a considerable number of tracts, which weredistributed gratuitously by the agents and in other ways. It also issuedlesson-books, as well as books for the juvenile libraries which wereforming at this time in all the churches. To meet this demand, the youngerHenry Ware began editing, in 1833, the Sunday-school Library for YoungPersons, in which were included his own Life of the Saviour, Mrs. JohnFarrar's Life of Howard, Rev. Stephen G. Bulfinch's Holy Land, and Rev. Thomas B. Fox's Sketch of the Reformation. The next year Mr. Ware began aseries of books which he called Scenes and Characters illustratingChristian Truth. Another method used by the society was the giving ofexpository lectures. 

The society at first held quarterly meetings; but the interest grew, andthe meetings became monthly. Great enthusiasm was felt at this time inregard to the work of these schools, and many persons of prominence praisedthem and took part in their management. "The institution of Sunday-schoolsconstitutes one of the most remarkable features of the present age, " wroteDr. Joseph Allen, in 1830. "It has already done much to supply thedeficiencies of domestic education, and, if wisely conducted, is destined, we trust, to become at no distant day one of the most efficient instrumentsin forming the characters of the young. "[7] Writing in 1838, the youngerHenry Ware said that "the Sunday-school has become one of the establishedinstitutions of religion in connection with the church, and the characterof religion is henceforth to depend, in no small degree, on the wisdom withwhich it shall be administered. "[8]

In 1834 was organized the Worcester Sunday School Society. It had itsorigin as far back as November 17, 1817, when a committee of the WorcesterAssociation of Ministers was appointed to report on the subject ofSunday-schools. A meeting was held in Lancaster, October 9, 1834, when anorganization was perfected. The succeeding meetings were largely attended, and much interest was awakened. [9] In 1842 a similar society wasorganized in Middlesex County; and at about the same time one came intoexistence in Cheshire County, New Hampshire. Soon after societies wereorganized in the counties of Norfolk, Plymouth (North), Middlesex (West), Worcester, and in Portland and its neighborhood. 

In April, 1831, the directors of the Boston Sunday School Society discussedthe feasibility of starting a weekly paper for the use of the schools. InJuly, 1836, Rev. Bernard Whitman began the publication of The Sunday SchoolTeacher and Children's Friend. In January, 1837, The Young Christian wasbegun, and was published weekly at the office of The Christian Register, byDavid Reed. These papers were continued only for a few years. From 1845 to1857 Mrs. Eliza Lee Follen edited a monthly magazine for children, calledThe Children's Friend. The first number of the Sunday School Gazette waspublished in Worcester, August 7, 1849, under the direction of theWorcester Sunday School Society. It was established at the suggestion ofRev. Edward Everett Hale, then a minister in that city, in connection withRev. Edmund B. Willson, then settled in Grafton. The editor was Rev. Francis Le Baron, the minister at large in Worcester, though Mr. Hale was afrequent contributor. When the National Sunday School Society wasorganized, the Sunday School Gazette was transferred to, its charge; butthe publication of this paper was continued in Worcester until 1860. [10]

[Sidenote: Unitarian Sunday School Society. ]

As time went on, and the work of the Sunday-schools enlarged, it was feltthat it was necessary there should be one general organization which shouldbring together all Unitarian schools into a compact working force. To meetthis growing need, a convention of the county societies and of localschools was held in Worcester, October 4, 1854, at which time the SundaySchool Society was organized as a general denominational body. Hon. AlbertFearing, of Boston, was made the president, and Rev. Frederick T. Gray thesecretary. The society provided itself with a desk in the rooms of theUnitarian Association, and provision was made for the collection and saleof all the helps demanded by the schools. 

From 1855 until 1865 the society was sadly crippled by the lack of funds. The hard times preceding the Civil War, and the absorption of publicinterest in that great national event, made it difficult for the society tocontinue its work with any degree of success. For some years little wasdone but to hold the annual meeting in the autumn and that in anniversaryweek, and to continue the publication of the Sunday School Gazette. For anumber of years, however, Teachers' Institutes were held; and these werecontinued at irregular intervals until about 1875. The Sunday SchoolTeachers' Institute was organized in 1852, and continued in existence forten years. 

After the death of Rev. Frederick T. Gray in 1855, he was succeeded in theposition of secretary of the Sunday School Society by Rev. Stephen G. Bulfinch. In 1856 Rev. Warren H. Cudworth became the secretary, and theeditor of the Gazette; and he held these positions until May, 1861, when hebecame the chaplain of the first Massachusetts regiment taking part in theCivil War. In the October following, Mr. Joseph H. Allen, a Bostonmerchant, afterwards the editor of The Schoolmate, became the secretary andeditor. He continued to edit the Gazette until November, 1865; but Mr. M. T. Rice was made secretary in 1863. At the end of 1865, when the society wasin a condition of almost complete collapse, Rev. Thomas J. Mumford becamethe secretary, and the editor of the Gazette for one year. He restoredconfidence in the society, and made the paper a success. During the war thepaper was published monthly for the sake of economy; but with the first ofJanuary, 1866, it was restored to its former semi-monthly issue. 

The new life that came to the denomination in 1865 had its influence uponthe Sunday School Society. In the autumn of 1866, when the UnitarianAssociation had secured a large increase of funds, it was proposed that theSunday School Society should unite with it, and that the largerorganization should have the direction of all denominational activities, especially those of publishing. The more zealous friends of the society didnot approve of such consolidation, and succeeded in reanimating its work byappointing as its secretary Mr. James P. Walker, who had been the head ofthe publishing firm of Walker, Wise & Co. , a young man of earnest purpose, a successful Sunday-school teacher and superintendent, and an enthusiasticbeliever in the mission of Unitarianism. Mr. Walker devoted his whole timeto the interests of the society, and an energetic effort was made to reviveand extend its work. He proved to be the man for the position, largelyincreasing the bookselling and publishing activities, visiting schools andconferences, and awakening much enthusiasm in regard to the interests ofSunday-schools. He wore himself out in this work, however, and died inMarch, 1868, greatly lamented throughout the denomination. [11]

After the death of Mr. Walker, consolidation with the Association was againurged; but Rev. Leonard J. Livermore was in June elected the secretary. Atthe annual meeting it was resolved to raise $5, 000 for the work of thesociety, and the next year it was proposed to make the annual contribution$10, 000. The name was changed to the Unitarian Sunday School Society at theannual meeting of 1868, held in Worcester. In 1871 Mr. John Kneeland becamethe secretary; and with the beginning of 1872 the Gazette was changed toThe Dayspring, which was issued monthly. In the autumn of that year thesociety began the publication of monthly lessons, and there was issued withthem a Teachers' Guide for the lessons of the year. With the beginning of1877 the Guide was discontinued, and the lesson papers enlarged. InNovember, 1875, Rev. George F. Piper became the secretary, --a position heheld until May 1, 1883. During his administration about three hundredlessons were prepared by him, and these had a circulation of about ninethousand copies. The transition condition of the denomination made itdifficult to carry on the work of the society at this time, for it wasimpossible to please both conservatives and radicals with any lessons thatmight be prepared. One superintendent warned his school against theheretical tendencies of lessons which, from the other point of view, aminister condemned as being fit for orthodox schools, but not forUnitarians. In the same mail came a letter from a minister saying thelessons were too elementary, and from another saying they were much tooadvanced. In the latter part of Mr. Piper's term service was begun animportant work of preparing manuals thoroughly modern in their spirit andmethods. [12]

In May, 1883, Rev. Henry G. Spaulding became the secretary; and the work ofpublishing modern manuals was largely extended. [13] At the suggestion andwith the co-operation of the secretary there was organized, November 12, 1883, the Unitarian Sunday School Union of Boston, having for its object"to develop the best methods of Sunday-school work. " At about the same timea lending library of reference books was established in connection with thework of the society. In the autumn of 1883 the society began to hold inChanning Hall weekly lectures for teachers. In 1885 The Dayspring wasenlarged and became Every Other Sunday, being much improved in its literarycontents as well as in its illustrations. The same year the society wasincorporated, and the number of directors was increased to includerepresentatives from all sections of the country; while all Sunday-schoolscontributing to the society's treasury were given a delegate representationin its membership. Mr. Spaulding continued his connection with the societyuntil January 1, 1892. 

Rev. Edward A. Horton, who had for several years taken an active part inthe work of the society, assumed charge February 1, 1892. Mr. Horton wasmade the president, it being deemed wise to have the head of the societyits executive officer. During his administration there has been a steadygrowth in Sunday-school interest, which has demanded a rapid increase inthe number and variety of publications. The book department has been taxedto the utmost to meet the demand. A new book of Song and Service, compiledby Mr. Horton, has reached a sale of nearly 25, 000 copies. A simplestatement of "Our Faith" has had a circulation of 40, 000 copies, and in aform suitable for the walls of Sunday-school rooms it has been inconsiderable demand. [14] A series of lessons, covering a period of sevenyears, upon the three-grade, one-topic plan, has been largely used in theschools. Besides the twenty manuals published in this course of lessons, forty other text-books have been published, making a total of sixty in all, from 1892 to 1902. [15] There have also been many additions toSunday-school helps by way of special services for festival days, freetracts, and statements of belief. The Channing Hall talks to Sunday-schoolteachers have been made to bear upon these courses of lessons. Every OtherSunday has been improved, and its circulation extended. The number ofdonating churches and schools has been steadily increased, the number in1901 being 255, the largest by far yet reached. At the annual meeting ofthe society and at local conferences representative speakers have presentedthe newest methods of Sunday-school work. Sunday-school unions have beenformed in various parts of the country, and churches are awakened to a newinterest in the work of religious instruction. "Home and SchoolConferences" have been held with a view to bringing parents and teachersinto closer sympathy and co-operation. 

[Sidenote: Western Unitarian Sunday School Society. ]

In the west the first movement towards Sunday-school activities began in1871 with the publication of a four-page lesson-sheet at Janesville, Wis. , by Rev. Jenkin Lloyd Jones. This was continued for two or three years. Through the interest of Mr. Jones in Sunday-school work a meeting fororganization was called in the fourth church, Chicago, October 14, 1873, when the Western Unitarian Sunday School Society was organized, with Rev. Milton J. Miller as president and Mr. Jones as secretary. At the meetingthe next year in St. Louis a committee was appointed to prepare a song-bookfor the schools, which resulted in the production of The Sunny Side, editedby Rev. Charles W. Wendte. The next step was to establish headquarters inChicago, where all kinds of material could be furnished to the schools, with the necessary advice and encouragement. Through successive years theeffort of the society was to systematize the work of UnitarianSunday-schools, to put into them the best literature, the best song andservice books, the best lesson papers, and other tools, --in short, tosecure better and more definite teaching, such as is in accord with thebest scholarship and thought of the age. [16]

In 1882 the society became incorporated, and its work from this timeenlarged in all directions. To develop these results more fully, anInstitute was held in the Third Church, Chicago, in November, 1887, atwhich five sessions were given to Sunday-school work, and two to Unity Clubinterests. In the course of several years of encouraging success, theInstitute developed into a Summer Assembly of two or more weeks'continuance at Hillside, Helena Valley, Wis. , which still continues itsyearly sessions. In May, 1902, The Western Sunday School Society wasconsolidated with the national organization; and the plates and stock whichit possessed were handed over to the Unitarian Sunday School Society. Awestern headquarters is maintained in Chicago, where all the publicationsof the two societies are kept on sale. 

[Sidenote: Unity Clubs. ]

As adjuncts to the Sunday-school, and to continue its work for adults andin other spheres of ethical training, the Unity Club came into existenceabout the year 1873, beginning with the work of Rev. Jenkin Ll. Jones atJanesville. In the course of the next ten years nearly every Unitarianchurch in the west organized such a club, and the movement to some degreeextended to other parts of the country. In 1887 there was organized inBoston the National Bureau of Unity Clubs. These clubs devoted themselvesto literary, sociological, and religious courses of study; and theyfurnished centres for the social activities of the churches. About the year1878 began a movement to organize societies of young people for thecultivation of the spirit of worship and religious development. Thisresulted in 1889 in the organization of the National Guild Alliance; and in1890 this organization joined with the Bureau of Unity Clubs and theUnitarian Temperance Society in supporting an agency in the UnitarianBuilding, Boston, with the aid of the Unitarian Association. The YoungPeople's Religious Union was organized in Boston, May 28, 1896; and inlarge degree, it took the place of the Bureau and the Alliance, uniting thetwo in a more efficient effort to interest the young people of thechurches. [17]

[Sidenote: The Ladies' Commission on Sunday-school Books. ]

In the autumn of 1865, Rev. Charles Lowe, then the secretary of theUnitarian Association, invited a number of women to meet him for thepurpose of conference on the subject of Sunday-school libraries. At hissuggestion they organized themselves on October 12 as The Ladies'Commission on Sunday-school Books, with the object of preparing a catalogueof books read and approved by competent persons. At the first meeting tenpersons were present, but the number was soon enlarged to thirty; and itwas still farther increased by the addition of corresponding members incities too remote for personal attendance. Among those taking part in thework of the commission at first were Miss Lucretia P. Hale, Miss Anna C. Lowell, Mrs. Edwin P. Whipple, Mrs. Ednah D. Cheney, Mrs. A. D. T. Whitney, Mrs. S. Bennett, Mrs. Caroline H. Dall, Mrs. E. E. Hale, Mrs. E. P. Tileston, and Miss Hannah E. Stevenson. 

The commission not only aimed to select books for Sunday-school libraries, but also those for the home reading of young persons and for the use ofteachers. It undertook also the procuring of the publication of suitablejuvenile books. The first catalogue was issued in October, 1866, andcontained a list of two hundred books, selected from twelve hundredexamined. In the spring of 1867 a catalogue of five hundred andseventy-three books was printed, as the result of the reading of nineteenhundred volumes. 

In the beginning of its work the commission did not confine its activitiesto the selecting of juvenile books; for the Sunday School Hymn and TuneBook, published in 1869, was largely due to its efforts. Under theadministration of Mr. James P. Walker the Sunday School Society undertookto procure the publication of a number of books of fiction suitable forSunday-school libraries, and offered prizes to this end. The commissiongave its encouragement to this effort, read the manuscripts, and aided indetermining to whom the prizes should be given. The result was thepublication of a half-dozen volumes by the Sunday School Society and theUnitarian Association. The society also aided to some extent in meeting theexpenses of the commission, though these were usually met by theAssociation. 

For many years the books approved by the commission were grouped underthree heads: books especially recommended for Unitarian Sunday-schoollibraries; those highly recommended for their religious tone, but somewhatimpaired for this purpose by the use of phrases and the adoption of aspirit not in accord with the Unitarian faith; and those profitable andvaluable, but not adapted to the purposes of a Sunday-school library. Everybook recommended was read and approved by at least five persons, discussedin committee of the whole, and accepted by a two-thirds vote of all themembers. Books about which there was much diversity of opinion were read bya larger number of persons. This classification proved rather cumbersome, and it was often found difficult to decide into which list a book should beplaced; and the result was that about 1890 the simpler plan was adopted ofputting all titles in their alphabetical order, with explanatory notes foreach book. In 1882 the list of books for teachers was discontinued as beingno longer necessary. 

Annual lists of books have been published by the commission since 1866;and, in addition, several catalogues have been issued, containing all thebooks approved during a period of five years. In the early days of thecommission, supplementary lists for children and young persons were issued, containing books of a more secular character than were thought suitable forSunday-school libraries. Gradually, it has extended its work to include theneeds of all juvenile libraries; and these books are now incorporated intothe one annual catalogue. In thirty-four years the commission has examined10, 957 books, and has approved 3, 076, or about one-third. [18]

[1] Sunday School Times, September 15, 1860. 

[2] Asa Bullard, Fifty Years with the Sabbath Schools, 37. 

[3] C. A. Bartol, The West Church and its Ministers, Appendix. 

[4] See the Remains of Nathaniel Appleton Haven, with a Memoir of his life, by George Ticknor. 

[5] The Hancock Sunday-school assembled at eight in the morning and at one in the afternoon, Moses Grant being the first superintendent. 

[6] At the school of the Twelfth Congregational Society, Carpenter's Catechism was used for the small children. This was followed by the Worcester Catechism, compiled in 1822 by the ministers of the Worcester Association of Ministers, Dr. Joseph Allen being the real author. The Geneva Catechism in its three successive parts, followed in order. In the Bible class, use was made of Hannah Adams's Letters on the Gospels, under the immediate charge of the Pastor. A hymn-book issued by the Publishing Fund Society was in use by the whole school. 

[7] Christian Examiner, March, 1830, VIII. 49. 

[8] Ibid. , May, 1838, XXIV. 182. 

[9] Joseph Allen, History of the Worcester Association, 261-264. 

[10] In 1852 was published a graded series of eight manuals of Christian instruction for Sunday-schools and families, --a result of the activities of the Sunday School Society. The titles and authors of these books were Early Religious Lessons; Palestine and the Hebrew People, Stephen G. Bulfinch; Lessons on the Old Testament, Rev. Ephraim Peabody; The Life of Christ, Rev. John H. Morison; The Books and Characters of the New Testament, Rev. Rufus Ellis; Lessons upon Religious Duties and Christian Morals, Rev. George W. Briggs; Doctrines of Scripture, Rev. Frederic D. Huntington; Scenes from Christian History, Rev. Edward E. Hale. Two other books connected with the early history of Unitarian Sunday-schools properly demand notice here. In 1847 was published The History of Sunday Schools and of Religious Education from the Earliest Times, by Lewis G. Pray, who was treasurer of the Boston Sunday School Society from 1834 to 1853, and chairman of its board of agents from 1841 to 1848. He was one of the first workers in the establishing of Sunday-schools in Boston, and he zealously interested himself in this cause so long as he lived. He compiled the first book of hymns used in Unitarian schools, and also the first book of devotional exercises. For twenty years he was superintendent of the school connected with the Twelfth Congregational Society, holding that place from its organization in 1827. In one of the concluding chapters of his book Mr. Pray gave an account of the early history of Unitarian Sunday-schools in Boston and its neighborhood. In 1852 was published a series of addresses which had been given by Rev. Frederick T. Gray at Sunday-school anniversaries and on other similar occasions. The volume contains most interesting information in regard to the origin of Sunday-schools in Boston, and the beginnings of the Sunday School Society, as well as the work of Dr. Tuckerman and his assistants in the ministry, at large. 

[11] Memoir of James P. Walker, with Selections from his Writings, by Thomas B. Fox. American Unitarian Association, 1869. 

[12] The first of these was Rev. Edward H. Hall's First Lessons on the Bible, which appeared in 1882; and it was soon followed by Professor C. H. Toy's History of the Religion of Israel. 

[13] Among these were Religions before Christianity, by Professor Charles Carroll Everett, D. D. , 1883; Manual of Unitarian Belief, by Rev. James Freeman Clarke, D. D. , 1884; Lessons on the Life of St. Paul, by Rev. Edward H. Hall, 1885; Early Hebrew Stories, by Rev. Charles F. Dole, 1886; Hebrew Prophets and Kings, by Rev. Henry G. Spaulding, 1887; The Later Heroes of Israel, by Mr. Spaulding, 1888; Lessons on the Gospel of Luke, by Mr. Spaulding and Rev. W. W. Fenn, 1889; A Story of the Sects, by Rev. William H. Lyon, in 1891. In 1890 appeared the Unitarian Catechism of Rev. Minot J. Savage, though not published by the Sunday School Society. These books attracted wide attention, were largely used in Unitarian schools, and were adopted into those of other sects to some extent. In 1886 the president of the American Social Science Association publicly urged the use of the ethical manuals of the society by all Sunday-schools. Several of these books were republished in London, and Dr. Toy's manual was translated into Dutch. The society also published a new Service Book and Hymnal, which went into immediate use in a large number of schools, and did much for the enrichment of the devotional exercises and the promotion of an advanced standard of both words and music in the hymns. 

[14] The Fatherhood of God, the Brotherhood of Man, the leadership of Jesus, salvation by character, the progress of mankind onward and upward forever. 

[15] Among the publications under Mr. Horton's administration, which may justly be called significant, are: Beacon Lights of Christian History, in three grades; Noble Lives and Noble Deeds, Dole's Catechism of Liberal Faith, Mott's History of Unitarianism, Pulsford's various manuals on the Bible, Mrs. Jaynes's Illustrated Primary Leaflets, Miss Mulliken's Kindergarten Lessons, Story of Israel and Great Thoughts of Israel, in three grades, Fenn's Acts of the Apostles, Chadwick's Questions on the Old Testament Books in their Right Order, Mrs. Kate Gannett Wells's forty Illustrated Primary Lessons, and Walkley's Helps for Teachers. Mr. Horton, during this ten years, has written fourteen manuals on various subjects. Co-extensive with the large increase of text-books has been the enrichment of lessons by pictorial aids. Excellent half-tone pictures have been prepared from the best subjects. 

[16] Among the publications of the Western Unitarian Sunday School Society have been Unity Services and Songs, edited by Rev. James Vila Blake, and published in 1878; a service book called The Way of Life, by Rev. Frederick L. Hosmer, issued in 1877; and Unity Festivals, services for special holidays, 1884. Of the lesson-books published by the society, those that have been most successful have been Corner-stones of Character, by Mrs. Kate Gannett Wells; A Chosen Nation, or the Growth of the Hebrew Religion, by Rev. William C. Gannett; and The More Wonderful Genesis, by Rev. Henry M. Simmons. In 1890 the society entered upon the publication of a six-year course of studies, which included Beginnings according to Legend and according to the Truer Story, by Rev. Allen W. Gould; The Flowering of the Hebrew Religion, by Rev. W. W. Fenn; In the Home, by Rev. W. C. Gannett; Mother Nature's Children, by Rev. A. W. Gould; and The Flowering of Christianity, the Liberal Christian Movement toward Universal Religion, by Rev. W. C. Gannett. 

[17] The objects of The Young People's Religious Union are: (a) to foster the religious life; (b) to bring the young into closer relations with one another; and (c) to spread rational views of religion, and to put into practice such principles of life and duty as tend to uplift mankind. The cardinal principles of the Union are truth, worship, and service. Any young people's society may become a member of the Union by affirming in writing its sympathy with the general objects of the Union, adopting its cardinal principles, making a contribution to its treasury, and sending the secretary a list of its officers. The annual meeting is held in May at such day and place as the executive board may appoint. Special union meetings are held as often as several societies may arrange. The Union has its headquarters at Room 11, in the Unitarian Building, Boston, in charge of the secretary, whose office hours are from 9 A. M. To 1 P. M. Daily. Organization hints, hymnals, leaflets, helps for the national topics, and other suggestive materials are supplied. The national officers furnish speakers for initial meetings, visit unions, and help in other ways. The Union maintains a department in The Christian Register, under the charge of the secretary, for notes, notices, helps on the topics, and all matters of interest to the unions, and also publishes a monthly bulletin in connection with the National Alliance of Unitarian Women. 

[18] In the thirty-five years which comprise the life of the commission a gradual but marked change has been in operation. Sunday-school libraries are being used less and less, and town libraries have become much more numerous and better patronized by both old and young. In the spring of 1896 the question arose in the commission whether, with the decline of the Sunday-school library, the need which called it into being had not ceased to exist; and, in order to secure information as to the advisability of continuing its work, cards were sent to 305 ministers of the denomination and to 507 public libraries, mostly in New England, asking if the lists of the commission were found useful, and whether it was desired that the sending of them should be continued. From Unitarian ministers 209 replies were received, one-half using the lists frequently and the other half occasionally or for the selection of special books. From the town libraries cordial replies were received in 220 instances, most of them warmly approving of the lists, which had been found very useful. The result of this investigation was to bring the commission more directly into touch with the various libraries, and to give it a better understanding of their needs. 

XII. 

THE WOMEN'S ALLIANCE AND ITS PREDECESSORS. 

The Unitarian body has been remarkable for the women of intellectual powerand philanthropic achievement who have adorned its fellowship. Inproportion to their numbers, they have done much for the improvement anduplifting of society. In the early Unitarian period, however, the specialwork of women was for the most part confined to the Sunday-school and thesewing circle. Whatever the name by which it was known, whether as theDorcas Society, the Benevolent Society, or the Ladies' Aid, the sewingcircle did a work that was in harmony with the needs of the time, and didit well. It helped the church with which it was connected in many quietways, and gave much aid to the poor and suffering members of the community. Nor did it limit its activities to purely local interests; for many achurch was helped by it and the early missionary societies received itscontributions gladly. 

Before the organization of the Benevolent Fraternity of Churches, the womenof Boston raised the money necessary for the support of the ministry atlarge in that city. One of the earliest societies organized for generalservice, was the Tuckerman Sewing Circle, formed in 1827. Its purpose wasto assist Dr. Tuckerman in his work for the poor of the city by providingclothing and otherwise aiding the needy. The work of this circle is stillgoing on in connection, with the Bulfinch Place Church; and every year itraises a large sum of money for the charitable work of the ministry atlarge. 

The civil war helped women to recognize the need of organization andco-operation, on their part. In working for the soldiers, not only in theirhomes and churches, but in connection with the Sanitary Commission, andlater in seeking to aid the freedmen, they learned their own power and thevalue of combination with others. In Massachusetts the work of the SanitaryCommission was largely carried on by Unitarians. In describing this work, Mrs. Ednah D. Cheney has indicated what was done by Unitarian women. "During the late war, " she wrote, "a woman's branch of the SanitaryCommission was organized in New England. Mary Dwight (Parkman) was itsfirst president; but Abby Williams May soon took her place, which she heldtill the close of the war. With unwearied zeal Miss May presided over itscouncils, organized its action, and encouraged others to work. She wentdown to the hospitals and camps, to judge of their needs with her own eyes, and travelled from town to town in New England, arousing the women to neweffort. These might be seen, young and old, rich and poor, bearing bundlesof blue flannel through the streets, and unaccustomed fingers knitting thecoarse yarn, while the heart throbbed with anxiety for the dear ones goneto the war. A noble band of nurses volunteered their services, and thestrife was as to which should go soonest and do the hardest work. Hannah E. Stevenson, Helen Stetson, and many another name became as dear to thesoldiers as that of mother or sister. A committee was formed to supply thecolored soldiers with such help as other soldiers received from theirrelations; and, when one of the noblest of Boston's sons passed through herstreets at their head, his mother 'thanked God for the privilege of seeingthat day. ' The same spirit went into the work of educating the freedmen. Young men and women, the noblest and best, went forth together to that workof danger and toil. "[1]

[Sidenote: Women's Western Unitarian Conference. ]

It was such experiences as these that encouraged Unitarian women to enterupon other philanthropic and educational labors when the civil war had cometo an end. Leaders had been trained during this period who were capable ofguiding such movements to a successful issue. The example of the women ofthe evangelical churches in organizing their home and foreign missionaryassociations also undoubtedly influenced, to a greater or lesser degree, the women of the liberal churches. After the organization of the NationalConference, Unitarian women began to realize, as never before, the need ofco-operation in behalf of the cause they had at heart. [2] It was in thecentral west, however, that the first effort was made to organize women inthe interest of denominational activities. In 1877, at the meeting of theWestern Unitarian Conference held in Toledo, it was voted that the womenconnected with that body be requested to organize immediately for thepurpose of co-operating in the general work of the conference. At thismeeting two women, Mrs. E. P. Allis of Milwaukee and Mrs. Mary P. WellsSmith of Cincinnati, were placed on the board of directors. 

At the next annual meeting of the Western Conference, held in Chicago, thecommittee on organization, consisting of thirteen women, reported thereadiness of the women to give their aid to the conference work, saying intheir report "that we signify not only our willingness, but our earnestdesire to share henceforth with our brothers in the labors andresponsibilities of this Association, and that we pledge ourselves to anactive and hearty support of those cherished convictions which constituteour liberal faith. " In response to their request, the conference selectedan assistant secretary to have charge of everything relating to the work ofwomen. They also recommended that the women of the several churchesconnected with the conference should organize for "the study anddissemination of the principles of free thought and liberal religiousculture, and the practical assistance of all worthy schemes and enterprisesintended for the spread and upholding of these principles. " In 1881, at St. Louis, there was organized the Women's Western Unitarian Conference, withMrs. Eliza Sunderland as president and Miss F. L. Roberts as secretary. During the seventeen years of its existence this conference raised muchmoney for denominational work, developed many earnest workers, andaccomplished much in behalf of the principles for which it stood. It aidedin the support of several missionaries, organized the Post-office Missionand made it effective, and encouraged a number of women to enter theministry. 

[Sidenote: Women's Auxiliary Conference. ]

At the National Conference session of 1878, held at Saratoga, where muchenthusiasm had been awakened, it was suggested that the women, who had beenhitherto listeners only, should take an active part in, denominationalwork. At a gathering in the parlor of the United States Hotel, called byMrs. Charles G. Ames, Mrs. Fielder Israel, Mrs. J. P. Lesley, and one or twoothers, a plan of action was adopted that led, in 1880, to the formation ofthe Women's Auxiliary Conference. The aim of this organization was toquicken the religious life of the churches, to stimulate local charitableand missionary undertakings, and to raise money for missionary enterprises;but its work was to be done in connection with the National Conference, andnot as an independent organization. The purpose was stated in a circularsent to the churches immediately after the organization was effected. "Hitherto, " it was said, "women have not been specially represented uponthe board of the National Conference, and have not fully recognized howhelpful they might be in its various undertakings or how much theythemselves might gain from a closer relation with it. But the time has nowcome when our service is called for in the broad field, and also when wefeel the need of being at work there; for our faith in the great truths ofreligion is no less vital than that of our brethren; and since the servicewe can render, being different from theirs, is needed to supplement it, andbecause it is peculiarly women's service, we must do it, or it will be leftundone. It is one of the glories of such a work as ours that there is needand room in it for the best effort of every individual; indeed, without thefaithful service of all it must be incomplete. "

In 1890, after ten years of active existence, the conference had abouteighty branches, with a membership of between 3, 000 and 4, 000 women. Muchof the success of the conference was due to its president, Abby W. May. Miss May was well known as a philanthropist and educator, and had occupiedmany prominent positions before she assumed the presidency of theauxiliary; but this was her first active work in connection with thedenomination. 

[Sidenote: The National Alliance. ]

Admirable as were the aims, and excellent as was the work of thisorganization, it was auxiliary to the National Conference, and had noindependent life. After the first enthusiasm was past, it failed to gainground rapidly, the membership remaining nearly stationary during the lastfew years of its existence. As time went on, therefore, it became evidentthat a more complete organization was needed in order to arouse enthusiasmand to secure the loyalty of the women of all parts of the country. The NewYork League of Unitarian Women, including those of New York, Brooklyn, andNew Jersey, organized in 1887, showed the advantages of a closer union anda more definite purpose; and the desire to bring into one body all thevarious local organizations hastened the change. It was seen that, in themultiplication of organizations, there was danger of wasting the energiesused, and that one efficient body was greatly to be desired. 

In May, 1888, a committee was formed for the purpose of drafting aconstitution for a new association, "to which all existing organizationsmight subscribe. " The constitution provided by this committee was adoptedOctober 24, 1890, and the new organization took the name of the NationalAlliance of Unitarian and Other Liberal Christian Women. The objectproposed was "to quicken the life of our Unitarian churches, and to bringthe women of the denomination into closer acquaintance, co-operation, andfellowship. " In 1891 there were ninety branches, with about 5, 000 members. While the membership, doubled under the impulse of the new organization, the increase in the amount of money raised was fivefold. 

The admirable results secured by the Women's Alliance, which has finallydrawn all the sectional organizations into co-operation with itself, are inno small measure due to the energy and the organizing skill of the womenwho have been at the head of its activities. Mrs. Judith W. Andrews, ofBoston, was the president during the first year of its existence. From 1891to 1901 the president was Mrs. B. Ward Dix, of Brooklyn, who was succeededby Miss Emma C. Low, of the same city. Mrs. Emily A. Fifield, of Boston, has been the recording secretary; Mrs. Mary B. Davis, of New York, thecorresponding secretary; and Miss Flora L. Close, of Boston, the treasurerfrom the first. 

[Sidenote: Cheerful Letter and Post-office Missions. ]

In 1891 the executive board appointed a committee to organize a CheerfulLetter Exchange, of which Miss Lilian Freeman Clarke was made the chairman. One of its chief purposes is to cheer the lonely and discouraged, invalidsand others, by interchange of letters and by gifts of books andperiodicals. To young persons in remote places it affords facilities forsecuring a better education, with the aid of correspondence classes. Bymeans of a little monthly magazine, The Cheerful Letter, religious teachingis brought to many persons, who in this find a substitute for churchattendance where that is not possible. Through the same channel, as well asby correspondence, these workers help young mothers in the right trainingof their children. Libraries have been started in communities destitute ofbooks, and struggling libraries have been aided with gifts. Fortytravelling libraries are kept in circulation. 

Although much had been done to circulate Unitarian tracts and the otherpublications of the American Unitarian Association, by means ofcolporteurs, by the aid of the post-office, as well as by direct gift offriend to friend, it remained for Miss Sallie Ellis, of Cincinnati, in1881, to systematize this kind of missionary effort, and to make it one ofthe most valuable of all agents for the dissemination of liberal religiousideas. Miss Ellis was aided by the Cincinnati branch of the Women'sAuxiliary, but she was from the first the heart and soul of this mission. "If there had been no Miss Ellis, " says one who knew her work intimately, "there would have been no Post-office Mission. Many helped about it invarious ways, but she was the mission. "

Miss Ellis was a frail little woman, hopelessly deaf and suffering from anincurable disease. Notwithstanding her physical limitations, she longed tobe of service to the faith she cherished; and the missionary spirit burnedstrong within her. "I want, " she said often, "to do something forUnitarianism before I die"; but the usual avenues of opportunity seemedfirmly closed to her. At last, in the winter of 1877-78, Rev. Charles W. Wendte, then her pastor, anxious to find something for her to do, proposedthat she should send the Association's tracts and copies of the PamphletMission to persons in the west who were interested in the liberal faith. She took up this work gladly, and during that winter distributed 1, 846tracts and 211 copies of the Pamphlet Mission in twenty-six States. 

A tract table in the vestibule of the church was started by Miss Ellis; andshe not only distributed sermons freely in this way, but she also soldUnitarian books. It was in 1881 that she was made the secretary of thenewly organized Women's Auxiliary in Cincinnati, and that her work reallybegan systematically. At the suggestion of Mrs. Mary P. Wells Smith, advertisements were inserted in the daily papers, and offers made to sendUnitarian publications, when requested. Many doubted the advisability ofsuch an enterprise, but the letters received soon indicated that animportant method of mission work had been discovered. Rev. William C. Gannett christened this work the Post-office Mission, and that name it hassince retained. 

Only four and one-half years were permitted to Miss Ellis in which toaccomplish her work, --a work dear to her heart, and one for which her manylosses and sufferings had prepared her. During this period she wrote 2, 500letters, sent out 22, 000 tracts and papers, sold 286 books, and loaned 258. The real value of such work cannot be rightly estimated in figures. Throughher influence, several young men entered the ministry who are to-day doingeffective work. She saved several persons from doubt and despair, gavestrength to the weak, and comfort to those who mourned. At her death, in1885, the letters received from many of her correspondents showed howstrong and deep had been her influence. [3]

The movement initiated by Miss Ellis grew rapidly, and has become one ofthe most valuable of all agents for the dissemination of liberal religiousideas. In the year 1900 the number of correspondents was about 5, 000, andthe number of tracts, sermons, periodicals, and books distributed was about200, 000. The extent of this mission is also seen in the fact that in thatyear about 8, 000 letters were written by the workers, and about 6, 000 werereceived. 

By means of the Post-office Mission the literature of the denomination, thetracts of the Unitarian Association, copies of The Christian Register, andother periodicals have been scattered all over the world. Thousands ofsermons are distributed also from tables in church vestibules. Severalbranches publish and exchange sermons, and a loan library has beenestablished to supplement this work. [4]

From the distribution of tracts and sermons has grown the formation of"Sunday Circles" and "Groups" of Unitarians, carefully planned circuitpreaching, the employment of missionaries, and the building of chapels orsmall churches. Two of these are already built; and the Alliance hasinsured the support of their ministers for five years, and two others arein the process of erection. 

[Sidenote: Associate Alliances. ]

The women on the Pacific coast have been compelled in a large measure toorganize their own work and to adopt their own methods, the distance beingtoo great for immediate co-operation with the other organizations. In thiswork they have not only displayed energy and perseverance, but, says onewho knows intimately of their efforts, "they have shown executive abilityand power as organizers that have furnished an example to manynon-sectarian organizations of women, and have made the Unitarian womenconspicuous in all charitable and social activities. "

The oldest society of Unitarian women on the Pacific coast was connectedwith the First Church in San Francisco. In 1873 it was reorganized as theSociety for Christian Work. Its work has been mainly social andphilanthropic, contributing reading matter to penal institutions, money forthe care of the poor of the city, and aiding every new Unitarian church inthe State. The Channing Auxiliary combines the activities of the churchesin the vicinity of San Francisco with those in the city. Its objects are"moral and religious culture, practical literary work, and co-operationwith the denominational and missionary agencies of the Unitarian faith. "From 1890 to 1899 this society spent over $6, 000 in aid of denominationalenterprises, and it appropriates annually a large sum for Post-officeMission work. While these two organizations represent San Francisco and itsneighborhood, the women up and down the coast have also been earnestworkers. In 1890 they felt the need of a closer bond of union, andorganized the Women's Unitarian Conference of the Pacific Coast. In 1894this conference became a branch of the National Alliance, and hasco-operated cordially with it since that time. 

The New York League of Unitarian Women has been active in forming Alliancebranches and new churches, as well as in affording aid to Meadvillestudents. The Chicago Associate Alliance, the Southern Associate Alliance, and the Connecticut Valley Associate Alliance were organized in 1890. TheWorcester League of Unitarian Women began its existence in 1889, and wasreorganized in connection with the National Alliance in 1892. 

