Chapter XI: Introduction: English Sources of American Unitarianism (8)

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

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

[Sidenote: Organization of Local Conferences.]

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

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

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

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

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

[Sidenote: Fellowship and Fraternity.]

Under the leadership of the National Conference the Unitarian body underwent material changes in its internal organization and in its relations to other denominations. Not only did it bring the churches to act together in the local conferences and in its own sessions, but it taught then to co-operate for the protection of their pulpits against adventurers and immoral men. Before it was organized, the excessive spirit of independency in the churches would permit of no exercise of control as to their selection of ministers to fill their pulpits. At the fourth session of the National Conference, held in New York in October, 1870, the council, through Dr. Bellows, suggested that the local conferences refuse to acknowledge as ministers men of proven vices and immoralities. To carry out the spirit of this suggestion, Dr. Hale presented a resolution, which was adopted, asking the local conferences to appoint committees of fellowship to examine and to act upon candidates for the ministry. In October, 1870, the New York and Hudson River Conference created such a committee "to examine the testimonials of such as desire to become members of the conference 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 of names of those appointed to its membership appears in the printed report; but there is no record that the committee ever organized. In 1878 the council reported at considerable length on the desirableness of establishing such a committee; and, again, a committee of fellowship was appointed "to take into immediate consideration the subject of the introduction into the Unitarian ministry of those persons who seek an entrance into that ministry from other churches." This committee consisted of twelve persons, three each for the eastern, middle, western, and Pacific states.

At the session of 1880 the council of the Conference stated that it had created a substitute for the old ecclesiastical council, that was called together from the neighboring ministers and churches whenever a minister was to be inducted into office. That method was costly and had dropped into desuetude; but the new method of a committee of fellowship saved true Congregational methods and freed the churches from unworthy men. At this session the committee reported that it had adopted a uniform plan of action; but a resolution was passed recommending that each local conference establish its own committee of fellowship. Having once been instituted, however, the committee of the National Conference came slowly to be recognized as the fit means of introducing ministers into the Unitarian fellowship. Its authority has proven beneficent, and in no sense autocratic. It has shown that churches may co-operate in this way without intruding upon each others' rights, and that such a safeguarding of the pulpits of the denomination is essential to their dignity and morality. In 1896 the Minnesota Conference went one step further, and provided for a committee of fellowship with power to exclude for "conduct unbecoming a minister."

[Sidenote: Results of the Denominational Awakening.]

The most marked feature in the history of Unitarianism in this country during the period from 1865 to 1880 was the organization of the National Conference as the legislative body of the denomination, and the adjustment to it of the American Unitarian Association as its executive instrument. Attendant upon this organizing movement was the termination of the theological discussion that had begun twenty years earlier between the conservatives and radicals, the supernaturalists and the idealists, or transcendentalists. In 1865 the large majority of Unitarians were conservatives and supernaturalists, but in 1880 a marked change in belief had come about, that had apparently given the victory to the more moderate of the radicals. The majority of Unitarians would no longer assert that miracles are necessary to faith in Christ and the acceptance of his teachings as worthy of credence.

