Unitarianism in America: A History of its Origin and Development Part 15

The period from 1880 to the present time is marked by a growing denominational unity. Gradually Unitarians have come to the acceptance of their fellows.h.i.+p 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 inst.i.tutions 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 inst.i.tutions 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, Fellows.h.i.+p, and Character in Religion," which was the same as that of the Free Religious a.s.sociation, 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 G.o.d 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 fellows.h.i.+p 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 p.r.o.nounced 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 fellows.h.i.+p 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 fellows.h.i.+p. 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, fellows.h.i.+p, and character in religion. These principles make our all-sufficient test of fellows.h.i.+p. 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 fellows.h.i.+p; 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 wors.h.i.+pping the One-in-All, and naming that One, G.o.d 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 wors.h.i.+p of G.o.d and the service of man." It is hinted in such words as these: "Unitarianism is a religion of love to G.o.d 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 fellows.h.i.+p, 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 n.o.bility 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 h.e.l.l 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 wors.h.i.+p 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 G.o.d,--that Love with whom our souls commune. This One we name the Eternal G.o.d, 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 att.i.tude and in their demands. Both sought the truth with an attempt at unbia.s.sed judgment; and neither wished to disfellows.h.i.+p 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 const.i.tution had been appointed by the council of the session of 1891; and this committee reported the following preamble, which was unanimously adopted as a subst.i.tute 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 G.o.d. These churches accept the religion of Jesus, holding, in accordance with his teaching, that practical religion is summed up in love to G.o.d and love to man. The Conference recognizes the fact that its const.i.tuency is Congregational in tradition and polity. Therefore, it declares that nothing in this const.i.tution is to be construed as an authoritative test; and we cordially invite to our working fellows.h.i.+p any who, while differing from us in belief, are in general sympathy with our spirit and our practical aims.

This preamble to the new const.i.tution 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 fellows.h.i.+p was made very broad in its character, and all were invited to join it who so desired.

[Sidenote: Fellows.h.i.+p with Universalists.]

At the annual meeting of the Unitarian a.s.sociation in 1899 resolutions were pa.s.sed 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 a.s.sociation 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 inst.i.tuting 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 a.s.sociation 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 antic.i.p.ated in the promotion of harmony and co-operation.

[Sidenote: Officers of the American Unitarian a.s.sociation.]

Mr. Henry P. Kidder continued as the president of the Unitarian a.s.sociation 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 Ma.s.sachusetts legislature, in the national House from 1877 to 1883, and was governor of Ma.s.sachusetts 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 Ma.s.sachusetts 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 Ma.s.sachusetts Senate in 1871 and 1872, was chief of the Ma.s.sachusetts 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 a.s.sociation 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 a.s.sociation 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 a.s.sociation. 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 leaders.h.i.+p 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 a.s.sociation 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 a.s.sociation 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 a.s.sociation was "not a union of churches, but an a.s.sociation of individuals belonging to Unitarian churches, who became members of it and ent.i.tled to vote by signing its const.i.tution and the annual payment of one dollar. This a.s.sociation 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 const.i.tution, 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 a.s.sociation 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 a.s.sociation that a church might become a member. At the annual meeting of the a.s.sociation in 1884, after a prolonged discussion, its by-laws were so amended that, while the life members.h.i.+p 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 a.s.sociation.

The giving a representative character to the a.s.sociation had the effect of increasing the contributions made to its support by the churches. Under the leaders.h.i.+p 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 a.s.sociation 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 a.s.sociation 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 pa.s.sed asking the a.s.sociation 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 a.s.sociation 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 a.s.sociation 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 a.s.sociation; and his place of business was at 81 Was.h.i.+ngton 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 Was.h.i.+ngton 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 Was.h.i.+ngton 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 Was.h.i.+ngton Street; and the sum it received from the a.s.sociation was $200, which was the next year increased to $300. Leonard C. Bowles, located at 147 Was.h.i.+ngton 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 Was.h.i.+ngton Street. Here the headquarters of the a.s.sociation 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 a.s.sociation 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 a.s.sociation, first at 118 and then at 111 Was.h.i.+ngton 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 a.s.sociated 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 a.s.sociation 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 a.s.sociation at last secured an abode of its own. On March 9, 1854, rooms for the use of the a.s.sociation 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 a.s.sociation. Another change was made in October, 1859, when Walker, Wise & Co. undertook the book-selling, and publis.h.i.+ng work of the a.s.sociation at 21 Bromfield Street.

In the year 1865 there came to the a.s.sociation 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 a.s.sociation 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 a.s.sociation, 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 s.p.a.cious hall for these great popular meetings, smaller rooms for social gatherings, offices for the a.s.sociation 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 a.s.sociation 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. s.h.i.+ppen called attention to the needs of the a.s.sociation 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 a.s.sociation and prominent in the Unitarian circles of Boston. This building, entered by the a.s.sociation in May, 1873, was somewhat larger than its predecessor and in some respects better suited to the needs of the a.s.sociation; 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. s.h.i.+ppen again presented his demand for a suitable home for the a.s.sociation 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 a.s.sociation 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 a.s.sociation.

"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 n.o.ble 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 n.o.ble 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 const.i.tuent 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 members.h.i.+p. 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 wors.h.i.+p, 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 wors.h.i.+p, 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 wors.h.i.+p 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 wors.h.i.+p. 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 wors.h.i.+p was an habitual mental att.i.tude, 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 wors.h.i.+p in Unitarian churches.

About 1885 the tendency to adopt a more social and a more aesthetic form of wors.h.i.+p came to a.s.sert 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 a.s.sociation, 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 wors.h.i.+pping spirit. With the development of a rational theology there has been a corresponding evolution of a simple but earnest att.i.tude 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 G.o.d 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 repet.i.tion 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, wors.h.i.+ppers.

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 wors.h.i.+ppers that can produce such a hymnology must possess a large measure of genuine piety and devotion.

[Sidenote: The Seventy-fifth Anniversary.]