[Sidenote: Alliance Methods. ]

In thus coming into closer relations with each other and forming a nationalorganization, each local branch continues free in its own action, choosesits own methods of carrying on its work, but keeps close knowledge of whatthe Alliance as a whole is doing, that all interference with others andoverlapping of assistance may be avoided, and the greatest mutual benefitmay be secured. This method gives the utmost independence to the branches, while preserving the element of personal interest in all financialdisbursements, and creates a strong bond of sympathy between those who giveand those who receive. 

The first duty of each branch is to strengthen the church to which itsmembers belong; and the value of such an organized group of women, meetingto exchange ideas and experiences on the most vital topics of humaninterest, has been everywhere recognized. Each branch is expected to engagein some form of religious study, not only for the improvement of themembers themselves, but to enable them to gain, and to give others, acomprehensive knowledge of Unitarian beliefs. A study class committeeprovides programmes for the use of the branches, arranges for the lendingand exchange of papers, and assists those who do not have access to booksof reference or are remote from the centres of Unitarian thought andactivity. 

With this preparation the Alliance undertakes the higher service of joiningin the missionary activities of the denomination, supplementing as far aspossible the work of the American Unitarian Association. This includessending missionaries into new fields, aiding small and struggling churches, helping to found new ones, supporting ministers at important points, andand distributing religious literature among those who need light onreligious problems. 

[1] Memorial History of Boston, IV. 353. 

[2] See later chapters for account of admission of women to National Conference, Unitarian Association, the ministry, Boston school board, and various other lines of activity. 

[3] Mary P. W. Smith, Miss Ellis's Mission. 

[4] This library is in the Unitarian Building, 25 Beacon Street, Boston. 

XIII. 

MISSIONS TO INDIA AND JAPAN. 

Foreign missions have never commanded a general interest on the part ofUnitarians. Their dislike of the proselyting spirit, their intense love ofliberty for others as well as for themselves, and the absence of sectarianfeeling have combined to make them, as a body, indifferent to thepropagation of their faith in other countries. They have done something, however, to express their sympathy with those of kindred faith in foreignlands. 

In 1829 the younger Henry Ware visited England and Ireland as the foreignsecretary of the Unitarian Association; and at the annual meeting of 1831he reported the results of his inquiries. [1] This was the beginning ofmany interchanges of good fellowship with the Unitarians of Great Britain, and also with those of Hungary, Transylvania, France, Germany, and otherEuropean countries. During the first decade or two of the existence of theUnitarian Association much interest was taken in the liberal movements inGeneva; and the third annual report gave account of what was being done inthat city and in Calcutta, as well as in Transylvania and Great Britain. Some years later, aid was promised to the Unitarians of Hungary in a timeof persecution; but they were dispossessed of their schools before helpreached them. In 1868 the Association founded Channing and Priestleyprofessorships in the theological school at Kolozsvár, and Mrs. AnnaRichmond furnished money for a permanent professorship in the sameinstitution. Soon after the renewed activity of 1865 an unsuccessfulattempt was made to establish an American Unitarian church in Paris; andaid was given to the founding of an English liberal church in that city. These are indications of the many interchanges of fellowship andhelpfulness between the Unitarians of this country and those of Europe. 

[Sidenote: Society respecting the State of Religion in India. ]

As early as 1824 began a movement to aid the native Unitarians of India, partly the result of a lively interest in Rammohun Roy and therepublication in this country of his writings. On June 7, 1822, TheChristian Register gave an account of the adoption of Unitarianism by thatremarkable Hindoo leader; and it often recurred to the subject in lateryears. In February of the next year it described the formation of aUnitarian society in Calcutta, and the conversion to Unitarianism of aBaptist missionary, Rev. William Adam, as a result of his attempt toconvert Rammohun Roy. There followed frequent reports of this movement, andafter a few months a letter from Mr. Adam was published. Even before thisthere had appeared accounts of William Roberts, of Madras, a native Tamil, who had been educated in England, and had there become a Unitarian. On hisreturn to his own country he had established small congregations in thesuburbs of Madras. 

In 1823 a letter from Rev. William Adam was received in Boston, addressedto Dr. Channing. It was put into the hands of the younger Henry Ware, whowrote to Mr. Adam and Rammohun Roy, propounding to them a number ofquestions in regard to the religious situation in India. In 1824 werepublished in a volume the letter of Ware and the series of questions sentby him to India, together with the replies of Rammohun Roy and WilliamAdam. [2] This book was one of much interest, and furnished the firstsystematic account that had been given to the public of the reformatoryreligious interest awakened at that time in India. In February, 1825, wasorganized the Society for obtaining Information respecting the State ofReligion in India, "with a view to obtain and diffuse information and todevise and recommend means for the promotion of Christianity in that partof the world. " The younger Henry Ware was made the president, and Dr. Tuckerman the secretary. Already a fund had been collected to aid theBritish Indian Unitarian Association of Calcutta in its missionary efforts, especially in building a church and maintaining a minister. 

During the year 1825 there was published at the office of The ChristianRegister a pamphlet of sixty-three pages, written by a member of theInformation Society, being An Appeal to Liberal Christians for the Cause ofChristianity in India. In 1826 Dr. Tuckerman addressed A Letter on thePrinciples of the Missionary Enterprise to the executive committee of theUnitarian Association, in which he gave a noble exposition of the work offoreign missions, especially with reference to the Indian field. Thisletter and other writings of Tuckerman served to arouse much interest. TheAppeal urged what many Unitarians had large faith in, --the promulgation of"just and rational views of our religion" "upon enlarged and liberalprinciples, from which we may hope for the speedy establishment and thewider extension there of the uncorrupted truth as it is in Jesus. "

In 1826 the sum of $7, 000 was secured for this work; and in the spring of1827 a pledge was made to send yearly to Calcutta the sum of $600 for tenyears. These pledges were in connection with like efforts made by theBritish and Foreign Unitarian Association. In 1839 Mr. Adam visited theUnited States, and spoke at the annual meeting of the UnitarianAssociation. Following this, he was for a few years professor of Orientalliterature in Harvard University. 

[Sidenote: Dall's Work in India. ]

In 1853 Rev. Charles T. Brooks, who was for many years the minister of thechurch in Newport, visited India in search of health; and he wascommissioned by the Unitarian Association to make inquiries as to theprospects for missionary labors in that country. In Madras he met WilliamRoberts, the younger son of the former Unitarian preacher there and visitedthe several missions carried on by him. In Calcutta he found Unitarians, but the work of Mr. Adam had left almost no results. The report of Mr. Brooks was such that an effort was at once made to secure a missionary forIndia. [3] In 1855 Rev. Charles H. A. Dall undertook this mission. He hadbeen a minister at large in St. Louis, Baltimore, and Portsmouth, andsettled over parishes in Needham and Toronto. Mr. Ball was given the widestliberty of action in conducting his mission, as his instructions indicate:"There you are to enter upon the work of a missionary; and whether bypreaching, in English or through an interpreter, or by school-teaching orby writing for the press, or by visiting from house to house, or bytranslating tracts, or by circulation of books, you are instructed, what weknow your heart will prompt you to do, to give yourself to a life ofusefulness as a servant of the Lord Jesus Christ. "

On his arrival at Calcutta, Mr. Ball was in a prostrate condition, and hadto be carried ashore. After a time he rallied and began his work. Hegathered a small congregation about him, then began teaching; and his workgrew until he had four large and flourishing schools under his charge. Inthese he gave special attention, to moral and religious training, and tothe industrial arts. In his school work he had the efficient aid of MissChamberlain, and after her death of Mrs. Helen Tompkins. One of the nativeteachers, Dwarkanath Singha, was of great service in securing the interestof the natives, being at the head, for many years, of all the schools underMr. Dall's control. Mr. Dall founded the Calcutta School of Industrial Art, the Useful Arts' School, Hindoo Girls' School, as well as a school for thewaifs of the streets. In these schools were 8, 000 pupils, mostly Hindoos, who were taught a practical religion, --the simple principles of the gospel. In education Mr. Dall accomplished large results, not only by his schools, but by talking and lecturing on the subject. His influence was especiallyfelt in the education of girls and in industrial training, in both of whichdirections he was a pioneer. Only one of his schools is now in existence, simply because the government took up the work he began, and gave it alarger support than was possible on the part of any individual or anysociety. 

Mr. Dall wrote extensively for the leading journals of India, and in thatway he reached a larger number of persons throughout the country. Thisbrought him a large correspondence, and he frequently journeyed far tovisit individuals and congregations thus brought to his knowledge. For manyyears he was one of the leading men of Calcutta. Few great public meetingsof any reformatory or educational kind were held without his having aprominent part in them. He published great numbers of tracts andlectures, [4] and translated the works of the leading Unitarians ofAmerica and Great Britain into Hindostanee, Bengali, Tamil, Sanscrit, andother native languages. His zeal in circulating liberal writings was great, and met with a large reward. He distributed hundreds of copies of thecomplete Works of Dr. Channing, and these brought many persons to theacceptance of Unitarianism. When Rev. Jabez T. Sunderland was in India, in1895-96, he found many traces of these volumes, even in remote parts of thecountry. When he was in Madras, a very intelligent Hindoo walked onehundred and fifty miles to procure of him a copy of Channing's biography toreplace a copy received from Mr. Dall, which, had been reread and loaneduntil it was almost worn out. 

A considerable part of Mr. Ball's influence was in connection with theBrahmo-Somaj, in directing its religious, educational, and reformatorywork. He did not make many nominal Unitarians; but he had a very largeinfluence in shaping the life of India by his personal influence and by theweight of his religious character. Everywhere he was greatly beloved. Heearned considerable sums as a reporter and author in aid of his mission, and he lived in a most abstemious manner in order to devote as much moneyas possible to his work. [5] In this devoted service he continued untilhis death, which took place July 18, 1886. 

[Sidenote: Recent Work in India. ]

Since the death of Mr. Dall the aid given to India by American Unitarianshas been through the natives themselves. The work of Pundita, Ramabai hasreceived considerable assistance, as has also that of Mozoomdar. Early inthe year 1888, Rev. Brooke Herford, then minister of the Arlington StreetChurch in Boston, received from India a letter addressed "To the chiefpastor of the Unitarian congregation at Boston. " It proved to be from ayoung lawyer or pleader in Banda, North-west Provinces, named Akbar Masih. His father was an educated Mohammedan, who in early life had been convertedto Calvinistic Christianity, and had become a missionary. At the CalcuttaUniversity the son had outgrown the faith he had been taught; and a volumeof Channing's Works, put in circulation by Mr. Dall, had given him themental and spiritual teaching he desired. Tracts and books were sent him, and a correspondence followed. He read with great delight what he received, and in a year or two he desired to become a missionary. Mr. Herford senthim money, and he was employed to spend one-third of his time in themissionary service of Unitarianism. When Mr. Herford removed to London, thesupport of Akbar Masih was arranged for in England; and he has done a largework in preaching, lecturing, holding conferences, and publishing tractsand books. 

Nearly in the same week in which Mr. Herford received his first letter fromAkbar Masih, Mr. Sunderland, in Ann Arbor, received one from Hajam KissorSingh, Jowai, Khasi Hills, Assam. He was a young man employed by thegovernment as a surveyor, was well educated, but belonged to one of theprimitive tribes that retain their aboriginal religion and customs to alarge extent. He had been taught orthodox Christianity, however; but it wasnot satisfactory to him. A Brahmo friend loaned him a copy of Channing, andfurnished him with Mr. Dall's address. In the bundle of tracts sent him byMr. Dall was a copy of The Unitarian, which led him to write to its editor, Mr. Sunderland. A correspondence followed, and the sending of many tractsand books. Mr. Singh began to talk of his new views to others, who gatheredin his room on Sunday afternoons for religious inquiry and worship. Soonthere was a call for similar meetings in another village, and Mr. Singhbegan to serve as a lay-preacher. A church was organized in Jowai, and thena day school was opened. Tracts and books being necessary in order to carryon the work successfully, Mr. Sunderland raised the necessary money, printed them in Khasi at Ann Arbor, and forwarded them to Assam, thusgreatly facilitating the labors of Mr. Singh and his assistants. Also, through the help of American Unitarians, Mr. Singh was able to secure theaid of two paid helpers. When Mr. Sunderland visited the Khasi Hills, in1895, as the agent of the British and Foreign Unitarian Association, hehelped to ordain a regular pastor; and he found church buildings in fivevillages, day-schools in four, and religious circles meeting in eight ornine others. This mission is now being supported by the English Unitarians. 

[Sidenote: The Beginnings in Japan. ]

After the death of Mr. Dall it was not found desirable to continue hiseducational work, and the missionary activities in India naturally cameunder the jurisdiction of the British Unitarian Association. At the sametime, Japan offered an inviting field for missionary effort, and one nothitherto occupied by Unitarians. In 1884 a movement began in that country, looking to the introduction of a rational Christianity, the leader beingYukichi Fukuzawa, a prominent statesman, head of the Keiogijiku Universityand editor of the leading newspaper. In 1886 Fumio Yano, after a visit toEngland, took up the same mission, and urged the adoption of Christianityas a moral force in the life of the nation. The latter interpretedUnitarianism as being the form of Christianity needed in Japan, andstrongly urged its acceptance. Other prominent men joined with these two incommending a rational Christianity to their countrymen. Not long afterwardsthe American Unitarian Association was asked to establish a mission in thatcountry. In 1887 Rev. Arthur M. Knapp was sent to Japan to investigate thesituation, and in the spring of 1889 he returned to report the results ofhis inquiries. He had; been welcomed; by the leading men, such as theMarquis Tokujawa and Kentaro Kaneko, who opened to him many avenues ofinfluence. He had written for the most important newspapers, had come intopersonal contact with the leading men of all parties, had lectured; on manyoccasions to highly educated audiences, and had opened a wide-reachingcorrespondence. 

On his return to Japan, in 1889, Mr. Knapp was prepared to begin systematicwork in behalf of rational Christianity. It was not his purpose, however, to seek to establish Unitarianism there as the basis of a new Japanesesect, but to diffuse it as a leaven for the moral and spiritual elevationof the people of Japan. "The errand of Unitarianism in Japan, " said Mr. Knapp to the Japanese, "is based upon the familiar idea of the sympathy ofreligions. With the conviction that we are the messengers of distinctiveand valuable truths which have not yet been emphasized, and that, inreturn, there is much in your faith and life which to our harm we have notemphasized, receive us not as theological propagandists, but as messengersof the new gospel of human brotherhood in the religion of man. "

With Mr. Knapp were associated Rev. Clay MacCauley as colleague, and alsoGarrett Droppers, John H. Wigmore, and William Shields Liscomb, who were tobecome, professors in the Keiogijiku, a leading university, situated inTokio, and to give such aid as they could to the Unitarian mission. Withthese men was soon associated Rev. H. W. Hawkes, a young English minister, who gave his services to this important work. There also accompanied theAmerican party Mr. Saichiro Kanda, who had become a Unitarian whileresiding in San Francisco, and had attended the Meadville TheologicalSchool. In the winter of 1890-91, Mr. Knapp returned to the United States, and a little later Mr. Hawkes went back to England. In 1891 Rev. William I. Lawrance joined the mission force; and he continued with it until 1894, when a severe illness compelled his resignation. Professor Wigmore returnedto America in 1892 to accept a chair in the North-western University;Professor Liscomb came home in 1893, dying soon after his return; whileProfessor Droppers remained until the winter of 1898, when he became thepresident of the University of South Dakota. In the beginning of 1900, Mr. MacCauley, after having had direction of the mission for nine years, returned to America; and it was left in control of the Japanese UnitarianAssociation, the American Association continuing to give it generousfinancial aid and counsel. 

As already indicated, the purpose of the mission has not been Unitarianpropagandism as such. It has been that of religious enlightenment, thebringing to the Japanese, in a catholic and humanitarian spirit, of thebody of religious truths and convictions known as Unitarianism, and thenpermitting them to organize themselves after the manner of their ownnational life. No churches were organized by the representatives of theAmerican Unitarian Association. Those that have come into existence havebeen wholly at the initiative of the natives. Early in 1894 was erected, inTokio, Yuiitsukwan, or Unity Hall, with money furnished largely from theUnited States. This building serves as the headquarters for Unitarian work, including lectures and social and religious meetings. In 1896 was organizedthe Japanese Unitarian Association for the work of diffusing Unitarianprinciples throughout the country. The mission is organized into the threedepartments of church extension, publication, and education. Of thisAssociation, Jitsunen Saji, formerly a prominent Buddhist lecturer and amember at present of the city council of Tokyo, is the superintendent. Thesecretary has been Saichiro Kanda, who has faithfully given his time tothis work since he returned to Japan with the mission party, in 1889. Thebroad purposes of the Japanese Unitarian Association have been clearlydefined in its constitution: "We desire to act in accordance with God'swill, which we perceive by our inborn reason. We strive to follow theguidance of noble religion, exact science and philosophy, and to discovertheir truth. We believe it to be a natural law of the human mind toinvestigate freely all phenomena of the universe. We aim to maintain thepeace of the world, and to promote the happiness of mankind. We endeavor toassert our rights, and to fulfil our duties as Japanese citizens; and toincrease the prosperity of the country by all honorable means. "

Early in 1891 was begun the publication in Japanese of a magazine called atfirst The Unitarian, but afterwards Religion. The paid circulation wasabout 1, 000 copies, but it was largely used as a tract for freedistribution. In 1897 this magazine was merged into a popular religiousmonthly called Rikugo-Zasshi or Cosmos, which has a large circulation. Itis published at the headquarters of the Japanese Unitarian Association, andis the organ of the liberalizing work carried on by that institution. TheAssociation has translated thirty or forty American and Englishtracts, --some have been added by native writers; and these were distributedto the number of 100, 000 in 1900. A number of important liberal books, including Bixby's Crisis in Morals, Clarke's Steps in Belief, and Fiske'sIdea of God, have been translated into Japanese, and obtain a ready sale. An extensive work of education, is carried on through the press, nearly allthe leading journals having been freely open to the Unitarians since thebeginning of the mission. 

The direct work of education has been the most important of all the phasesof the mission's activities. A library of several thousand volumes, representing all phases of modern thought, has been collected in UnityHall; and it is of great value to the teaching carried on there. Lecturesare given every Sunday in Unity Hall, and listened to by large audiences. Much has been done in various parts of Tokyo, as well as elsewhere, toreach the student class, and educated persons in all classes of society;and many persons have thus been brought to an acceptance of Unitarianism. In 1890 were begun systematic courses of lectures, with a view to givingeducated Japanese inquirers a thorough knowledge of modern religious ideas;and these grew into the Senshin Gakuin, or School of Advanced Learning, atheological school with seven professors, and an annual attendance ofthirty or forty students, nearly all of whom have been graduates ofcolleges and universities. Unhappily, the failure of financial supportcompelled the abandonment of this school in 1898. The chief educationalwork, however, has been done in the colleges and universities, through thegeneral diffusion of liberal religious principles, and by the free spiritof inquiry characteristic of all educated Japanese. 

The success of the Japanese mission is chiefly due to Rev. Clay MacCauley, who gave it the wise direction and the organizing skill necessary to itspermanent growth. It is a noble monument to his devotion, and to hisuntiring efforts for its advancement. His little book on Christianity inHistory is very popular, both in its English and Japanese versions; andthousands of copies are annually distributed. 

The results of the Japanese mission are especially evident in a generalliberalizing of religious thought throughout the country in both theBuddhist and Christian communions, and in the wide-spread approval showntowards its methods and principles among the upper and student classes. Itschief gain, however, consists of the scholarly and influential men who haveaccepted the Unitarian faith, and given it their zealous support. Amongthese men are the late Hajime Onishi, president of the College ofLiterature in the new Imperial University at Kyoto; Nobuta Kishimoto, professor of ethics in the Imperial Normal School; Tomoyoshi Murai, professor of English in the Foreign Languages School of Japan; Iso Abe, professor in the Doshisha University; Kinza Hirai, professor in theImperial Normal School; Yoshiwo Ogasawara, who is leading an extensive workof social and moral reform in Wakayama; Saburo Shimada, proprietor of theMainichi, one of the largest daily newspapers of the empire; and ZennosukiToyosaki, professor in the Kokumin Eigakukwai, and associate editor of theRikugo Zasshi. [6] These men are educating the Japanese people to knowChristianity in its rational forms; and their influence is being rapidlyextended throughout the country. In their hands the future of liberalreligion in Japan is safe; and what they do for their own people is morecertain of permanent results than anything that can be accomplished byforeigners. The real significance of the Japanese Unitarian mission is thatit has inaugurated a new era in religious propagandism; that it has beenfor the followers of the religions traditional to Japan, as well as forthose of the Christian missions, eminently a means for presenting them withthe world's most advanced thought in religion, and that it has been astimulus to a purer faith and a larger fellowship. 

[1] First Report of the Executive Committee of the American Unitarian Association, 16. "The thoughts of the committee have been turned to their brethren in other lands. A correspondence has been opened with Unitarians in England, and the coincidence is worthy of notice, that the British and Foreign Unitarian Association, and the American Unitarian Association were organized on the same day, for the same objects, and without the least previous concert. Our good wishes have been reciprocated by the directors of the British Society. Letters received from gentlemen who have recently visited England speak of the interest which our brethren in that country feel for us, and of their desire to strengthen the bonds of union. A constant communication will be preserved between the two Associations and your committee believe it will have a beneficial effect, by making us better acquainted with one another, by introducing the publications of each country into the other, by the influence which we shall mutually exert, and by the strength which will be given to our separate, or it may be, to our united efforts for the spread of the glorious gospel of our Lord and Saviour. "

[2] Correspondence relative to the Prospects of Christianity and the Means of Promoting its Reception in India. Cambridge: Billiard & Metcalfe. 1824. 138 pp. 

[3] Christian Examiner, LXIII 36, India's Appeal to Christian Unitarians, by Rev. C. T. Brooks. 

[4] Some Gospel Principles, in Ten Lectures, by C. H. A. Dall, Calcutta, 1856. Also see The Mission to India instituted by the American Unitarian Association. Boston: Office of the Quarterly Journal. 1857. 

[5] See Out Indian Mission and Our First Missionary, by Rev. John H. Heywood, Boston, 1887. 

[6] The Unitarian Movement in Japan: Sketches of the Lives and Religious Work of Ten Representative Japanese. Tokyo, 1900. 

XIV. 

THE MEADVILLE THEOLOGICAL SCHOOL. 

In a few years after the movement began for the organization of churcheswest of the Hudson River, the needs of theological instruction forresidents of that region were being discussed. In 1827 the younger HenryWare was interested in a plan of uniting Unitarians and "the Christianconnection" in the establishment of a theological school, to be located inthe eastern part of the state of New York. In July of that year he wrote toa friend: "We have had; no little talk here within a few days respecting anew theological school. Many of us think favorably of the plan, and aredisposed to patronize it, if feasible, but are a little fearful that it isnot. Others start strong objections to it _in toto_. Something must be doneto gain us an increase of ministers. "[1] This proposition came from theChristians, and their plan was to locate the school on the Hudson. 

Although this project came to nothing for the time being, it was revived adecade later. When the Unitarian Association had entered upon its activemissionary efforts west of the Alleghanies, the new impulse todenominational life manifested itself in a wide-spread desire for anincrease in the number of workers available for the western field. Theestablishment of a liberal theological school in that region was felt to bealmost a necessity, if the opportunities everywhere opening there for thedissemination of a purer faith were not to be neglected. Plans weretherefore formed about 1836 for the founding of a theological school atBuffalo under the direction of Rev. George W. Hosmer, then the minister inthat city; but, business becoming greatly depressed the following year, theproject was abandoned. In 1840 the importance of such a school was againcausing the western workers to plan for its establishment, this time inCincinnati or Louisville; but this expectation also failed of realization. Then Rev. William G. Eliot, of St. Louis, undertook to provide atheological education for such young men as might apply to him. But theresponse to his offer was so slight as to indicate that there was littledemand for such instruction. 

[Sidenote: The Beginnings in Meadville. ]

The demand for a school had steadily grown since the year 1827, and the fitoccasion only was awaited for its establishment. It was found at Meadville, Penn. , in the autumn of 1844. In order to understand why it should havebeen founded in this country village instead of one of the growing andprosperous cities of the west, it is necessary to give a brief account ofthe origin and growth of the Meadville church. The first Unitarian churchorganized west of the Alleghanies was that in Meadville, and it had itsorigin in the religious experiences of one man. The founder of this church, Harm Jan Huidekoper, was born in the district of Drenthe, Holland, at thevillage of Hogeveen, in 1776. At the age of twenty he came to the UnitedStates; and in 1804 he became the agent of the Holland Land Company in thenorth-western counties of Pennsylvania, and established himself atMeadville, then a small village. He was successful in his land operations, and was largely influential in the development of that part of the state. When his children were of an age to need religious instruction, he began tostudy the Bible with a view to deciding what he could conscientiously teachthem. He had become a member of the Reformed Church in his native land, andhe had attended the Presbyterian church in Meadville; but he now desired toform convictions based on his own inquiries. "When I had become a father, "he wrote, "and saw the time approaching when I should have to givereligious instruction to my children, I felt it to be my duty to give thissubject a thorough examination. I accordingly commenced studying theScriptures, as being the only safe rule of the Christian's faith; and theresult was, that I soon acquired clear, and definite views as to theleading doctrines of the Christian religion. But the good I derived fromthese studies has not been confined to giving me clear ideas as to theChristian doctrines. They created in me a strong and constantly increasinginterest in religion itself, not as mere theory, but as a practical rule oflife. "[2] As the result of this study, he arrived at the conclusion thatthe Bible does not teach the doctrines of the Trinity, the total depravityof man, and the vicarious atonement of Christ. Solely from the carefulreading of the Bible with reference to each of the leading doctrines he hadbeen taught, he became a Unitarian. 

With the zeal of a new convert Mr. Huidekoper began to talk about his newfaith, and he brought it to the attention of others with the enthusiasm ofa propagandist. In conversation, by means of the distribution of tracts, and with the aid of the press he extended the liberal faith. He could notsend his children to the church he had attended, and he therefore securedtutors for them from Harvard College who were preparing for the ministry;and in October, 1825, one of these tutors began holding Unitarian servicesin Meadville. [3] In May, 1829, a church was organized, and a goodlynumber of thoughtful men and women connected themselves with it. But thismovement met with persistent opposition, and a vigorous controversy wascarried on in the local papers and by means of pamphlets. This wasincreased when, in 1830, Ephraim Peabody, afterwards settled in Cincinnati, New Bedford, and at King's Chapel in Boston, became the minister, andentered upon an active effort for the extension of Unitarianism. With thefirst of January, 1831, he began the publication of the Unitarian Essayist, a small monthly pamphlet, in which the leading theological questions werediscussed. In a few months Mr. Peabody went to Cincinnati; and the Essayistwas continued by Mr. Huidekoper, who wrote with vigor and directness on thesubjects he had carefully studied. 

In 1831 the church for the first time secured an ordained minister, andthree years later one who gave his whole time to its service. [4] A churchbuilding was erected in 1836, and the prosperity of the congregation wasthereby much increased. In 1843 a minister of the Christian connection, Rev. E. G. Holland, became the pastor for a brief period. At this timeFrederic Huidekoper, a son of the founder of the Unitarian church inMeadville, had returned from his studies in the Harvard Divinity School andin Europe, and was ordained in Meadville, October 12, 1843. It was hispurpose to become a Unitarian evangelist in the region about Meadville, buthis attention was soon directed by Rev. George W. Hosmer to the importanceof furnishing theological instruction to young men preparing for theUnitarian ministry. He was encouraged in this undertaking by Mr. Holland, who pointed out to him the large patronage that might be expected from theChristian body. It was at first intended that Mr. Huidekoper should givethe principal instruction, and that he should be assisted by the pastor ofthe Independent Congregational Church (Unitarian) and by Mr. Hosmer, whowas to come from Buffalo for a few weeks each year, exchanging pulpits withthe Meadville minister. When the opening of the school was fixed for theautumn of 1844, the prospective number of applicants was so large as tonecessitate a modification of the proposed plan; and it was deemed wise tosecure a competent person to preside over the school and to become theminister of the church. Through the active co-operation of the AmericanUnitarian Association, Rev. Rufus P. Stebbins, then settled at Leominster, Mass. , was secured for this double service. 

The students present at the opening of the school on the first day ofOctober, 1844, were but five; but this number was increased to nine duringthe year. The next year the number was twenty-three, nine of them from NewEngland. For several years the Christian connection furnished aconsiderable proportion of the students, and took a lively interest in theestablishment and growth of the school, although contributing little ornothing to its pecuniary support. It was also represented on the board ofinstruction by a non-resident lecturer. At this time the Christian body hadno theological school of its own, and many of its members even looked withdisfavor upon all ministerial education. What brought them into some degreeof sympathy with Unitarians of that day was their rejection of bindingcreeds and their acceptance of Christian character as the only test ofChristian fellowship, together with their recognition of the Bible, interpreted by every man for himself, as the authoritative standard ofreligious truth. The churches of this denomination in the northern stateswere also pronounced in their rejection of the doctrines of the Trinity andpredestination. Unitarians themselves have not been more strenuous in thedefence of the principle of religious liberty than were the leaders amongthe Christians of the last generation. The two bodies also joined in themanagement of Antioch College, in southern Ohio; and when Horace Mannbecame its president in 1852, he was made a minister of the Christianconnection, in order that he might work more effectually in the promotionof its interests. 

The Meadville school began its work in a simple way, with few instructorsand a limited course of study. Mr. Stebbins taught the Old Testament, Hebrew, Biblical antiquities, natural and revealed religion, mental andmoral philosophy, systematic theology, and pulpit eloquence. Mr. Huidekopergave instruction in the New Testament, hermeneutics, ecclesiasticalhistory, Latin, Greek, and German. Mr. Hosmer lectured on pastoral care fora brief period during each year. A building for the school was provided bythe generosity of the elder Huidekoper; and the expenses of board, instruction, rent, fuel, etc. , were reduced to $30 per annum. Many of thestudents had received little education, and they needed a preliminarytraining in the most primary studies. Nevertheless, the school at oncejustified its establishment, and sent out many capable men, even from amongthose who came to it with the least preparation. 

Dr. Stebbins was president of the school for ten years. During his term ofservice the school was incorporated by the legislature of Pennsylvania inthe spring of 1846. The charter was carefully drawn with a view to securingfreedom in its administration. No denominational name appeared in the actof incorporation, and the original board of trustees included Christians aswell as Unitarians. Dr. Stebbins was an admirable man to whom to intrustthe organization of the school, for he was a born teacher and a masterfuladministrator. He was prompt, decisive, a great worker, a powerfulpreacher, an inspirer of others, and his students warmly admired andpraised him. 

[Sidenote: The Growth of the School. ]

The next president of the school was Oliver Stearns, who held the officefrom 1856 to 1863. He was a student, a true and just thinker, of greatmoral earnestness, fine discrimination, and with a gift for academicorganization. He was a man of a strong and deep personality, and hisspiritual influence was profound. He had been settled at Northampton andover the third parish in Hingham before entering upon his work atMeadville. In 1863 he went to the Harvard Divinity School as the professorof pulpit eloquence and pastoral care until 1869, when he became theprofessor of theology; and from 1870 to 1878 he was the dean of the school. He was a preacher who "held and deserved a reputation among the foremost, "for his preaching was "pre-eminently spiritual. " "In his relations to thedivinity schools that enjoyed his services, it is impossible toover-estimate the extent, accuracy, and thoroughness of his scholarship, and his unwearying devotion to his work. "[5]

During Dr. Stearns' administration the small building originally occupiedby the school was outgrown; and Divinity Hall was built on land east of thetown, donated by Professor Frederic Huidekoper, and first occupied in 1861. In 1857 began a movement to elevate, the standard of admission to theschool, in order that its work might be of a more advanced character. Tomeet the needs of those not able to accept this higher standard, apreparatory department was established in 1858, which was continued until1867. 

Rev. Abiel A. Livermore became the president of the school in 1863, and heremained in that position until 1890. He had been settled in Keene, Cincinnati, and Yonkers before going to Meadville. He was a Christian ofthe finest type, a true gentleman, and a noble friend. Under his directionthe school grew in all directions, the course of study being largelyenriched by the addition of new departments. In 1863 church polity andadministration, including a study of the sects of Christendom, was made aspecial department. In 1868 the school opened its doors to women, and ithas received about thirty women for a longer or shorter term of study. In1872 the academic degree of Bachelor of Divinity was offered for the firsttime to those completing the full course. In 1879 the philosophy ofreligion, and also the comparative study of religions, received therecognition they deserve. The same year ecclesiastical jurisprudence becamea special department. In 1882 Rev. E. E. Hale lectured on charities, andfrom that time this subject has been systematically treated in connectionwith philanthropies. A movement was begun in 1889 to endow a professorshipin memory of Dr. James Freeman Clarke, which was successful. Thesesuccessive steps indicate the progress made under the faithfuladministration of Dr. Livermore. He became widely known to Unitarians byhis commentaries on the books of the New Testament, as well as by his otherwritings, including volumes of sermons and lectures. 

In 1890 George L. Cary, who had been for many years the professor of NewTestament literature, became the president of the school, a position heheld for ten years. Under his leadership the school has largely advancedits standard of scholarship, outgrown studies have been discarded, whilenew ones have been added. New professorships and lectureships have beenestablished, and the endowment of the school has been greatly increased. Huidekoper Hall, for the use of the library, was erected in 1890, and otherimportant improvements have been added to the equipment of the school. In1892 the Adin Ballou lectureship of practical Christian sociology wasestablished, and in 1895 the Hackley professorship of sociology and ethics. 

From the time of its establishment the Huidekoper family have been devotedfriends and benefactors of the Theological School. [6] Frederic Huidekoperoccupied the chair of New Testament literature from 1844 to 1855, and from1863 to 1877 that of ecclesiastical history. His services were given whollywithout remuneration, and his benefactions to the school were numerous. Healso added largely to the Brookes Fund for the distribution of Unitarianbooks. His historical writings made him widely known to scholars, and addedto the reputation of the school. His Belief of the First Three Centuriesconcerning Christ's Mission to the Underworld appeared in 1853; Judaism atRome, 1876; and Indirect Testimony of History to the Genuineness of theGospels, 1879. He also republished at his own expense many valuable worksthat were out of print. 

Among the other professors have been Rev. Nathanial S. Folsom, who was incharge of the department of Biblical literature from 1848 to 1861. Of theregular lecturers have been Rev. Charles H. Brigham, Rev. Amory D. Mayo, and Dr. Thomas Hill. There has been an intimate relation between theMeadville church and the Theological School, and several of the pastorshave been instructors and lecturers in the Theological School, includingRev. J. C. Zachos, Rev. James T. Bixby, and Rev. James M. Whiton. TheChristian denomination has been represented among the lecturers by Rev. David Millard and Rev. Austin Craig. 

The whole number of graduates of the Meadville Theological School up toApril, 1902, has been 267; and eighty other students have entered theministry. At the present time 156 of its students are on the roll ofUnitarian ministers. Thirty-two of its students served in the civil war, twenty per cent of its graduates previous to the close of the war beingengaged in it as privates, chaplains, or in some other capacity. Theendowment of the school has steadily increased until it now is somewhatmore than $600, 000. 

[1] Memoir of Henry Ware, Jr. 202. 

[2] J. F. Clarke, Christian Examiner, September, 1854, LVII. 310. "Mr. Huidekoper had the satisfaction, in the later years of his life, of seeing a respectable society worshipping in the tasteful building which he loved and of witnessing the prosperity of the theological school in which he was so much interested. We have never known any one who seemed to live so habitually in the presence of God. The form which his piety mostly took was that of gratitude and reliance. His trust in the Divine goodness was like that of a child in its mother. His cheerful views, of this life and of the other, his simple tastes, his enjoyment of nature, his happiness in society, his love for children, his pleasure in doing good, his tender affection for those nearest to him, --these threw a warm light around his last days and gave his home the aspect of a perpetual Sabbath. A well-balanced activity of faculties contributed still more to his usefulness and happiness. He was always a student, occupying every vacant hour with a book, and so had attained a surprising knowledge of biography and history. " Mr. Huidekoper died in Meadville, May 22, 1854. 

[3] John M. Merrick, afterwards settled in Hardwick and Walpole, Mass. , who was in Mr. Huidekoper's family from October, 1825, to October, 1827. He was succeeded by Andrew P. Peabody, who did not preach. In 1828-30 Washington Gilbert, who had settlements in Harvard, Lincoln, and West Newton, was the tutor and preacher. 

[4] Rev. George Nichols, July, 1831, to July, 1832; Rev. Alanson Brigham, who died in Meadville, August 24, 1833; Rev. John Quincy Day, October, 1834, to September, 1837. 

[5] A. P. Peabody, Harvard Reminiscences, 165, 166

[6] The first treasurer of the school was Edgar Huidekoper, who was succeeded by Professor F. Huidekoper, and he in turn by Edgar Huidekoper, the son of the first treasurer. Among the other generous friends and benefactors of the school have been Alfred Huidekoper, Miss Elizabeth Huidekoper, and Mrs. Henry P. Kidder. 

XV. 

UNITARIAN PHILANTHROPIES. 

The liberal movement in religion was characterized in its early period byits humanitarianism. As theology grew less important for it, there was anincrease in its philanthropy. With the waning of the sectarian spirit therewas a growth in desire for practical reforms. The awakened interest in manand enlarged faith in his spiritual capacities showed itself in efforts toimprove his social condition. No one expressed this tendency more perfectlythan Dr. Channing, though he was a spiritual teacher rather than a reformeror philanthropist. 