The change that came about during these years was largely due to the leadership of Henry W. Bellows. What he did was to keep actively alive in the Unitarian body its recognition of its Christian heritage, while at the same time he boldly refused assent to its being committed to any definite creed. He insisted upon the right of Unitarians to the Christian name, and to all that Christianity means as a vital spiritual force; but at the same time he refused to accept any limits for the Christian tradition and heritage, and left them free for growth. Sometimes apparently reactionary and conservative, he was at other times boldly radical and progressive. The cause of this seeming inconsistency was to be found in those gifts of imagination and emotion that made him a great preacher; but the inconsistency was more apparent than real, for in his leadership he manifested a wisdom and a capacity for directing the efforts of others that has never been surpassed in the history of religion and philanthropy in this country. He was both conservative and radical, supernaturalist and transcendentalist, a believer in miracles with a confident trust in the functions of reason. He saw both before and after, knew the worth of the past, and recognized that all the roots of our religious life are found therein, and yet courageously faced the future and its power to transform our faith by the aid of philosophy and science. Consequently, his sympathies were large, generous, and inclusive. Sometimes autocratic in word and action, his motives were catholic, and his intentions broad and appreciative. He gave direction to the newer Unitarianism in its efforts to organize and perpetuate itself. Had it been more flexible to his organizing skill, it would have grown more rapidly; but, with all its individualism and dislike of proselyting, it has more than doubled in strength since 1865. He showed the Unitarian body that freedom is consistent with organized effort, and that personal liberty is no more essential than co-ordinated action. He may be justly described as the real organizer of the 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 growing denominational unity. Gradually Unitarians have come to the acceptance of their fellowship as a religious body, and to a recognition of their distinct mission. The controversy between the conservatives and the radicals was transferred to the west in 1886, and continued to have at its basis the problem of the relation of the individual to religious institutions and traditions. The conservative party maintained that Unitarians are Christians, and gave recognition to that continuity of human development by which every generation is connected with and draws its life from those which precede it, and is consciously dependent upon them. On the other hand, the radical party was not willing to accept traditions and institutions as having a binding authority over individuals. Some of them were reluctant to call themselves Christians, not because they rejected the more important of the Christian beliefs, but because they were not willing to bind any individual by the action of his fellows. It was their claim that religion best serves its own ends when it is free to act upon the individual without compulsion of any kind from others, and that its attractions 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 was defined to be "the transaction of business pertaining to the general interests of the societies connected with the Conference, and the promotion of rational religion." It was voted that the motto on the conference seal should be "Freedom, Fellowship, and Character in Religion," which was the same as that of the Free Religious Association, with the addition of the word "character." These results were reached after much discussion, and by the way of compromise. The issues thus raised were brought forward again at St. Louis, in 1885, when Rev. J.T. Sunderland, the secretary and missionary of the conference, deplored the growing spirit of agnosticism and scepticism in the Unitarian churches of the west. His report caused a division of opinion in the conference; and in the controversy that ensued the conservatives were represented by The Unitarian, edited by Rev. Brooke Herford 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, the controversy found full expression. The session was preceded a few days before by the publication of a pamphlet on The Western Issue from the pen of Mr. Sunderland, in which he contended for the theistic and Christian character of the conference. A resolution offered by Rev. Oscar Clute, "that the primary object of this Conference is to diffuse the knowledge and promote the interests of pure Christianity," was rejected by a considerable majority. Another, offered by Mr. Sunderland--"that, while rejecting all creeds and creed limitations, the Conference hereby expresses its purpose as a body to be the promotion of a religion of love to God and love to man"--was also rejected. That presented by William C. Gannett was carried by 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 the conference; and a considerable number of churches, including some of the oldest and strongest, withdrew from co-operation in the work of the Conference. At the session of 1887, held in All Souls' Church, Chicago, an effort was made to bring about a reconciliation; but this was not completely secured.[1] A resolution was carried, however, by a majority of fifty-nine to three, reaffirming Mr. Gannett's, declaration adopted at Cincinnati, but also accepting a statement in regard to fellowship and doctrines, which was called The Things Most Commonly Believed To-day among Us, 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 with considerable vigor for three or four years. Both parties to it were characteristically Unitarian in their attitude and in their demands. Both sought the truth with an attempt at unbiassed judgment; and neither wished to disfellowship the other, or to put any restrictions upon its expression of its opinions. Much heat was engendered by the controversy, but light was desire by both parties with sincere purpose. The conflict was finally brought to an end by the action of the National Conference at its session of 1894, held at Saratoga, though this result had been practically reached in 1892. A committee on the revision of the constitution had been appointed by the council of the session of 1891; and this committee reported the following preamble, which was unanimously adopted as a substitute for the preamble 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 to both parties in the Western Conference, as well as to their sympathizers elsewhere, that harmony was restored throughout the denomination. While the Unitarian body thus retained its use of the Christian name and its insistence upon loyalty to the teachings of Jesus, yet it put aside every form of dogmatic test and of creedal statement. Its fellowship was made very broad in its character, and all were invited to join it who so desired.

[Sidenote: Fellowship with Universalists.]

