The Unitarian Society was established in 1791. The term Unitarian
began being used in Europe at the beginning of the 17th century. John
Biddle (1615-62) is considered to be the first minister to establish
a Unitarian congregation in Britain. Another early supporter was Theophilus
Lindsey (1723-1808), who built the Essex Street Chapel in London
in 1778. However, it was the Nonconformist
minister and scientist, Joseph Priestley,
who became the most important proponent of unitarianism in 18th century
England. After his home was destroyed by a mob in 1791, Priestley
emigrated to America.
The Unitarians
drew their membership to a large extent from the scientific professions
and their outlook tended to be rational and individualistic. The original
intentions of the movement was to unite all Non-conformist
groups but this ended in failure. There is no set doctrinal beliefs
that all Unitarians agree on. In fact, the most important aspect of
Unitarianism is the right of individuals to develop their own religious
opinions. Therefore the bond between them consists more in their anti-dogmatism
than in any uniformity of belief. However, Unitarians tend to believe
that Jesus Christ was a human religious leader to be followed but
not worshipped. Unitarians argued that Jesus is the "great exemplar
which we ought to copy in order to perfect our union with God".
Unitarians believed that social evils were humanly created, not God
inflicted, and therefore could be remedied by human efforts. Unitarians
were strong advocates of democracy and argued that each congregation
should manage itself without outside control. This included the power
to select and discharge ministers.
In the the late 18th and early 19th century, Unitarians were closely
identified with the campaign for social and political reform. Unitarians
such as Joseph Priestley, Jeremy
Bentham, Robert
Wedderburn,
Harriet Martineau, James
Martineau and John Stuart Mill were all
advocates of universal suffrage. Other leading radicals of the period
such as Tom Paine and Thomas
Muir were described by their critics as Unitarians. After the
publication of Paine's Rights of Man,
religious radicals in London formed the Unitarian Society to promote
the cause of parliamentary reform.
Unitarian congregations developed mainly in large industrial cities
such as Manchester, Birmingham
and Leeds. Growth was slow and by 1851 there
were only 229 congregations with about 30,000 members. However, they
had considerable influence owing to the prominence of Unitarians in
British Industry (Josiah Wedgwood, John
Marshall, Thomas Ashton, Samuel
Fielden, George Courtauld, Samuel
Courtauld, Peter Taylor, Samuel
Oldknow, Henry Tate, Charles
Booth, etc.) and in Parliament (John Fielden,
Robert Hyde Greg and Peter
Alfred Taylor.
James Martineau, the brother of Harriet
Martineau, was the leading English Unitarian in the middle of
the 19th century. In his book The Rationale of Religious Enquiry
(1836), Martineau argued that "reason is the ultimate appeal,
the supreme tribunal, to the test of which even Scripture must be
brought". William Gaskell, a Unitarian
minister in Manchester, and the husband
of the novelist Elizabeth Gaskell, was
another important figure during this period.
In the 19th century Unitarians were very active in the movements for
factory reforn, public
health, prison reform, temperance,
women's rights and the abolition of slavery.
Unitarian reformers included Edwin Chadwick,
Florence Nightingale, Jenkin
Lloyd Jones and Charles Booth.
In the religious census of 1851 there were 3,153,490 Protestant
Nonconformists. This included 37,156 Unitarians.
(1)
Joseph Priestley, An Essay on the First Principles of Government
(1768)
In the largest states, if the abuses of government should, at any
time be great and manifest; if the servants of the people, forgetting
their masters, and their masters' interest, should pursue a separate
one of their own; if, instead of considering that they are made for
the people, they should consider the people as made for them; if the
oppressions and violations of right should be great, flagrant, and
universally resented; if the tyrannical governors should have no friends
but a few sycophants, who had long preyed upon the vitals of their
fellow citizens, and who might be expected to desert a government,
whenever their interests should be detached from it: if, in consequence
of these circumstances, it should become manifest, that the risk,
which would be run in attempting a revolution would be trifling, and
the evils which might be apprehended from it, were far less than these
which were actually suffered, and which were daily increasing; in
the name of God, I ask, what principles are those, which ought to
restrain an injured and insulted people from asserting their natural
rights, and from changing, or even punishing their governors that
is their servants, who had abused their trust; or from altering the
whole form of their government, if it appeared to be of a structure
so liable to abuse?
To say
that these forms of government have been long established, and that
these oppressions have been long suffered, without any complaint,
is to supply the strongest argument for their abolition. Nothing can
more justly excite the indignation of an honest and oppressed citizen,
than to hear a prelate, who enjoys a considerable benefice, under
a corrupt government, pleading for its support by those abominable
perversions of scripture, which have been too common on this occasion;
as by urging in its favour that passage of St Paul, "The powers
which be are ordained of God", and others of a similar import.
It is a sufficient answer to such an absurd quotation as this, that,
for the same reason, the powers which will be will be ordained of
God also.
It will
be said, that it is opening a door to rebellion, to assert that magistrates,
abusing their power, may be set aside by the people, who are of course
their own judges when that power is abused. May not the people, it
is said, abuse their power, as well as their governors? I answer,
it is very possible they may abuse their power: it is possible they
may imagine themselves oppressed when they are not: it is possible
that their animosity may be artfully and unreasonably inflamed, by
ambitious and enterprising men, whose views are often best answered
by popular tumults and insurrections; and the people may suffer in
consequence of their folly and precipitancy. But what man is there,
or what body of men (whose right to direct their own conduct was never
called in question) but are liable to be imposed upon, and to suffer
in consequence of their mistaken apprehensions and precipitate conduct?
English
history will inform us, that the people of this country have always
borne extreme oppression, for a long time before there has appeared
any danger of a general insurrection against the government.
(2)
Henry
Snell, Men Movements and Myself (1936)
Although I had become a member of the National Secular Society,
and no longer believed in the verbal inspiration of the bible, in
miracles, the biblical story of creation, or several other orthodox
doctrines, I had arrived at no settled opinions concerning the mystery
of life, or of the origin, nature, and government of the universe.
Consequently, the Unitarian chapel with its scholarly approach to
these great problems, with its tolerance for those of other faiths,
and with its record as a progressive force in the civic life of the
town, made a quick and strong appeal to me, and I entered into its
gates with thanksgiving.
Available
from Amazon Books (order below)