Any statement concerning the charities in connection with which Channingwas active will give the most inadequate idea of his actual influence inthis direction. He was greatly interested in promoting the circulation ofthe Bible, in aiding the cause of temperance, and in bringing freedom tothe slave. His biographer says that his thoughts were continually becomingconcentrated more and more upon the terrible problem of pauperism, "and hesaw more clearly each year that what the times demanded was that the axeshould be laid at the very root of ignorance, temptation and strife bysubstituting for the present unjust and unequal distribution of theprivileges of life some system of cordial, respectful brotherlyco-operation. "[1] His interest in education was most comprehensive, andhe sought its advancement in all directions with the confident faith thatit would help to uplift all classes and make them more truly human. [2]

[Sidenote: Unitarian Charities. ]

The liberals of New England, in the early years of the nineteenth century, were not mere theorizers in regard to human helpfulness and the applicationof Christianity to life; for they endeavored to realize the spirit ofcharity and service. Largely under their leadership the Massachusetts BibleSociety was organized in 1809. A more distinctly charitable undertaking wasthe Fragment Society, organized in 1812 to help the poor by thedistribution of garments, the lending of bedding to the sick and clothes tochildren in charity schools, as well as the providing of such children withshoes. This society also undertook to provide Bibles for the poor who hadnone. Under the leadership of Rev. Joseph Tuckerman, then settled inChelsea, there was organized, May 11, 1812, the Boston Society for theReligious and Moral Improvement of Seamen, "to distribute tracts of areligious and moral kind for the use of seamen, and to establish a regulardivine service on board of our merchant vessels. " In 1813 the MassachusettsSociety for the Suppression of Intemperance, in 1815 the MassachusettsPeace Society, and at about the same time the Society for the Employment ofthe Poor came into existence. 

Of the early Unitarians Rev. Octavius B. Frothingham justly said: "They allhad a genuine desire to render the earthly lot of mankind tolerable. It isnot too much to say that they started every one of our best secularcharities. The town of Boston had a poor-house, and nothing more until theUnitarians initiated humane institutions for the helpless, the blind, theinsane. The Massachusetts General Hospital (1811), the McLean Asylum forthe Insane (1818), the Perkins Blind Asylum (1832), the Female OrphanAsylum (1800), were of their devising. "[3] What this work meant was wellstated by Dr. Andrew P. Peabody, when he said there was "probably no cityin the world where there had been more ample provision for the poor than inBoston, whether by private alms-giving, benevolent organizations, or publicinstitutions. "[4] Nor was this altruistic spirit manifested alone inBoston, for Mr. Frothingham quotes the saying of a lady to Dr. E. E. Hale:"A Unitarian church to you merely means one more name on your calendar. Tothe people in this town it means better books, better music, bettersewerage, better health, better life, less drunkenness, more purity, andbetter government. "[5] The Unitarian conception of the relations ofaltruism and religion was pertinently stated by Dr. J. T. Kirkland, president of Harvard College during the early years of the nineteenthcentury, when he said that "we have as much piety as charity, and nomore. "[6] One who knew intimately of the work of the ministry at largehas truly said of the labors of Dr. Tuckerman: "From the beginning he hadthe moral and pecuniary support of the leaders of life in Boston; her firstmerchants and her statesmen were watching these experiments with a curiousinterest, and although he was often so radical as to startle the mostconservative notions of men engaged in trade, or learned in theold-fashioned science of government, there was that in the persistence ofhis life and the accuracy of his method which engaged their support. "[7]

Another instance of Unitarian philanthropy is to be found in the supportgiven to Rev. Edward T. Taylor, usually known as "Father Taylor, " in hiswork for sailors. When he went to Boston in 1829 to begin his mission, thefirst person he visited was Dr. Channing, and the second Ralph WaldoEmerson, then a settled pastor in the city. Both of these men made generouscontributions to his mission, and aided him in securing the attention ofwealthy contributors. [8] In fact, his Bethel was almost wholly supportedby Unitarians. For thirty years Mr. Albert Fearing was the president of theBoston Port Society, organized for the support of Taylor's Seamen's Bethel. The corresponding secretary was Mr. Henry Parker. Among other Unitariansupporters of this work was Hon. John A. Andrew. [9]

We have no right to assume that the Unitarians alone were philanthropic, but they had the wealth and the social position to make their efforts inthis direction thoroughly effective. [10] That the results were beneficentmay be understood from the testimony of Mrs. Horace Mann. "The liberalsects of Boston, " she wrote to a friend, "quite carried the day at thattime in works of benevolence and Christian charity. They took care of theneedy without regard to sectarianism. Such women as Helen Loring andElizabeth Howard, (Mrs. Cyrus A. Bartol), Dorothea Dix, Mary Pritchard(Mrs. Henry Ware), and many others less known to the world, but equallydevoted to the work, with many youthful coadjutors, took care of the poorwonderfully. "[11] After spending several weeks in Boston in 1842, andgiving careful attention to the charities and philanthropies of the city, Charles Dickens wrote: "I sincerely believe that the public institutionsand charities of this capital of Massachusetts are as nearly perfect as themost considerate wisdom, benevolence, humanity, can make them. I never inmy life was more affected by the contemplation of happiness, undercircumstances of privation and bereavement, than in my visits to theseestablishments. "[12]

[Sidenote: Education of the Blind. ]

The pioneer in the work of educating the blind and the deaf was Dr. SamuelG. Howe, who had been one of those who in 1824 went to Greece to aid in theestablishment of Greek independence. On his return, in 1832, he becameacquainted with European methods of teaching the blind; and in that year heopened the Massachusetts School and Asylum for the Blind, "the pioneer ofsuch establishments in America, and the most illustrious of its class inthe world. "[13] In his father's house in Pleasant Street, Dr. Howe beganhis school with a few pupils, prepared books for them, and then set aboutraising money to secure larger facilities. Colonel Thomas H. Perkins, ofBoston, gave his house in Pearl Street, valued at $50, 000, on conditionthat a like sum should be contributed for the maintenance of the school. Insix weeks the desired sum was secured, and the school was, afterwards knownas the Perkins Institution for the Blind. Dr. Howe addressed seventeenstate legislatures on the education of the blind, with the result ofestablishing schools similar to his own. His arduous task, however, wasthat of providing the blind with books; and he used his great inventiveskill in perfecting the necessary methods. He succeeded in making itcomparatively easy to print books for the blind, and therefore made itpossible to have a library of such works. 

In the autumn of 1837 Dr. Howe discovered Laura Bridgman, who had only theone sense of touch remaining in a normal condition; and his remarkablesuccess, in her education made him famous. In connection with her and otherpupils he began the process of teaching the deaf to use articulate speech, and all who have followed him in this work have but extended and perfectedhis methods. While teaching the blind and deaf, Dr. Howe found those whowere idiotic; and he began to study this class of persons about 1840, andto devise methods for their education. As a member of the Massachusettslegislature in 1846, he secured the appointment of a commission toinvestigate the condition of the idiotic; and for this commission he wrotethe report. In 1847, the state having made an appropriation for theteaching of idiotic, children, ten of them were taught at the Blind Asylum, under the care of Dr. Howe. In 1851 a separate school was provided for suchchildren. 

Dr. Howe was called "the Massachusetts philanthropist, " but hisphilanthropy was universal in its humanitarian aims. He gave large andfaithful attention, in 1845 and later, to prisons and prisoners; he was azealous friend of the slave and the freedman; and in 1864 he devotedarduous service to the reform of the state charities of Massachusetts. Hisbiographer justly says of his spirit of universal philanthropy: "He joinedin the movement in Boston which abolished imprisonment for debt; he was anearly and active member of the Boston Prison Discipline Society, which oncedid much service; and for years, when interest in prison reform was at alow ebb in Massachusetts, the one forlorn relict of that once powerfulorganization, a Prisoner's Aid Society, used to hold its meetings in Dr. Howe's spacious chamber in Bromfield Street. He took an early interest inthe care of the insane, with which his friends Horace Mann, Dr. EdwardJarvis, and Dorothea Dix were greatly occupied; and in later years heintroduced some most useful methods of caring for the insane inMassachusetts. He favored the temperance reform, and wrote much as aphysician on the harm done to individuals and to the human stock by the useof alcoholic liquors. He stood with Father Taylor of the Seamen's Bethel inBoston for the salvation of the sailors and their protection from cruelpunishments, and he was one of those who almost abolished the flogging ofchildren in schools. During his whole career as a reformer of publicschools in New England, Horace Mann had no friend more intimate or helpfulthan Dr. Howe, nor one whose support was more indispensable to Mannhimself. "[14]

Dr. Howe was an attendant upon the preaching of Theodore Parker, and washis intimate friend. In after years he was a member of the congregation ofJames Freeman Clarke at the Church of the Disciples. "After our return toAmerica, " says Mrs. Howe of the year 1844, "my husband went often to theMelodeon, where Parker preached until he took possession of the Music Hall. The interest which my husband showed in these services led me in time toattend them, and I remember as among the great opportunities of my life theyears in which I listened to Theodore Parker. "[15]

[Sidenote: Care of the Insane. ]

Another among the many persons who came under the influence of Dr. Channingwas Dorothea Dix, who, as a teacher of his children, lived for many monthsin his family and enjoyed his intimate friendship. Her biographer says:"She had drunk in with passionate faith Dr. Channing's fervid insistence onthe presence in human nature, even under its most degraded types, of germs, at least, of endless spiritual development. But it was the characteristicof her own mind that it tended not to protracted speculation, but toimmediate, embodied action. "[16] Her work for the insane was theexpression of the deep faith in humanity she had been taught by Channing. 

When she entered upon her humanitarian efforts, but few hospitals for theinsane existed in the country. A notable exception was the McLean Asylum atSomerville, which had been built as the result of that same philanthropicspirit that had led the Unitarians to establish the many charities alreadymentioned in these pages. In March, 1841, Miss Dix visited the House ofCorrection in East Cambridge; and for the wretched condition of theinmates, she at once set to work to provide remedies. Then she visited thejails and alms-houses in many parts of the state, and presented a memorialto the legislature recounting what she had found and asking for reforms. She was met by bitter opposition; but such persons as Samuel G. Howe, Dr. Channing, Horace Mann, and John G. Palfrey came to her aid. The billproviding for relief to the insane came into the hands of a committee ofwhich Dr. Howe was the chairman, and he energetically pushed it forward toenactment. Thus Miss Dix began her crusade against an enormous evil. 

In 1845 Miss Dix reported that in three years she had travelled tenthousand miles, visited eighteen state penitentiaries, three hundred jailsand houses of correction, and five hundred almshouses and otherinstitutions, secured the establishment or enlargement of six hospitals forthe insane, several county poorhouses, and several jails on a reformedplan. She visited every state east of the Rocky Mountains, and also theBritish Provinces, to secure legislation in behalf of the insane. Shesecured the erection of hospitals or other reformatory action in RhodeIsland, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Indiana, Illinois, Kentucky, Tennessee, Missouri, Mississippi, Louisiana, Alabama, South Carolina, Nova Scotia, andNewfoundland. Her labors also secured the establishment of a hospital forthe insane of the army and navy, near Washington. All this was the work ofnine years. 

In 1853 Miss Dix gave her attention to providing an adequate life-savingequipment for Sable Island, one of we most dangerous places to seamen onthe Atlantic coast; and this became the means of saving many lives. In 1854she went to England for needed rest; but almost at once she took up herhumanitarian work, this time in Scotland, where she secured a commission ofinquiry, which in 1857 resulted in reformatory legislation on the part ofParliament. In 1855 she visited the island of Jersey, and secured greatimprovements in the care of the insane. Later in that year she visitedSwitzerland for rest, but in a few weeks was studying the charities ofParis and then those of Italy. In Rome she had two interviews with thepope, and the erection of a new hospital for the insane on modernprinciples resulted. Speaking only English, and without letters ofintroduction, she visited the insane hospitals and the prisons of Greece, Turkey, Austria, Sclavonia, Russia, Germany, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Holland, and Belgium. "Day by day she patiently explored the asylums, prisons, and poor-houses of every place in which she set her foot, glad toher heart's core when she found anything to commend and learn a lessonfrom, and patiently striving, where she struck the traces of ignorance, neglect, or wrong, to right the evil by direct appeal to the highestauthorities. "

On her return home, in September, 1856, she was met by many urgent appealsfor help in enlarging hospitals and erecting new ones; and she devoted hertime until the outbreak of the civil war in work for the insane in thesouthern and middle north-western states. As soon as the troops wereordered to Washington, she went there and offered her services as a nurse, and was at once appointed superintendent of women nurses for the wholearmy. She carried through the tasks of this office with energy anddevotion. In 1866 she secured the erection of a monument to the fallensoldiers in the National Cemetery, at Hampton. 

Then she returned at once to her work in asylums, poorhouses, and prisons, continuing this task until past her seventy-fifth year. "Her frequentvisits to our institutions of the insane now, and her searchingcriticisms, " wrote a leading alienist, "constitute of themselves a betterlunacy commission than would be likely to be appointed in many of ourstates. "[17] The last five years of her life were spent as a guest in theNew Jersey State Asylum at Trenton, it being fit that one of the thirty-twohospitals she had been the means of erecting should afford her a home forher declining years. 

Miss Dix was called by many "our Lady, " "our Patron Saint"; and well shedeserved these expressions of reverence. President Fillmore said in aletter to her, "Wealth and power never reared such monuments to selfishpride as you have reared to the love of mankind. " She had the unreservedconsecration to the needs of the poor and suffering that caused her towrite: "If I am cold, they are cold; if I am weary, they are distressed; ifI am alone, they are abandoned. "[18] Her biographer justly compares herwith the greatest of the saints, and says, "Precisely the samecharacteristics marked her, the same absolute religious consecration, thesame heroic readiness to trample under foot the pains of illness, loneliness, and opposition, the same intellectual grasp of what a greatreformatory work demanded. "[19] Truly was it said of her that she was "themost useful and distinguished woman America has produced. "[20]

[Sidenote: Child-saving Missions. ]

As was justly said by Professor Francis G. Peabody, "the Boston Children'sMission was the direct fruit of the ministry of Dr. Tuckerman, andantedates all other conspicuous undertakings of the same nature. The firstpresident of the Children's Mission, John E. Williams, a Unitarian layman, moved later to New York, and became the first treasurer of the newlycreated Children's Aid Society of that city, formed in 1853. Thus the workof the Children's Mission and the kindred service of the Warren StreetChapel, under the leadership of Charles Barnard, must be reckoned as themost immediate, if not the only American antecedent, of the great modernworks of child-saving charity. "[21]

The Children's Mission to the Children of the Destitute grew out of thework of the Howard Sunday-school, then connected with the Pitts StreetChapel. When several men connected with that school were discussing thefact that a great number of vagrant children were dealt with by the police, Fanny S. Merrill said to her father, Mr. George Merrill, "Father, can't wechildren do something to help those poor little ones?" This questionsuggested a new field of work; and a meeting was held on April 27, 1849, under the auspices of Rev. Robert C. Waterston, to consider thisproposition. On May 9 the society was organized "to create a specialmission to the poor, ignorant, neglected children of this city; to gatherthem into day and Sunday schools; to procure places and employment forthem; and generally to adopt and pursue such measures as would be mostlikely to save or rescue them from vice, ignorance and degradation. " In thebeginning this mission was supported by the Unitarian Sunday-schools inBoston, but gradually the number of schools contributing to its maintenancewas enlarged until it included nearly all of those connected with Unitarianchurches in New England. 

As soon as the mission was organized, Rev. Joseph E. Barry was made themissionary; and he opened a Sunday-school in Utica Street. Beginning in1853, one or more women were employed to aid him in his work. In May, 1857, Rev. Edmund Squire began work as a missionary in Washington Village; butthis mission was soon given into the hands of the Benevolent Fraternity. InJune, 1858, Mr. B. H. Greene was engaged to visit the jail and lockup in aidof the young persons found there. In 1859 work was undertaken in EastBoston, and also in South Boston. From this time onward from three to fivepersons were constantly employed as missionaries, in visiting throughoutthe city, persuading children to attend day-schools, sewing-schools, andSunday-schools, securing employment for those old enough to labor, and inplacing children in country homes. In April, 1857, Mr. Barry took a partyof forty-eight children to Illinois; and five other parties followed tothat state and to Michigan and Ohio. Since 1860 homes have been found inNew England for all children sent outside the city. 

In November, 1858, a hall in Eliot Street was secured for the religiousservices of the mission, which included boys' classes, Sunday-school, andvarious organizations of a moral and intellectual character. In 1859 ahouse was rented in Camden Street especially for the care of the boys whocame under the charge of the mission. In March, 1867, was completed thehouse on Tremont Street in which the work of the mission has, since beencarried on. An additional building for very young children was provided inOctober, 1890. For years Mr. Barry continued his work as the missionary ofthis noble ministry to the children of the poor. Since 1877 Mr. WilliamCrosby has been the efficient superintendent, having served for eighteenyears previously as the treasurer. The mission has cared for more than fivethousand children. 

[Sidenote: Care of the Poor. ]

It has been indicated already that much attention was given to the care ofthe poor and to the prevention of pauperism. It is safe to assume thatevery Unitarian minister was a worker in this direction. It is well tonotice the efforts of one man, because his work led to the scientificmethods of charitable relief which are employed in Boston at the presenttime. When Rev. Ephraim Peabody became the minister of King's Chapel, in1846, he turned his attention to the education of the poor and to theprevention of pauperism. In connection with Rev. Frederick T. Gray heopened a school for those adults whose education had been neglected. Especial attention was given to the elementary instruction of emigrantwomen. Many children and adults accepted the opportunity thus afforded, anda large school was maintained for several years. 

With the aid of Mr. Francis E. Parker another important work was undertakenby Mr. Peabody. Although Dr. Tuckerman had labored to prevent duplicationof charitable gifts and to organize the philanthropies of Boston in aneffective manner, with the increase of population the evils he strove toprevent had grown into large proportions. In order to prevent overlapping, imposition, and failure to provide for many who were really needy, but noteager to push their own claims, Mr. Peabody organized the Boston ProvidentAssociation in 1851. This society divided the city into small districts, and put each under the supervision of a person who was to examine everycase that came before the society within the territory assigned him. Thefirst president of this society was Hon. Samuel A. Eliot, who was a mayorof the city, a representative in the lower house of Congress, and anorganizer of many philanthropies. This society was eminently successful inits operations, and did a great amount of good. Its friendly visits to thepoor and its judicious methods of procuring the co-operation of manycharity workers prepared the way for the introduction, in 1879, of theAssociated Charities of Boston, which extended and effectively organizedthe work begun by Mr. Peabody. [22] Numerous other organizations might bementioned that have been initiated by Unitarians or largely supported bythem. [23]

[Sidenote: Humane Treatment of Animals. ]

The work for the humane treatment of animals was begun, and has beenlargely carried on, by Unitarians. The founder of the American Society forthe Prevention of Cruelty to Animals was Henry Bergh, who was a member ofAll Souls' Church in New York, under the ministry of Dr. Bellows. In 1865he began his work in behalf of kindness to animals in New York City, andthe society he organized was incorporated April 10, 1866. It was soonengaged in an extensive work. In 1873 Mr. Bergh proceeded to organizebranch humane societies; and, as the result of his work, most of the stateshave legislated for the humane care of animals. 

A similar work of a Unitarian is that of Mr. George T. Angell in Boston, who in 1868 founded, and has since been the president of, the MassachusettsSociety for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. In 1889 he became thepresident of the American Humane Education Society, a position he continuesto hold. He is the editor of Our Dumb Animals, and has in many ways beenactive in the work of the great charity with which he has been connected. 

[Sidenote: Young Men's Christian Unions. ]

The initiative in the establishment of Christian unions for young men incities, on a wholly unsectarian basis, was taken by a Unitarian. Mr. CalebDavis Bradlee, a Harvard undergraduate, who was afterward a Boston pastorfor many years, gathered together in the parlor of his father's house acompany of young men, and proposed to them the formation of a society formutual improvement. This was on September 17, 1851; and the organizationthen formed was called the Biblical Literature Society. Those who belongedto the society during the winter of 1851-52 were so much benefited by itthat they decided to enlarge their plans and to extend their influence to agreater number. At the suggestion of Rev. Charles Brooks, minister of theUnitarian church in South Hingham, the name was changed to the Boston YoungMen's Christian Union, the first meeting under the new form of organizationbeing held March 15, 1852. On October 11 of the same year the society wasincorporated, many of the leading men of the city having already given ittheir encouragement and support. [24]

[Sidenote: Educational Work in the South. ]

After the close of the civil war there was a large demand for help in theSouth, especially amongst the negroes. Most of the aid given by Unitarianswas through other than denominational channels; but something was done bythe Unitarian Association as well as by other Unitarian organizations. MissAmy Bradley, who had been a very successful worker for the SanitaryCommission, opened a school for the whites in Wilmington, N. C. Her workextended to all the schools of the city, and was eminently successful. Shebecame the city and then the county superintendent of schools. She wassupported by the Unitarian Association and the Soldiers' Memorial Society. Among the Unitarians who at that time engaged in the work of educating thenegroes were Rev. Henry F. Edes in Georgia, Rev. James Thurston in NorthCarolina, Miss M. Louisa Shaw in Florida, Miss Bottume on Ladies' Island, and Miss Sally Holley and Miss Caroline F. Putnam in Virginia. 

In 1868 the Unitarian Association entered upon a systematic effort to aidthe negroes through co-operation with the African Methodist EpiscopalChurch. The sum of $4, 000 was in that year devoted to this work; and it waslargely spent in educational efforts, especially in aid of college andtheological students. Wilberforce University had the benefit of lecturesfrom Dr. George W. Hosmer, president of Antioch College, and of EdwardOrton, James K. Hosmer, and other professors in that institution. Librariesof about fifty volumes of carefully selected books, including elementaryworks of science, history, biography, and a few theological works, weregiven to ministers of that church who applied for them. This connectioncontinued for several years, and was of much importance in the advancementof the South. 

With the first of January, 1886, the Unitarian Association established abureau of information in regard to southern education, of which GeneralJ. B. F. Marshall, who had been for many years the treasurer of the HamptonInstitute, was made the superintendent. This bureau, during its existenceof three years, investigated the claims of various schools, and recommendedthose most deserving of aid. 

In 1891 Miss Mabel W. Dillingham and Miss Charlotte R. Thorn, who had beenteachers for several years in the Hampton Institute, opened a school fornegroes in Calhoun, Ala. Miss Dillingham died in 1894; and she wassucceeded by her brother, Rev. Pitt Dillingham, as the principal of theschool. The Calhoun School has been supported mostly by Unitarians, and ithas been successful in doing a practical and important work. 

During the first eight years of the Tuskegee Institute it received $5, 000annually from Unitarians, and in more recent years $10, 000 annually. Thishas been given by individuals, churches, and other organizations, but in nosense as a denominational work. Concerning the aid given to the HamptonInstitute this statement has been made by the principal: "The Unitariandenomination has had a very important part in the work of Hampton. Ourfirst treasurer was General J. F. B. Marshall, a Unitarian who made itpossible for General Armstrong first to gain access to Boston and securefriends there, many of whom have been lifelong contributors to this work. General Marshall came to Hampton in 1872, and for some twelve years took amost important part in building up this institution. He trained young menfor the treasurer's office, who still hold important positions in theschool, and others who have been sent to various institutions. The home ofGeneral and Mrs. Marshall here was of incalculable help in many ways, brightening and cheering the lives of our teachers and students. Unitarianshave always had a prominent part in the support of Hampton. Mrs. MaryHemenway was the largest donor to the Institute during her lifetime. Shegave $10, 000 for the purchase of our Hemenway Farm, and helped GeneralArmstrong in many ways. "[25]

[Sidenote: Educational Work for the Indians. ]

At three different periods the Unitarian Association has undertakeneducational work amongst the Indians. The first of these proved abortive, but is of much interest. James Tanner, [26] a half-breed Chippeway orOjibway from Minnesota, appeared before the board of the Association, February 12, 1855, in behalf of his people. He had been a Baptistmissionary to the Ojibways, but had found that he could accomplish littlewhile the Indians continued their roving life and their wars with theSioux. He therefore wished to have his people adopt a settled agriculturallife. The Baptist Home Missionary Society, with which he was laboring, would not accede to his plans in this respect, and desired that he shouldconfine himself to the preaching of the gospel. Unable to do this onaccount of his liberal views, he went to Boston with the hope that he mightsecure aid from the Baptists there. He was soon told that he was aUnitarian, and he sought a knowledge of those of that faith. He was thusled to apply to the Unitarian Association for help, which was granted. Hesecured an outfit of agricultural and other implements, and returned to hispeople in the spring of 1855. In December of that year Mr. Tanner attendeda meeting of the board of the Association, accompanied by six Ojibwaychiefs. On this unique occasion the calumet was smoked by all present, andaddresses were made by the Indians. In April, 1856, the board reluctantlyabandoned this enterprise, because the money for the yearly expenditure of$4, 000, which it required, could not be secured. [27]

In 1871 President Grant inaugurated the policy of educating the Indiansunder the direction of the several religious denominations of the country. To the Unitarians were assigned the Utes of Colorado. The reservation atWhite River was placed in charge of Mr. J. S. Littlefield, and that at LosPinos of Rev. J. Nelson Trask. Several other persons took up this work, including Rev. Henry F. Bond and his wife. In 1885 the Utes were removed toa reservation in Utah. In the spring of 1886 Mr. Bond returned to them forthe purpose of establishing a boarding-school amongst them; but, notgetting sufficient encouragement, he went to Montana, where in the autumnhe opened the Montana Industrial School, with eighteen pupils from theCrows in attendance. Buildings were erected, farm work begun, carpenter andblacksmith shops put in operation, all at a cost of $20, 000. The school waslocated on the Big Horn River, thirty miles from Fort Custer. 

It was the object of the Montana Industrial School to remove the Indianchildren from their nomadic conditions and to give them a practicaleducation, with so much of instruction in books as would be of real help tothem. The boys were taught farm work and the use of tools, while the girlswere trained in sewing, cooking, and other useful employments. At the sametime there was constant training in cleanliness, good manners, and rightliving. The school was fairly successful; and the results would doubtlesshave been important, could the experiment have gone on for a longer period. In 1891 Mr. Bond withdrew from the school on account of his age, and it wasplaced in charge of Rev. A. A. Spencer. With the 1st of July, 1895, however, the care of the school was assumed by the national government. 

Extended as this chapter has become, it has failed to give anything like anexhaustive statement of the philanthropies of Unitarians. Their charitableactivities have been constant and in many directions. This may be seen inthe wide-reaching philanthropic interests of Dr. Edward Everett Hale, whoseLend-a-hand Clubs, King's Daughters societies, and kindred movementsadmirably illustrate the practical side of Unitarianism, its broadhumanitarian spirit, its philanthropic and reformatory purpose, and itshigh ideal of Christian fidelity and service. 

[1] Memoir, III. 17; one-volume edition, 465. 

[2] Memoir, III. 61, 62; one-volume edition, 487, 488. 

[3] Boston Unitarianism, 127. 

[4] Harvard Graduates, 155. 

[5] Boston Unitarianism, 253. 

[6] Elizabeth P. Peabody, Reminiscences of Dr. W. E. Channing, 290. 

[7] Eber R. Butler, Lend a Hand, October, 1890, V. 681. 

[8] Elizabeth P. Peabody, Reminiscences of W. E. Channing, 273. 

[9] Gilbert Haven, Anecdotes of Rev. Edward T. Taylor, 114. 

[10] Ibid. , 119. 

[11] Gilbert Haven, Anecdotes of Rev. Edward T. Taylor, 330. 

[12] American Notes, chap. Iii. 

[13] Frank B. Sanborn, Biography of Dr. S. G. Howe, Philanthropist, 110. 

[14] Frank B. Sanborn, Biography of Dr. S. G. Howe, Philanthropist, 170. 

[15] Reminiscences, 161. 

[16] Francis Tiffany, Life of Dorothea Lynde Dix, 58. 

[17] Francis Tiffany, Life of Dorothea Lynde Dix, 355. 

[18] Ibid. , 327. 

[19] Ibid. , 290. 

[20] Ibid. , 375. 

[21] Report of the National Conference, 1895, 205. 

[22] Sermons of Ephraim Peabody, introductory Memoir, xxv; Memorial History of Boston, IV. 662, George S. Hale on the Charities of Boston; A. P. Peabody, Harvard Graduates, 155. 

[23] Besides the Fragment Society, the Children's Mission, and the Boston Provident Society, already mentioned and still vigorously at work, several other societies are wholly supported by Unitarians. Of these may be named the Howard Benevolent Society in the City of Boston, organized in 1812, incorporated in 1818; Young Men's Benevolent Society, organized in 1827, incorporated in 1852; Industrial Aid Society for the Prevention of Pauperism, organized in 1835, incorporated in 1884. 

[24] Alfred Manchester, Life of Caleb Davis Bradlee, 8; First Anniversary, address before the Boston Young Men's Christian Union by Rev. F. D. Huntington, Appendix. 

[25] Personal letter from Mr. H. B. Frissell. 

[26] Edwin James, A Narrative of the Captivity and Adventures of John Tanner during Thirty Tears' Residence among the Indians of North America. (John Tanner was the father of James. )

[27] Quarterly Journal, II. 326, 344; III. 64, 257, 449, 625. 

XVI. 

UNITARIANS AND REFORMS. 

The belief of Unitarians in the innate goodness of man and in his progresstowards a higher moral life, together with their desire to make religionpractical in its character and to have it deal with the actual facts ofhuman life, has made it obligatory that they should give the encouragementof their support to whatever promised to further the cause of justice, liberty, and purity. Their attitude towards reforms, however, has beenqualified by their love of individual freedom. They have had a dread ofecclesiastical restriction and of any attempt to coerce opinions or toestablish a despotism over individual convictions. And yet, with all thisinsistence upon personal liberty, no body of men and women has ever beenmore devoted to the furthering of practical reforms than those connectedwith Unitarian churches. No one, for instance, was ever more zealous forindividual freedom than Theodore Parker; but he was essentially a reformer. He was a persistent advocate of peace, temperance, education, the rights ofwomen, the rights of the slave, the abolition of capital punishment, reformin prison discipline, and the application of humanitarian principles to theconduct of life. 

[Sidenote: Peace Movement. ]

"It may be doubted whether any man who ever lived contributed more tospread just sentiments on the subject of war and to hasten the era ofuniversal peace, " said Dr. Channing of Noah Worcester, who has been oftencalled "the Apostle of Peace. " It was the second contest with Great Britainthat led Dr. Worcester to consider the nature and effects of war. InAugust, 1812, on the day appointed for a national fast, he preached asermon in which he maintained that the war then beginning was withoutsufficient justification, and that war is always an evil. In 1814 hefurther studied the subject, with the result that he wrote a little bookwhich he called A Solemn Review of the Custom of War. [1]

The Solemn Review was widely circulated, it was translated into manylanguages, it made a deep and lasting impression, and it had a world-wideinfluence in preparing the minds of men for the acceptance of peaceprinciples. The remedy for war it proposed was an international court ofarbitration. [2] Through the efforts of Dr. Worcester the MassachusettsPeace Society was organized December 28, 1815, one of the first societiesof the kind in the world. [3] William Phillips was made the president, andDr. Noah Worcester the corresponding secretary, with Dr. Henry Ware, Dr. Channing, and Rev. Francis Parkman among his councillors. On the executivecommittee with Dr. Worcester in 1819 were Rev. Ezra Ripley and Rev. JohnPierce. Other Unitarian members and workers were James Freeman, NathanielL. Frothingham, Charles Lowell, Samuel C. Thacher, J. T. Kirkland, andJoseph Tuckerman; and, of laymen, Moses Grant, Josiah Quincy, and ColonelJoseph May. In 1819 Dr. Worcester began the publication of The Friends ofPeace, a small quarterly magazine, a large part of the contents of which hewrote himself. After the first number, having obtained the assistance ofseveral wealthy Friends, he relinquished the copyright; and the numberswere republished in several parts of the country, thus obtaining a widecirculation. He devoted himself almost wholly to this publication and theadvocacy of the cause of peace until 1829, when he relinquished itseditorship. "This must be looked upon as a very remarkable work, " wroteHenry Ware, the younger. "To his wakeful mind everything that occurred andeverything that he read offered him materials; he appeared to see nothingwhich had not a bearing on this one topic; and his book becomes a boundlessrepository of curious, entertaining, striking extracts from writers of allsorts and the history of all times, displaying the criminality and folly ofwar, and the beauty and efficacy of the principles of peace. "[4]

In his efforts hi behalf of peace, Dr. Worcester had the support of Dr. Channing's "respectful sympathy and active co-operation. "[5] According toDr. John Pierce, Channing was the life and soul of the Massachusetts PeaceSociety. "For years, " says his biographer, "he devoted himself to the workof extending its influence with unwavering zeal, as many of his papers ofthat period attest. "[6] From his pulpit Dr. Channing frequently expressedhis faith in the principles of peace, and he strongly advocated thoseChristian convictions and that spirit of good will which would make warimpossible if they were applied to the conduct of nations. 

Not less devoted to the cause of peace was Dr. Ezra S. Gannett, of whom hisson says: "He thought that reason, religion, the whole spirit as well asthe letter of the gospel, united in forbidding war. Probably, he wasnon-resistant up to, rather than in, the absolutely last extremity;although he writes that an English book which Dr. Channing lent him as thebest he knew upon the subject, 'has made me a thorough peace man!'"[7]"Let the fact of brotherhood be fairly grasped, " wrote Dr. Frederic H. Hedge, "and war becomes impossible. "[8] "The tremendous extent andpertinacity of the habit of human slaughter in battle, " wrote Dr. WilliamR. Alger, "its shocking criminality, and its incredible foolishness, whenregarded from an advanced religious position, are three facts calculated toappall every thoughtful man and startle him into amazement. " "It is vain, "he said, "to undertake to impart a competent conception of the crimes andmiseries belonging to war. Their appalling character and magnitude stun theimagination and pass off like the burden of a frightful dream. "[9]

Worcester's Solemn Review convinced Rev. Samuel J. May "that the precepts, spirit, and example of Jesus gave no warrant to the violent, bloodyresistance of evil; that wrong could be effectually overcome by right, hatred by love, violence by gentleness, evil of any kind by its oppositegood. I preached this, " he said, "as one of the cardinal doctrines of thegospel, and endeavored especially to show the wickedness and folly of thecustom of war. "[10] In 1826 he organized a county peace society, the firstin the country; and his first publication was in advocacy of thisreform. [11]

Of the men connected with political life, Charles Sumner was the mostdevoted and influential friend of the peace cause. As early as March, 1839, he wrote to a friend, "I hold all wars, as unjust and, unchristian. " Hisaddress on The True Grandeur of Nations, given before the mayor and otherofficials of Boston, July 4, 1845, was one of the noblest and mosteffective utterances on the subject. Though a considerable part of theaudience was in military array, Sumner showed the evils of war inuncompromising terms, denouncing it as cruel and unnecessary, while withtrue eloquence, great learning, and deep conviction he made his plea forpeace. "The effect was immediate and striking, " wrote George W. Curtis. "There were great indignation and warm protest on the one hand, and uponthe other sincere congratulation and high compliment. Sumner's view of theabsolute wrong and iniquity of war was somewhat modified subsequently; butthe great purpose of a peaceful solution of international disputes he neverrelinquished. "[12] He said in this oration that "in our age there can beno peace that is not honorable; there can be no war that is notdishonorable. " This statement was severely criticised, but it indicates hisuncompromising acceptance of peace principles. [13] He added thesepertinent sentences: "The true honor of a nation is to be found only indeeds of justice and in the happiness of its people, all of which areinconsistent with war. In the clear eye of Christian judgment vain are itsvictories, infamous are its spoils. "[14] He further declared that "war isutterly and irreconcilably inconsistent with true greatness. "[15] Theseviews he continued to hold throughout his life, though in a moreconciliatory spirit; and on several occasions he presented them before thePeace Society and elsewhere. When in the Senate he was a leader of thecause of arbitration, and exerted his large influence in securing itsadoption by the United States as a means of preventing war with foreigncountries. As late as July, 1873, he wrote to one of his friends: "I longto witness the harmony of nations, which I am sure is near. When an evil sogreat is recognized and discussed, the remedy must be near at hand. "[16]

The work done by Julia Ward Howe for the cause of peace is eminently worthyof recognition. One chapter of her Reminiscences is devoted to her "PeaceCrusade" of 1870. The cruel and unnecessary character of theFranco-Prussian war led her to write an appeal to mothers to use theirinfluence in behalf of peace. "The august dignity of motherhood and itsterrible responsibilities now appeared to me in a new aspect, " she writes, "and I could think of no better way of expressing my sense of these than ofsending forth an appeal to womanhood throughout the world, which I then andthere composed. "[17] She printed and distributed her appeal, had ittranslated into French, Spanish, Italian, German, and Swedish, and thenspent many months in corresponding with leading women in various countries. She invited these women to a Women's Peace Congress to be held in London. After holding two successful meetings in New York, she began her crusade inEngland, holding meetings in many places, and also attending a PeaceCongress in Paris. She hired a hall in London, and held Sunday meetings topromote the reform she had deeply at heart. The Women's Congress was asuccess, and after two years of earnest effort Mrs. Howe had thesatisfaction of knowing that she had done something to promote peace onearth and good will among men. 

[Sidenote: Temperance Reform. ]

Unitarians have been active in the cause of temperance, but again asindividuals rather than as a denomination. The emphasis they have put onthe importance of individual opinion and personal liberty has made themoften reluctant to join societies that sought to promote this reform byrestrictive and coercive measures. As a body, therefore, they have shown agreater inclination to the use of moral suasion than legislative power. 