At the annual meeting of the Unitarian Association in 1899 resolutions were passed looking to joint action between Unitarians and Universalists with reference to furthering their common interests. A committee was appointed to confer with a similar committee of the Universalist General Convention for the purpose of considering "plans of closer co-operation, devise ways and means for more efficient usefulness." In October this proposal was accepted by the General Convention, and a committee appointed. At the annual meeting of the Unitarian Association in 1900 the report of the joint committee was presented, in which it was declared that "closer co-operation is desirable and practicable"; but the committee expressed the wish to go on record "as not desiring nor expecting to disturb in any way the separate organic autonomy of the two denominations. We seek co-operation, not consolidation, unity, non union." The committee recommended that it be given authority to consider the cases in which the two denominations are jointly interested, such as opportunities of instituting churches or missions in new fields, the circulation of tracts and books, the holding of joint meetings of ministers and churches, or other efforts to promote intellectual agreements and deep faiths of the heart, and to recommend the appropriate action to the proper organizations. At the next sessions of the Unitarian Association and of the Universalist General Convention these recommendations were accepted, and permanent members of the joint committee were appointed. This committee has entered upon its duties, and important results may be anticipated in the promotion of harmony and co-operation.

[Sidenote: Officers of the American Unitarian Association.]

Mr. Henry P. Kidder continued as the president of the Unitarian Association until 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 houses of 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 was greatly interested in charities and reforms. Hon. John D. Long was the president from 1895 to 1897. He had been in the lower house of the Massachusetts legislature, was lieutenant governor in 1879, governor in 1880-82, in the national House from 1883 to 1889, and from 1897 to 1902 was Secretary of the Navy. Hon. Carroll D. Wright held the office from 1897 to 1900. He was in the Massachusetts Senate in 1871 and 1872, was chief of the Massachusetts bureau of statistics from 1873 to 1888, superintendent of the United States census in 1880, has been commissioner of the national Bureau of Labor since 1885, and in 1902 became president of Clark College at Worcester. At the annual meeting of 1900 it was thought best to make a change in the nature of the presidency, in order that the head of the Association might become its chief executive officer. In that way it was sought to add dignity and efficiency to the position of the executive officer, as well as to meet the greatly increased work of the Association by 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. He had previously held pastorates in Jamaica Plain and Concord. He had rare executive abilities, was gifted with sound common sense and a judicial temper; and he had a most efficient business capacity. Under his leadership the growth of the Unitarian denomination was more rapid than it had been at any earlier period; and this was largely due to his zeal, energy, and wisdom.

In December, 1894, Rev. George Batchelor became the secretary, and he continued in office until November, 1897, when he became the editor of The Christian Register. He had previously held pastorates in Salem, Chicago, and Lowell. He was succeeded, January 1, 1898, by Rev. Samuel A. Eliot, who had been settled over churches in Denver and Brooklyn, and who became the president of the Association in 1900. Rev. Charles E. St. John, who had been settled in Northampton and Pittsburg, became the secretary at the annual 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 of 1880, Dr. Bellows pointed out the fact that the American Unitarian Association was "not a union of churches, but an association of individuals belonging to Unitarian churches, who became members of it and entitled to vote by signing its constitution and the annual payment of one dollar. This Association never had, and has not now, any explicit relation to our churches as churches, but only to such individuals as choose to become voluntary subscribers to its funds, and members by signing its constitution, and to such churches as choose to employ its services."

This statement led to the appointment of a committee "to consider how the National Conference and the American Unitarian Association can more effectually co-operate without sacrifice of the advantages belonging to either." The committee reported in 1882 in favor of so changing the charter of the Association that a church might become a member. At the annual meeting of the Association in 1884, after a prolonged discussion, its by-laws were so amended that, while the life membership was retained, the sum creating it was raised from $30 to $50; and churches were given representation on the condition of regular yearly contributions to its treasury, two of such contributions being necessary to establish a church in this right. Since that time the delegates from churches have considerably outnumbered the life members voting at the annual meetings. This has practically given the churches the controlling voice in the activities of the Association.

The giving a representative character to the Association had the effect of increasing the contributions made to its support by the churches. Under the leadership of Dr. Bellows, at the National Conference in 1884, there began a movement looking to the establishment of a conference in every state and the employment of a missionary by every such conference. This plan has not yet been fully carried out; but in 1885 and the following years missionary superintendents were appointed by the Association for five general sections of the country, and, with some variations, this, system has continued in operation 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 a fund was first brought forward by the finance committee at a meeting of the directors of the Unitarian Association on February 11, 1884. At the March meeting a committee was appointed to mature plans; and at the meeting of the National Conference in September, held at Saratoga, a resolution was passed asking the Association to set apart $25,000 for this purpose, and pledging the Conference to add $20,000 to this sum. At the November meeting of the directors of the Association the organization of the fund was completed, a board of trustees was created, and the sum of $43,000 was reported as secured. The fund was steadily increased by contributions from the 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 been disbursed, in one hundred loans to ninety societies, chiefly to aid in the erection of new church edifices.[3]

[Sidenote: The Unitarian Building in Boston.]

