Unitarianism in America: A History of its Origin and Development

by George Willis Cooke

Before the controversy with the Orthodox had come to its end, a somewhat similar conflict of opinions arose within the Unitarian ranks. The same influences that had led the Unitarians away from the Orthodox were now causing the more radical Unitarians to advance beyond their more conservative neighbors. English philosophy had given direction to the Unitarian movement in America; and now German philosophy was helping to develop what has been designated as transcendentalism, which largely found expression within the Unitarian body. Beginning with 1835, the more liberal Unitarians were increasingly active. Hedge's[[1]] Club held its meetings, The Dial was published, Brook Farm lived its brief day of a reformed humanity, Parker began his preaching in Boston, Emerson was lecturing and publishing, and the more radical younger Unitarian preachers were bravely speaking for a religion natural to man and authenticated by the inner witness of the truth.

The agitation thus started went on its way with many varying manifestations, and with a growing incisiveness of statement and earnestness of feeling. The new teachings gained the interest and the faith of the young in increasing numbers. In pulpits and on the platform, in newspapers and magazines, in essays and addresses, this new teaching was uttered for the world's hearing. The breeze thus created seems to have grown into a gale, but The Christian Register and The Christian Examiner gave almost no indication that it had blown their way. In the official actions and in the publications of the Unitarian Association there was no word indicating that the discussion had come to its knowledge. All at once, however, in 1853, it came into the greatest prominence, as the result of action taken by the Unitarian Association; and, thenceforth, for a quarter of a century it was never absent as a disturbing element in the intellectual and religious life of the Unitarian body.

The early Unitarians were believers in the supernatural and in the miracles of the New Testament. They accepted without question the ideas on this subject that had been entertained by all Protestants from the days of Luther and Calvin. When Theodore Parker and the transcendentalists began to question the miraculous foundations of Christianity, many Unitarians were quite unprepared to accept their theories. They believed that the miracles of the New Testament afford the only evidence for the truthfulness of Christianity. This issue was distinctly stated in the twenty-eighth annual report of the Unitarian Association for 1853, wherein an attempt was made to defend the Unitarian body against the charge of infidelity and rationalism made by the Orthodox. The teachings of the transcendentalists and radicals had been attributed to all Unitarians, and the leaders of the Association felt that it was time to define explicitly the position they occupied. Therefore they said, in the report of that year:--"We desire, in a denominational capacity, to assert our profound belief in the Divine origin, the Divine authority, the Divine sanctions, of the religion of Jesus Christ. This is the basis of our associated action. We desire openly to declare our belief as a denomination, so far as it can be officially represented by the American Unitarian Association, that God, moved by his own love, did raise up Jesus to aid in our redemption from sin, did by him pour a fresh flood of purifying life through the withered veins of humanity and along the corrupted channels of the world, and is, by his religion, forever sweeping the nations with regenerating gales from heaven, and visiting the hearts of men with celestial solicitations. We receive the teachings of Christ, separated from all foreign admixtures and later accretions, as infallible truth from God."[[2]] At the same meeting a resolution was adopted, "without a dissenting voice," which declared that "the Divine authority of the Gospel, as founded on a special and miraculous interposition of God, is the basis of the action of the Association."[[3]]

As these statements indicate, the majority of Unitarians were very conservative at this time in their theological position and methods. They were nearly as hesitating and reticent in their beliefs as Unitarians as they had been while connected with the older Congregational body. The reason for this was the same in the later as in the earlier period, that a predominant social conservatism held them aloof from all that was intellectually aggressive and theologically rationalistic. They had outgrown 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 of Calvin, and they had rejected the ecclesiastical tyrannies that had been imposed on men by the New England theology. But they had advanced only a little way in accepting modern thought as a basis of faith, and in seeking a rational interpretation of the relations of God and man. Their belief in a superhuman Christ was theoretically weaker, but practically stronger, than that of the churches from which they had withdrawn; while the grounds of that belief were in the one instance the same as in the other.

Depression in Denominational Activities.

The activities of the Unitarian Association were largely interfered with by these differences of opinion. The more conservative churches were unwilling to contribute to its treasury because it did not exclude the radicals from all connection with it. The radicals, on, the other hand, withheld their gifts because, while they were not excommunicated, they were regarded with suspicion by many of the churches, and did not have the fullest recognition from the Association.

This controversy was emphasized by that arising from the reform movements of the day, especially the agitation against slavery. Almost without exception the radicals belonged to the anti-slavery party, while the conservative churches were generally opposed to this agitation. As a result, anti-slavery efforts became a serious cause of discord in the Unitarian churches, and helped to cripple the resources of the Association. When, as the climax of all, the civil war came on, the Association was brought to a condition of almost desperate poverty. Not more than twoscore churches contributed to its treasury, and it was obliged, to curtail its expenses in every direction.[[4]]

Up to the year 1865 the Unitarians had not been efficiently organized; and they had developed very imperfectly what has been called denominational consciousness, or the capacity for co-operative efforts. The Unitarian Association was not a representative body, and it depended wholly upon individuals for its membership. Not more than one-fourth or, at the largest, one-third of the Unitarian churches were represented in its support and in its activities. There were: Unitarian churches, and there was a Unitarian movement; but such a thing as a Unitarian denomination, in any clearly defined meaning of the words, did not exist. This fact was explained by James Freeman Clarke in 1863, when he said that "the traditions of the Unitarian body are conservative and timid."[[5]] How this attitude affected the Unitarian Association was pointedly stated by Mr. Clarke, after several years of experience as its secretary. "The Unitarian churches 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 Boston Common. The Boston churches, with the exception of a few noble and generous examples, 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 church in Brattle street contains wealthy and generous persons who have given largely to humane objects and to all public purposes; but we believe that, even while their pastor was president of the Unitarian Association, they never gave a dollar to that Association for its missionary objects. The society in King's Chapel was the first in the United States which professed Unitarianism. It is so wealthy that it might give ten or twenty thousand dollars a year to missionary objects without feeling it. It has always been very liberal to its ministers, to all philanthropic and benevolent objects, and its members have probably given away millions of dollars for public and social uses; but it never gives anything to diffuse Unitarianism."[[6]]