From Dr. Channing this reform had the most earnest approval. "Thetemperance reform which is going on among us, " he wrote, "deserves allpraise, and I see not what is to hinder its complete success. I believe themovements now made will succeed, because they are in harmony with and areseconded by the general spirit and progress of the age. Every advance inknowledge, in refined manners, in domestic enjoyments, in habits offoresight and economy, in regular industry, in the comforts of life, incivilization, good morals and religion, is an aid to the cause oftemperance; and believing as we do that these are making progress, may wenot hope that drunkenness will be driven from society?"[18] He regardedthe subject from a broader point of view than many, and urged that a soundphysical education for all youth, as well as larger opportunities forintellectual improvement on the part of workingmen, would do much toprevent intemperance. [19] He maintained that to give men "strength withinto withstand the temptations of intemperance" is incalculably moreimportant than to remove merely outward temptations. Better education, innocent amusements, a wider spirit of sympathy and brotherhood, discouragement of the use and sale of ardent spirits, were among the meanshe recommended for suppressing this evil. [20]

The Massachusetts Society for the Suppression of Intemperance was organizedat the State House in Boston on February 5, 1813, "to discountenance andsuppress the too free use of ardent spirits, and to encourage and promotetemperance and general morality. " This was one of the first temperancesocieties organized in the country, and its chief promoters wereUnitarians. Dr. John C. Collins, who published the records of the society, said of the year 1827, when he became a member, that "Channing, Gannett, and others were the most active men at that time in the temperancecause. "[21] Dr. Abiel Abbot was the first corresponding secretary of thesociety, and on the council were Drs. Kirkland, Lothrop, Worcester, andPierce. Among the other Unitarian ministers who were active in the societywere Charles Lowell, the younger Henry Ware, John Pierpont, and John G. Palfrey. Among the laymen were Moses Grant, Nathan Dane, Dr. John Ware, Stephen Fairbanks, Dr. J. F. Flagg, William Sullivan, Amos Lawrence, SamuelDexter, and Isaac Parker. [22] Auxiliary societies were organized in Salem, Beverly, and other towns; and these gave to the temperance cause theactivities of such Unitarians as Theophilus Parsons, Robert Rantoul, andSamuel Hoar. [23]

Of the more recent interest of Unitarians in questions of temperance reformthere may be mentioned the thorough study made by the United StatesCommissioner of Labor, and printed in 1898 under the title of EconomicAspects of the Liquor Problem. [24] This investigation was ordered byCongress as the result of a petition sent to that body by the UnitarianTemperance Society. Probably few petitions have ever been sent to Congressthat contained so many prominent names of leading statesmen, presidents ofcolleges and universities, bishops, clergymen, well-known literary men, andother persons of influence. The Unitarian Temperance Society was organizedSeptember 23, 1886, in connection with the meeting of the NationalConference at Saratoga. Its purpose is "to work for the cause of temperancein whatever ways may seem to it wise and right; to study the socialproblems of poverty, crime, and disease, in their relation to the use ofintoxicating drinks, and to diffuse whatever knowledge may be gained; todiscuss methods of temperance reform; to devise and, so far as possible, toexecute plans for practical reform; to exert by its meetings and by itsmembership such influence for good as by the grace of God it may possess. "It has held annual meetings in Boston, and other meetings in connectionwith the National Conference; it has published a number of importanttracts, temperance text-books, and temperance services for Sunday-schools;and it has exerted a considerable influence on the denomination in shapingpublic opinion in regard to this reform. The presidents of the society havebeen Rev. Christopher R. Eliot, Rev. George H. Hosmer, and Rev. Charles F. Dole. 

The subject of temperance reform has been before the National Conference onseveral occasions and in various forms. At the session of 1882 a resolutionoffered by Miss Mary Grew was adopted:--

 That the unutterable evils continually wrought by intemperance, the easy descent from moderate to immoderate drinking, and the moral wrecks strewn along that downward path, call upon Christians and patriots to practise and advocate abstinence from the use of all intoxicating liquors as a beverage. 

In 1891 a series of resolutions recommended by the Unitarian TemperanceSociety were adopted as expressing the convictions of the Conference:--

 First, that the liquor saloon, as it exists to-day in the United States, is the nation's chief school of crime, chief college of corruption in politics, chief source of poverty and ruined homes, chief menace to our country's future, is the standing enemy of society, and, as such, deserves the condemnation of all good men. 

 Second, that, whatever be the best mode of dealing with the saloon by law, law can avail little until those who condemn the saloon consent to totally abstain themselves from the use of alcoholic drink for pleasure. 

 Third, that we affectionately and urgently call on every minister and all laymen and women in our denomination--our old, our young, our rich, our poor, our leaders, and our humblest--to take this stand of total abstinence, remembering those that are in bonds as bound with them, and throw the solid influence of our church against the influence of the saloon. 

[Sidenote: Anti-slavery. ]

In proportion to its numbers no religious body in the country did so muchto promote the anti-slavery reform as the Unitarian. No Unitarian defendedslavery from the pulpit or by means of the press, and no one was itsapologist. [25] Many, however, did not approve of the methods of theabolitionists, and some strongly opposed the extreme measures of a part ofthat body of reformers. The desire of Unitarians to be just, rational, andopen-minded, exposed many of them to the criticism of being neither for noragainst slavery. But it is certain that they were not indifferent to itsevils nor recreant to their humanitarian principles. 

The period of the anti-slavery agitation was truly one that tried the soulsof men; and those who were equally conscientious, desirous of serving thecause of justice and humanity, and solicitous for the welfare of the slave, widely differed from one another as to what was the wise method of action. Among those severely condemned by the anti-slavery party were severalUnitarian ministers of great force of character and of a genuinelyhumanitarian spirit. Three of them may be selected as representative. 

Dr. Orville Dewey had seen something of slavery, and was strongly opposedto it. He thought the system hateful in itself and productive of nearlyunmingled evil, and yet he was not in favor of immediate emancipation. Hisfrequent indictments of slavery in his sermons and lectures were severe inthe extreme; but his demand for wise and patient counsel, and for arational method of gradual emancipation, subjected him to severecondemnation. "And nothing else brings out the nobleness of Dr. Dewey intosuch bold relief as the fact, " says Rev. John W. Chadwick, "that theimmeasurable torrent of abuse that greeted his expressed opinion did not inany least degree avail to make him one of the pro-slavery faction. Hediffered from the most earnest of the anti-slavery men only as to the bestmethod of getting rid of the curse of human bondage. "[26]

As early as 1830 Dr. E. S. Gannett said that "the greatest evil under whichour nation labors is the existence of slavery. It is the only vicious partof our body politic, but this is a deep and disgusting sore. It must betreated with the utmost judgment and skill. " The violence of theabolitionists he did not approve, however; for his respect for law andconstituted authority was so great that he was not ready for radicalmeasures. He abhorred slavery, but he was not willing to condemn theslaveholder. He was therefore regarded by the abolitionists as more hostileto them than any other Unitarian minister. His attitude as a peace man, hisstrong regard for justice and fair dealing, as well as his earnest faith inthe gentle influence of the gospel, forbade his accepting the strenuousmethods of the abolitionists. He would not, however, permit anti-slaveryministers to be silenced in Unitarian meetings. When he saw something ofslavery, in 1833, he expressed his convictions in regard to it in theseforcible words: "It is the attempt to degrade a human being into somethingless than a man, --not the confinement, unjust as this is, nor the blows, cruel as these are, --but the denial of his equal share in the rights, prerogatives, and responsibilities of a human being, which brands theinstitution of slavery with its peculiar and ineffaceable odiousness. "[27]

Another minister who came under the condemnation of the abolitionists wasRev. John H. Morison, and yet he preached sermons against slavery that metwith the vigorous disapproval of his congregation. "We all agree, " he wrotein 1844, "in the sad conviction that slavery in its political influence, more than all other subjects, threatens to upturn the foundation of ourgovernment; that in its moral and religious bearings it is a grievous wrongto master and slave; and that, as it is in violation of the fundamentalprinciples of Christian duty, it must, if continued beyond the absolutenecessity of the case, be attended with consequences the most disastrous. "Again, when Daniel Webster made his 7th of March speech in 1850, Dr. Morison, then the editor of The Christian Register, took the earliestpossible opportunity to express himself as strongly as he could against it. "We at the North, " he wrote, "believe that slavery is morally wrong. " Hesaid that the government, in its attempt to defend slavery as against themoral convictions of a large number of the people, was doing the country agreat harm. [28]

The position of these men and of others who thought and acted with them canbest be understood by recognizing the fact that they were opposed tosectarian methods in promoting reforms as in advancing the interests ofreligion. It is probable that in these heated times neither party did fulljustice to the spirit and purposes of the other. Even so gentle andcharitable a man as Rev. Samuel J. May speaks of the "discreditablepro-slavery conduct of the Unitarian denomination. " "The Unitarians as abody, " he says again, "dealt with the question of slavery in anything butan impartial, courageous, and Christian way. Continually in their publicmeetings the question was staved off and driven out because of technical, formal, verbal difficulties which were of no real importance, and ought notto have caused a moment's hesitation. Avowing among their distinctivedoctrines the fatherly character of God and the brotherhood of man, we hada right to expect from the Unitarians a steadfast and unqualified protestagainst so unjust, tyrannical, and cruel a system as that of Americanslavery. And considering their position as a body, not entangled with anypro-slavery alliances, not hampered with any ecclesiastical organization, it does seem to me that they were pre-eminently guilty in reference to theenslavement of the millions in our land with its attendant wrongs, cruelties, horrors. They refused to speak as a body, and censured, condemned, execrated their members who did speak faithfully for thedown-trodden, and who co-operated with him whom a merciful Providence sentas the prophet of the reform. "[29]

The testimony of Rev. O. B. Frothingham is fully as condemnatory ofUnitarian timidity and conservatism, even of the moral cowardice betrayedby many of the leaders. He says the Unitarians, as such, "were indifferentor lukewarm; the leading classes were opposed to the agitation. Dr. Channing was almost alone in lending countenance to the reform, though hishesitation between the dictates of natural feeling and Christian charitytowards the masters hampered his action, and rendered him obnoxious to bothparties, --the radicals finding fault with him for not going further, theconservatives blaming him because he went so far. "[30] Mr. Frothinghamfinds, however, that the transcendentalists were quite "universallyabolitionists, their faith in the natural powers of man making them zealouspromoters of the cause of the slave. " He insists that as a class "theUnitarians were not ardent disciples of any moral cause, and took pride inbeing reasoners, believers in education and in general social influence, inthe progress of knowledge and the uplifting of humanity by means of ideas, "but that they permitted these qualities to cool their ardor for reform andto mitigate their love of humanity. [31]

The biographers of William Lloyd Garrison are never tired of condemning Dr. Channing for what they call his timidity, his shunning any personal contactwith the great abolitionist, his failure to grapple boldly with the evilsof slavery, and his half-hearted espousal of the cause of abolition. TheUnitarians generally are by these writers regarded in the same manner. [32]

Most of the accounts mentioned were written by those who took part in theagitation against slavery, in condemnation of those who had not kept stepwith their abolition pace or in apology for those whose words and conductwere thought to need defence. The time has come, perhaps, when it ispossible to consider, the attitude of individuals and the denominationwithout a partisan wish to condemn or to defend. In this spirit thestatement of Samuel J. May is to be accepted as true and just, when hesays: "We Unitarians have given to the anti-slavery cause more preachers, writers, lecturers, agents, poets, than any other denomination inproportion to our numbers, if not without any comparison. "[33]

Among those who listened to William Lloyd Garrison when in October, 1830, he first presented in Boston his views in favor of immediate emancipation, were Samuel J. May, Samuel E. Sewall, and A. B. Alcott; and these men atonce became his disciples and friends. [34] When Garrison organized the NewEngland Anti-slavery Society in December, 1832, he was actively supportedby Samuel E. Sewall, David Lee Child, and Ellis Gray Loring. It was to thefinancial support of Sewall and Loring, though they did not at first accepthis doctrine of immediate emancipation, that Garrison owed his ability tobegin The Liberator, and to sustain it in its earliest years. [35] For manyyears, Edmund Quincy was connected with The Liberator, serving as itseditor when Garrison was ill, absent on lecturing tours, or journeying inEurope. The Massachusetts Anti-slavery Society, which in 1835 succeeded theNew England Society, had during many years Francis Jackson as itspresident, Edmund Quincy as its corresponding secretary, and Robert F. Walcutt as its recording secretary, all Unitarians. 

In 1834 was formed the Cambridge Anti-slavery Society, under the leadershipof the younger Henry Ware; and the membership was largely Unitarian, including the names of Dr. Henry Ware, Sidney Willard, Charles Follen, William H. Charming, Artemus B. Muzzey, Barzillai Frost, Charles T. Brooks, and Frederic H. Hedge. The purposes of the society were stated in itsconstitution:--

 We believe that the emancipation of all who are in bondage is the requisition, not less of sound policy, than of justice and humanity; and that it is the duty of those with whom the power lies at once to remove the sanction of the law from the principle that man can be the property of man, --a principle inconsistent with our free institutions, subversive of the purposes for which man was made, and utterly at variance with the plainest dictates of reason and Christianity. 

In 1843 Samuel May visited England, and at Unitarian meetings described theobstacles in the way of the abolition of slavery, and spoke of the apathyof American Unitarians. He advised the sending a letter of fraternalcounsel to the Unitarian ministers of the United States "in behalf of theunhappy slave. " Such a letter was prepared, and signed by eighty-fiveministers. It was published in the Unitarian papers in this country, ameeting was held to consider it, and a reply sent to England signed by onehundred and thirty ministers. Mr. May was severely condemned for his partin causing such a letter to be sent, and the reply was rather in the natureof a protest than a friendly acceptance of the advice given. 

A year later, however, this letter was again the subject of earnestdiscussion. In anniversary week, 1845, a meeting of Unitarian ministers washeld to "discuss their duties in relation to American slavery. " The callfor this meeting was signed by James Thompson, Joseph Allen, Caleb Stetson, Samuel Ripley, Converse Francis, William Ware, Samuel J. May, Artemus B. Muzzey, Oliver Stearns, James W. Thompson, Alonzo Hill, Andrew P. Peabody, Henry A. Miles, Frederic H. Hedge, James F. Clarke, George W. Briggs, Samuel May, Barzillai Frost, Nathaniel Hall, David Fosdick, and John Weiss. At the third session, by a vote of forty-seven to seven, it was declared"that we consider slavery to be utterly opposed to the principles andspirit of Christianity, and that, as ministers of the gospel, we feel itour duty to protest against it, in the name of Christ, and to do all we mayto create a public opinion to secure the overthrow of the institution. " Itwas also decided to appoint a committee to draw up, secure signatures to, and publish "a protest against the institution of American slavery, asunchristian and inhuman. " Though some of those who spoke at these meetingscondemned the abolitionists, yet all of them expressed in the strongestterms their opposition to slavery. 

The committee selected to prepare this protest consisted of Caleb Stetson, James F. Clarke, John Parkman, Stephen G. Bulfinch, A. P. Peabody, JohnPierpont, Samuel J. May, Oliver Stearns, George W. Briggs, William P. Tilden, and William H. Channing. The protest was written by James FreemanClarke and was accepted essentially as it came from his hands. It wassigned by one hundred and seventy-three ministers, [36] the whole number ofUnitarian ministers at that time being two hundred and sixty-seven. Some ofthe most prominent ministers were conspicuous by the absence of their namesfrom this protest. It must be understood, however, that those who did notsign it were as much opposed to slavery as those who did. "This protest, "said the editor of The Christian Register, in presenting it to thepublic, [37] "is written with great clearness of expression and moderationof spirit. It exhibits unequivocally and distinctly the sentiments of thenumerous and most enlightened body of clergy whose names are attached toit, as well as many other ministers of the denomination who may bedisinclined to act conjointly, or do not feel called upon to act at all inany prescribed way, on the subject. " It was not a desire to defend slaverythat kept these ministers from signing the protest, but their excessiveindividualism, and their unwillingness to commit the denomination toopinions all might not accept. A few paragraphs from the protest willindicate its spirit and purpose:--

"Especially do we feel that the denomination which takes for its mottoLiberty, Holiness and Love should be foremost in opposing this system. Morethan others we have contended for three great principles, --individualliberty, perfect righteousness, and human brotherhood. All of these aregrossly violated by the system of slavery. We contend for mental freedom;shall we not denounce the system which fetters both mind and body? We havedeclared righteousness to be the essence of Christianity; shall we notoppose the system which is the sum of all wrong? We claim for all men theright of brotherhood before a universal Father; ought we not to testifyagainst that which tramples so many of our brethren under foot?"

"We, therefore, ministers of the gospel of truth and love, in the name ofGod the universal Father, in the name of Christ the Redeemer, in the nameof humanity and human brotherhood, do solemnly protest against the systemof slavery as unchristian, and inhuman, " "because it is a violation ofright, being the sum of all unrighteousness which man can do to man, ""violates the law of love, " "degrades man, the image of God, into a thing, ""necessarily tends to pollute the soul of the slave, " "to defile the soulof the master, " "restricts education, keeps the Bible from the slave, makeslife insecure, deprives female innocence of protection, sanctions adultery, tears children from parents and husbands from wives, violates the divineinstitutions of families, and by hard and hopeless toil makes existence aburden, " "eats out the heart of nations and tends every year more and moreto sear the popular conscience and impair the virtue of the people. "

"We implore all Christians and Christian preachers to unite in unceasingprayer to God for aid against this system, to leave no opportunity ofspeaking the truth and spreading the light on this subject, in faith thatthe truth is strong enough to break every yoke. " "And we do hereby pledgeourselves, before God and our brethren, never to be weary of laboring inthe cause of human rights and freedom until slavery be abolished and everyslave made free. "

Although many ministers and laymen took the position that the question ofslavery was not one that should receive attention in the meetings of theUnitarian Association or other religious organizations, that these shouldbe kept strictly to their own special purposes, it was not possible toexclude the one great exciting topic of the age. How persistently itintruded itself is clearly indicated in words used by Dr. Bellows at theannual meeting of the Association, in 1856. "Year after year this horridimage of slavery come in here, " he said, "and obtruded itself upon ourconcerns. It has prevented our giving attention to any other subject; wecould not keep it out of our minds; and why is that awful crime againsthumanity still known in the world, still supported and active in this ageof Christendom, but because it is in alliance with certain views oftheology with which we are at war?"[38] At the same meeting strongresolutions of sympathy with the free settlers of Kansas, and with CharlesSumner because "the barbarity of the slave power had attempted to silencehim by brutal outrage, " were unanimously adopted. [39]

In 1857 the subject of slavery came before the Western Conference in itssession at Alton. The most uncompromising anti-slavery resolutions werepresented at the opening of the meeting, and everything else was put asidefor their consideration, a day and a half being devoted to them. Theopinion of the majority was, in the words of one of the speakers, thatslavery is a crime that "denies millions marital and parental rights, requires ignorance as a condition, encourages licentiousness and cruelty, scars a country all over with incidents that appall and outrage the humanworld. " Dr. W. G. Eliot, of St. Louis, and others, thought it not expedientto press the subject to an issue, though he regarded slavery in much thesame way as did the other members of the conference. When the conferencefinally took issue with slavery, he and his delegates withdrew from itsmembership. His assistant, Rev. Carlton A. Staples, and Rev. John H. Heywood, of Louisville, went with the majority. A committee appointed toformulate a statement the conference could accept said that it had no rightto interfere with the freedom of action of individual churches; but itrecommended them to do all they could in opposition to slavery, and saidthat the conference was of one mind in the conviction "that slavery is anevil doomed by God to pass away. " This report was accepted by theconference with only one opposing vote. [40] When the year 1860 hadarrived, Unitarians were practically unanimous in their condemnation ofslavery. 

When the names of individual Unitarians who took an active part in theanti-slavery movement are given, it is at once seen how important was theinfluence of the denomination. Early in the century Rev. Noah Worcesteruttered his word of protest against slavery. Rev. Charles Follen joined theMassachusetts Anti-slavery Society in the second year of its existence, andno nobler champion of liberty ever lived. If Dr. Channing was slow inapplying his Christian ideal of liberty to slavery, there can be noquestion that his influence was powerful on the right side, and all themore so because of his gentle and ethical interpretation of individual andnational duty. His various publications on the subject, his identificationof himself with the abolitionists by joining their ranks in theMassachusetts State House in 1836, his speech in Faneuil Hall in protestagainst the killing of Lovejoy in Alton during the same year, exerted agreat influence in behalf of abolition throughout the North. It is onlynecessary to mention John Pierpont, Theodore Parker, William H. Furness, William H. Channing, William Goodell, Theodore D. Weld, Ichabod Codding, Caleb Stetson, and M. D. Conway in order to recognize their uncompromisingfidelity to the cause of freedom. Only less devoted were such men asCharles Lowell, Nahor A. Staples, Sylvester Judd, Nathaniel Hall, Thomas T. Stone, O. B. Frothingham, Abiel A. Livermore, Samuel Johnson, SamuelLongfellow, Thomas J. Mumford, and many others. 

Samuel J. May and his cousin, Samuel May, were both employed by theMassachusetts Anti-slavery Society. From 1847 until 1865 the latter was thegeneral agent of that organization; and his assistant was another Unitarianminister, Robert F. Walcutt. James Freeman Clarke, though settled atLouisville from 1833 to 1840, was opposed to slavery; and in the pages ofThe Western Messenger, of which he was publisher and editor, he took everyoccasion to press home the claims of emancipation. John G. Palfreyemancipated the slaves that came into his possession from his father'sestate, insisting on receiving them for that purpose, though theopportunity was given him to accept other property in their stead. Inaccordance with this action was his attitude toward slavery in the pulpitand on the platform, as well as when he was a member of the lower house ofCongress. 

Of Unitarian laymen who were loyal to the ideal of freedom, the list mayproperly open with the name of Josiah Quincy, afterwards mayor of Bostonand president of Harvard College, who began as early as 1804 his oppositionto slavery, and carried it faithfully into his work as a member of thenational House of Representatives soon after. The fidelity of John QuincyAdams to freedom during many years is known to every one, and his servicein the national House has given him a foremost place in the company of theanti-slavery leaders. Not less loyal was the service of Charles Sumner, Horace Mann, John P. Hale, George W. Julian, John A. Andrew, Samuel G. Howe, Henry I. Bowditch, William I. Bowditch, Thomas W. Higginson, GeorgeF. Hoar, Ebenezer R. Hoar, George S. Boutwell, and Henry B. Anthony. Of thepoets the anti-slavery reform had the support of Longfellow, Lowell, Bryant, and Emerson. The Unitarian women were also zealous for freedom. Theloyalty of Lydia Maria Child is well known, as are the sacrifices she madein publishing her early anti-slavery books. Lucretia Mott, of the Unitarianbranch of the Friends, was a devoted supporter of the anti-slavery cause. Mrs. Maria W. Chapman was one of the most faithful supporters of Garrison, doing more than any one else to give financial aid to the anti-slaveryreform movement in its earlier years. With these women deserve to bementioned Eliza Lee Follen, Angelina Grimké Weld, Lucy Stone, and manymore. 

A considerable group of persons who had been trained in evangelicalchurches became essentially Unitarians as a result of the anti-slaveryagitation. Of these may be mentioned William Lloyd Garrison, Gerrit Smith, Beriah Green, Joshua R. Giddings, Myron Holley, Theodore D. Weld, andFrancis W. Bird. Of the first four of these men, George W. Julian has said:"They were theologically reconstructed through their unselfish devotion tohumanity and the recreancy of the churches to which they had been attached. They were less orthodox, but more Christian. Their faith in the fatherhoodof God and the brotherhood of man became a living principle, and compelledto reject all dogmas which stood in its way. "[41]

[Sidenote: The Enfranchisement of Women. ]

It is not surprising that the first great advocate of "the rights of women"in this country should have been the Unitarian, Margaret Fuller. She did nomore than apply what she had been taught in religion to problems ofpersonal duty, professional activity, and political obligations. With herfreedom of faith and liberty of thought meant also freedom to devote herlife to such tasks as she could best perform for the good of others. It wasinevitable that other Unitarian women should follow her example, and thatmany women, trained in other faiths, having come to accept the doctrine ofuniversal political rights, should seek in Unitarianism the religionconsonant with their individuality of purpose and their sense of humanfreedom. 

Among the leaders of the movement for the enfranchisement of women havebeen such Unitarians as Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Susan B. Anthony, LucyStone, Julia Ward Howe, Mary A. Livermore, Maria Weston Chapman, CarolineH. Dall, and Louisa M. Alcott. The first pronounced woman suffrage paper inthe country was The Una, begun at Providence in 1853, with Mrs. Caroline H. Dall as the assistant editor. Among other Unitarian contributors wereWilliam H. Charming, Elizabeth P. Peabody, Thomas W. Higginson, Ednah D. Cheney, Amory D. Mayo, Elizabeth Oakes Smith, Lucy Stone, and Mrs. E. C. Stanton. The next important paper was The Revolution, begun at New York in1868, with Susan B. Anthony as publisher and Elizabeth Cady Stanton andParker Pillsbury as editors. Then came The Woman's Journal, begun at Bostonin 1870, with Mary A. Livermore, Lucy Stone, Julia Ward Howe, T. W. Higginson, and Henry B. Blackwell, all Unitarians, as the editors. 

The first national woman's suffrage meeting was held in Worcester, October28 and 24, 1850; and among those who took part in it by letter or personalpresence were Emerson, Alcott, Higginson, Pillsbury, Samuel J. May, WilliamH. Channing, William H. Burleigh, Elizabeth C. Stanton, Catherine M. Sedgwick, Caroline Kirkland, and Lucy Stone. In April, 1853, when theConstitution of Massachusetts was to receive revision, a petition waspresented, asking that suffrage should be granted to women. Of twenty-sevenpersons signing it, more than half were Unitarians, including Abby MayAlcott, Lucy Stone, T. W. Higginson, Anna Q. T. Parsons, Theodore Parker, William I. Bowditch, Samuel E. Sewall, Ellis Gray Loring, Charles K. Whipple, and Thomas T. Stone. Among other Unitarians who have taken anactive part in promoting this cause have been Lucretia Mott, Mary Grew, Caroline M. Severance, Celia C. Burleigh, Angelina Grimké Weld, and MariaGiddings Julian. Of men there have been Dr. William F. Channing, James F. Clarke, George F. Hoar, George W. Curtis, John S. Dwight, John T. Sargent, Samuel Johnson, Samuel Longfellow, Octavius B. Frothingham, Adin Ballou, George W. Julian, Frank B. Sanborn, and James T. Fields. 

Unitarians have been amongst the first to recognize women in education, literature, the professions, and in the management of church anddenominational interests. At the convention held in New York in 1865, whichorganized the National Conference, no women appeared as delegates; and thesame was true at the second session, held at Syracuse in 1866. At thatsession Rev. Thomas J. Mumford moved "that our churches shall be left totheir own wishes and discretion with reference to the sex of the delegateschosen to represent them in the conference"; and this resolution wasadopted. At the third meeting, held at New York in 1868, thirty-seven womenappeared as delegates, including Julia Ward Howe and Caroline H. Dall. Thelay delegates to the session held at Washington in 1899 numbered fourhundred and two; and, of these, two hundred and twenty seven were women. 

At the annual meeting of the Unitarian Association in 1870, Rev. John T. Sargent brought forward the subject of the representation of women on itsboard of directors. Dr. James F. Clarke made a motion looking to thatresult, which was largely discussed, much opposition being manifested. Itwas urged by many that women were unfit to serve in a position demanding somuch business capacity, that they would displace capable men, and that itwas improper for them to assume so public a duty. Charles Lowe, James F. Clarke, John T. Sargent, and others strongly championed the proposition, with the result that Miss Lucretia Crocker was elected a member of theboard. [42]

The first woman ordained to the Unitarian ministry was Mrs. Celia C. Burleigh, who was settled over the parish in Brooklyn, Conn. , October 5, 1871. The sermon was preached by Rev. John W. Chadwick, and the address tothe people was given by Mrs. Julia Ward Howe. A letter was read from HenryWard Beecher, in which he said to Mrs. Burleigh: "I do cordially believethat you ought to preach. I think you had a _call_ in your very nature. "Mrs. Burleigh continued at Brooklyn for less than three years, ill-healthcompelling her to resign. 

The second woman to enter the Unitarian ministry was Miss Mary H. Graves, who was ordained at Mansfield, Mass. , December 14, 1871. She was subjectedto a thorough examination; and the committee reported "that her words havecommanded our thorough respect by their freedom and clearness, and won ourfull sympathy and approval by their earnest, discreet, and beautifulspirit. " Mrs. Eliza Tupper Wilkes was ordained by the Universalists atRochester, Minn. , May 2, 1871, though she had preached for two or threeyears previously; and she subsequently identified herself with theUnitarians. Mrs. Antoinette Brown Blackwell was ordained in Central NewYork, in 1853, by the Orthodox Congregationalists; but somewhat later shebecame a Unitarian. 

The first woman to receive ordination who has continued withoutinterruption her ministerial duties was Miss Mary A. Safford, ordained in1880. She has held every official position in connection with the IowaUnitarian Association, and she has also been an officer of the WesternConference and a director of the American Unitarian Association. 

Several women have also frequently appeared in Unitarian pulpits who havenot received ordination or devoted themselves to the ministry as aprofession. Among these are Mrs. Caroline H. Dall, Mrs. Julia Ward Howe, and Mrs. Mary A. Livermore. In 1875 Mrs. Howe was active in organizing theWomen's Ministerial Conference, which met in the Church of the Disciples, and brought together women ministers of several denominations. Of thisconference Mrs. Howe was for many years the president. 

In most Unitarian churches there is no longer any question as to the rightof women to take any place they are individually fitted to occupy. Ondenominational committees and boards, women sit with entire success, theirfitness for the duties required being called in question by no one. Inthose conferences where women have for a number of years been activelyengaged in the work of the ministry they are received on a basis of perfectequality with men, and the sex question no longer presents itself in regardto official positions or any other ministerial duty. 

[Sidenote: Civil Service Reform. ]

The first advocate of the reform of the civil service was Charles Sumner, who as early as December, 1847, anticipated its methods in a series ofarticles contributed to a newspaper. [43] He was the first to bring thisreform before Congress, which he did April 30, 1864, when he introduced abill to provide a system of competitive examinations for admission to andpromotion in the civil service, which made merit and fitness the conditionsof employment by the government, and provided against removal withoutcause. This bill was drawn by Sumner without consultation with any otherperson, but the time had not yet arrived when it could be successfullyadvocated. 

The next person to advocate the reform of the civil service in Congress wasThomas A. Jenckes, of Rhode Island, who in 1867 brought the merit systemforward in the form of a report from the joint committee on retrenchment, which reported on the condition of the civil service, and accompanied itsreport with a bill "to regulate the civil service and to promote itsefficiency. " The next year Mr. Jenckes made a second report, but it was notuntil 1871 that action on the subject was secured. [44] George W. Curtissays that at first he "pressed it upon an utterly listless Congress, andhis proposition was regarded as the harmless hobby of an amiable man, fromwhich a little knowledge of practical politics would soon dismounthim. "[45] Most members of Congress thought the reform a mere vagary, andthat it was brought forward at a most inopportune time. [46] Mr. Jenckeswas the pioneer of the reform, according to Curtis, who says that he"powerfully and vigorously and alone opened the debate in Congress. "[47]He drew the amendment to the appropriation bill in 1871 that became thelaw, and under which the first civil service commission was appointed. "Byhis experience, thorough knowledge, fertility of resource and suggestionand great legal ability, he continued to serve with as much efficiency asmodesty the cause to which he was devoted. "[48]

One of the first persons to give attention to this subject was Dorman B. Eaton, an active member of All Souls' Church in New York, who was forseveral years chairman of the committee on political reform of the UnionLeague Club of New York. In 1866, and again in 1870 and 1875, he travelledin Europe to secure information in regard to methods of civil service. Theresults of these investigations were presented in his work on Civil Servicein Great Britain, a report made at the request of President Hayes. In 1873he was appointed a member of the Civil Service Commission by PresidentGrant; in 1883 he was the chairman of the committee appointed by PresidentArthur; and in 1885 he was reappointed by President Cleveland. The bill ofJanuary, 1883, which firmly established civil service by act of Congress, was drawn by him. He was a devoted worker for good government in all itsphases; and the results of his studies of the subject may be found in hisbooks on The Independent Movement in New York and The Government ofMunicipalities. He was described by George William Curtis as "one of themost conspicuous, intelligent, and earnest friends of reform. "[49]

The most conspicuous advocate of the merit system was Mr. George WilliamCurtis, another New York Unitarian, who was the chairman of the CivilService Commission of 1871. In 1880 he became the president of the New YorkCivil Service Reform Association, a position he held until his death. TheNational Civil Service Reform League was organized at Newport in August, 1881; and he was the president from that time as long as he lived. Hisannual addresses before the league show his devoted interest in its aims, as well as his eloquence, intellectual power, and political integrity. [50]In an address before the Unitarian National Conference, in 1878, Mr. Curtisgave a noble exposition and vindication of the reform which he laboredzealously for twelve years to advance. [51]

It has been justly said of Mr. Curtis that "far above the pleasures of lifehe placed its duties; and no man could have set himself more sternly to theserious work of citizenship. The national struggle over slavery, and there-establishment of the Union on permanent foundations enlisted his wholenature. In the same spirit, he devoted his later years to the overthrow ofthe spoils system. He did this under no delusion as to the magnitude of theundertaking. Probably no one else comprehended it so well. He had studiedthe problem profoundly, and had solved every difficulty, and could answerevery cavil to his own satisfaction. " There can be no question that "hisname imparted a strength to the movement no other would have given. " Norcan there be much question that "among public men there was none who so wonthe confidence of sincere and earnest men and women by his own personality. The powers of such a character, with all his gifts and accomplishments, waswhat Mr. Curtis brought to the civil service reform. "[52]

[1] American Unitarian Biography, edited by William Ware; Memoir of Worcester, by Henry Ware, Jr. , I. 45, 46. 

[2] Solemn Review, edition of 1836 by American Peace Society, 7. 

[3] It had been preceded by societies in Ohio and New York, results of the influence of the Solemn Review. 

[4] Unitarian Biography, I. 49. 

[5] Memoir, II. 284; one-volume edition, 111. 

[6] Ibid. , III. 111; one-volume edition, 284. 

[7] Memoir, 139. 

[8] Christian Examiner, May, 1850, XLVIII. 378. 

[9] Ibid. , November, 1861, LXXI. 313. 

[10] Life, 83. 

[11] Ibid. , 115. 

[12] Cyclopedia of American Biography, V. 746. 

[13] Memoir, II. 348. 

[14] Memoir. 

[15] Ibid. , 351. 

[16] Ibid. , IV. 572. 

[17] Reminiscences, 328. 

[18] Memoir, III. 36; one-volume edition, 477. 

[19] Memoir, III. 31; one-volume edition, 474, 475. 

[20] Works, II. 301. 

[21] When will the Day come? and other tracts of the Massachusetts Temperance Society, 135. 

[22] Of the twenty-seven annual addresses given before this society from 1814 to 1840, at least sixteen were by Unitarians; and among these were John T. Kirkland, Abiel Abbot, William E. Channing, Edward Everett, the younger Henry Ware, Gamaliel Bradford, Charles Sprague, James Walker, Alexander H. Everett, William Sullivan, and Samuel K. Lothrop. The first four presidents of this society--Samuel Dexter, Nathan Dane, Isaac Parker, and Stephen Fairbanks--were Unitarians. Of the same faith were also a large proportion of the vice-presidents and other officers. Many of the tracts published by the society were written by Unitarians. 

[23] Unitarians of every calling have been the advocates of temperance. Among those who have been loyal to it in word and action may be named John Adams, Jeremy Belknap, Jonathan Phillips, Charles Lowell, Ezra S. Gannett, John Pierpont, Samuel J. May, Amos Lawrence, Horace Mann, William H. And George S. Burleigh, Governor Pitman, William G. Eliot, Rufus P. Stebbins, and William B. Spooner. "Many of the leading men and women who were eminent as lawyers, judges, legislators, scholars, also prominent in the business walks of life, and in social position, gave this cause the force of their example, and the inspiration of their minds. By their contributions of money, by their personal efforts, by their public speeches and writings, and by their practice of total abstinence, they rendered very valuable service. "

[24] Twelfth Annual Report of the Commissioner of Labor, 1897. 

[25] Theodore Clapp, of New Orleans, may be an exception, though he is claimed by the Universalists. See S. J. May's Recollections of the Anti-slavery Conflict, 335. 

[26] Autobiography and Letters, 117, 127, 129. The criticism of Dr. Dewey may be found in S. J. May's Recollections, 367. 

[27] Memoir, 139, 284, 296. See S. J. May, Recollections, 341, 367, for an anti-slavery indictment of Dr. Gannett. 

[28] Memoir, chapter on Slavery. 

[29] Recollections of the Anti-slavery Conflict, chapter on the Unitarians, 335. 

[30] See Lydia Maria Child's account of conversations with Channing on this subject, in her Letters from New York. 

[31] Recollections and Impressions, 47, 183. 

[32] The Story of his Life as Told by his Children. 

[33] Recollections, 335. 

[34] S. J. May, Recollections, 19; Life of A. B. Alcott, 220; Life of Garrison, I. 212. 

[35] Life of Garrison, I. 223. 

