In Europe this alliance between the despotic and the lawless may be fortunate for the peace of the community. In our Southern States it is eminently conducive to the tranquillity they desire. But when the lawless are here and the despotic are there, when the barbarism is in New York and the tyranny in Richmond, when the elements of discord and turbulence in our Northern cities fly to support their iron-handed rulers in the seceded States, there ensues a state of things, especially in time of war, that is calculated to shake society to its foundations, and fill every loyal heart with dread. The unruly, as if they felt instinctively their lack of self-control, seek a ruler—fly to the strongest to save them from themselves, worship the sternest, the most high-handed, the cruellest, and by that natural sympathy with brutality are maintained in subjection to law.
Heaven speed the time when these heedless, reckless, licentious children of humanity may feel sensible of the weight of power without its brutality, may reverence authority when it is neither beastly nor cruel, may yield obedience to Order, whose symbol is not the sword, and to Law, whose badge is not the bayonet. But till that time comes, we, with thoughtful minds and sad hearts and sober consciences, and souls full as we can make them of human charity and good-will, must hold in our hands those terrible symbols, and in the Christian spirit do the ruler's part.
The insurrection did not last long. As soon as the United States troops appeared the trouble was over and order was restored. There was fighting; there was pillage; but how many lives were lost and how much property was destroyed was never exactly known. On the whole, the riot strengthened the hands of the government, increased pity for the victims of outrage, and excited sympathy for the negroes and the abolitionists. The priests, as I well remember, helped in the work of pacification. On the second day of the uprising, as I was visiting a friend in his studio on Fifth Avenue, the mob came along, shouting, yelling, brandishing clubs, on their way to the archbishop's palace, to hear an address by him. The prelate appeared on the balcony dressed in full canonicals, in order to impress the people, and delivered a most ingenious and persuasive address. Beginning "Men of New York," he flattered their self-esteem, paid a tribute to their sense of power and exalted influence, and advised them against cruelty and anarchy. The effect of this speech was surprising in soothing and quieting the crowd. They had come there in a mood of tumult—they separated peacefully and went to their own homes, satisfied. From that hour the soul of the riot was broken.
The incidents of the war cannot be detailed here. The story has been told too often, and is altogether too long for my space. And after all the moral issues of the war were the most interesting though not the most pathetic. The sentiment of union, the establishment of the national supremacy, the authority of the reign of law, the emancipation of a degraded race, the new inspiration imparted to a great people, and the advent of a universal republicanism were most significant. It is quite likely that the modern uprising of labor and the urgent claims of women for recognition and civil power were aided, if not suggested, by this overwhelming triumph of order and enlightenment. It is more than likely that the position of the United States, as a power among the nations of the earth, was due mainly to the victory that was achieved by the powers of liberty.
IX.
THE FREE RELIGIOUS ASSOCIATION.
The happy ending of the war stimulated, as has been said, the sentiment of Unity. The success of the government in putting down the rebellion filled the air with the spirit of union. The restoration of political harmony suggested a deeper harmony, when divisions should cease. At this moment, in April, 1865, the indefatigable Dr. Bellows, who had been the soul of the Sanitary Commission, summoned all Christian believers of the liberal persuasions to a convention in his church for a more complete organization. The invitation was most generously interpreted, and was hailed by some who could be called Christians only under the most elastic definition of the term. A prominent layman of the Unitarian body brought an elaborate creed which he wished the convention to adopt; and a distinguished minister of the West was of the opinion that the work of perfect organization could best be done by the adoption of stringent articles of faith. But the minimum of belief was imposed. The preamble of the constitution, the work of reconciling minds, reads thus: "Whereas the great opportunities and demands for Christian labor and consecration, at this time, increase our sense of the obligations of all disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ to prove their faith by self-denial and by the devotion of their lives and possessions to the service of God, and the building up of the kingdom of his son, Therefore." Then follow the articles. It was this phrase, "Lord Jesus Christ," that provoked discussion. The struggle was renewed at Syracuse on October 8th of the next year, 1866, and an attempt was made to explain away the force of the declaration by announcing that while the preamble and articles of the constitution represented the opinions of the majority, yet they were not to be considered an authoritative test of Unitarianism, or to exclude from fellowship any who though differing in belief "are in general sympathy with our purpose and practical aims." But this was not considered by the radicals as satisfactory. For in the first place the title of "Lord" seemed to contain by implication a doctrine which could not be subscribed to, as the "Lordship" of Jesus was supposed to be supernatural. Here seemed to be a fundamental difference between those who held to the old world's idea of a spiritual kingdom, and those who proclaimed the new world's idea of a spiritual democracy. In fact, one of the leaders—Dr. Bellows—plainly said if there was to be any change it must be made in the other direction; "we are to consider not only the few on the one side, who may or may not care to unite with us, but the great body of Christians of all denominations, the Universal Church of Christ; I demand liberality to them, the liberality which acknowledges their Lord and Leader, and welcomes them to a household whose hearth glows with faith in and loyalty to the personal Saviour." It was plainly declared by him that Unitarians assumed the name of liberal Christians, because they allowed liberality of inquiry and opinion within the pale of Christian discipleship. This of itself was enough to create a palpable division, but it was felt besides that freedom of interpretation did not imply freedom of rejection. The phrase Lordship of Jesus, although as little of a creed as could be devised, was hostile to freedom, besides not being altogether true, as Jesus never claimed to be infallible. The radicals, under the lead of Francis E. Abbot, attempted to introduce a substitute for the original preamble, inculcating unity of spirit and of work as the basis of the "National Conference of Unitarian and Independent Churches." This substitute was not carried, and a final breach between the Independents and the Unitarians was thus established. This was inevitable twenty-five years ago; it could not happen to-day, when both wings are united in one body.