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

In 1830 the depositary was removed to 135 Washington Street, and was under the management of the firm of Gray & Bowen, who were paid $144.44 for their services. In 1831 the place of business of this firm was 141 Washington Street; and the sum it received from the Association was $200, which was the next year increased to $300. Leonard C. Bowles, located at 147 Washington Street, again became the agent in 1836. In 1837 James Munroe & Co. appear as the publishers of the annual report, but they are not mentioned as agents or as having charge of the repositary. The sum of $150 was 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 by the record that in 1838 Munroe & Co. were paid $133.34 for rent of room and clerk hire, their store being at 134 Washington Street. Here the headquarters of the Association were at last established, for they continued in this place until 1846. In 1839 the rental paid was $300, and for the six succeeding years it was $200. Surely, these were the days of small things; but here the Association carried on such activities as it had in hand, and the Unitarian ministers met for conversation and consultation.

In 1846 Crosby, Nichols & Co. became the agents of the Association, first at 118 and then at 111 Washington Street. This firm brought out several Unitarian books, and issued The Christian Examiner and other Unitarian periodicals. For a number of years they were intimately associated with Unitarian interests, and the theological and literary traditions of the time connect them with many of the leading men and movements of Boston. In the rear of their store the Association had its office, its meeting-place for the directors and other officers, as well as for the Monday gatherings of ministers.

After these many wanderings from the rear of one bookstore to another the Association at last secured an abode of its own. On March 9, 1854, rooms for the use of the Association were opened at 21 Bromfield Street. On this occasion a small company came together, and listened to an address by Dr. Samuel K. Lothrop, the president of the Association. Another change was made 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 securing a building of its own. The sum of $16,000 was paid for a house at 26 Chauncy Street, which was occupied in the spring of 1866. The enlarged activities of the Association at this time here found the housing they needed. 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 of a larger denominational building, The Monthly Journal of November, 1867, proposed the erection of a building with a spacious hall for these great popular meetings, smaller rooms for social gatherings, offices for the Association and other affiliated societies, and an attractive bookstore. "In short, we would have it comprise all that might properly belong to a denominational headquarters or home. We would have it in a convenient and conspicuous situation, and every way worthy of our position." This dream of Mr. Lowe's he brought forward again in his annual report of 1870, when he said: "The building now occupied by the Association has become wholly inadequate to its uses; and steps were taken more than a year ago by its friends in Boston towards providing more suitable accommodations, and at the same time providing in connection with it for such other uses as might make the building to be erected worthy to be the headquarters of the denomination in the city which gave it birth." Mr. Shippen called attention to the needs of the Association in his report of 1872, saying that the project of a large hall had been abandoned, but that there was urgent demand for a building suited to the business and social needs of the denomination in Boston.

The great fire of November, 1872, brought this project to a sudden termination. The Chauncy Street building was for many hours in danger of being burned, out it was finally saved. Its market value was much increased by 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 Tremont Place, belonging to Hon. Albert Fearing, who had been active in the work of the Association and prominent in the Unitarian circles of Boston. This building, entered by the Association in May, 1873, was somewhat larger than its predecessor and in some respects better suited to the needs of the Association; yet the secretary, at the annual meeting held in the same month, called for the more convenient building, which should serve "as a worthy centre in this city for the various charitable and missionary activities of our faith."[4]