[36] The more prominent names are herewith given as they were printed in The Christian Register: Joseph Allen, J. H. Allen, S. G. Bulfinch, C. F. Barnard, Charles Briggs, W. G. Babcock, C. T. Brooks, Warren Burton, C. H. Brigham, Edgar Buckingham, William H. Channing, James F. Clarke, S. B. Cruft, A. H. Conant, C. H. A. Dall, R. Ellis, Converse Francis, James Flint, William H. Furness, N. S. Folsom, Frederick A. Farley, Frederick T. Gray, Henry Giles, F. D. Huntington, E. B. Hall, N. Hall, F. H. Hedge, F. Hinckley, G. W. Hosmer, F. W. Holland, Thomas Hill, Sylvester Judd, James Kendall, William H. Knapp, A. A. Livermore, S. J. May, Samuel May, M. I. Mott, A. B. Muzzey, J. F. Moors, Henry A. Miles, William Newell, J. Osgood, S. Osgood, Andrew P. Peabody, John Parkman, John Pierpont, Theodore Parker, Cyrus Pierce, J. H. Perkins, Cazneau Palfey, O. W. B. Peabody, Samuel Ripley, Chandler Robbins, Caleb Stetson, Oliver Stearns, Rufus P. Stebbins, Edmund Q. Sewall, Charles Sewall, John T. Sargent, George F. Simmons, William Silsbee, William P. Tilden, J. W. Thompson, John Weiss, Robert T. Waterston, William Ware, J. F. W. Ware, E. B. Willson, Frederick A. Whitney, Jason Whitman. 

[37] Printed in The Christian Register, October 4, 1845. 

[38] Quarterly Journal, III. 567. 

[39] Ibid. , 572. 

[40] Unity, Sept. 4, 1886, Mrs. S. C. Ll. Jones, Historic Unitarianism in the West. 

[41] Life of Joshua R. Giddings, 399. 

[42] Memoir of Charles Lowe, 486. In 1901 four of the eighteen directors of the American Unitarian Association were women. 

[43] Life, III. 149. 

[44] Life of Charles Sumner, IV. 191; Works, VII. 452. 

[45] G. W. Curtis, Orations and Addresses, II. 30. 

[46] Ibid. , 173. 

[47] Ibid. , 180. 

[48] Ibid. , 223. 

[49] G. W. Curtis, Orations and Addresses, II. 458. 

[50] See Curtis's Orations and Addresses, II. ; also, his Reports as civil service commissioner, and various addresses before the Social Science Association. 

[51] Edward Cary, Life of Curtis, American Men of Letters, 294. 

[52] George William Curtis and Civil Service Reform, by Sherman S. Rogers, in Atlantic Monthly, January, 1893, LXXI. 15. 

XVII. 

UNITARIAN MEN AND WOMEN. 

Many of the most influential Americans have been in practical accord withUnitarianism, while not actually connected with Unitarian churches. Theyhave accepted its principles of individual freedom, the rationalinterpretation of religion, and the necessity of bringing religious beliefsinto harmony with modern science and philosophy. Among these may beproperly included such men as Benjamin Franklin, John Marshall, GerritSmith, John G. Whittier, William Lloyd Garrison, Andrew D. White, andAbraham Lincoln. Whittier was a Friend, and White an Episcopalian; but thereligion of both is acceptable to all Unitarians. Marshall was undoubtedlya Unitarian in his intellectual convictions, and he sometimes attended theUnitarian church in Washington; but his church affiliations were with theEpiscopalians. John C. Calhoun was all his life a member of an Episcopalchurch and a communicant in it; but he frequently attended the Unitarianchurch in Washington, and intellectually he discarded the doctrines taughtin the creeds of his church. 

Lincoln belonged to no church, and had no interest in the forms anddisputes that constitute so large a part of outward religion; but he wasone of those men whose great deeds rest on a basis of simple butprofoundest religious conviction. The most explicit statement he ever madeof his faith was in these words: "I have never united myself to any church, because I have found difficulty in giving my assent, without mentalreservation, to the long, complicated statements of Christian doctrinewhich characterize their articles of belief and confessions of faith. Whenany church will inscribe over its altar, as its sole qualification ofmembership, the Saviour's condensed statement of both law and gospel, 'Thoushalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart and with all thy soul andwith all thy mind, and thy neighbor as thyself, ' that church will I joinwith all my heart and all my soul. "[1] This declaration brings Lincolninto fullest harmony with the position of the Unitarian churches. 

[Sidenote: Eminent Statesmen. ]

The intellectual tendencies of the eighteenth century led many of theleading Americans to discard the Puritan habit of mind and the religiousbeliefs it had cherished. An intellectual revolt caused the rejection ofmany of the Protestant doctrines, and a political revolt in the directionof democracy led to the acceptance of religious principles not in harmonywith those of the past. Many Americans shared in these protests who did notopenly break with the older faiths. Washington was of this class; for, while he remained outwardly a churchman, he had little intellectual orpractical sympathy with the stricter beliefs. Franklin was thoroughly ofthe Deistic faith of the thinkers of England and France in his time. Thesetendencies had their effect upon such men as John Adams, Timothy Pickering, Joseph Story, and Theophilus Parsons, as well as upon Thomas Jefferson andWilliam Cranch. They showed themselves with especial prominence in the caseof Jefferson, who always remained outwardly faithful to the state religionof Virginia, in which he had been educated, attended the Episcopal churchin the neighborhood of his home, sometimes joining in its communion, butwho was, nevertheless, intellectually a pronounced Unitarian. 

With Jefferson his Unitarianism was a part of his democracy, for he wasconsistent enough to make his religion and his politics agree with eachother. As he would have kings no longer rule over men, but give politicalpower into the hands of the people, so in religion he would put aside alltheologians and priests, and permit the people to worship in their own way. It was for this reason that he rejoiced in the emancipating work ofChanning, of which he wrote in 1822, "I rejoice that in this blessedcountry of free inquiry and belief, which has surrendered its creeds andconscience neither to kings nor priests, the genuine doctrine of only oneGod is reviving; and I trust there is not a young man now living who willnot die a Unitarian. "[2] Jefferson's revolt against authority was terselyexpressed in his declaration: "Had there never been a commentator, therenever would have been an infidel. "[3] This was in harmony with hissaying, that "the doctrines of Jesus are simple and tend all to thehappiness of man. "[4] It also fully agrees with the claims of the earlyUnitarians with regard to the teachings of Jesus. "No one sees with greaterpleasure than myself, " he wrote, "the progress of reason in its advancetoward rational Christianity. When we shall have done away with theincomprehensible jargon of the Trinitarian arithmetic, that three are one, and one are three; when we shall have knocked down the artificialscaffolding reared to mask from view the simple structure of Jesus; when, in short, we shall have unlearned everything taught since his day, and gotback to the pure and simple doctrines he inculcated--we shall then be trulyand worthily his disciples; and my opinion is that, if nothing had everbeen added to what flowed purely from his lips, the whole world would atthis day have been Christian. "[5]

However mistaken Jefferson may have been in the historical opinions thusexpressed, we cannot question the sincerity of his beliefs or fail torecognize that he had the keenest interest in whatever gave indication ofthe growth of a rational spirit in religion. These opinions he shared withmany of the leading men of his time; but he was more outspoken in theirutterance, as he was more consistent in holding them. That Washington, though remaining an Episcopalian, was in fullest accord with Jefferson inhis principles of toleration and religious freedom, is apparent from one ofhis letters. "I am not less ardent in my wish, " he wrote, "that you maysucceed in your toleration in religious matters. Being no bigot myself toany mode of worship, I am disposed to indulge the professors ofChristianity in the church with that road to heaven which to them shallseem the most direct, easiest, and least liable to exception. "[6]Intellectually, Franklin was a Deist of essentially the same beliefs withJefferson, as may be seen in his statement of faith: "I believe in one God, the creator of the universe; that he governs it by his providence; that heought to be worshipped; that the most acceptable service we render to himis doing good to his other children; that the soul of man is immortal, andwill be treated with justice in another life respecting its conduct inthis. These I take to be the fundamental points in all sound religion. Asto Jesus of Nazareth, I think his system of morals and his religion, as heleft them to us, the best the world ever saw, or is likely to see; but Iapprehend it has received various corrupting changes, and I have somedoubts of his divinity; though it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it. "[7] Franklin was a member of a Unitarian churchin London. 

[Sidenote: Some Representative Unitarians. ]

The church in Washington, not having been popular or of fine appointments, has been a test of the Unitarian faith of those frequenting the capitalcity. It has included in its congregation, from time to time, such men asJohn Adams, John Quincy Adams, [8] John Marshall, Joseph Story, Samuel F. Miller, Millard Fillmore, William Cranch, George Bancroft, Nathan K. Hall, James Moore Wayne, and Senators Daniel Webster, John C. Calhoun, William S. Archer, Henry B. Anthony, William B. Allison, Timothy O. Howe, EdwardEverett, Justin S. Morrill, Charles Sumner, William E. Chandler, George F. Hoar, and John P. Hale. William Winston Seaton and Joseph Gales, onceprominent in Washington as editors and publishers of The NationalIntelligencer, were both Unitarians. 

In New York the Unitarian churches have had among their attendants andmembers such persons as William Cullen Bryant, Catherine M. Sedgwick, HenryD. Sedgwick, Henry Wheaton, Peter Cooper, George William Curtis, GeorgeTicknor Curtis, Moses H. Grinnell, Dorman B. Eaton, and Joseph H. Choate. The churches in Salem have had connected with them such men as John Prince, Nathaniel Bowditch, Benjamin Peirce, Timothy Pickering, John Pickering, Leverett Saltonstall, Joseph Story, [9] Jones Very, William H. Prescott, and Nathaniel Hawthorne. [10]

[Sidenote: Judges and Legislators. ]

During the early Unitarian period "the judges on the bench" included suchmen as Theophilus Parsons, Isaac Parker, and Lemuel Shaw, all of whom heldthe office of chief justice in Massachusetts. Other lawyers, jurists, andstatesmen were Fisher Ames, political orator and statesman; Nathan Dane, who drew the ordinance for the north-western territory; Samuel Dexter, senator, and secretary of the treasury under John Adams; Christopher Gore, senator, and governor of Massachusetts; and Benjamin R. Curtis, of theUnited States Supreme Court. Other chief justices of the Supreme Court ofMassachusetts have been George T. Bigelow, John Wells, Pliny Myrick, Walbridge A. Field, Charles Allen; and of associates in that court havebeen Ebenezer Rockwood Hoar, Benjamin F. Thomas, Seth Ames, Samuel S. Wilde, Levi Lincoln, and John Lowell. Among the governors of Massachusettshave been Levi Lincoln, Edward Everett, John Davis, John H. Clifford, JohnA. Andrew, George S. Boutwell, John D. Long, Thomas Talbot, George D. Robinson, J. Q. A. Brackett, Oliver Ames, Frederic T. Greenhalge, and RogerWolcott. The first mayors of Boston, John Phillips, Josiah Quincy, [11] andHarrison Gray Otis, were Unitarians. Then, after an interval of one year, followed Samuel A. Eliot and Jonathan Chapman. 

It has often been assumed that Unitarianism attracts only intellectualpersons; but it also appeals to practical business men, legislators, andthe leaders of political life. In Maine have been Vice-President HannibalHamlin, Governor Edward Kent, and Chief Justice John Appleton. In NewHampshire it has appealed to such men as Chief Justices Cushing, Henry A. Bellows, Jeremiah Smith, and, Charles Doe, as well as to Governors OnslowStearns, Charles H. Bell, Benjamin F. Prescott, and Ichabod Goodwin; inRhode Island, Governors Lippitt and Seth Paddelford, Chief Justices SamuelAmes and Samuel Eddy, General Ambrose E. Burnside, and William B. Weeden, historian and economist. Alphonso Taft and George Hoadly, both governors ofOhio, were Unitarians, as were Austin Blair, John T. Bagley, Charles S. May, and Henry H. Crapo, governors of Michigan. Among the prominentUnitarians of Iowa have been Senator William B. Allison and General GeorgeW. McCrary. In California may be named Leland Stanford, Horace Davis, ChiefJustice W. H. Beatty, and Oscar L. Shafter of the Supreme Court. 

[Sidenote: Boston Unitarianism. ]

What Unitarianism has been in the lives of its men and women may be mostconspicuously seen in Boston and the region about it, for there throughoutthe first half of the nineteenth century Unitarianism was the dominant formof Christianity. Of the period from 1826 to 1832, when Dr. Lyman Beecherwas settled in Boston, Mrs. Stowe has given this testimony: "All theliterary men of Massachusetts were Unitarians. All the trustees andprofessors of Harvard College were Unitarians. All the élite of wealth andfashion crowded Unitarian churches. The judges on the bench were Unitarian, giving decisions by which the peculiar features of church organization, socarefully ordained by the Pilgrim fathers, had been nullified. "[12] Of thesame period Dr. Beecher wrote, "All offices were in the hands ofUnitarians. "[13]

These statements were literally true, except in so far as they implied thatUnitarians used high positions in order to overthrow the old institutionsof Massachusetts and substitute those of their own devising. The calmerjudgment of the present day would not accept this conclusion, and it has nohistoric foundation. The religious development of Boston brought itschurches into the acceptance of a tolerant, rational, and practical form ofChristianity, that was not dogmatic or sectarian. It took the Unitarianname, but only in the sense of rejecting the harsher interpretations of thedoctrine of the Trinity and of election. The members of the Unitarianchurches during this period were devout in an unostentatious manner, piousafter a simple fashion, loyal Christians without excess of zeal, lovers ofliberty, but in a conservative spirit. This simple form of piety enabledthe men who accepted it to govern the state in a most faithful manner. Theymanaged its affairs justly, wisely, and in the true intent of economy. Sometimes it was complained that they held a much larger number of officesthan was their proportion according to population; but to this John G. Palfrey replied that the people of the state had confidence in them, andelected them because nobody else governed so well. 

With the aid of the biography of James Sullivan, judge, legislator, attorney-general, and diplomatist, [14] we may study the constituency of asingle church in Boston, the Brattle Street Church. We find there JamesBowdoin and John Hancock, rival candidates for the position of governor ofthe state in 1785. The same rivalry occurred twenty years later betweenJames Sullivan and Caleb Strong, both of the number of its communicants. Onthe parish committee of this church at one time were Hancock, Bowdoin, andSullivan, who became governors of the state, and Judges Wendell and JohnLowell. [15] Some years later there were included in the congregation suchmen as Daniel Webster, Harrison Gray Otis, Abbott Lawrence, and AmosLawrence, who was one of the deacons for many years. 

Of the distinguished business men of Boston may be named John Amory Lowell, John C. Amory, Jonathan Phillips (the confidential friend and supporter ofDr. Channing), Thomas Wigglesworth, J. Huntington Wolcott, AugustusHemenway, Stephen C. Phillips, and Thomas Tileston. Francis Cabot Lowellwas largely concerned in building up the manufacturing interests ofMassachusetts, especially the cotton industry; and the city of Lowell tookhis name in recognition of the importance of his leadership in thisdirection. For similar reasons the city of Lawrence was named after AbbottLawrence, minister of the United States to Great Britain, who was one ofthe leading merchants of Boston in the China trade, and was also largelyconcerned in the development of cotton manufacturing. With these businessand manufacturing interests Amos Lawrence was also connected. NathanAppleton[16] was associated with Francis C. Lowell in the establishment ofthe great manufacturing interests that have been a large source of thewealth of Massachusetts. Thomas H. Perkins, from whom was named the PerkinsInstitute for the Blind, was also concerned in the China trade and in thefirst development of railroads. Robert Gould Shaw was another leadingmerchant, who left a large sum of money for the benefit of the children ofmariners. John Murray Forbes was a builder of railroads, notably active inthe financial support of the national government during the civil war, anda generous friend of noble men and interests. [17] Nathaniel Thayer was amanager of railroads, erected Thayer Hall at Harvard College, and bore theexpenses of Agassiz's expedition to South America. 

A Boston man by birth and training, who knew the defects as well as themerits of the class of men and women who have been named, has givengenerous testimony to the high qualities of mind and heart possessed bythese Unitarians. In writing of his maternal grandfather, Octavius BrooksFrothingham has said: "Peter C. Brooks was an admirable example of theUnitarian laymen of that period, industrious, honest, faithful in allrelations of life, charitable, public-spirited, intelligent, sagacious, mingling the prudence of the man of affairs with the faith of theChristian.... As one recalls the leading persons in Brattle Street, FederalStreet, Chauncy Place, King's Chapel, the New North, the New South, --menlike Adams, Eliot, Perkins, Bumstead, Lawrence, Sullivan, Jackson, JudgeShaw, Daniel Webster, Jacob Bigelow, T. B. Wales, Dr. Bowditch, --forms ofdignity and of worth rise before the mind. Better men there are not. Morehonorable men, according to the standard of the time, there are not likelyto be.... He joined the church and was a consistent church member. He wasnot effusive, demonstrative, or loud-voiced. His name did not stand high onchurch lists or among the patrons of the faith. His was the calm, rational, sober belief of the thoughtful, educated, honorable men of his day, --menlike Lemuel Shaw, Joseph Story, Daniel A. White, --intellectual, noblepeople, with worthy aims, a lofty sense of duty, a strong conviction of theessential truths of revealed Christianity; sincere believers in the gospel, of enduring principle, of pure, consistent, blameless life and conduct. Speculative theology he cared little or nothing about. He was no disputant, no doubter, no casuist; of the heights of mysticism, of the depths ofinfidelity, he knew nothing. He was conservative, of course, fromtemperament rather than from inquiry. He took the literal, prose view ofCalvinism, and rejected doctrines which did not commend themselves to hiscommon sense. In a word, he was a Unitarian of the old school.... TheUnitarian laity in general, both men and women, had a genuine desire torender the earthly lot of mankind more tolerable. It is not too much to saythat they started every one of our best secular charities. They wereexceedingly liberal in their gifts to Harvard College, and to othercolleges as well--for they were not at all sectarian, as their largesubscriptions to the Roman Catholic cathedral proved. Whatever tended toexalt humanity, in their view, was encouraged. They were as noble a set ofmen and women as ever lived. "[18]

This estimate of the Unitarians of Boston during the first half of thenineteenth century is eminently just and accurate. To a large extent thesemen and their associates in the Unitarian churches gave to the city itsworth and its character; and they built up the industries, the commerce, the educational and philanthropic interests, and the progressivelegislation of Massachusetts. They were men of integrity and sincerity, whowere generous, faithful, and just. They accepted the religion of thespirit, and they gave it expression in daily conduct and character. 

[1] F. B. Carpenter, Six Months in the White House, 190. 

[2] James Parton, Life of Thomas Jefferson, 711. 

[3] Charles W. Upham, Life of Timothy Pickering, IV. 327. 

[4] P. L. Ford's edition Jefferson's Works, X. 220. 

[5] Life of Pickering, IV. 326. 

[6] P. L. Ford, The True George Washington, 81. 

[7] P. L. Ford, The Many-sided Franklin, 174. See Diary of Ezra Stiles, III. 387. 

[8] John Quincy Adams, in reply to a question about the church in Washington, said: "I go there to church, although I am not decided in my mind as to all the controverted doctrines of religion. " Years later he said to a preacher in the Unitarian church at Quincy: "I agree entirely with the ground you took in your discourse. You did not speak of any particular class of doctrines that were everlasting, but of the great, fundamental principles in which all Christians agree; and these, I think, are what will be permanent. " See A. B. Muzzey, Reminiscences and Memorials of the Men of the Revolution and their Families, 53. 

[9] William W. Story, Life and Letters of Joseph Story, 57, 93. Joseph Story grew away from Calvinism in early manhood, and accepted a humanitarian view of the nature of Christ. "No man was ever more free from a spirit of bigotry and proselytism, " says his biographer. "He gladly allowed every one freedom of belief and claimed only that it should be a genuine conviction and not a mere theologic opinion, considering the true faith of every man to be the necessary exponent of his nature, and honoring a religious life more than a formal creed. He admitted within the pale of salvation Mohammedan and Christian, Catholic and infidel. He believed that whatever is sincere and honest is recognized by God--that as the views of any sect are but human opinion, susceptible of error on every side, it behooves all men to be on their guard against arrogance of belief--and that in the sight of God it is not the truth or falsehood of our views, but the spirit in which we believe which alone is of vital consequence. His moral sense was not satisfied with a theory of religion founded upon the depravity of man and recognizing an austere and vengeful God, nor could he give his metaphysical assent to the doctrine of the Trinity. In the doctrines of liberal Christianity he found the resolution of his doubts, and from the moment he embraced the Unitarian faith he became a warm and unhesitating believer. "

[10] For an interesting picture of New England Unitarianism see Recollections of my Mother (Mrs. Anne Jean Lyman), by Mrs. J. P. Lesley. Mrs. Lyman's home was in Northampton, Mass. The Reminiscences of Caroline C. Briggs describe life in the same town and under similar conditions. Also Memoir of Mary L. Ware, Memorial of Joseph and Lucy Clark Allen by their Children, and Life of Dr. Samuel Willard. 

[11] Edmund Quincy, Life of Josiah Quincy, 532. In a speech to the overseers of Harvard University in 1845, Josiah Quincy said: "I never did and never will call myself a Unitarian; because the name has the aspect, and is loaded by the world with the imputation of sectarianism. " His biographer says: "He regarded differences as of slight importance, especially as to matters beyond the grasp of the human intellect. His catholicity of spirit fraternized with all who profess to call themselves Christians, and who prove their title to the name by their lives. " It was precisely this catholicity of spirit that was the most characteristic feature of early American Unitarianism, and not the rejection of the doctrine of the Trinity. However, Josiah Quincy was undoubtedly a Unitarian, both in what he rejected and in what he affirmed, as may be seen from these words recorded in his diary in 1854: "From the doctrines with which metaphysical divines have chosen to obscure the word of God, --such as predestination, election, reprobation, etc. , --I turn with loathing to the refreshing assurance which, to my mind, contains the substance of revealed religion, --in every nation he who feareth God, and worketh righteousness, is accepted of him. "

[12] Autobiography, Correspondence, etc. , of Lyman Beecher, II. 109. 

[13] Ibid. , 144. 

[14] Thomas C. Amory. Life of James Sullivan. 

[15] John Lowell, a son of Judge John Lowell, and a brother of Dr. Charles Lowell of the West Church, was the author of an effective controversial pamphlet entitled Are you a Christian or a Calvinist? Or do you prefer the Authority of Christ to that of the Genevan Reformer? Both the Form and Spirit of these Questions being suggested by the Late Review of American Unitarianism in The Panoplist, and by the Rev. Mr. Worcester's Letter to Mr. Channing. By a Layman. Boston, 1815. 

[16] Nathan Appleton's interest in theology may be seen in his book entitled The Doctrine of Original Sin and the Trinity, discussed in a Correspondence between a Clergyman of the Episcopal Church, in England, and a Layman of Boston, United States, published in Boston in 1859. "I was brought up, " he said in one of these letters, "in the strictest form of Calvinistic Congregationalism; but since arriving at an age capable of examining the subject, and after a careful study of it, I have renounced what appear to me unworthy views of the Deity, for a system which appears to me more worthy of him, and less abhorrent to human reason. " "I can say, " he wrote in another letter, "that the Unitarian party embraces the most intelligent and high-minded portion of the community. It is my opinion that the views of the Unitarians are the best and only security against the spirit of infidelity which is prevailing so extensively amongst the most highly educated and intelligent men in Europe. " See Memoir of Nathan Appleton, by Robert C. Winthrop. 

[17] John Murray Forbes: Letters and Recollections, edited by his daughter, Sarah Forbes Hughes. 

[18] Boston Unitarianism, 93, 94, 101, 127. 

XVIII. 

UNITARIANS AND EDUCATION. 

The interest of Unitarians in education has always been very great, but ithas not been in the direction of building and fostering sectarianinstitutions. As a body, Unitarians have not only been opposed todenominational colleges, but they have been leaders in promotingunsectarian education. Freedom of academic teaching and the scientificstudy of theology may be found where Unitarianism has no existence, and yetit is significant that in this country such mental liberty should havefirst found expression under Unitarian auspices. From the first, AmericanUnitarianism has been unsectarian and liberty-loving, taking an attitude oftoleration, free investigation, and loyalty to truth. That it has alwaysbeen faithful to its ideal cannot be maintained, and yet its history showsthat the open-mindedness and the spirit of freedom have never been whollyignored. 

[Sidenote: Pioneers of the Higher Criticism. ]

The attitude of the early Unitarians towards the Bible, their trust in itas the revealed word of God and the source of divine authority in allmatters of faith, and their confidence that a return to its simpleprinciples would liberate men from superstition and bigotry, naturally madethem the first to welcome the higher criticism of the Bible in thiscountry. Such men as Noah Worcester and his successors brought to the Biblenew and common-sense interpretations, and began the work of pointing outthe defects in the common version. The Unitarians were not hampered by thetheory of the verbal infallibility of the Bible; and they were thereforeprepared to advance the critical work of the scholars, as it came to themfrom England and Germany, as was no other religious body in this country. 

Joseph, S. Buckminster was an enthusiastic student of the Bible, securingwhen in Europe all the apparatus of the more advanced criticism that couldthen be procured; and after his return to Boston he gave his attention tobringing out the New Testament in the most scholarly form that was thenpossible. In 1808, in connection with William Wells, and under thepatronage of Harvard College, he republished Griesbach's Greek Testament, with a selection of the most important various readings. He also formed aplan of publishing in this country all the best modern English versions ofthe Hebrew prophets, with introductions and notes; but he did not find thenecessary support for this project. In The Monthly Anthology and in TheGeneral Repository he "first discussed subjects of Biblical criticism in aspirit of philosophical and painstaking learning, and took the criticalstudy of the Scriptures from the old basis on which it had rested duringthe Arminian discussions and placed it on the solid foundation of the textof the New Testament as settled by Wetstein and Griesbach, and elucidatedby the labors of Michaelis, Marsh, Rosenmüller, and by the safe and wiselearning of Grotius, Le Clerc, and Simon. " "It has, " wrote George Ticknor, "in our opinion, hardly been permitted to any other man to render soconsiderable a service as this to Christianity in the western world. "[1]In 1811 Mr. Buckminster was made the first lecturer in Biblical criticismat Harvard, on, the foundation established by the gift of Samuel Dexter;and he entered with great interest and enthusiasm upon the work ofpreparing for the duties of this office. We are assured that "thisappointment was universally thought to be an honor most justly due to hispre-eminent attainments in this science";[2] but his death the next yearbrought these plans to an untimely end. 

To some extent the critical work of Buckminster was continued by EdwardEverett, his successor in the Brattle Street Church. Mr. Everett'ssuccessor in that pulpit, Rev. John G. Palfrey, became the professor ofsacred literature in the Harvard Divinity School in 1831, and was the deanof that institution. In his lectures on the Jewish Scriptures andAntiquities, published in four volumes, from 1833 to 1852, he gave the mostadvanced criticism of the time. A more important work was done by ProfessorAndrews Norton, who was as radical in his labors as a Biblical critic as hewas conservative in his theology. For the time when they were published, his Statement of Reasons, the first edition of which appeared in 1819, Historical Evidences of the Genuineness of the Gospels, 1837-44, Translation of the Gospels, with Notes, 1855, Internal Evidences of theGenuineness of the Gospels, 1855, have not been surpassed by any other workdone in this country. As a scholar, he was careful, thorough, honest, anduncompromising in his search for the truth. In an extended note added tothe second volume of his work on the Genuineness of the Gospels heinvestigated the origin of the Pentateuch and the validity of itshistorical statements. He showed that the work could not have bee its manwritten by Moses, that it was a compilation from prior accounts, and thatits marvels were not to be accepted as authentic history. [3] In dealingwith the New Testament, Professor Norton discarded the first two chaptersof Matthew, regarding them as later additions. Frothingham speaks of Nortonas "an accomplished and elegant scholar, " and says that his interpretationsof the Bible were by Unitarians "tacitly received as final. " "He was thegreat authority, as bold, fearless, truthful, as he was exact andcareful. "[4] Although these words of praise intimate that Unitarians weretoo ready to accept the conclusions of Professor Norton as needing noemendation, yet his work was searching in its character and thoroughlysincere in its methods. Considering the general attitude of scholarship inhis day, it was bold and uncompromising, as well as accurate and just. 

Another scholar was George Rapall Noyes, who was a country pastor inBrookfield and Petersham from 1827 to 1840, and devoted his leisure toBiblical studies. He became the professor of Hebrew and, lecturer onBiblical Literature in the Harvard Divinity School in 1840. Histranslations, with notes, of the poetical books of the Old Testament, beginning with Job in 1827, were of great importance as aids, to theinterpretation of the Hebrew Scriptures. His translation of the NewTestament, which appeared after his death, in 1868, gave the best resultsof critical studies in homely prose, and with painstaking fidelity to theoriginal. That Noyes was in advance of the criticism of his time may beindicated by the fact that, when he published his conclusions in regard tothe Messianic prophecies in 1834, [5] he was threatened with an indictmentfor blasphemy by the attorney-general of Massachusetts. Better judgmentprevailed against this attempt to coerce opinion, but that such anindictment was seriously considered shows how little genuine criticismthere was then in existence. What are now the commonplaces of scholarshipwere then regarded as destructive and blasphemous. Noyes said that thetruth of the Christian religion does not in any sense depend upon theliteral fulfilment of any predictions in the Old Testament by Jesus as aperson. [6] He said that the apostles partook of the errors and prejudicesof their age, [7] that the commonly received doctrine of the inspirationof the whole Bible is a millstone about the neck of Christianity, [8] andthat the Bible contains much that cannot be regarded as revelation. [9]Even as early as 1835 these opinions were generally accepted by Unitarians;and they were not thought to impair the true worth of the spiritualrevelation contained in the Bible, and especially not the divine nature ofthe teachings of Christ. It was very important, as Dr. Joseph Henry Allenhas said, in speaking of Norton and Noyes, that "these decisive first stepswere taken by deliberate, conscientious, conservative scholars, --the bestand soberest scholars we had to show. "[10]

The work of Ezra Abbot especially deserves notice here, because of "thevariety and extent of his learning, the retentiveness and accuracy of hismemory, the penetration and fairness of his judgment. "[11] For fourteenyears previous to his death, in 1884, he was the professor of New Testamentcriticism and interpretation in the Harvard Divinity School. He alsorendered important service as a member of the American committee on therevision of the New Testament. His essay on The Authorship of the FourthGospel was one of the ablest statements of the conservative view of theorigin of that writing. The volume of his Critical Essays, collected afterhis death, shows the ripe fruits of his "punctilious and vigilantscholarship. " He was a zealous Unitarian, and did much to show that the NewTestament is in harmony with that faith. In 1843 Rev. Theodore Parkerpublished his translation of De Wette's Introduction to the New Testament, with learned notes. The extreme views of Baur and Zeller were interpretedby Rev. O. B. Frothingham in his The Cradle of the Christ, 1872. 

Various attempts were also made by those who were not professional scholarsto bring the Bible into harmony with modern religious ideas. One of themost notable of these was that of Dr. William Henry Furness, pastor of thechurch in Philadelphia from 1825 to 1875. His Remarks on the Four Gospelsappeared in 1835, and was followed by Jesus and his Biographers, 1838, Thoughts on the Life and Character of Jesus of Nazareth, 1859, and The VeilPartly Lifted and Jesus Becoming Visible, 1864, as well as several otherworks. His attempt was to give a rational interpretation of the life ofJesus that should largely eliminate the miraculous and yet preserve thespiritual. These works have little critical value, and yet they have muchof charm and suggestiveness as religious expositions of the Gospels. Ofsomewhat the same nature was Dr. Edmund H. Sears's The Fourth Gospel: TheHeart of Christ, 1872, a work of deep spiritual insight. 

[Sidenote: The Catholic Influence of Harvard University. ]

The catholic and inclusive spirit manifested by the Unitarians in theirBiblical studies is worthy of notice, however, much more than any definiteresults of scholarship produced by them. In the cultivation of the broaderacademic fields which their control of Harvard University brought withintheir reach this attitude is especially conspicuous. At no time since itcame under their administration has it been used for sectarian purposes, tomake proselytes or to compel acceptance of their theology. During the firsthalf of the nineteenth century, Harvard was in some degree distinctlyUnitarian; but since 1870 it has been wholly non-sectarian. When theDivinity School was organized, it was provided in its constitution that nodenominational requirements should be exacted of professors or students;yet the school was essentially Unitarian until 1878. In that year thepresident, Charles W. Eliot, asked of Unitarians the sum of $130, 000 as anendowment for the school; but he insisted that it should be henceforthwholly unsectarian, and this demand was received with approval andenthusiasm by Unitarians themselves. 

In 1879 President Eliot said at a meeting held in the First Church inBoston for the purpose of appealing to Unitarians in behalf of the school:"The Harvard Divinity School is not distinctly Unitarian either by itsconstitution or by the intention of its founders. The doctrines of theunsectarian sect, called in this century Unitarians, are indeed entitled torespectful consideration in the school so long as it exists, simply becausethe school was founded, and for two generations, at least, has beensupported, by Unitarians. But the government of the University cannotundertake to appoint none but Unitarian teachers, or to grant any peculiarfavors to Unitarian students. They cannot, because the founders of theschool, themselves Unitarians, imposed upon the University the followingfundamental rule for its administration: that every encouragement shall begiven to the serious, impartial, and unbiassed investigation of Christiantruth, and that no assent to the peculiarities of any denomination ofChristians shall be required either of the instructors or students. "[12]Dr. Charles Carroll Everett, dean of the school from 1878 to 1900, has saidthat "in some respects it differs from every other theological seminary inthe country. " "No pains are taken to learn the denominational relations ofstudents even when they are applicants for aid. " "No oversight is exercisedover the instruction of any teacher. No teacher is responsible for anyother or to any other. "[13]

In 1886 compulsory attendance upon prayers was abolished at HarvardUniversity. Religious services are regularly held every week-day morning, on Thursday afternoons, and on Sunday evenings, being conducted by thePlummer professor of Christian morals, with the co-operation of five otherpreachers, who, as well as the Plummer professor, are selected irrespectiveof denominational affiliations. In this and other ways the university hasmade itself thoroughly unsectarian. Its attitude is that of scientificinvestigation, open-mindedness towards all phases of truth, and freedom ofteaching. Theology is thus placed on the same basis with other branches ofknowledge, and religion is made independent of merely dogmaticconsiderations. 

This undenominational temper at Harvard University has been developedlargely under Unitarian auspices. Its presidents for nearly a century havebeen Unitarians, namely: John T. Kirkland, 1810-28; Josiah Quincy, 1829-45;Edward Everett, 1846-49; Jared Sparks, 1849-53; James Walker, 1853-60;Cornelius C. Felton, 1860-62; Thomas Hill, 1862-68; and Charles W. Eliotsince 1869. Kirkland, Everett, Sparks, Walker, and Hill were Unitarianministers; but under their administration the university was as littlesectarian as at any other time. 

When the new era of university growth began in 1865, with the founding ofCornell University, the influence of Harvard was widely felt in thedevelopment of great unsectarian educational institutions. Although EzraCornell was educated as a Friend, he was expelled from that body, andconnected himself with no other religious sect. He was essentially aUnitarian, often attending the preaching of Dr. Rufus P. Stebbins. Theuniversity which took his name was inspired with the Harvard ideal, and, while recognizing religion as one of the great essential phases of humanthought and life, gave and continues to give equal opportunity to allsects. 

Another instance of the same spirit is Washington University, which beganunder Unitarian auspices, but soon developed into an entirelyundenominational institution. Members of the Unitarian church in St. Louissecured a charter for a seminary, which in 1853 was organized as theWashington Institute. In 1857 it was reorganized as Washington University, and the charter declared, "No instruction, either sectarian in religion orparty in politics, shall be allowed in any department of said university, and no sectarian or party test shall be allowed in the selection ofprofessors, teachers, or other officers of said university or in theadmission of scholars thereof, or for any purpose whatever. " Sectarianprejudice, however, regarded the university as essentially Unitarian; andfor the first twenty years of its existence three-fourths of the gifts andendowments came from persons of that religious body. 

Although Dr. William G. Eliot knew nothing of the original movement forforming a seminary under liberal auspices, he gave the institution hisunstinted support and encouragement. He was the president of the board ofmanagement from the first, and in 1871 he became the chancellor. At hisdeath, in 1887, the university included Smith Academy, Mary Institute, anda manual training school, these being large preparatory schools; thecollege proper, school of engineering, Henry Shaw school of botany, St. Louis school of fine arts, law school, medical school, and dental college. It then had sixteen hundred students and one hundred and sixty instructors. The endowments have since been largely increased, the number of studentshas increased to two thousand, and important new buildings have been added. Dr. Eliot gave the university its direction and its unsectarian methods, and it has attained its present position because of his devoted labors. TheLeland Stanford Jr. University in California, and Clark University inMassachusetts, both founded by Unitarians, further illustrate the Harvardspirit in education. 