For my part I did not go to Syracuse, having foreseen what eventually occurred, namely, the intended solidification of the Unitarian body by the strengthening of the bonds of organization. My own personal experience, which other radicals knew nothing of, led me to this conclusion. My church edifice on 40th Street was begun in the spring of 1863. The two ministers in New York were present at the informal service of laying the corner-stone. The walls were going up during the summer; on the week of the riot the mob called the workmen off, threatening to destroy what was built if the masons did not leave. The building was finished in the winter, and dedicated on Christmas Day. To the warm personal invitation which was sent to all the Unitarian clergy in New York and Brooklyn—there were but three then—no response was returned; and when my father and I went to the church there were no ministers on the platform. We went through the service, my father offering the prayer and I preaching the sermon. No remark was made at the time beyond an expression of surprise at the non-appearance of the "brethren." The next day my father, who had come from Boston on purpose to attend the dedication, and whose blindness was approaching fast, went to make a friendly visit on Dr. Bellows. On his return, when asked if any reason was assigned for the failure to participate in the proceedings of the day before, he said that the duties of Christmas were alleged as the cause. I was sure there was another explanation behind; and as soon as I had put my father in the train for home wrote to Dr. Bellows, taxing him among the rest with discourtesy. It was evident that such a charge was anticipated and prepared for; that the ministers had met and had agreed on a course to be pursued in my case. For at once there came a reply to my note, accusing me of studiously neglecting all the usual observances of the denomination. My invitation had not been official; there was no "church"; there had never been any sacrament; the allegiance to fundamental doctrines of the sect had been slack. All this was true, and no attempt at exculpation was made, but it was felt that a breach existed. The excitements of the war overshadowed everything else at this period, and nothing more was said. My Society was duly represented at the first conference; but as soon as our side was argued,—as it was by D. A. Wasson,—it was plain that the spirit of organization prevailed and was against us. A division was inevitable. The "Independents" must form a separate party.
This virtual exclusion occasioned the formation of the Free Religious Association. A meeting was held on the 5th of February, 1867, at Dr. C. A. Bartol's, in Boston, to consider a plan for creating a new association on the basis of free thought. Very strong words were spoken on that occasion. One man, I recollect, spoke of all churches, all ministers, and all religion as being outgrown. But the majority were of the opinion that religion was an eternal necessity, and the administration of it an absolute demand. Dr. Bartol himself was always a warm friend of the Association, appearing on the platform, speaking always hopefully, one of the most welcome of its supporters. The Association was formed in the spring of that same year. In the plan of organization it was distinctly announced that the aim of the Association was to "promote the interest of pure religion, to encourage the scientific study of theology, and to increase fellowship in the spirit; and to this end all persons interested in these objects are cordially invited to its membership." Thus the object of the Association was exceedingly broad. It proposed to remove all dividing lines and to unite all religious men in bonds of pure spirituality, each one being responsible for his own opinion alone, and in no degree affected in his relations with other associations. If the movement had been in the hands of orthodox and well-reputed people, it would have seemed not only large but noble and beneficent. Being, as it was, in the hands of a few radical clergymen and laymen, it was supposed to be "infidel" in its character; and was misrepresented and abused accordingly.