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

In January, 1882, the Unitarian Club of Boston was organized; and it soon after took up the task of erecting the desired building. The initiative was taken 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 committee was 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 a building. It was arranged by this committee that the Association should contribute $50,000 from the sale of its Tremont Place building, and that the club should raise $150,000. Subscriptions were opened February 9, 1883; and in November over $154,000 had been secured. A suitable lot was purchased at the corner of Beacon and Bowdoin Streets, and the erection of the building was begun in 1884. A prolonged labor strike delayed the completion of the building, so that the service of its dedication, which had been arranged for the evening of May 25, 1886, was held in Tremont Temple. The presiding officer on that occasion was George William Curtis; and addresses were made by Drs. Frederic H. Hedge, Andrew P. Peabody, and Horatio Stebbins. In July the building was occupied by the Association. "The denominational house is but brick and stone," said Mr. Reynolds in his report 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, and without which it could not have been reared. It is brick and stone which are the pledges of a noble future, which stimulate to good work, and furnish 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 the simpler Christian rites in Unitarian churches. In that time a distinct advance was made in the acceptableness of the communion service, and probably in the number of those willing to join in its observance. The abandonment of its mystical features and its interpretation as a simple memorial service, that would help to cherish loved ones gone hence, and the saintly and heroic of all ages, as well as the one great leader of the Christian body, has given it for Unitarians a new spiritual effectiveness. The same causes have led to the adoption of the rite of confirmation in a considerable number of churches. Gradually the idea has grown that what Rev. Sylvester Judd called "the birthright church" is the true one, and that it is desirable that all children should be religiously trained, and admitted to the church at the age of adolescence. Mr. Judd gave noble utterance to this conception of a church in a series of sermons published after his death,[6] as well as in a sermon prepared for the Thursday lecture in Boston.[7] The same idea was elaborated by Rev. Cyrus A. Bartol in his Church and Congregation: A Plea for their Unity,[8] wherein he contended for the union of church and parish, the opening of the communion to all as a rite accepted by the whole congregation, and not by a few church members, and the education of children as constituent members of the church from birth.

It was not until much later, however, that the rite of confirmation came into use,[9] largely because of the interpretations of the purposes and methods of Christian nurture presented by Bushnell, Bartol, and Judd. This rite could have meaning only as the expression of social responsibility on the part of parents and church alike, that true religion is not merely a question of individual opinion, but that there is high worth in those spiritual forces that are carried forward from generation to generation, and must descend from parent to child if they have effective power. In a word, the use of the confirmation rite is an abandonment of extreme individualism, and is an acceptance of the socialistic conception of spiritual development.[10] This is distinctly a return to the conception of a church maintained by Solomon Stoddard at the beginning of the eighteenth century, and to that broader Congregationalism he desired to see established throughout New England. It was also theoretically that of the Puritan founders of New England, who maintained that all children Of church members were also members of the church, but who inconsistently insisted upon a supernatural conversion in order to full membership. It is even more positively an acceptance of the theory of Christian nurture held by the Catholic and the Episcopal churches. That theory is based on the social conception of the church, that it is an organic body, and that every child is 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 elaborate rituals. The tendency has been away from the bare and unattractive service of the Puritan churches, which was the acme of individualism in worship, towards the more social conception that brings the whole congregation to join in the act and in the spirit of devotion. This social conception of worship had its first distinct expression in a Unitarian church when James Freeman Clarke organized the Church of the Disciples, in 1843.[11] His example was a potent force in introducing into many churches a richer and more expressive form of worship. Another influence was that of Samuel Longfellow, who became the minister of the Second Unitarian Church in Brooklyn, in 1853. He soon after introduced vesper services in place of the second sermon in the afternoon, making them largely devotional in their character. "His own taste and deep feeling were largely a condition of the full success of the vespers," says his biographer, "which were seldom elsewhere so impressive or seemed so genuine as a devotional act. They needed, for their perfect effect, the influence of a leader with whom worship was an habitual mental attitude, and who, combined with the instinct of religion the art of a poet and of a musician."[12] The form of service thus initiated was adopted in many other churches, and slowly had its influence in giving greater beauty and spiritual expressiveness to worship in Unitarian churches.

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

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

[Sidenote: The Seventy-fifth Anniversary.]

Many of the tendencies of the Unitarian movement found utterance on the occasion of the seventy-fifth anniversary of the American Unitarian Association. The meetings were held in Tremont Temple, May 22, 1900; and the attendance was large and enthusiastic, many persons coming from distant parts of the country. This meeting brought into full expression the denominational consciousness, and showed the harmony that had been secured as the result of the controversies of many years. As never before, it was realized that the Unitarian body has a distinct mission, that it has organic and vital power, and that its individual members are united by a common faith for the promotion of the interests of a rational and humanitarian religion.

This was also a notable occasion because it brought together representatives from nearly all the countries in which Unitarianism exists in an organized form, thus clearly indicating that it is a cosmopolitan movement, and not one of merely local significance. At the morning session addresses were made by the representatives from Hungary, Great Britain, Germany, Belgium, India, and Japan. In the afternoon addresses were delivered by the missionaries of the Association. Other meetings of much interest were held during the week, that were of value as interpretations of the past of Unitarianism in this country.