[Sidenote: The Work of Horace Mann. ]

Horace Mann was an earnest and devoted Unitarian, the intimate friend ofChanning and Parker, to both of whom he was largely indebted for hisintellectual and spiritual ideals. He was inspired by their ideas of reformand progress, and to their personal sympathy he owed much. It is nowuniversally conceded that to him we are indebted for the diffusion of thecommon-school idea throughout the country, that he developed and brought tofull expression the conception of universal education. In full sympathywith him in this work were such men as Dr. Channing, Edward Everett, Theodore Parker, Josiah Quincy, Samuel J. May, and the younger RobertRantoul; but he made the common school popular, and put it forward as anational institution. When Mann became the secretary of the MassachusettsBoard of Education on its creation, in 1837, the theory that all childrenshould be educated by the state, if not otherwise provided for, was by nomeans generally accepted; nor was it an accepted theory that such educationshould be strictly unsectarian. [14] Mann fought the battle for these twoideas, and virtually established them for the whole nation. On the firstboard one-half the members were Unitarians, --Horace Mann, the youngerRobert Rantoul, Jared Sparks, and Edmund Dwight. Some of the staunchest andmost devoted and most liberal friends of Mann were of other denominations;but the work for common schools was thoroughly in harmony with Unitarianprinciples. Edmund Dwight was largely instrumental in securing theestablishment of a Board of Education in Massachusetts, and he broughtabout the election of Horace Mann to fill the position of its secretary. Hewas a leading merchant in Boston, and his house was a centre for meetingsand consultations relating to educational interests. He contributed freelyfor the purpose of enlarging and improving the state system of commonschools, his donations amounting to not less than $35, 000. [15]

The first person to clearly advocate the establishment of schools for thetraining of teachers was Rev. Charles Brooks, minister of the SecondUnitarian Church in Hingham from 1821 to 1839, afterwards professor ofnatural history in the University of the City of New York, and a reformerand author of some reputation in his day. In 1834 he began to write andlecture in behalf of common schools, and especially in the interest ofnormal schools. [16] He spoke throughout the state in behalf of trainingschools, with which he had become acquainted in Prussia; he went before thelegislature on this subject; and he carried his labors into otherstates. [17]

Horace Mann took up the idea of professional schools for teachers and madeit effective. Edmund Dwight gave $10, 000 to the state for this purpose, andschools were established in 1838. When the first of these normal schoolsopened in Lexington, July 3, 1839, its principal was Rev. Cyrus Peirce, whohad been the minister of the Unitarian church in North Reading from 1819 to1829, and then had been a teacher in North Andover and Nantucket. "Had itnot been for Cyrus Peirce, " wrote Henry Barnard, "I consider the cause ofNormal Schools would have failed or have been postponed for an indefiniteperiod. "[18] Dr. William T. Harris has said that "all Normal School workin this country follows substantially one tradition, and this traces backto the course laid down by Cyrus Peirce. "[19] In the Lexington schoolPeirce was succeeded by Samuel J. May, who had been settled over Unitarianchurches in Brooklyn and Scituate. [20]

The work done by Horace Mann for education includes his labors as presidentof Antioch College from 1852 to 1859. He maintained that the chief end ofeducation is the development of character; and he sought to make thecollege an altruistic community, in which teachers and students shouldlabor together for the best good of all. He put into practice thenonsectarian principle, made the college coeducational, and developed thespirit of individual freedom as one of cardinal importance in education. "The ideas for which he stood, " has written one who has carefully studiedhis work in all its phases, "spread abroad among the people of the Ohiovalley, and showed themselves in various state institutions, normalschools, and high schools that were planted in the central west. Altogether, apart from Mr. Mann's visible work in Antioch College may befound agencies which he set at work, whose influence only eternity canmeasure. It was a great thing to the new west that a high standard ofscholarship should be placed before her sons and daughters, and that a fewhundred of them should be sent out into every corner of the state, andultimately to the farthest boundaries of the nation, with a soundscholarship and a love for truth there and then wholly new. His reputationfor scholarship and zeal gave his opinions greater weight than those ofalmost any other man in the country. As a result the most radicaleducational ideas were received from him with respect; and he carriedforward the work of giving a practical embodiment to co-education, non-sectarianism, and the requirements of practical and efficient moralcharacter, as perhaps no other educator could have done. His influenceamong people, and the aspirations which he kindled in thousands of minds bypublic addresses and personal contact, did for the people of the Ohiovalley a work, the extent and value of which can never be measured. "[21]

[Sidenote: Elizabeth Peabody and the Kindergarten. ]

Horace Mann was largely influenced by Dr. Channing throughout his career asan educational reformer, [22] as was his wife and her sister, Elizabeth P. Peabody. It was to Channing that Miss Peabody owed her interest in the workof education; and his teachings brought her naturally into association withBronson Alcott, and made her the leader in introducing the kindergarteninto this country. She was influenced by the kindergarten method, at anearly date, and she gave years of devoted labor to its extension. Inconnection with her sister, Mrs. Horace Mann, she wrote Culture in Infancy, 1863, Guide to the Kindergarten, 1877, and Letters to Kindergartners, 1886. As a result of her enthusiastic efforts, kindergartens were opened inBoston in 1864; and it was in 1871 that she organized the American FroebelUnion, which became the kindergarten department of the National EducationalAssociation in 1885. The Kindergarten Messenger was begun by her in 1873, and was continued under her editorship until 1877, when it was merged inThe New Education. 

Miss Peabody's Kindergarten Guide has been described as one of the mostimportant original contributions made to the literature of the subject inthis country. Her name is most intimately associated with the educationalprogress of the country because of her enthusiasm for the right training ofchildren and her spiritual insight as a teacher. 

[Sidenote: Work of Unitarian Women for Education. ]

Much has been done by Unitarian women to advance the cause of education. The conversations of Margaret Fuller, held in Boston from 1839 to 1844, were an important influence in awakening women to larger intellectualinterests; and many of those who attended them were afterwards active inpromoting the educational enterprises of the city. In 1873 Miss AbbyWilliams May, Mrs. Ann Adeline Badger, Miss Lucretia Crocker, and MissLucia M. Peabody were elected members of the school committee of Boston, but did not serve, as their right to act in that capacity was questioned. Thereupon the legislature took action, making women eligible to the office. The next year Misses May, Crocker, and Peabody, with Mrs. Kate GannettWells, Mrs. Mary Safford Blake, and Miss Lucretia Hale, were elected, andserved. In 1875 Misses Crocker, Hale, May, and Peabody were re-elected; andin 1876 Miss Crocker was elected one of the supervisors of the publicschools of Boston. It is significant that the first women to hold thesepositions were Unitarians. It is also worthy of note that Miss SarahFreeman Clarke, sister of James Freeman Clarke, was the first landscapepainter of her sex in the country; and that Mrs. Cornelia W. Walter was thefirst woman to edit a large daily newspaper, she having become the editorand manager of the Boston Transcript at an early date. 

In 1873 was organized by Miss Anna E. Ticknor, daughter of Professor GeorgeTicknor, the historian, the Society to encourage Studies at Home. Duringthe twenty-four years of its existence it conducted by correspondence thereading and studies of over 7, 000 women in all parts of the country, anddid an important work in enlarging the sphere of women, preparing them forthe work of teachers and for social and intellectual service in manydirections. The society was discontinued in 1897, because, largely throughits influence, many other agencies had come in to do the same work; but thelarge lending library, which had been an important feature of theactivities of the society, was continued under the management of the AnnaTicknor Library Association until 1902. The memorial volume, published in1897, shows how important had been the work of the Society to encourageStudies at Home, and how many women, who were otherwise deprived ofintellectual opportunities, were encouraged, helped, and inspired by it. Itwas said of Miss Ticknor, by Samuel Eliot, the president of the societythroughout the whole period of its existence: "While appreciative of therestrictions which she wished to remove, she was desirous to gratify, ifpossible, the aspirations of the large number of women throughout thecountry who would fain obtain an education, and who had little, if any, hope of obtaining it. She was very highly educated herself, and thoughtmore and more of her responsibility to share her advantages with others notpossessing them. In addition to these moral and intellectualqualifications, she possessed an executive ability brought into constantprominence by her work as secretary of the society. She was a teacher, aninspirer, a comforter, and, in the best sense, a friend of many and many alonely and baffled life. "[23]

The service of Mrs. Mary Hemenway to education also deserves recognition. Possessed of large wealth, she devoted it to advancing importanteducational and intellectual interests. She established the Normal Schoolof Swedish Gymnastics in Boston, and provided for its maintenance until itwas adopted by the city as a part of its educational system. With herfinancial support the Hemenway South-western Archaeological Expedition wascarried on by Frank H. Cushing and J. W. Fewkes. It was largely because ofher efforts that the Montana Industrial School was established, andmaintained for about ten years. Her chief work, however, was in thepromotion of the study of American history on the part of young persons. When the Old South Meeting-house was threatened with destruction, shecontributed $100, 000 towards its preservation; and by her energy andperseverance it was devoted to the interests of historical study. The OldSouth Lectures for Young People were organized in 1883, soon after wasbegun the publication of the Old South Leaflets, a series of historicalprizes was provided for, the Old South Historical Society was organized, and historical pilgrimages were established. All this work was placed incharge of Mr. Edwin D. Mead; and the New England Magazine, of which he wasthe editor, gave interpretation to these various educational efforts. 

Mrs. Hemenway devoted her life to such works as these. It is impossible toenumerate here all her noble undertakings; but they were many. "Mrs. Hemenway was a woman whose interests and sympathies were as broad as theworld, " says Edwin D. Mead, "but she was a great patriot; and she waspre-eminently that. She had a reverent pride in our position of leadershipin the history and movement of modern democracy; and she had a consumingzeal to keep the nation strong and worthy of its best traditions, and tokindle this zeal among the young people of the nation. With all her greatenthusiasms, she was an amazingly practical and definite woman. She wastedno time nor strength in vague generalities, either of speech or action. Others might long for the time when the kingdom of God should cover theearth as the waters cover the sea, and she longed for it; but, while otherslonged, she devoted herself to doing what she could to bring that corner ofGod's world in which she was set into conformity with the laws of God, --andthis by every means in her power, by teaching poor girls how to make betterclothes and cook better dinners and make better homes, by teaching peopleto value health and respect and train their bodies and love better musicand better pictures and be interested in more important things. Othersmight long for the parliament of man and the federation of the world, andso did she; but while others longed, she devoted herself to doing what shecould to make this nation, for which she was particularly responsible, fitter for the federation when it comes. The good state for which sheworked was a good Massachusetts; and her chief interest, while otherstalked municipal reform, was to make a better Boston. "[24]

[Sidenote: Popular Education and Public Libraries. ]

The interest of Unitarians in popular education and the general diffusionof knowledge may be further indicated by a few illustrations. One of theseis the Lowell Institute in Boston, founded by John Lowell, son of FrancisCabot Lowell, and cousin of James Russell Lowell. He was a Boston merchant, became an extensive traveller, and died in Bombay, in 1836, at the age ofthirty-four. In his will he left one-half his fortune for the promotion ofpopular education through lectures, and in other ways. John Amory Lowellbecame the trustee of this fund, nearly $250, 000; and in December, 1839, the Lowell Institute began its work with a lecture by Edward Everett, whichgave a biographical account of John Lowell, and a statement of the purposesof the Institute. Since that time the Lowell Institute has given to thepeople of Boston, free of charge, from fifty to one hundred lectures eachwinter. The topics treated have taken a wide range, and the lecturers haveincluded many of the ablest men in this and other countries. The work ofthe Lowell Institute has also included free lectures for advanced studentsgiven in connection with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, sciencelectures to the teachers of Boston, and a free drawing school. 

In 1846 Louis Agassiz came to this country to lecture before the LowellInstitute. The result was that he became permanently connected with HarvardUniversity, and transferred his scientific work to this country. This wasaccomplished by means of the gift of Abbott Lawrence, who founded theLawrence Scientific School in 1847. Although the Lowell Institute wasfounded by a Unitarian, and although it has always been largely managed byUnitarians, it has been wholly unsectarian in its work. Many of itslecturers have been of that body, but only because they were men of scienceor of literary attainments. 

In 1854 Peter Cooper founded the Cooper Union in New York for theAdvancement of Science and Art, to promote "instruction in branches ofknowledge by which men and women earn their daily bread; in laws of healthand improvement of the sanitary conditions of families as well asindividuals; in social and political science, whereby communities andnations advance in virtue, wealth, and power; and finally in matters whichaffect the eye, the ear, and the imagination, and furnish a basis forrecreation to the working classes. " He erected a large building, andestablished therein the Cooper Institute, with its reading-room, library, lectures, schools, and other facilities for bringing the means of educationwithin reach of those who could not otherwise obtain them. 

Peter Cooper was an earnest Unitarian in his opinions, attending the churchof Dr. Bellows; but he was wholly without sectarian bias. In a letteraddressed to the delegates to the Evangelical Alliance, at its session heldin New York in 1873, he expressed the catholicity and the humanitarianspirit of his religion. "I look to see the day, " he wrote, "when theteachers of Christianity will rise above all the cramping power andinfluence of conflicting creeds and systems of human device, when they willbeseech mankind by all the mercies of God to be reconciled to thegovernment of love, the only government that can ever bring the kingdom ofheaven into the hearts of mankind either here or hereafter. "

About 1825 there was opened in Dublin, N. H. , under the auspices of Rev. Levi W. Leonard, minister of the Unitarian church in that village, thefirst library in the country that was free to all the inhabitants of a townor city. In the adjoining town of Peterboro, in 1833, under the leadershipof Rev. Abiel Abbot, also the Unitarian minister, a library was establishedby vote of the town. This library was maintained by the town itself, beingthe first in the country supported from the tax rates of a municipality. Inthe work of these Unitarian ministers may be found the beginnings of thepresent interest in the establishment and growth of free public libraries. 

In the founding and endowment of libraries, Unitarians have taken an activepart. What they have done in this direction may be illustrated by the giftof Enoch Pratt of one and a quarter million dollars to the public libraryin Baltimore. Concerning the time when Jared Sparks was the minister of theUnitarian church in Baltimore, Professor Herbert B. Adams has said: "Someof the most generous and public-spirited people of Baltimore were connectedwith the first independent church. Afterwards, men who were to be mosthelpful in the upbuilding of Baltimore's greatest institutions--the PeabodyInstitute, the Pratt Library, and the Johns Hopkins University--wereassociated with the Unitarian society. "[25]

Professor Barrett Wendell speaks of George Ticknor as "the chief founder ofthe chief public library in the United States. "[26] Ticknor undoubtedlydid more than anybody else to make the Boston Public Library the greatinstitution it has become, not only in giving it his own collection ofbooks, but also in its inception and in its organization. The best workinglibrary in the country, that of the Boston Athenaeum, also owes a verylarge debt to the early Unitarians, with whom it originated, and by whom itwas largely maintained in its early days. 

[Sidenote: Mayo's Southern Ministry of Education. ]

One of the most important contributions to the work of education has beenthat of Rev. Amory D. Mayo, known as the "Ministry of Education in theSouth. " After settlements over churches in Gloucester, Cleveland, Albany, Cincinnati, and Springfield, Mr. Mayo began his southern work in 1880. Hehad an extensive preparation for his southern labors, having served on theschool boards of Cincinnati and Springfield for fifteen years, lecturedextensively on educational subjects, and been a frequent contributor toeducational periodicals. He has written a History of Common Schools, whichis published by the national Bureau of Education, prepared several of theCirculars of Information of that bureau, and printed a great number ofeducational pamphlets and addresses. 

"One of the most helpful agencies in the work of free and universaleducation in the South, for the last twenty years, " says Dr. J. L. M. Curryin a personal letter, "has been the ministry of A. D. Mayo. His intelligentzeal, his instructive addresses, his tireless energy, have made him apotent factor in this great work; and any history of what the Unitariandenomination has done would be very imperfect which did not make proper andgrateful recognition of his valuable services. "

[1] Christian Examiner, XLVII. 186; Mrs. E. B. Lee, Memoirs of the Buckminsters, 325. 

[2] Memoir of Buckminster, introductory to his Sermons, published in 1814, xxxii. 

[3] The Pentateuch and its Relation to the Jewish and Christian Dispensation. By Andrews Norton. Edited by John James Tayler, London, 1863. This was the Note, with introduction. 

[4] Boston Unitarianism, 244. 

[5] Hengstenberg's Christology, Christian Examiner, July, 1834, XVI. 321. 

[6] Ibid. , 327. 

[7] Ibid. , 356. 

[8] Ibid. , 357. 

[9] Ibid. , 358. 

[10] Our Liberal Movement in Theology, 68. 

[11] The Authorship of the Fourth Gospel and Other Critical Essays selected from the published papers of Ezra Abbot, edited, with preface, by Professor J. H. Thayer. 

[12] The Divinity School of Harvard University: Its History, Courses of Study, Aims, and Advantages, published by the University, 9. 

[13] The Divinity School as it is, Harvard Graduates' Magazine, June, 1897. 

[14] B. A. Hinsdale, Horace Mann and the Common School Revival in the United States, 127. 

[15] B. A. Hinsdale, Horace Mann and the Common School Revival in the United States, 148. 

[16] Henry Barnard, Normal Schools, 125. 

[17] B. A. Hinsdale, Horace Mann, 147. 

[18] Quoted by J. P. Gordy, Rise and Growth of the Normal School Idea in the United States, Circular of Information of the Bureau of Education, 1891, 49. 

[19] Ibid. , 43. 

[20] S. J. May, Memoir of Cyrus Peirce, Barnard's American Journal of Education, December, 1857. 

[21] G. A. Hubbell, Horace Mann in Ohio: A Study of the Application of his Public School Ideals to College Administration, No. IV. Of Vol. VII. , Columbia University Contributions to Philosophy, Psychology, and Education, 50. 

[22] Mary Mann, Life of Horace Mann, 44; Henry Barnard, Normal Schools, 93. 

[23] Memorial Volume, 2. 

[24] Edwin D. Mead, The Old South Work, 1900; also Memorial Sermon, by Charles G. Ames, 17. 

[25] Life and Writings of Jared Sparks, I. 141. 

[26] A Literary History of America, 266. 

XIX. 

UNITARIANISM AND LITERATURE. 

The history of American literature is intimately connected with the historyof Unitarianism in this country. The influences that caused the growth ofUnitarianism were those, to a large extent, that produced Americanliterature. It was not merely Harvard College that had this effect, as hasbeen often asserted; for the other colleges did not become the centres ofliterary activity. It was more distinctly the freedom, the breadth ofintellectual interest, and the sympathy with what was human and naturaldeveloped by the Unitarian movement that were favorable to the growth ofliterature. Yet from the beginning of the eighteenth century Harvardfostered the spirit of inquiry, and helped to set the mind free from thetheological and classical predispositions that had checked its naturalgrowth. A taste for literature was encouraged, theology took on a broad andhumanitarian character, and there was a growing appreciation of art andpoetry. Harvard College helped to bring men into contact with Europeanthought, and thus opened to them fresh and stimulating sources ofintellectual interest. 

During the last quarter of the eighteenth century and the first half of thenineteenth New England was largely devoted to commercial enterprises. Every coast town of any size from Newport to Belfast was concerned withship-building and with trade to foreign ports. Such towns as Boston andSalem traded with China, India, and many other parts of the world. Not onlywas wealth largely increased by this commercial activity, but the influenceupon life and thought was very great. The mind was emancipated, andreligion grew more liberal and humane, as the result of this contact withforeign lands. Along the whole coast, within the limits named, there was anabandonment of Puritanism and a growth into a genial and humanitarianinterpretation of Christianity. In New York City somewhat the same resultswere produced, at least on social and intellectual life, though with lessimmediate effect upon religion. It was in these regions, in whichcommercial contact with the great outside world set the mind free andawakened the imagination, that American literature was born. 

[Sidenote: Influence of Unitarian Environment. ]

The influence of Unitarian culture and literary tastes is shown by theconsiderable number of literary men who were the sons of Unitarianministers. Ralph Waldo Emerson was the son of William Emerson, the ministerof the First Church in Boston at the beginning of the nineteenth century. George Bancroft was the son of Aaron Bancroft, the first Unitarian ministerin Worcester, and the first president of the American UnitarianAssociation. To Charles Lowell, of the West Church in Boston, were bornJames Russell Lowell and Robert T. S. Lowell. The father of Francis Parkmanwas of the same name, and was for many years the minister of the New NorthChurch in Boston. Richard Hildreth was the son of Hosea Hildreth, Unitarianminister in Gloucester. Octavius Brooks Frothingham was the son ofNathaniel L. Frothingham, minister of the First Church in Boston. JosephAllen, father of Joseph Henry Allen and William Francis Allen, was theminister in Northboro for many years. Of literary workers now livingWilliam Everett is the son of Edward Everett, Charles Eliot Norton ofAndrews Norton, and William Wells Newell of William Newell, minister of theFirst Church in Cambridge for many years. 

This influence is shown in the large number of literary men who studied atthe Harvard Divinity School and began their career as Unitarian ministers. It may be partly accounted for by the fact that at the beginning of thenineteenth century literature offered but a precarious opportunity to menof talent and genius. The respect then accorded to ministers, the wideinfluence they were able to exert, and the many intellectual opportunitiesoffered by the profession, naturally attracted many young men. During thefirst part of the nineteenth century no other profession was so attractive, and enthusiasm for it was large amongst the students of Harvard College. Asliterary openings began to present themselves, many of these men foundother occupations, partly because their tastes were intellectual ratherthan theological, and partly because the radical ferment made the pulpit nolonger acceptable. Such a man as Edward Everett would never have enteredthe pulpit, had it not been socially and intellectually most attractive atthe time when he began his career. In the instance of Samuel A. Eliot, whotook the full course in the Divinity School, but did not preach, beingafterward mayor of Boston and member of Congress the influences at workwere probably much the same. 

George Bancroft is another instance of a graduate of the Divinity Schoolwho did not enter the pulpit, but, beginning his career as a teacher, devoted his life to literature and diplomacy. With such men as ChristopherP. Cranch, artist and poet; George P. Bradford, teacher, thinker, andfriend of literary men; H. G. O. Blake, editor of Thoreau's Journals; J. L. Sibley, librarian; John Albee, poet and essayist; and William Cushing, bibliographer, the cause operating was probably the same, --the discoverythat the chosen profession was not acceptable or that some other waspreferable. Another group of men, including John G. Palfrey, Jared Sparks, William Ware, Horatio Alger, James K. Hosmer, Edward Rowland Sill andWilliam Wells Newell, who occupied Unitarian pulpits for brief periods, were drawn into literary occupations as more congenial to their tastes. Thesame influence doubtless served to withdraw Emerson, George Ripley, John S. Dwight, Thomas W. Higginson, Moncure D. Conway, and Francis E. Abbot, fromthe pulpit; but with these men there was also a break with traditionalChristianity. 

[Sidenote: Literary Tendencies. ]

The early Unitarian movement in New England was literary and religiousrather than theological. The men who have been most influential indetermining the course of Unitarian development, such as Charming, Dewey, Parker, and Hedge, not to include Emerson, who has been a greateraffirmative leader than either of the others, were first of all preachers, and their published works were originally given to the world from thepulpit. They made no effort to produce a Unitarian system of theology; andit would have been quite in opposition to the genius of the movement, hadthey entered upon such a task. 

With the advent of the Unitarian movement, for the first time in thehistory of the American pulpit did the sermon become a literary product. Channing and his coworkers, especially Buckminster and Everett, departedwidely from the pulpit traditions of New England, ceased to quote texts, abandoned theological exposition, refrained from the exhortatory method, and addressed men and women in literary language about the actual interestsof daily life. Their preaching was not metaphysical, and it was notdeclamatory. The illustrations used were human rather than Biblical, apreference was given to what was intellectual rather than to what wasemotional, and the effect was instruction rather than conversion. Itresulted in faithful living, good citizenship, fidelity to duty, love ofthe neighbor, and an earnest helpfulness toward the poor and unfortunate. 

[Sidenote: Literary Tastes of Unitarian Ministers. ]

In studying any considerable list of Unitarian ministers, and taking noteof their personal tastes and their avocations, it will be seen that a largenumber of them were lovers of literature, and ardently devoted much oftheir time to literary pursuits. Not only was there a decidedly literaryflavor about their preaching, but they were frequent contributors to TheChristian Examiner and The North American Review; and they wrote poems, novels, books of travel, essays, and histories. They were conspicuous inhistorical and scientific societies, in promoting scientificinvestigations, in advancing archaeological researches, in every kind oflearned inquiry. Their intellectual interests were so catholic and sovigorous that they were not contented with parish and pulpit, and in somecases it would seem that the avocation was as important as the vocationitself. 

Dr. Channing would be named as the man who has done most to give directionto the currents of Unitarian thought on theological problems, but he wasalso conspicuously a philanthropist and reformer. He was less a theologian, in the technical sense, than one who taught men to live in the spirit. Hisspiritual insight, humanitarian sympathies, and imaginative fellowship withall forms of human experience gave his writings a literary charm and powerof a high order. He was a great religious teacher and inspirer, a preacherof unsurpassed gifts of spiritual interpretation, and a prophet of thetruer religious life. 

The Unitarian leaders who were influenced by the transcendental movement, of which the most prominent were Parker, Hedge, Clarke, and C. C. Everett, interpreted theology in the broadest spirit. Parker was essentially apreacher and reformer. It was the one conspicuous aim of his life toliberate religion from the intellectual thraldom of the past, and to bringit into the open air of the world, where it might be informed of dailyexperience and gain for itself a rightful opportunity. He was thereforeliterary, imaginative, ethical, practical. He wrote for The Dial, andestablished The Massachusetts Review, he was one of the most widely heardof popular lecturers, and he was a leader in the most radical of thereforms prominent in his day. Parker made all wisdom subservient to hisreligion, treated a wide range of subjects in his pulpit, and broughtreligion into immediate contact with human life. 

Frederic H. Hedge did more than any other man to give Unitarianism aconsistent philosophy and theology. His Reason in Religion and Ways of theSpirit have had a profound influence in shaping the thought of thedenomination, and have led all American Unitarians to accept his view ofthe universality of incarnation and the consubstantiality of man and God. He was wise as an interpreter, and by no means wanting in originality, abrilliant essayist, a philosophical historian, and a student of highthemes. His Prose Writers of Germany, Hours with the German Classics, Primeval World of Hebrew Tradition, and Atheism in Philosophy show therange of his interests and his ability as a thinker. 

James Freeman Clarke may be selected as a typical Unitarian minister, whowrote poetry, was more than once an editor, often appeared on the lectureplatform, was a frequent contributor to the leading periodicals, wroteseveral works of biography and history, gave himself zealously to theadvocacy of the noblest reforms, and produced many volumes of sermons thathave in an unusual degree the merit of directness, literary grace, suggestiveness, and spiritual warmth and insight. His theological writingshave been widely read by Unitarians and those not of that fellowship. HisSelf-culture has been largely circulated as a manual of practical ethics. His Ten Great Religions and its companion volume opened the way in thiscountry for the recognition of the comparative study of religiousdevelopments. Not content with so wide a range of studies, he wrote ThomasDidymus, an historical romance concerned with New Testament characters, Howto find the Stars, and Exotics, a volume of poetical translation. He was amaker of many books, and all of them were well made. His theology was allthe more humane, and his preaching was all the more effective, because hewas interested in many subjects and had a real mastery of them. 

Charles Carroll Everett was a philosophical thinker and theologian, and theyounger generation of Unitarian ministers has been largely influenced byhim. His theological work was done in the lecture-room, but it was offirst-rate importance. He was a profound thinker, a vigorous writer, and aninspiring teacher. He was an able theologian, philosophical in thought, butdeeply spiritual in insight. His work on The Science of Thought shows thedepth and vigor of his thinking; but his volumes on The Gospel of Paul, Religions before Christianity, Poetry, Comedy, and Duty, suggest thebreadth of his inquiries and the richness of his philosophicalinvestigations. In his position as the dean of the Harvard Divinity Schoolhe accomplished his best work, and there his great ability as theologianand philosophical thinker made itself amply manifest. 

Another group of men largely influenced by the transcendental movementincluded David A. Wasson, John Weiss, Samuel Johnson, Samuel Longfellow, Cyrus A. Bartol, Octavius K Frothingham, and William J. Potter. Here we seethe literary tendency showing itself distinctly and to much advantage. Thefirst four of these men wrote exquisite hymns and spiritual lyrics, and allof them were contributors to periodical literature or writers of books. Weiss was a literary critic of no mean merit in his lectures on Greek andShakespearean subjects; and his volumes on American Religion and ImmortalLife were purely literary in their method. However deficient were Johnson'sbooks on the religions of India, China, and Persia, from the point, of viewof the science of religion, they have not yet been surpassed asinterpretations of the inner spirit of Oriental religions. Bartol was amaster of an incisive literary method in the pulpit, that gives to hisRadical Problems, The Rising Faith, and Principles and Portraits ascintillating power all their own, with epigram and flash of wit on everypage. Frothingham published many a volume of sermons; but his biographiesof Parker, Gerrit Smith, Wasson, Johnson, Ripley, Channing, and his volumeon the History of Transcendentalism in New England, as well as his BostonUnitarianism, and Recollections and Impressions, indicate that his literaryinterests were quite as active as his theological. 

The literary tastes of Unitarian ministers are indicated by the largenumber of them who have written poetry that passes beyond the limits ofmediocrity. The names of John Pierpont, Andrews Norton, Samuel Gilman, Nathaniel L. Frothingham, the younger Henry Ware, W. B. O. Peabody, WilliamHenry Furness, William Newell, William Parsons Lunt, Frederic H. Hedge, James F. Clarke, Theodore Parker, Chandler Robbins, Edmund H. Sears, Charles T. Brooks, Robert C. Waterston, Thomas Hill, and others, have beenlovingly commemorated in Alfred P. Putnam's Singers and Songs of theLiberal Faith. Hymns of nearly all these men are in common use in manycongregations, and some of their work has found a place in every hymnal. 

No one can read the sermons of Thomas Starr King without feeling theirliterary grace and finish of style, as well as their intellectual vigor. His lectures marked his literary interest, which shows itself in hisChristianity and Humanity and his Substance and Show. Especially does itappear in his delightful book on The White Hills, their Legends, Landscape, and Poetry. In his day, Henry Giles was widely known as a lecturer; and hisnumerous volumes of literary interpretation and criticism, especially hisHuman Life in Shakespeare, were read with appreciation. In his DistrictSchool as it was, and My Religious Experience at my Native Home, WarrenBurton described in simple but effective prose a kind of life that has longsince passed away. His educational lectures and books helped on the causeof public school education, a subject in which he was greatly interested. 

Unitarian ministers have also made many contributions to local and generalhistory. The history of King's Chapel by Francis W. P. Greenwood may bementioned as a specimen of the former kind of work; but Greenwood alsopublished several volumes of sermons, as well as biographical and literaryvolumes. A History of the Second Church in Boston, with Lives of Increaseand Cotton Mather, was published by Chandler Robbins. The theologicalhistory of Unitarianism was ably discussed by George E. Ellis in AHalf-century of the Unitarian Controversy. He devoted much attention to thehistory of New England, gave many lectures and addresses on subjectsconnected therewith, published biographies of Anne Hutchinson, WilliamPenn, Count Rumford, Jared Sparks, and Charles W. Upham. His volumes on TheRed Man and the White Man in North America, The Puritan Theocracy, andothers, show his historical ability and his large grasp of his subjects. Joseph Henry Allen published an Historical Sketch of the Unitarian Movementsince the Reformation, in the American Church History series. In OurLiberal Movement in Theology, and its Sequel, he critically andappreciatively treated of the history of Unitarianism in New England, andof the men who were most important in its development. His taste forhistorical studies appeared in his Christian History in its Three GreatPeriods, a work of admirable critical judgment, sobriety of statement, andconcise presentation of the essential facts. 

Alvan Lamson produced a book of critical value in The Church of the FirstThree Centuries, which treats of the origin of the Trinitarian beliefsduring that period. A work of a similar character was done by FredericHuidekoper, in whose books were included the results of many years ofminute research, and of critical investigation into the origins ofChristianity. 

Books of a widely different nature were written by Artemas B. Muzzey in hisPersonal Recollection of the Men in the Battle of Lexington, andReminiscences of Men of the Revolution and their Families. He publishedseveral volumes of sermons, as well as a number of educational works. Somewhat of a theologian and an ardent student and expounder of philosophy, William R. Alger has made himself widely known by his books on The Geniusof Solitude, Friendships of Women, and The School of Life. His fineliterary judgments, his artistic appreciations, and his richness ofsentiment and imagination show themselves in these attractive volumes. Hehas also published a Life of Edwin Forrest, with a Critical History of theDramatic Art. His Critical History of the Doctrine of a Future Life is awork of ripe scholarship and great literary merit, and is everywhererecognized as an authority. 

[Sidenote: Unitarians as Historians. ]

In the chapter on historians, in his American Literature, Professor CharlesF. Richardson enumerates seventeen writers, twelve of whom were Unitarians. It was in Cambridge and Boston, amongst the graduates of Harvard College, that American historical writing began, and that it attained its greatestsuccesses. The same causes that had given the Unitarians pre-eminence inother directions made them especially so in this, where wide learning andsound criticism were of importance. Wealth, leisure, intellectualemancipation, sympathetic interest in all that is human, combined withscholarship and plodding industry, gave the historians an unusual equipmentfor their tasks. 

It may be justly said that historical writing in this country began withJeremy Belknap, the predecessor of Dr. Channing in the Federal StreetChurch. When settled in Dover, he wrote his History of New Hampshire; andafter his removal to Boston he produced a biography of Watts and twovolumes of American Biographies. He first voiced the historical interestthat was awakened by the establishment of national independence, and thedesire to know of the past of the American people. His chief service tohistorical studies, however, was in the formation of the MassachusettsHistorical Society. 

Hannah Adams was not only a Unitarian, but the first woman in this countryto enter upon a literary career. Her View of Religious Opinions, firstissued in 1784, afterwards changed to a Dictionary of Religions, was theearliest work attempting to give an account of all the religions of theworld. It was followed by her History of New England, and by her History ofthe Jews. She also took part in the religious controversies of the day, hercontest with Dr. Jedediah Morse being one of the minor phases of thestruggle between the Unitarians and the Orthodox Congregationalists; andher Evidences of Christianity, as well as her letters on the Gospels, werewritten from the Unitarian point of view. Her books had no literary value, but in their time they helped to foster the growing interest in Americansubjects. 

Alexander Young, minister of the New South Church in Boston, renderedvaluable service to historical investigations by his Chronicles of thePilgrim Fathers of the Colony of Plymouth and his Chronicles of the FirstPlanters of the Colony of Massachusetts Bay, works that were scholarly, accurate, and judicious. Perhaps his most important service was the editingof the Library of Old English Prose Writers, in nine volumes, whichappeared from 1831 to 1834, and included such works as Sidney's Defence ofPoesie and Sir Thomas Browne's Urn Burial. Of his historical works, O. B. Frothingham has justly said that "they showed extensive and accurateknowledge, extraordinary zeal in research, singular impartiality ofjudgment, great activity of mind, a strong inclination towards ethical asdistinguished from speculative subjects, a passionate love of books andelegant letters. "[1]

Of the greater historians, Bancroft, Prescott, Motley, Hildreth, Sparks, Palfrey, Ticknor, Parkman, Higginson, Parton, and Fiske were Unitarians. Three of these men were sons of Unitarian ministers, and four of themprepared for that profession or entered upon its duties. It is notdesirable that any attempt should be made here to estimate their historicallabors, for their position and their achievements are well known. 

It would be interesting to give an account of the Unitarian connections andsympathies of these writers, but the materials are not at hand in the caseof most of them. One or two illustrations will suffice for them all, indicating their religious tastes and preferences. In 1829 Prescott made acareful examination of the evidences for belief in Christianity, and hisbiographer says that "the conclusions at which he arrived were, that thenarratives of the Gospels were authentic; and that, even if Christianitywere not a divine revelation, no system of morals was so likely to fit himfor happiness here and hereafter. But he did not find in the Gospels or inany part of the New Testament the doctrines commonly accounted orthodox, and he deliberately recorded his rejection of them. " At a later time hestated his creed in these words: "To do well and act justly, to fear and tolove God, and to love our neighbor as ourselves--in these is the essence ofreligion. To do this is the safest, our only safe course. For what we canbelieve we are not responsible, supposing we examine candidly andpatiently. For what we do we shall indeed be accountable. The doctrines ofthe Saviour unfold the whole code of morals by which our conduct should beregulated. "[2] Prescott was a regular attendant at the First Church inBoston. 

In his biography of George Ticknor, George S. Hilliard says that "thestrong religious impressions which Mr. Ticknor received in early yearsdeepened as his character matured into personal convictions, the confirmedand ruling principles of his life. He had been brought up in the doctrinesof Calvinistic orthodoxy, but later serious reflection led him to rejectthose doctrines; and soon after his return from Europe he joined Dr. Channing's church, of which he continued through life a faithful member. Hewas a sincere Liberal Christian, and his convictions were firm, but theywere held without bigotry, and he never allowed them to interfere withkindliness and courtesy. " It may be added that Ticknor was an active memberof the church with which he was connected, that in 1822 he took charge of aclass of boys in the Sunday-school, which he kept for eight years. In 1839and the next year he gave a course of instruction in the history andcontents of the Bible to a class of young girls, for which he preparedhimself carefully. [3]

The influence exerted by the historians in teaching love of country and atrue patriotism may be accounted as very large. That men thoroughlygrounded in principles of religious liberty, in high ideals of justice andhumanity, in the broadest spirit of toleration and freedom of opinion, should have written our histories, is of no small importance in theformation of American character. That they have made many Unitarians wecannot suppose, but that their influence has been large in the developmentof a true spirit of nationality we have a right to think. They haveindicated concretely the effects of bigotry and intolerance, and they havenot failed to point out the defects in the practices of the Puritans. In sofar as they have had to deal with religious subjects, they have taught thetrue Unitarian idea of liberty of conscience and freedom of opinion. Theyhave wisely helped to make it possible for many religions to live kindlyside by side, and to give every creed the right of utterance. These idealshad been developed before our historians began to write, but these men havehelped to make them the inheritance of the whole nation. All the moreeffective has been their teaching that it has grown out of the events ofour history, and has not been the voice of a merely personal opinion. Butwe owe much to them that they have seen the true meaning of our history, and that they have uttered it with clearness of interpretation and withvigorous moral emphasis. 

[Sidenote: Scientific Unitarians. ]

A considerable number of the leading men of science have been Unitarians. Notable among the mathematicians were Nathaniel Bowditch, Benjamin Peirce, and Thomas Hill, who was president of Antioch College and of HarvardUniversity. Among the astronomers have been Benjamin Gould, Maria Mitchell, Asaph Hall, and Edward C. Picketing. Of Maria Mitchell it was said that she"was entirely ignorant of the peculiar phrases and customs of rigidsectarians. " Her biographer says she "never joined any church, but foryears before she left Nantucket she attended the Unitarian church, and hersympathies, as long as she lived, were with that denomination, especiallywith the more liberally inclined portion. "[4] James Jackson, the firstphysician of the Massachusetts General Hospital, should be named in thisconnection. Joseph Lovering, the physicist, and Jeffries Wyman, thecomparative anatomist, are also to be included. And here belongs LouisAgassiz, who has had more influence than any other man in developing aninterest in science among the people generally. He gave to scientificinvestigations the largest importance for scientific men themselves. At thesame time he was a religious man and a theist. "In religion, " says hisbiographer, "Agassiz very liberal and tolerant, and respected the views andconvictions of every one. In his youth and early manhood, Agassiz wasundoubtedly a materialist, or, more exactly, a sceptic; but in time, andlittle by little, his studies led him to belief in a divine Creative Power. He was more in sympathy with Unitarianism than with any other Christiandenomination. "[5]

[Sidenote: Unitarian Essayists. ]

A considerable number of essayists, lecturers, and general writers havebeen Unitarians. Among these have been Edwin P. Whipple, George Ripley, Mrs. Ednah D. Cheney, John S. Dwight, Professor Charles Eliot Norton, HenryT. Tuckerman, James T. Fields, and Professor Francis J. Child. Thesewriters represent several phases of Unitarian opinion, but they belong tothis fellowship by birthright or intellectual sympathies. In the samecompany may be placed Henry D. Thoreau and John Burroughs, not because theyhad any direct connection with Unitarianism, but because the religiousconvictions they expressed are such as most Unitarians accept. 

To the Unitarian fellowship belong Margaret Fuller, Lydia Maria Child, Caroline M. Kirkland, Grace Greenwood (Mrs. Lippincott), and Julia WardHowe. All the early associations of Margaret Fuller were with Unitarians;and her brother, Arthur Fuller, became a Unitarian minister. In her maturerlife she was with the transcendentalists, finding in Rev. W. H. Channing andEmerson her spiritual teachers. Writing of her debt to Emerson, she said, "His influence has been more beneficial to me than that of any American;and from him I first learned what is meant by an inward life. "[6] She wasa pronounced individualist, an intense lover of spiritual liberty, a friendof those who live in the spirit. This may be seen in what she called hercredo, a sentence or two from which will indicate her type of thought. "Iwill not loathe sects, persuasions, systems, " she writes, "though I cannotabide in them one moment; for I see that by most men they are stillneeded. " "Ages may not produce one worthy to loose the shoes of the Prophetof Nazareth; yet there will surely be another manifestation of this wordwhich was in the beginning. The very greatness of this manifestationdemands a greater. We have had a Messiah to teach and reconcile. Let us nowhave a man to live out all the symbolical forms of human life, with thecalm beauty of a Greek god, with the deep consciousness of Moses, with theholy love and purity of Jesus. "[7]

[Sidenote: Unitarian Novelists. ]

Among the novelists have been several who were Unitarian ministers, including Sylvester Judd, William Ware, Thomas W. Higginson, and EdwardEverett Hale. Judd's Margaret was of the very essence of transcendentalism, besides being an excellent interpretation of some of the phases of NewEngland character. Ware's historical novels were popular in their day, andare now worth going back to by modern readers, and especially by those whodo not insist upon having their romances hot from the press. Catherine M. Sedgwick is another novelist worth returning to by modern readers, andespecially by those who would know of New England life in the early part ofthe nineteenth century. She became an ardent Unitarian, and her biographygives interesting glimpses of the early struggles of that faith in YorkCity. Other Unitarian women novelists were Lydia Maria Child, GraceGreenwood, Helen Hunt Jackson, Louisa M. Alcott, and Harriet PrescottSpofford. 

In naming John T. Trowbridge, Bayard Taylor, Bret Harte, William D. Howells, and Nathaniel Hawthorne as Unitarians, no merely sectarian aim isin view. In the common use of the word, Hawthorne was not a religious man;for he rarely attended church, and he had no interest in ecclesiasticalformalities. No man who has written in this country, however, was moredeeply influenced than he by those spiritual ideas and traditions which maybe properly called Unitarian. The same may be said of Howells, who is not aUnitarian in any denominational sense; but his religious interests andconvictions bring him into sympathy with the movement represented byUnitarianism. 

It may be said of the most popular novels of Edward Everett Hale, such asTen Times One Is Ten, In His Name, His Level Best, that they are the bestpossible interpretations of the Unitarian spirit; for it is not merely acertain conception of God that characterizes Unitarianism, nor yet aparticular theological attitude. It is the wish to make religion real, practical, altruistic. 

[Sidenote: Unitarian Artists and Poets. ]

Unitarianism has been as friendly to poetry and the other arts as it hasbeen to philosophy and science. In its early days it fostered the artisticcareers of Washington Allston, the painter, and Charles Bulfinch, thearchitect. It has also nurtured the sculptors, William Wetmore Story, whowas also poet and essayist; Harriet Hosmer, whose career shows what a womancan accomplish in opening new opportunities for her sex; Larkin G. Mead andDaniel C. French. To these must be added the actors Fanny Kemble andCharlotte Cushman. 

It is as one of the earliest of our poets that Charles Sprague is to bementioned, and one or two of his poems are deservedly remembered. JonesVery was one of the best of the transcendental poets, and a few of hisreligious poems have not been surpassed. The younger William ElleryChanning and Edward R. Sill belong to the same school, and deservedly keeptheir places with those who admire what is choice in thought and individualin artistic workmanship. As a biographer of O. B. Frothingham and as amember of his congregation, it may be proper to add here the name of EdmundC. Stedman. 

Among our greater poets, Bryant, Longfellow, Emerson, Holmes, Lowell, Stoddard, and Bayard Taylor were Unitarians. As being essentially of thesame way of thinking and believing, Whittier and Whitman might also be soclassed. Though Whittier was a Friend by education and by conviction, hewas of the liberal school that places religion above sect and interpretsdogmas in the light of human needs and affections. If he had been born andbred a Unitarian, he could not have more sympathetically interpreted theUnitarian faith than he has in his poems. Whitman had in him the heart oftranscendentalism, and he was informed of its inmost spirit. To the moreradical Unitarians his pleas for liberty, his intense individualism, andhis idealistic conceptions of nature and man would be acceptable, and, itmay be, enthusiastically approved. 

William Cullen Bryant early became a Unitarian; and he listened to thepreaching of Follen, Dewey, Osgood, and Bellows. "A devoted lover ofreligious liberty, " Bellows said of him, "he was an equal lover of religionitself--not in any precise, dogmatic form, but in its righteousness, reverence, and charity. He was not a dogmatist, but preferred practicalpiety and working virtue to all modes of faith. "[8] It would be difficultto give a better definition of Unitarianism itself; and it was the largehumanity of it, and its generous outlook upon the lives of individuals andnations, that made of Bryant a faithful Unitarian. 

Henry W. Longfellow was educated as a Unitarian, his father having been oneof the first vice-presidents of the Unitarian Association, --a position heheld for many years. Stephen Longfellow was an intimate friend of Dr. Channing in his college years, and he followed the advance of his classmatein the growth of his liberal faith. "It was in the doctrine and the spiritof the early Unitarianism that Henry Longfellow was nurtured at church andat home, " says his brother. "And there is no reason to suppose that he everfound these insufficient, or that he ever essentially departed from them. Of his genuine religious feeling his writings, give ample testimony. Hisnature was at heart devout; his ideas of life, of death, and of what liesbeyond, were essentially cheerful, hopeful, optimistic. He did not care totalk much on theological points; but he believed in the supremacy of goodin the world and in the universe. "[9]

Although Oliver Wendell Holmes was educated in the older forms of religiousbeliefs, he became one of the most devoted of Unitarians. His rejection ofCalvinism is marked by his intense aversion to it, shown upon many a pageof his prose and poetry. No other prominent Unitarian was so aggressiveagainst the doctrines of the older time. He was a regular attendant atKing's Chapel upon the preaching of Dr. F. W. P. Greenwood, Dr. EphraimPeabody, and Rev. H. W. Foote; but, when he was in Pittsfield, for a numberof years he went to the Episcopal church, and at Beverly Farms in his lateryears, during the summer, he attended a Baptist church. He was, therefore, a conservative Unitarian, but with a generous recognition of the good inother religious bodies. At the Unitarian Festival of 1859 Dr. Holmes wasthe presiding officer, and in his address he gave a statement of theUnitarian 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 animositytoward Calvinism that was characteristic of Holmes; but his poetryeverywhere indicates the liberality and nobleness of his religiousconvictions. That he was not sectarian, that he felt no active interest indogmatic theology as such, is only saying that he was a genuine Unitarian. Writing in 1838, Lowell said, "I am an infidel to the Christianity ofto-day. "[11] In a letter to Longfellow written in 1845, he made a moreexplicit statement of his attitude: "Christ has declared war against theChristianity of the world, and it must down. There is no help for it. Thechurch, that great bulwark of our practical paganism, must be reformed fromfoundation to weathercock. "[12] These passages indicate hisdissatisfaction with an external religion and with dogmatic theology. Onthe other hand, his letters and his poems prove that he was stronglygrounded 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 theolder types of Christianity, it was a generous concession to their rationalqualities and their practical results, and in no degree an acceptance oftheir teachings. The definite form of Lowell's faith he expressed when hewrote, "I will never enter a church from which a prayer goes up for theprosperous only, or for the unfortunate among the oppressors, and not forthe oppressed and fallen; as if God had ordained our pride of caste and ourdistinctions of color, and as if Christ had forgotten those that are inbonds. "[13]

Emerson left the pulpit, and he withdrew from outward conformity to thechurch; but that there came a time when he no longer felt an interest inreligion or that he even ceased to be a Christian, after his own manner ofinterpretation, there is no reason to assume. His radicalism was in thedirection of a deeper and truer religion, a religion of the spirit. Herejected 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 heceased to be one outwardly, for he carried forward the Unitarian principlesto their legitimate conclusion. The newer Unitarianism owes to him morethan to any other man, and of him more than of any other man the olderUnitarianism can boast that he was its product. 

Such a survey as this indicates how great has been the influence ofUnitarianism upon American literature. There can be no question that it hasbeen one of the greatest formative forces in its development. "Almosteverybody, " says Professor Barrett Wendell, "who attained literarydistinction in New England during the nineteenth century was either aUnitarian or closely associated with Unitarian influences, "[14] More eventhan that may be said, for it is the Unitarian writers who have most trulyinterpreted 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 thefellowship that had existed from the beginning of New England. When theywere compelled to separate from the older churches, they refrained fromorganizing a strictly defined religious body, and have called theirs a"movement. " The words "denomination" and "sect" have been repellent tothem; and they have attempted, not only to avoid their use, but to escapefrom that which they represent. They have wished to establish a broad, freefellowship, that would draw together all liberal thinkers and movementsinto one wide and inclusive religious body. 

The Unitarian body accepted in theory from the first the principles ofliberty, reason, and free inquiry. These were fully established, however, only as the result of discussion, agitation, and much friction. TheodoreParker was subjected to severe criticism, Emerson was regarded withdistrust, and the Free Religious Association was organized as a protest andfor the sake of a freer fellowship. In fact, however, Parker was neverdisfellowshipped; and from the first many Unitarians regarded Emerson asthe teacher of a higher type of spiritual religion. Through this period ofcontroversy, when there was much of bitter feeling engendered, no one wasexpelled from the Unitarian body for opinion's sake. All stayed in who didnot choose to go out, there being no trials for, heresy. The result of thismethod has been that the Unitarian body is now one of the most united andharmonious in Christendom. The free spirit has abundantly justified itself. When it was found that every one could think for himself, express freelyhis own beliefs, and live in accordance with his own convictions, controversy came to an end. When heresy was no longer sought for, heresyceased 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 ofinquiry. Criticism has had a free course. The Bible has been subjected tothe most searching investigation, as have all the foundations of religion. As a result, no religious body shows, a more rational interest in the Bibleor a more confident trust in its great spiritual teachings. 

The early Unitarians anticipated that Unitarianism would soon become thepopular form of religion accepted in this country. Thomas Jefferson thoughtthat all young men of his time would die Unitarians. Others were afraidthat Unitarianism would become sectarian in its methods as soon as itbecame 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 factthat it has been too modern in its spirit, too removed from the currents ofpopular belief, to find ready acceptance on the part of those who arelargely influenced by traditional beliefs. The religion of the greatmajority of persons is determined by tradition or social heredity, by whatthey are taught in childhood or hear commonly repeated around them. Onlypersons who are naturally independent and self-reliant can overcome thedifficulties in the way of embracing a form of religion which carries themoutside of the established tradition. For these reasons it is notsurprising that as yet there has not been a rapid growth of organizedUnitarianism. In fact, Unitarianism has made little progress outside of NewEngland, and those regions to which New England traditions have beencarried by those who migrated westward. 

The early promise for the growth of Unitarianism in the south, from 1825 to1840, failed because there was no background of tradition for itsencouragement and support. Individuals could think their way into theUnitarian faith, but their influence proved ineffective when all aroundthem the old tradition prevailed as stubborn conviction. Even the influenceof a literature pervaded with Unitarianism proved ineffective in securingany rapid spread of the new faith, except as it has found its way into thecommon Christian tradition by a process of spiritual infiltration. Theresult has been that Unitarianism has grown slowly, because it has beenobliged to create new traditions, to form a new habit of thought, and tomake free inquiry a common motive and purpose. 

In a word, Unitarianism has been a heresy; and therefore there has been noopen door for it. Most heretical sects have been narrow in spirit, bigotedin temper, and intensely sectarian in method. Their isolation from thegreat currents of the world's life acts on them intellectually andspiritually as the process of in-and-in breeding does upon animals: itintensifies their peculiarities and defects. A process of atrophy ordegeneration takes place; and they grow from generation to generation moreisolated, sectarian, and peculiar. Unitarianism has escaped this tendencybecause it has accepted the modern spirit and because to a large degree itsadherents have been educated and progressive persons. Its principles ofliberty, reason, and free inquiry, have brought its followers into touchwith those forces that are making most rapidly for the development ofmankind. Unitarians have been conspicuously capable of individualinitiative; and yet their culture has been large enough to give them aconservative loyalty to the past and to the profounder and more spiritualphases of the Christian tradition. While strongly individualistic andheretical they have been sturdily faithful to Christianity, seeking torevive its earlier and more simple life. 

A chief value of Unitarianism in the past has been that it has pioneeredthe way for the development of the modern spirit within the limits ofChristianity. The churches from which it came out have followed it far onthe way it has travelled. Its most liberal advocates of the firstgeneration were more conservative than many of the leaders are to-day inthe older churches. Its period of criticism, controversy, and agitation isbeing reproduced in many another religious body of the present time. Thedebates about miracles, the theory of the supernatural, the authenticity ofScripture, the nature of Christ, and other problems that are now agitatingmost of the progressive Protestant denominations, are almost preciselythose that exercised Unitarians years ago. The only final solution of theseproblems, that will give peace and harmony, is that of free inquiry andrational interpretation, which Unitarians have finally accepted. If otherreligious bodies would profit by this experience and by the Unitarianmethod for the solution of these problems, it would be greatly to theiradvantage. 

The Unitarian churches have been few in number, and they have suffered fromisolation and provincialism. These defects of the earlier period have nowin part passed away, new traditions have been created, a cosmopolitanspirit has been developed, and Unitarianism has become a world movement. This was conspicuously indicated at the seventy-fifth anniversary of theorganization of the American Unitarian Association, and in the formation ofThe International Council of Unitarian and Other Liberal Religious Thinkersand Workers. It was then shown that Unitarianism has found expression inmany parts of the world, that it answers to an intellectual and spiritualneed of the time, and that it is capable of interpreting the religiousconvictions of persons belonging to many phases of human development andculture. A broader, more philosophical, and humaner tradition is beingformed, that will in time become a wide-reaching influence for thedevelopment of a religious life that will be at once more scientific andmore spiritual in its nature than anything the past has produced. 

The promise of Unitarianism for the future does not consist in its becominga sect and in its striving for the development of merely denominationalinterests, but in its cultivation of the deeper spiritual life and in itscosmopolitan sympathy with all phases of religious growth. Its mission isone with philanthropy, charity, and altruism. Its attitude should be thatof free inquiry, loyalty to the spirit of philosophy and science, andfidelity to the largest results of human progress. It should alwaysrepresent justice, righteousness, and personal integrity. That promise isnot to be found in the rapid multiplication of its churches or in itsdevotion to propagandist aims, but in its loyalty to the free spirit and inits exemplification of the worth and beauty of the religion of humanity. Asa sect, it will fail; but as a movement towards a larger faith, a purerlife, and a more inclusive fellowship, the future is on its side. 

While recognizing the Unitarian as a great pioneer movement in religion, itshould be seen that its strong individualism has been a cause of its slowgrowth. Until recently the Unitarian body has been less an organic phase ofthe religious life of the time than a group of isolated churches heldtogether only by the spontaneous bonds of fellowship and good will. Such abody can have little effective force in any effort at missionarypropagandism or in making its spirit dominant in the religious life of thecountry. As heredity and variation are but two phases of organic growth, soare tradition and individual initiative but two phases of social progress. In both processes--organic growth and social progress--the primary force isthe conservative one, that maintains what the past has secured. Ifindividualism is necessary to healthy growth, associative action isessential to any growth whatever of the social body. In so far asindividual perfection can be attained, it cannot be by seeking it as an endin itself: it can be reached only by means of that which conduces togeneral social progress. 

It may be questioned whether there is any large future for Unitarianismunless all excessive individualism is modified and controlled. Suchindividualism is in opposition to the altruistic and associative spirit ofthe present time. Liberty is not an end in itself, but its value is to befound in the opportunity it gives for a natural and fitting association ofindividuals with each other. Freedom of religious inquiry is but aninstrument for securing spiritual growth, not merely for the individual, but for all mankind. So long as liberty of thought and spiritual freedomremain the means of individual gratification, they are ineffective asspiritual forces. They must be given a wider heritage in the life ofmankind before they can accomplish their legitimate results in securing formen freedom from the external bonds of traditionalism. Even reason is butan instrument for securing truth, and not truth itself. 

Rightly understood, authority in the church is but the principle of socialaction, respect for what mankind has gained of spiritual power through itscenturies of development. Authority is therefore as necessary as freedom, and the two must be reconciled in order that progress may take place. Whenso understood and so limited, authority becomes essential to all growth infreedom and individuality. What above all else is needed in religion issocial action on the part of freedom-loving men and women, who, in thestrength of their individuality, co-operate for the attainment, not oftheir own personal good, but the advancement of mankind. This is whatUnitarianism has striven for, and what it has gained in some measure. Ithas sought to make philanthropy the test of piety, and to make liberty ameans of social fidelity. 

Free inquiry cannot mean liberty to think as one pleases, but only to thinkthe truth, and to recognize with submissive spirit the absolute conditionsand 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; andthat means nothing more and nothing less than faithfulness to what willmake for the common good, and not primarily what will minister to one's ownpersonal 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 thelarger human tradition. Its advantage cannot be found in the abandonment ofChristianity, which has been the source and sustaining power of its life, but in the development of the Christian tradition by the processes ofmodern thought. The real promise of Unitarianism is in identifying itselfwith the altruistic spirit of the age, and in becoming the spiritualinterpreter of the social aspirations of mankind. In order to this resultit must not only withdraw from its extreme individualism, but bring itsliberty into organic relations with its spirit of social fidelity. It willthen welcome the fact that freedom and authority are identical in theirdeeper meanings. It will discover that service is more important thanculture, and that culture is of value to the end that service may becomemore effective. Then it will cheerfully recognize the truth that the socialobligation is as important as the individual right, and that the two makethe 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: Wisconsinand Minnesota Quarterly Conference, organized at Sheboygan, Wis. , October24, 1866; New York Central Conference of Liberal Christians, Rochester, November 21, 1866; Conference of Unitarian and Other Christian Churches ofthe 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, NewYork, December 6, 1866; Essex Conference of Liberal Christian Churches, Salem, Mass. , December 11, 1866; Lake Erie Conference of Unitarian andOther Christian Societies, Meadville, Penn. , December 11, 1866; WorcesterCounty Conference of Congregational (Unitarian) and Other ChristianSocieties, Worcester, Mass. , December 12, 1866; South Middlesex Conferenceof Congregational Unitarian and Other Christian Societies, Cambridgeport, Mass. , December 12, 1866; Suffolk Conference of Unitarian and OtherChristian Churches, Boston, December 17, 1866; North Middlesex Conferenceof 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 andOther Christian Churches, Greenfield, Mass. , January 16, 1867; the Plymouthand Bay Conference, Hingham, Mass. , February 5, 1867; the Ohio ValleyConference 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 andOther Christian Churches, Sheffield, Ill. , January 28, 1869; Cape CodConference of Unitarian Congregational and Other Liberal ChristianChurches, Barnstable, Mass. , November 30, 1870; Conference of LiberalChristians of the Missouri Valley, Kansas City, Mo. , May 3, 1871; MichiganConference 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 IndependentChurches, Burlington, June 1, 1877; Indiana Conference of Unitarian andIndependent Religious Societies, Hobart, October 1, 1878; Ohio StateConference of Unitarian and Other Liberal Societies, Cincinnati, May, 1879. 

Kansas Unitarian Conference, December 2, 1880; Nebraska UnitarianAssociation, Omaha, November 9, 1882; the Southern Conference of Unitarianand Other Christian Churches, Atlanta, Ga. , April 24, 1884; the New YorkConference of Unitarian Churches superseded the New York and Hudson RiverConference at a session held in New York, April 29, 1885; Pacific UnitarianConference, San Francisco, November 2, 1885; the Illinois Conference ofUnitarian and Other Independent Societies superseded the IllinoisFraternity in 1885; Minnesota Unitarian Conference, St. Paul, November 17, 1887; Hancock Conference of Unitarian and Other Christian Churches, BarHarbor, Me. , August 8, 1889; Missouri Valley Unitarian Conferencesuperseded the Kansas Unitarian Conference, December 2, 1889. 

Rocky Mountain Conference of Unitarian and Other Liberal ChristianChurches, Denver, Col. , May 17, 1890; the Unitarian Conference of theMiddle States and Canada, Brooklyn, N. Y. , November 19, 1890, superseded NewYork State Conference; Central States Conference of Unitarian Churches, Cincinnati, December 9, 1891, superseded the Ohio State Conference; PacificNorthwest Conference of Unitarian, Liberal Christian, and IndependentChurches, Puyallup, Wash. , August 1, 1892; Southern California Conferenceof Unitarian and Other Liberal Christian Churches, Santa Ana, October 1892. 

Four of the early conferences, the New York Central, Champlain, WesternMaine, and Missouri Valley, were not distinctly Unitarian. These were unionorganizations, in which Universalists, and perhaps other denominations, were associated with Unitarians. The New York Central Conference refused tosend delegates to the National Conference on account of its unioncharacter. In other conferences, such as the Connecticut Valley and theNorfolk, Universalists took part in their organization, and were for anumber of years connected with them. 

Most of the conferences organized from 1875 to 1885 were within statelimits; but those organized subsequently to 1885 were more distinctlydistrict conferences, and included several states. Several of theconferences have been reorganized in order to bring them into harmony withthe prevailing theory of state or district limits at the time when suchaction took place. A few of the conferences had only a name to live, andthey soon passed out of existence. 

In the local, as in the National Conference, two purposes contended forexpression, the one looking to the uniting of all liberal denominations inone general organization, and the other to the promotion of distinctlyUnitarian interests. In the National Conference the denominational purposecontrolled the aims kept most clearly in view; but the other purpose foundexpression in the addition of "Other Christian Churches" to the name, though only in the most limited way did such churches connect themselveswith the conference. The local conferences made like provision for thosenot wishing to call themselves distinctly Unitarian. Such desire forco-operation, however, was in a large degree rendered ineffective by thefact that the primary aim had in view in the creation of the localconferences was the increase of the funds of the American UnitarianAssociation. 

B. UNITARIAN NEWSPAPERS AND MAGAZINES. 

There was a very considerable activity from 1825 to 1850 in the publicationof Unitarian periodicals, and probably the energies of the denominationfound a larger expression in that direction than in any other. 

In January, 1827, was begun in Boston The Liberal Preacher, a monthlypublication of sermons by living ministers, conducted by the CheshireAssociation of Ministers, with Rev. Thomas R. Sullivan, of Keene, N. H. , asthe editor. It was continued for eight or ten years, and with considerablesuccess. 

With November, 1827, Rev. William Ware began the publication in New YorkCity of The Unitarian, a quarterly magazine, of which the last numberappeared February 15, 1828. 

The Unitarian Monitor was begun at Dover, N. H. , October 1, 1831, and wascontinued until October 10, 1833. It was a fortnightly of four three-columnpages, and was well conducted. It was under the editorial management ofRev. Samuel K. Lothrop, then the minister in Dover. 

The Unitarian Christian, edited by Rev. Stephen G. Bulfinch, was publishedquarterly in Augusta, Ga. , for a year or two. 

In 1823 Rev. Samuel J. May published The Liberal Christian at Brooklyn, Conn. , as a fortnightly county paper of eight small quarto pages. Hefollowed it by The Christian Monitor and Common People's Adviser, which wasbegun in April, 1832, its object being "to promote the free discussion ofall subjects connected with happiness and holiness. "

The Unitarian, conducted by Rev. Bernard Whitman, then settled in Waltham, Mass. , was published in Cambridge and Boston during the year 1834, and cameto its end because of the death of Whitman in the last month of the year. It was a monthly magazine of a distinctly missionary character. 

Of a more permanent character was The Unitarian Advocate, the first numberof which was issued in Boston, January, 1828. It was a small 12mo of sixtypages, monthly, the editor being Rev. Edmund Q. Sewall. He continued inthat capacity to the end of 1829, when it was "conducted by an associationof gentlemen. " The purpose was to make a popular magazine at a moderateprice. It came to an end in December, 1832. 

With January 1, 1835, was issued in Boston the first number of The BostonObserver and Religious Intelligencer, a weekly of eight three-column pages, edited by Rev. George Ripley. It was continued for only six months, when itwas joined to The Christian Register, which took its name as a sub-titlefor a time. Its motto, "Liberty, Holiness, Love, " was also borrowed by thatpaper. 

The Western Messenger was begun in Cincinnati, June, 1835, with Rev. Ephraim Peabody as the editor. It was a monthly of ninety-six pages, andwas ably edited. Owing to the illness of Mr. Peabody, it was removed toLouisville after the ninth number; and Rev. James Freeman Clarke became theeditor, with Rev. W. H. Channing and Rev. J. H. Perkins as assistants for atime. It was published by the Western Unitarian Association, and wasdiscontinued with the number for May, 1841. Among the contributors wereEmerson, Margaret Fuller, William Henry Channing, Christopher P. Cranch, William G. Eliot, who aided in giving it a high literary character. For anumber of years the American Unitarian Association made an annualappropriation to aid in its publication. 

The Monthly Miscellany of Religion and Letters was begun in Boston withApril, 1839. It was a 12mo of forty-eight pages, monthly. The editor wasRev. Ezra S. Gannett, by whom it was "designed to furnish religious readingfor the people, treat Unitarian opinions in their practical bearings, andshow their power to produce holiness of life; and by weight of contents tocome between The Christian Register and The Christian Examiner. " It wascontinued until the end of 1843, when it was absorbed by the latterperiodical. 

With the first of January, 1844, was begun The Monthly Religious Magazine, to meet the needs of those who found The Christian Examiner too scholarly. The first editor, was Rev. Frederic D. Huntington, who was succeeded byRev. Edmund H. Sears, Rev. James W. Thompson, Rev. Rufus Ellis, and Rev. John H. Morison. The last issue was that of February, 1874. 

A large weekly was begun in Boston, January 7, 1843, called The ChristianWorld, of which Rev. George G. Channing was the publisher and managingeditor. He was assisted by Rev. James Freeman Clarke and Hon. John A. Andrew, afterward Governor of Massachusetts, as editors or editorialcontributors. The special aims of the paper were "to awaken a deeperreligious interest in all the great philanthropic and benevolententerprises of the day. " It was continued until December 30, 1848. GeorgeG. Channing was a brother of Dr. Channing, and was settled over two orthree parishes. The paper was ably conducted, and while Unitarian was notdistinctly denominational. 

The Christian Inquirer was started in New York, October 17, 1846, and was aweekly of four six-column pages. It was managed by the New York UnitarianAssociation; and it was largely under the control of Rev. Henry W. Bellows, who in 1850 was assisted by Rev. Samuel Osgood, Rev. James F. Clarke, andRev. Frederic H. Hedge. 

In 1846 was begun the publication of the Unitarian Annual Register inBoston by Crosby & Nichols, with Rev. Abiel A. Livermore, then settled inKeene, N. H. , as the editor. In 1851 the work came under the control of theAmerican Unitarian Association, and as the Year Book of the denomination itwas edited by the secretary or his assistant. From 1860 to 1869 the YearBook was issued as a part of the December number of The Monthly Journal ofthe American Unitarian Association. 

The Bible Christian was begun in 1847 at Toronto by Rev. John Cordner, theminister there, and was continued as a semi-monthly for a brief period. 

The Unitarian and Foreign Religious Miscellany was published in Bostonduring 1847, with Rev. George E. Ellis as the editor. It was a monthlymagazine devoted to the explanation and defence of Unitarian Christianity;and its contents were mostly selected from the English Unitarianperiodicals, especially The Prospective Review, The Monthly Reformer, BibleChristian, The Unitarian, and The Inquirer. 

During this period The Christian Examiner had its largest influence uponthe denomination, and came to an end. Its scholarship and its liberalitymade it of interest to only a limited constituency, and the publisher wascompelled to discontinue it at the end of 1869 from lack of adequatesupport. It was edited from the beginning by the ablest men. Rev. JamesWalker and Rev. Francis W. P. Greenwood became the editors in 1831, Rev. William Ware taking the place of Dr. Walker in 1837. From 1844 to 1849 Rev. Ezra S. Gannett and Rev. Alvan Lamson were the editors, and they weresucceeded by Rev. George Putnam and Rev. George E. Ellis. In July, 1857, Rev. Frederic H. Hedge and Rev. Edward E. Hale became the editors, andcontinued until 1861. Then the editorship was assumed by Rev. Thomas B. Fox, who was for several years its owner and publisher; and he was assistedas editor by Rev. Joseph H. Allen. The magazine was purchased by Mr. JamesMiller in 1865, who removed it to New York. Dr. Henry W. Bellows became theeditor, and Mr. Allen continued as assistant, until it was discontinuedwith the December number, 1869. 

One of the purposes which found expression after the awakening of 1865 wasthe establishment of a large popular weekly religious journal that shouldreach all classes of liberals throughout the country. The ChristianInquirer was changed into The Liberal Christian with the number forDecember 22, 1866; and under this name it appeared in a larger and morevigorous form. Dr. Bellows was the editor, and contributors were soughtfrom all classes of Liberal Christians. The effort made to establish an ableundenominational journal, of a broad and progressive but distinctly liberaltype, was energetic; but the time was not ready for it. With December 2, 1876, the paper became The Inquirer, which was continued to the close of1877. 

There was also planned in 1865 a monthly journal that should be everywhereacceptable in the homes of liberals of every kind. In January, 1870, appeared the Old and New, a large monthly magazine, combining popular andscholarly features. The editors were Dr. Edward E. Hale and Mr. Frederic B. Perkins. In its pages were first published Dr. Hale's Ten Times Ten, andalso many of the chapters of Dr. James Martineau's Seat of Authority inReligion. It was discontinued with the number for December, 1875. 

The Monthly Religious Magazine was discontinued with the February issue of1874; and the next month appeared The Unitarian Review and ReligiousMagazine, edited by Rev. Charles Lowe. When Lowe died, in June, 1874, hewas succeeded by Rev. Henry H. Barber and Rev. James De Normandie. In 1880Dr. J. H. Allen became the editor, --a position he held until the magazinewas discontinued, in December, 1891. 

In March, 1878, was begun in Chicago the publication of The PamphletMission, a semi-monthly issue of sermons for missionary circulation, with adozen pages of news added in a supplement. In September the name waschanged to Unity; and this publication grew into a small fortnightlyjournal, representing the interests of the Western Unitarian Conference. Afew years later it became a weekly; and it has continued as therepresentative of the more radical Unitarian opinions, though in 1894 itbecame the special organ of The Liberal Congress. The chief editorialmanagement has been in the hands of Rev. Jenkin Ll. Jones. 

The Unitarian was begun in Chicago by Rev. Brooke Herford and Rev. Jabez T. Sunderland with January, 1886, as the organ of the more conservativemembers of the Western Conference. In June, 1887, this monthly magazine wasremoved to Ann Arbor, Mr. Sunderland becoming the managing editor; and in1890 the office of publication was removed to Boston, and Rev. Frederic B. Mott became the assistant editor. In 1897 the magazine was merged into TheChristian Register. 

In 1880 The Rising Faith was published at Manchester, N. H. , as a monthly, and continued for two or three years. 

In August, 1891, The Guidon appeared in San Francisco; and in November, 1893, it became The Pacific Unitarian, a monthly representing the interestsof the Unitarian churches on the Pacific coast. Mr. Charles A. Murdock hasbeen the editor. 

The Southern Unitarian was begun at Atlanta, Ga. , January, 1893; and it waspublished for five years as a monthly by the Southern Conference. 

In December, 1891, was begun at Davenport, Ia. , with Rev. Arthur M. Judy aseditor, a monthly parish paper, called Old and New. Other parishes joinedin its publication, and in 1895 it became the organ of the Iowa UnitarianAssociation. In 1896 it was published in Chicago, with Rev. A. W. Gould asthe editor, in behalf of the interests of the Western Conference. InSeptember, 1898, its publication was resumed in Davenport by Mr. Judy; anda year later it became again the organ of the Iowa Association. 

The New World, a Quarterly Review of Religion, Ethics, and Theology, wasbegun in Boston, March, 1892, and was discontinued with the December numberfor 1900. Its editors were Dr. C. C. Everett, Dr. C. H. Toy, Dr. Orello Cone, with Rev. N. P. Gilman as managing editor. 

The Church Exchange began in June, 1893, and was published as a monthly atPortland, in the interest of the Maine Conference of Unitarian Churches, with Rev. John C. Perkins as editor. In 1896-97 it was published atFarmington, and in 1897-99 Mr. H. P. White was the editor. Since 1899 it hasbeen published in Portland, with Mr. Perkins as editor. 

The above list of periodicals is not complete. More detailed information isdesirable, and that the list may be made, full and accurate to date. 

INDEX. 

_The foot-notes and appendix have been included in the index withthe text. _

Abbot, Abiel (Beverly), 131, 133, 262, 350, 351. Abbot, Abiel (Peterboro), 409. Abbot, Ezra, 393, 394. Abbot, Francis Ellingwood, 200-204, 207, 210, 211, 213, 415. Abolitionists, 353. Adam, 51, 63. Adam, William, 296-298. Adams, Hannah, 265, 423. Adams, Herbert W. , 114, 409. Adams, John, 58, 136, 351. 377, 380, 382. Adams, John Quincy, 366, 380. Adams, Phineas, 95. African Methodist Episcopal Church, 338, 339. Agassiz, Louis, 408, 427, 428. Albee, John, 415. Alcott, Amos Bronson, 155, 202, 358, 369. Alcott, Louisa M. , 178, 368, 430. Alger, William Rounseville, 146, 163, 164, 346, 422. Allen, Joseph, 146, 264, 268, 360, 361, 414. Allen, Joseph Henry, 165, 261, 361, 393, 414, 421, 450, 451. Allison, William B. , 380, 383. Allston, Washington, 98, 430. Allyn, John, 131, 133. American literature, 412, 413, 415, 416, 435. "American Unitarianism, " 79, 82, 101-104. Ames, Charles Gordon, 168, 214. Ames, Fisher, 382. Ames, Oliver, 382. Amory, John C. , 385. Andover Theological School, 93. Andrew, John Albion, 191, 192, 196, 324, 367, 382, 449. Angell, George T. , 336. Animals, humane treatment of, 335, 336. Anonymous Association, 127. Anthology Club, 96. Anthology, Monthly, 93, 95, 390. Anthony, Henry B. , 367, 380. Anthony, Susan B. , 368. Antinomianism, 16. Antioch College, 172, 193, 197, 401, 402. Anti-slavery, 100, 159, 343, 353-367. Appleton, Nathan, 386. Arianism, 42, 43, 44, 56, 59, 65, 66, 70, 83. Arminianism, 8, 9, 11, 28, 37-39, 42, 44, 48, 50, 59, 66, 67, 70, 75, 84, 89. Arminius, 8. Artists, 430. Association of Benevolent Societies, 255. Association of Young Men, 248-251, 264. Autumnal Conventions, 173-176, 187. Auxiliaries of American Unitarian Association, 146. Ayer, Adams, 216. 

Ballou, Hosea, 93. Baltimore, 111-113. Bancroft, Aaron, 73, 74, 114, 130, 132, 135, 136, 142, 413. Bancroft, George, 380, 413, 414, 424. Baptists, 6, 7, 21, 87, 88. Barnard, Charles F. , 254, 256, 260, 332, 337, 361. Barnard, Thomas, 70. Barrett, Samuel, 127, 135, 137, 144, 264. Barry, Joseph, 333. Bartol, Cyrus Augustus, 148, 155, 202, 240, 241, 419. Batchelor, George, 196, 226, 232. Beecher, Henry Ward, 370. Beecher, Lyman, 384. Belknap, Jeremy, 83, 351, 423. Bellamy, Joseph, 44, 52, 57, 73. Bellows, Henry Whitney, 136, 146, 154, 175, 178-182, 187-189, 191, 196, 198, 205, 206, 215, 217, 218, 220, 222, 223, 232, 233, 335, 363, 409, 431, 449, 450. Belsham, Thomas, 79, 102, 103. Benevolent Fraternity of Churches, 197, 256, 257, 282. Bentley, William, 71, 80, 90. Bergh, Henry, 335. Berry Street Conference, 106, 107, 133. Bible, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 14, 20, 25, 27, 32, 40, 45, 48, 50, 53, 55, 60, 64, 85, 86, 122, 156, 157, 171, 198, 199, 321, 389, 395, 437. Bible Societies, 100, 147, 322. Bigelow, Andrew, 258. Birthright church, 240, 241. Bixby, James T. , 307, 320. Blackwell, Antoinette Brown, 371. Blackwell, Henry B. , 368. Blake, H. G. O. , 415. Bond, Edward P. , 153. Bond, George, 131, 133. Bond, Henry F. , 341, 342. Book distribution, 148, 163, 166, 169, 338. Boston, 16, 20, 61, 75, 77, 118, 141, 160, 213, 383-388, 413. Boston Observer, The, 448. Boston Provident Association, 334, 335. Boutwell, George S. , 367, 382. Bowditch, Henry I. , 367. Bowditch, Nathaniel, 117, 381, 427. Bowditch, William I. , 367. Bowdoin, James, 80, 385. Bowles & Dearborn, 235. Bowles, Leonard C. , 235. Brackett, J. Q. A. , 382. Bradford, Alden, 47, 65, 127, 128, 132, 133. Bradford, George P. , 415. Bradlee, Caleb D. , 336. Bradley, Amy, 181, 338. Brattle Street Church, 29, 35, 40, 52, 53, 77, 94, 143, 160, 385, 387. Breck, Robert, 40. Briant, Lemuel, 50, 58. Bridgman, Laura, 326. Briggs, Charles, 144, 151, 235, 361. Briggs, George W. , 270, 360, 361. Brigham, Charles H. , 189, 214, 215, 319, 361. British and Foreign Unitarian Association, 295, 298, 303. Brooks, Charles, 336, 400. Brooks, Charles T. , 146, 244, 298, 359, 420. Brooks Fund, 166. Brown, Howard N. , 196, 243. Bryant, William Cullen, 117, 191, 195, 243, 381, 431, 432. Buckminster, J. S. , 94, 98, 390, 391, 416. Bulfinch, Charles, 430. Bulfinch, Stephen G. , 146, 165, 268, 270, 271, 361, 447. Burleigh, Celia C. , 369, 370. Burleigh, William H. , 369. Burnap, George W. , 114. Burnside, Ambrose E. , 383. Burroughs, John, 428. Burton, Warren, 139, 257, 361, 421. Bushnell, Horace, 241. 

Calcutta, 296, 297, 299, 300. Calhoun, John C. , 376, 380. Calvinism, 9, 26, 28, 34, 37, 39, 44, 45, 46, 48, 62, 73, 75, 76, 84, 87, 92. Carpenter, Lant, 154. Carpenter, Mary, 259. Cary, George L. , 318. "Catholic Christians, " 104, 106, 123. Catholicism, 3, 5, 18, 53. Chadwick, John White, 157, 216, 244, 275, 354, 370. Chaney, George L. , 337. Channing, George G. , 144, 449. Channing, William Ellery, 70, 94, 99, 102, 103, 106, 114, 119, 123, 125, 129, 130, 135, 142, 146, 148, 163, 164, 173, 174, 184, 199, 321, 324, 328, 343-345, 349, 350, 365, 399, 402, 415, 432. Channing, William Ellery, poet, 431. Channing, William Henry, 155, 176, 200, 258, 359, 361, 365, 368, 369, 420, 428, 448. Chapin, Henry, 212. Chapman, Maria W. , 367, 368. Charity work, 35, 252, 254-256, 322-325, 328. Charleston, S. C. , 118. Chauncy, Charles, second president Harvard College, 24. Chauncy, Charles, minister First Church in Boston, 45, 46, 48, 52, 53, 66-69, 77, 85, 90. Cheerful Letter Exchange, 288. Cheney, Ednah D. , 202, 279, 283, 368, 428. Chicago, 167, 213. Child, David Lee, 359. Child, Lydia Maria, 367, 428, 430. Children's Mission, 197, 331-334. Chillingworth, William, 5, 10, 12, 14, 31, 45. Choate, Joseph H. , 381. Christ, 6, 11, 14, 15, 24, 27, 40, 49, 50, 56, 62, 64, 67, 69, 70, 74, 75, 83, 85, 86, 99, 138, 139, 157, 170, 171, 193, 198, 200, 206, 207, 209, 210, 227, 378, 393, 429, 434. Christian connection, 89, 140, 194, 314, 315, 316. Christian Examiner, The, 101, 156, 236, 416, 449, 450. Christian Inquirer, The, 449, 450. Christian Monitor, The, 96. Christian Register, The, 114-116, 127, 145, 147, 156, 173, 185, 207, 232, 264, 296, 356, 448. Christian Union, Boston, Young Men's, 214, 216, 336, 337. Christian Unions, 216, 337. Christian World, The, 145, 147, 449. Christianity, 11-13, 45, 62, 63, 75, 85, 86, 123, 138, 156, 200, 201, 206, 209-211, 222, 227, 241, 362. Christians, 6, 9, 14, 51, 64, 170, 206, 209, 222, 224, 227. Church, 5, 7, 10, 12, 14, 17, 20, 52, 106, 115. Church and state, 7, 17, 20, 21, 23, 27-29, 52, 68, 85-87, 120-123. Church Building Loan Fund, 234. Church membership, 18-20, 27, 241, 242. Church of the Disciples, 242, 327. Civil service reform, 372-375. Civil war, 171, 175-184, 187, 283. Clark University, 399. Clarke, James Freeman, 146, 155, 160, 161, 163, 164, 165, 175, 191, 192, 194, 201, 204, 215, 242, 244, 273, 307, 312, 318, 327, 360, 361, 366, 369, 370, 417, 418, 420, 448, 449. Clarke, Samuel, 13, 44-46, 56, 67, 70. Clarke, Sarah Freeman, 404. Clifford, John H. , 382. Codding, Ichabod, 168, 365. Codman, John, 102. College town missions, 214, 215. Collyer, Robert, 167, 171, 185, 194. Colporters, 148, 169. Commerce, 72. Committee on fellowship, 220, 221. Conant, Augustus H. , 169, 172, 176, 361. Conference, Berry Street, 106, 107, 133. Confirmation, 241, 242. Congregational independence, 34, 126. Congregationalism, 74, 87, 89, 93, 117, 119, 194, 199, 241, 436. Contributions to American Unitarian Association, 142, 153, 159, 162, 164, 188, 190, 193, 197, 213, 234. Convention, Autumnal, 173-176, 187. Conversion, 18, 20, 21, 24, 27. Conway, Moncure D. , 365, 415. Cooper Institute, 215, 408. Cooper, Peter, 381, 408, 409. Cordner, John, 146, 238. Cornell University, 215. Corporate idea of church, 5, 7, 17-19, 20. Country Week, 337. Covenants, Church, 26. Cranch, Christopher, P. , 415, 448. Cranch, William, 377, 380. Creeds, 26, 49, 62, 64, 66, 85, 206. Crocker, Lucretia, 370, 403, 404. Crosby, Nichols & Co. , 236. Crosby, William, 334. Cudworth, Warren H. , 271. Curtis, Benjamin R. , 382. Curtis, George Ticknor, 381. Curtis, George William, 196, 239, 347, 369, 373-375, 381. Cutter, George W. , 226. 

Dall, Caroline Healey, 165, 202, 279, 368, 370, 371. Dall, Charles, H. A. , 259, 299-302, 361. Dane, Nathan, 350, 351, 382. Davis, John, 382. Dedham, 29, 54, 87, 115, 218. Deism, 42. Democratic tendencies, 8, 33, 34, 37, 90, 121, 174. Depositaries, 146, 149, 169. Depravity of man, 51, 63, 66, 68, 69. Devotional library, 164. Dewey, Orville, 114, 143, 146, 165, 174, 191, 267, 354, 415, 431. Dexter, Henry M. , 22. Dexter, Samuel, 351, 382. Dickens, Charles, 324. Dillingham, Pitt, 339. Disciple, The Christian, 99-101. Dix, Dorothea, 324, 327, 328-331. Dole, Charles F. , 274, 352. Douthit, Jasper L. , 214. Doyle, J. A. , 22. Dunster, Henry, 24. Dwight, Edmund, 399, 400. Dwight, John S. , 155, 369, 415, 428. 

Eaton, Dorman B. , 373, 381. Education, 253, 323, 325, 337-342, 343, 384, 389, 395-408, 410, 411. Education in south, 338-340, 410, 411. Education of Indians, 340-342. Edwards, Jonathan, 38-41, 44. Effinger, J. R. , 226. Eliot, Charles W. , 238, 305, 395, 397. Eliot, Rev. Samuel A. , 232, 245. Eliot, Samuel A. , 127, 335, 383, 414. Eliot, Thomas D. , 196, 212. Eliot, William G. , 144, 146, 169, 184, 311, 351, 364, 398, 448. Ellis, George E. , 146, 164, 267, 421, 450. Ellis, Rufus, 270, 361, 448. Ellis, Sallie, 289, 290. Emerson, George B. , 127, 164. Emerson, Ralph Waldo, 151, 155, 202, 324, 369, 413, 415, 416, 428, 431, 435, 436, 448. Emerson, William, 95, 96, 413. Emlyn, Thomas, 57, 58. Emmons, Nathaniel, 55. Equality, 33, 38. Evangelical Missionary Society, 104, 105, 141. Everett, Charles Carroll, 196, 275, 396, 417-419, 452. Everett, Edward, 94, 98, 109, 114, 351, 380, 382, 391, 397, 399, 407, 414, 416. Everett, William, 414. Exchange of pulpits, 101. 

Farley, Frederic A. , 146, 165, 361. Fearing, Albert, 238, 324. Federal (now Arlington) Street Church, 83, 94, 106, 129, 250, 256, 257, 301. Fellowship, Unitarian, 205, 209, 211, 219-221, 436, 437. Fellowship with other religious bodies, 192-195, 296. Felton, Cornelius C. , 397. Fields, James T. , 369, 428. Fillmore, Millard, 331, 380. First Church of Boston, 53, 66. Fiske, John, 22, 307, 424. Flagg, J. F. , 265, 350. Flower Mission, 337. Follen, Charles, 359, 431. Follen, Eliza Lee, 266, 367. Folsom, Nathaniel, 319, 361. Forbes, John Murray, 386. Forbush, T. B. , 226. Forman, J. G. , 176, 178, 184. Forster, Anthony, 118. Fox, George W. , 161, 162, 207-209. Fox, Thomas B. , 146, 268, 450. Francis, Convers, 110, 155, 200, 360, 361. Francke, Kuno, 17. Franklin, Benjamin, 376, 377, 379. Fraternity of Churches, Benevolent, 197, 256, 257, 282. Freedman's Bureau, 184, 197. Freedom of Thought, 1, 3, 5, 8, 32, 37, 59, 61-64, 70, 71, 80, 115, 125, 205, 210, 212, 389. Freeman, James, 76, 78, 80, 82, 98, 111, 114, 344. Free Religion, 203, 210, 211. Free Religious Association, 194, 202-204, 207, 225, 436. French, Daniel C. , 430. Friend of Peace, 345. Friends, 88. Frothingham, Nathaniel L. , 114, 124, 344, 413, 420. Frothingham, Octavius B. , 124, 165, 175, 200, 202, 207, 216, 322, 323, 366, 369, 387, 392, 394, 413, 420, 424, 431. Fuller, Margaret, 155, 368, 428, 429, 448. Furness, William Henry, 114, 146, 244, 267, 361, 365, 394, 420. 

Galvin, Edward I. , 176, 337. Gannett, Ezra Stiles, 114, 127, 128, 134-137, 139, 143, 146, 172, 191, 266, 346, 350-351, 354, 355, 450. Gannett, William C. , 225-227, 241, 277, 290. Garrison, William Lloyd, 353, 359, 367, 377. Gay, Ebenezer, 58-60, 77. General Repositary, The, 97, 390. Giddings, Joshua R. , 367. Gierke, Otto, 4. Giles, Henry, 361, 420. Gilman, Samuel, 119, 146, 420. God, 2, 4, 7, 9, 11, 13, 38, 41, 51, 53, 59, 60, 64, 68, 70, 73, 90, 157, 198, 227, 228. Goodell, William, 365. Gore, Christopher, 382. Gould, Allen W. , 226, 277, 452. Gould, Benjamin, 427. Grant, Moses, 248, 264, 265, 344, 350. Graves, Mary H. , 371. Gray, Frederic T. , 167, 248, 254, 256, 265, 267, 270, 271, 334, 361. Great Awakening, 46, 66, 210. Greene, Benjamin H. , 248, 333. Greenhalge, Frederic T. , 382. Greenwood, Francis W. P. , 101, 111, 114, 148, 421, 433, 450. Greenwood, Grace (Mrs. Lippincott), 428, 430. 

Hale, Edward Everett, 154, 175, 189, 191, 194, 195, 196, 205, 217, 218, 269, 270, 318, 323, 342, 429, 430, 450. Hale, George S. , 231. Hale, John P. , 367, 380. Hale, Lucretia P. , 165, 279, 404. Half-way Covenant, 22, 27, 28, 68. Hall, Asaph, 427. Hall, Edward Brooks, 127, 146, 160, 267, 361. Hall, Nathaniel, 361, 366. Hall, Nathaniel, the younger, 387. Hamlin, Hannibal, 383. Hampton Institute, 339, 340. Hancock, John, 385. Hancock Sunday-school, 247, 264, 265. Harte, Bret, 430. Harvard College, 35, 41, 44, 47, 92, 98, 384, 388, 390, 395-397, 412. Harvard Divinity School, 108-110, 124, 193, 214, 391, 392, 394, 395, 396, 414, 415. Hawthorne, Nathaniel, 381, 430. Haynes, George H. , 29. Hazlitt, Rev. William, 71, 77-79. Hedge, Frederic H. , 146, 155, 161, 165, 180, 239, 244, 346, 359, 360, 361, 415, 417, 420, 449, 450. Hemenway, Augustus, 385. Hemenway, Mary, 405-407. Hepworth, George H. , 176, 205. Herford, Brooke, 196, 225, 452. Heywood, John H. , 178, 180, 364. Higginson, Stephen, 130, 133. Higginson, Thomas Wentworth, 177, 202, 367, 368, 369, 415, 424, 429. Higher criticism, 389-395. Hildreth, Richard, 413, 424. Hill, Thomas, 320, 361, 397, 420, 427. Historians, 422-427. Hoar, Ebenezer Rockwood, 191, 196, 367, 382. Hoar, George Frisbie, 196, 367, 369, 380. Holland, Frederick West, 144, 178, 361. Hollis Professorship, 92, 108, 109. Holmes, Oliver Wendell, 431-433. Hooker, Thomas, 16, 25. Hopkins, Samuel, 73. Horton, Edward A. , 275. Hosmer, Frederick L. , 226, 244, 277. Hosmer, George W. , 311, 314, 316, 338, 361. Hosmer, Harriet, 430. Hosmer, James Kendall, 176, 338, 415. Howard, Simeon, 66, 78. Howard Sunday-school, 252, 265, 332. Howe, Julia Ward, 328, 348, 349, 368, 370, 371, 428. Howe, Samuel G. , 180, 325-329, 367. Howells, William D. , 430. Huidekoper, Frederic, 317, 319, 422. Huidekoper, Harm Jan, 311-314. Hunt, John, 11, 13. Hunting, Sylvan S. , 176, 214. Huntington, Frederic D. , 270, 361, 448. Hymns of Unitarians, 244, 420. 

Idealism, 45. Independents, 7. Index, The, 203, 207. India, 72, 248, 296, 303. Individualism, 1-4, 8, 17, 18, 27, 63, 90, 125, 205, 210, 211, 224, 343, 349, 428, 441-443. Insane, care of, 328-331. International Council, 245, 440. Intuition, 2, 4, 12. 

Jackson, Charles, 130, 387. Jackson, Helen Hunt, 430. Jackson, James, 427. Japan, 303-309. Japanese Unitarian Association, 306-309. Jefferson, Thomas, 136, 378-380, 437. Jenckes, Thomas A. , 372. Johnson, Samuel, 201, 244, 366, 369, 419, 420. Jones, Jenkin Lloyd, 214, 225, 276, 278, 451. Judd, Sylvester, 217, 240, 241, 361, 366, 429. Julian, George W. , 367, 369. 

Kanda, Saichiro, 305, 306. Kendall, James, 84. Kentucky, 119. Khasi Hills, 302, 303. Kidder, Henry P. , 189, 212, 231, 238. Kindergarten, 492, 493. King's Chapel, 52, 76, 160, 313, 387, 421. King, Starr, 165, 167, 182, 183, 420. Kirkland, Caroline, 369, 428. Kirkland, John T. , 98, 109, 114, 323, 344, 350, 351, 397. Knapp, Arthur M. , 304. Knapp, Frederick N. , 181. Kneeland, John, 273. 

Ladies' Commission on Sunday-school Books, 279-281. Lafargue, Paul, 2. Lamson, Alvan, 165, 200, 422, 450. Latitudinarianism, 9, 10. Lawrence, Abbott, 385, 386. Lawrence, Amos, 351, 385, 386. Leland Stanford, Jr. , University, 399. Leonard, Levi W. , 409. Liberal Christian, The, 193. Liberal Preacher, The, 447. Liberalism, 24, 26, 29, 32, 34, 37, 46, 49-52, 54, 57, 59, 61, 70, 72, 75, 85, 87, 88, 94, 104, 106, 111, 122. Liberator, The, 359. Liberty, 206, 342, 343, 349. Libraries, 289, 409, 410. Lincoln, Abraham, 376, 377. Lincoln, Calvin, 127, 161. Lincoln, Levi, 382. Lindsey, Theophilus, 78, 102. Little, Robert, 119. Liturgy, 242, 343. Livermore, Abiel Abbot, 148, 169, 317, 318, 361, 366. Livermore, Leonard J. , 272. Livermore, Mary A. , 368, 371. Local Conferences, 216-219, 445, 446. Locke, John, 5, 6, 12, 43, 56. Long, John D. , 231, 382. Longfellow, Henry W. , 431, 432. Longfellow, Samuel, 175, 200, 242, 244, 366, 369, 419. Longfellow, Stephen, 134, 432. Lord's Supper, 27, 240. Loring, Charles G. , 127. Loring, Ellis Gray, 359, 369. Lothrop, Samuel K. , 143, 144, 160, 163, 236, 350, 447. Lovering, Joseph, 427. Low, A. A. , 189. Lowe, Charles, 172, 177, 196, 197, 205, 209, 212, 216, 218, 237, 279, 370, 451. Lowell, Charles, 94, 99, 109, 114, 263, 344, 350, 351, 366, 413. Lowell, Francis Cabot, 385, 386. Lowell Institute, 407, 408. Lowell, James Russell, 413, 431, 434, 435. Lowell, John, 382, 385. Lowell, John Amory, 385, 407. Lunt, William Parsons, 420. 

MacCauley, Clay, 304, 305. McCrary, George W. , 326, 383. Maine Conference of Unitarian Churches, 218. Mann, Horace. 166, 327, 329, 351, 399-402. Mann, Mrs. Horace, 324, 403. Marshall, John, 376, 380. Marshall, J. B. F. , 339, 340. Martineau, James, 165, 450.. Mason, L. B. , 112, 176. Massachusetts Congregational Charitable Society, 119. Massachusetts Convention of Congregational Ministers, 120. May, Abby Williams, 283, 403, 404. May, Col. Joseph, 132, 133, 344. May, Rev. Joseph, 216. May, Samuel, 359-361, 366. May, Samuel J. , 127, 146, 194, 346, 351, 356, 358, 360, 361, 366, 369, 399, 401, 447. Mayhew, Experience, 49, 60. Mayhew, Jonathan, 45, 47, 48, 53, 58, 60-66, 85, 90, 199. Mayo, Amory D. , 320, 368, 410, 411. Mead, Edwin D. , 406. Mead, Larkin G. , 430. Meadville Theological School, 161, 193, 215, 310-320. Methodism, 89, 194. Miles, Henry A. , 161, 164, 360, 361. Miller, Samuel F. , 196, 380. Milton, John, 5, 6, 10, 12, 31, 45, 56. Ministry at Large, 247-261. Miracles, 156, 157, 198, 200, 211. Missions, domestic, 104, 140, 144, 149-153, 167, 171, 172, 212-214, 218. Mitchell, Maria, 427. Montana Industrial School, 341, 342, 405. Monthly Journal of American Unitarian Association, 162, 184, 237. Monthly Miscellany, The, 448. Monthly Religious Magazine, 448. Morehouse, Daniel W. , 196. Morison, John H. , 165, 270, 355, 356, 448. Morrill, Justin S. , 380. Morse, Jedediah, 93, 102, 423. Motley, John Lothrop, 424. Mott, Lucretia, 202, 369. Mumford, Thomas J. , 207, 271, 366, 369. Munroe, James, & Co. , 235. Muzzey, Artemas M. , 165, 178, 359, 360, 361, 422. 

National Conference: origin, 190-195; Syracuse session, 201; change in constitution, 204; Hepworth's amendment, 207; protests against dropping names from Year Book, 209; formation of local conferences, 218-221; revision of constitution, in 1892, 229; adjustment of Conference and Association, 233; temperance resolutions, 352; women represented, 369; organ proposed, 446. New Divinity, 73. New Hampshire Unitarian Association, 217. New York, 119, 213, 381, 429. New York Convention, 190-195. Newell, Frederick R. , 172, 176, 184. Newell, William, 361, 414, 420. Newell, William Wells, 414, 415. Nichols, Ichabod, 140, 142, 165. Nitti, F. S. , 3. North American Review, 116, 416. Northampton, 27, 38, 41, 381. Norton, Andrews, 98, 109-111, 114, 122, 126, 130, 132, 135, 139, 164, 243, 391, 392, 414, 420. Norton, Charles, Eliot, 175, 185, 414, 428. Novelists, 429, 430. Noyes, George Rapall, 110, 114, 146, 164, 200, 392, 393. Nute, Ephraim, 167, 176. 

Old and New, 450. Old South historical work, 405-407. Oriental religions, 72. Orton, Edward, 338. Osgood, Samuel, 154, 215, 361, 431, 449. "Other Christian Churches, " 201, 219, 446. Otis, Harrison Gray, 382, 385. Oxnard, Thomas, 80. 

Palfrey, Cazneau, 173, 361. Palfrey, John G. , 95, 101, 109, 110, 114, 117, 126, 127, 146, 154, 157, 191, 212, 249, 329, 350, 366, 385, 391, 415, 424. Panoplist, The, 93, 102. Parish, 29, 115. Parker, Isaac, 351, 382. Parker, Theodore, 155-157, 165, 267, 327, 328, 343, 361, 365, 369, 394, 399, 415, 417, 420, 436. Parkman, Francis, historian, 413. Parkman, John, 154, 361. Parkman, Rev. Francis, 74, 95, 99, 109, 173, 344, 413, 424. Parsons, Theophilus, 86, 117, 351, 377, 382. Parton, James, 424. Peabody, Andrew P. , 117, 146, 148, 173, 239, 260, 313, 323, 360, 361. Peabody, Elizabeth P. , 155, 368, 402, 403. Peabody, Ephraim, 270, 313, 334, 335, 433, 448. Peabody, Francis G. , 331. Peabody, W. B. O. , 361, 420. Peace movement, 343-349. Peace societies, 322, 344. Peirce, Benjamin, 427. Perkins Institute for the Blind, 323, 325, 326. Perkins, Thomas H. , 325, 386, 387. Phillips, Jonathan, 109, 351, 385. Phillips, Stephen C. , 385. Pickering, Edward C. , 427. Pickering, John, 381. Pickering, Timothy, 377, 381. Pierce, Cyrus, 361, 400, 401. Pierce, John, 114, 131, 133, 344, 350. Pierpont, John, 114, 127, 132, 176, 243, 350, 351, 361, 365, 420. Pillsbury, Parker, 368, 369. Piper, George F. , 273. Pitts Street Chapel, 257, 258, 332. Plymouth, 16, 83, 118. Poets, 431-435. Poor, care of, 250, 255, 321, 322, 334, 335. Porter, Eliphalet, 76. Portland, 80, 118. Post-office Mission, 289, 290. Potter, William J. , 170, 200, 203, 208, 209, 211. Pratt, Enoch, 189, 409, 410. Pray, Lewis G. , 270. Prescott, William Hickling, 117, 381, 424, 425. Priestley, Joseph, 71, 78, 80, 81, 83, 118. Primitive Christianity, 48, 67, 112, 122. Prince, John, 71, 76, 381. Prison reform, 327, 328, 329, 343. Protestantism, 1, 3, 4, 7, 14, 17, 18, 156. Publishing Fund Society, 107, 108, 141. Publishing interests, 113, 128, 145, 162, 164, 165, 184. Puritanism, 10, 19, 20, 21, 37, 53. Puritans, 19, 22. Putnam, Alfred P. , 216, 420. Putnam, George, 146, 185, 450. Pynchon, William, 23, 24. 

Quarterly Journal of American Unitarian Association, 162. Quincy, Edmund, 359. Quincy, Josiah, 35, 42, 128, 344, 366, 382, 397, 399. 

Radical, The, 203. Radicalism, 155, 156, 158, 199, 203, 204, 210, 222. Rammohun Roy, 296. Rantoul, Robert, 127, 351, 399. Rationalism, 5, 6, 12, 31, 44, 45, 55, 62, 69, 90, 156. Reason, 2, 3, 9-11, 13, 31, 37, 90. Reed, David, 114, 127, 129, 145, 234, 269. Reforms, 343, 356. Revelation, 12, 13, 20, 46, 66, 69, 73, 88. Reynolds, Grindall, 232, 238, 239. Ripley, Ezra, 74, 263, 344. Ripley, George, 146, 415, 420, 428, 448. Ripley, Samuel. 360, 361. Robbins, Chandler, 83, 361, 420. Roberts, William, 297, 298. Robinson, George D. , 382. Robinson, John, 25, 84. Roman Catholic Church, 2, 3, 17. 

Saco, 81. Safford, Mary A. , 371. St. Louis, 141, 184, 225, 259, 398. Salem, 16, 29, 54, 70, 76, 80, 118, 218, 381, 413. Saltonstall, Leverett, 127, 133, 140, 381. Saltonstall, Sir Richard, 16, 23. San Francisco, 153, 167, 182. Sanborn, Frank B. , 202, 369. Sanitary Commission, 176, 178-184, 188, 338. Sargent, John T. , 361, 369, 370. Savage, Minot J. , 196, 274. Scandlin, William G. , 176, 177, 182. Scientists, 427, 428. Scudder, Eliza, 244. Sears, Edmund H. , 165, 217, 395, 420, 448. Sectarianism, 125, 131, 149, 150, 201, 266, 356, 436. Sedgwick, Catherine M. , 369, 381, 429. Sewall, Edmund Q. , 361. Sewall, Samuel E. , 358, 359, 369. Shaw, Lemuel, 382, 387. Shaw, Robert Gould, 386. Sherman, John, 92, 98. Shippen, Rush R. , 213, 237, 238. Shute, Daniel, 58, 85, 87. Sill, Edward Rowland, 415, 431. Sin, original, 50. Singh, Hajom Kissor, 302, 303. Sloan, W. M. , 2. Smith, Gerrit, 367, 376, 420. Smith, Mary P. Wells, 285, 290. Socialism in the church, 3, 4, 17, 20, 27, 33. Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, Piety, and Charity, 96, 141, 148. Society for Promoting Theological Education, 109, 110. Society for Propagating the Gospel, 120. Society to Encourage Home Studies, 404, 405. Socinianism, 42, 75, 80. Solemn Review of Custom of War, 344, 346. Sparks, Jared, 111, 114, 117, 119, 126, 132, 135, 397, 399, 415, 421, 424. Spaulding, Henry G. , 274. Spirit of the Pilgrims, The, 93. Spofford Harriet Prescott, 430. Sprague, Charles, 351, 431. Stanton, Elizabeth Cady, 368. Staples, Carlton A. , 176, 214, 259, 364. Staples, Nahor A. , 167, 176, 366. Stearns, Oliver, 317, 360, 361. Stebbins, Horatio, 239. Stebbins, Rufus, P. , 161, 188, 189, 196, 315, 316, 351, 361, 397. Stedman, Edmund C. , 431. Stetson, Caleb, 360, 361, 365. Stevenson, Hannah E. , 202, 279. Stoddard, Richard Henry, 431. Stoddard, Solomon, 27, 39, 44, 68, 241. Stone, Lucy, 367-369. Stone, Thomas T. , 164, 366, 369. Story, Joseph, 114, 117, 133, 134, 140, 143, 260, 377, 380, 381, 387. Story, William Wetmore, 430. Stowe, Harriet Beecher, 384. Strong, Caleb, 385. Sullivan, James, 385. Sullivan, Richard, 128, 129. Sullivan, Thomas E. , 127, 447. Sumner, Charles, 347, 348, 364, 367, 372, 380. Sunday-school papers, 266, 269-271, 273, 274. Sunday-schools, 247, 254, 262-281; origin of, 262; Boston society, 265; growth of, 267; first publications, 268; local societies, 269; paper, 269; national society, 270; awakening interest, 272; George F. Piper as secretary, 273; Henry G. Spaulding, 274; Edward A. Horton, 275; western society, 276; unity clubs, 278; Religious Union, 278; Ladies' Commission, 279, 332. Sunderland, Jabez T. , 225, 301-303, 451. 

Talbot, Thomas, 382. Tappan, Lewis, 134, 137, 139. Taylor, Bayard, 430, 431. Taylor, Edward T. , "Father Taylor, " 324, 327. Taylor, Jeremy, 5, 12, 14, 31, 66. Taylor, John, of Norwich, 39. Temperance reform, 100, 322, 327, 349-353. Thacher, Samuel C. , 94, 96, 99, 103, 344. Thayer, Nathaniel, 134. Theatre preaching, 215, 216. Theological library, 164. Thomas, Moses G. , 140. Thompson, James W. , 360, 361, 448. Thoreau, Henry D. , 415, 428. Ticknor, Anna E. , 404, 405. Ticknor, George, 98, 390, 410, 424, 525, 526. Tilden, William P. , 361. Tileston, Thomas, 385. Tillotson, John, 11, 44, 45, 67. Toleration, 6, 7, 9, 11, 13, 21, 37, 43, 61, 67, 85, 89, 103, 107, 121. Toy, Crawford H. , 274, 452. Tracts, 145-147, 163, 248, 300, 307. Tracts, distribution of, 147, 163, 184, 290. Transcendentalism, 155, 199, 200, 222, 417, 431. Trinity, 13, 14, 42, 45, 55, 58, 63, 65, 66, 69, 71, 79, 83. Trowbridge, John T. , 430. Tucker, John, 75. Tuckerman, Henry T. , 261, 428. Tuckerman, Joseph, 96, 99, 146, 247, 250-257, 260, 264, 265, 270, 282, 297, 298, 322, 323, 331, 334, 344. Tudor, William, 116. Tullock, John, 5. Tuskegee Institute, 339. 

Unitarian Advocate, 447. Unitarian Association, American, 117; discussion in anonymous association, 129; meeting at house of Josiah Quincy, 128; Gannett's statement of purpose, 128; printed report of committee, 128; meeting in Federal Street Church, 129; discussion as to advisability of organizing, 129; announcement at Berry Street Conference, 133; organization, 134; officers, 135; name selected, 138; work of first year, 139; first annual meeting, 140; missionary tour of Moses G. Thomas, 140; effort to absorb other societies, 141; report of directors, 141; attitude of churches, 142; receipts, 142; presidents, 142; secretaries, 143; missionary agents, 144; incorporation, 145; tracts, 145; depositaries, 146; Book and Pamphlet Society, 147; distribution of books, 148; colporters, 148; missionary work in New England, 149; work in South and West, 151; tour of secretary, 152; contributions for domestic missions, 153; work of first quarter-century, 154; influence of radicalism, 155; indifference of churches, 160; officers, 160; Quarterly and Monthly Journal, 162; tracts and books, 163; theological library, 164; devotional library, 164; publishing firm, 165; missionary activities, 167; Association and Western Conference, 172; work during civil war, 177; results of fifteen years, 184; meeting to consider interests of Association, 187; vote to raise $100, 000, 189; success, 190; convention in New; York, 190; organization of National Conference, 192; work planned, 193; new life in Association, 196; contributions, 197; new theological position, 197; organization of Free Religious Association, 202; attempts at reconciliation, 204; demand for creed, 205; Year Book controversy, 207; attitude of Unitarians, 209; missionary work, 212; Charles Lowe as secretary, 212; fires in Chicago and Boston, 213; work in west, 214; college town missions, 214; theatre preaching, 215; organization of local conferences, 217; fellowship and fraternity, 219; results of denominational awakening, 221; western issue, 225; constitution of 1892, 229; fellowship with Universalists, 230; officers, 231; adoption of representation, 232; co-operation of Association and National Conference, 233; building loan fund, 234; Unitarian building, 237; seventy-fifth anniversary, 244; ministry at large, 247; aid to Sunday School Society, 266; fellowship with foreign Unitarians, 295; relations with British Association, 295; Dall in India, 299; work in Japan, 303; educational work in South, 338, 410; educational work for Indians, 340; attitude towards slavery, 363; formation of International Council, 440. Unitarian Association, British and Foreign, 295, 298, 303. Unitarian beliefs, 157, 158, 168, 170, 171, 193, 201, 203, 205-207, 209, 211, 212, 225-227, 229, 362, 376, 378, 381, 382, 409, 425, 429, 431, 433, 434. Unitarian Book and Pamphlet Society, 147, 148. Unitarian Church Association of Maine, 217, 240. Unitarian hymnology, 244, 420. Unitarian Miscellany, The, 111-114. Unitarian Monitor, The, 447. Unitarian name, 103, 104, 123, 125, 138, 192, 266. Unitarian Review, 451. Unitarian Temperance Society, 278, 351, 352. Unitarian, The (1834), 447. Unitarian, The (1886), 225, 451. Unitarianism, American, 9, 14, 16, 36, 57-59, 63, 67, 72, 78, 79, 82, 102, 104, 111, 115, 118, 122, 124-126, 128, 132, 138, 149, 169, 185, 222-224, 378, 379, 384, 387, 389, 436-443. Unity, 225, 451. Unity clubs, 277-278. Unity of God, 63, 65. Universalism, 67-69, 71, 75, 88, 90, 93, 193, 194, 230. Universality of religion, 203, 210. 

Vane, Sir Henry, 16, 24. Very, Jones, 155, 244, 381, 431. 

Walcutt, Robert F. , 359, 366. Walker, James, 95 101, 114, 126, 127, 129, 133-135, 138, 139, 146, 200, 267, 351, 397, 450. Walker, James P. , 165, 188, 236, 272, 280. Walker, Williston, 18, 22. Walter, Cornelia W. , 404. War, 343, 346-348. Ware, Dr. Henry, 60, 92, 108, 135, 146. Ware, Henry, the younger, 100, 110, 114, 128, 129, 132, 133, 135, 138, 143, 145, 148, 163, 184, 243, 249, 267, 268, 295, 297, 310, 344, 345, 350, 351, 359, 420. Ware, Dr. John, 350. Ware, John F. W, 177, 185, 361. Ware, William, 287, 360, 361, 415, 429, 447, 450. Warren Street Chapel, 257, 332, 337. Washington, 119, 213, 376, 380. Washington, George, 377, 379. Washington University, 397, 398. Wasson, David A. , 201, 202, 211, 419, 420. Waterston, Robert C. , 332, 361. Webster, Daniel, 356, 380, 385, 387. Webster, Samuel, 50. Weeden, William B. , 383. Weiss, John, 200, 202, 360, 361, 419. Weld, Angelina Grimké, 367, 369. Weld, Theodore D. , 365, 367. Wells, John, 212, 382. Wendell, Barrett, 410, 435. Wendte, Charles W. , 246, 276, 289, 337. West, Samuel, 69, 85, 87. West, Unitarianism in the, 151-153, 224. Western Conference, 168-172, 197, 209, 214, 224-229, 284, 285, 364. "Western issue, " 225-228. Western Messenger, The, 366, 448. Western ministers, 149, 152. Western Unitarian Association, 226. Wheaton, Henry, 134, 381. Whipple, Edwin P. , 428. White, Andrew D. , 376. Whitefield, George, 41, 44, 46. Whitman, Bernard, 269, 447. Whitman, Jason, 144, 148, 361. Whitman, Walter, 431. Whitney, Leonard, 172, 176. Whittier, John G. , 376, 431. Wigglesworth, Dr. , 44. Wigglesworth, Thomas, 385. Wilkes, Eliza Tupper, 371. Willard, Samuel, 26, 35. Williams, John E. , 332. Williams, Roger, 16, 24, 121. Willson, Edmund B. , 176, 269, 361. Winkley, Samuel H. , 185. Wise, John, 30-34. Wolcott, J. H. , 385. Wolcott, Roger, 382. Women, 30, 191, 250, 282-294, 343, 348, 349, 368-372, 402-407, 428, 429. Women's Alliance, 287-294. Women's Auxiliary, 286. Women's Western Unitarian Conference, 284, 285. Woodbury, Augustus, 146. Worcester, 73, 173, 218. Worcester Association of Ministers, 173, 269. Worcester, Noah, 93, 98-100, 114, 148, 344, 345, 350, 365, 389. Wright, Carroll D. , 196, 231. Wyman, Jeffries, 180, 427. 

Yale College, 43. Year Book of American Unitarian Association, 207, 449. Young, Alexander, 114, 127, 143, 267, 424. Young People's Religious Union, 278.