The attitude of the Unitarian Association and the National Conference--that is, of a large majority of Unitarians at this time--may be accurately defined in the words of Charles Lowe, who said: "I admit that we make a belief in Christianity a test of fellowship. No stretch of liberality will make me wish to deny that a belief in Jesus Christ is the absolutely essential qualification. But I will oppose, as a test, any definition of Christianity, any words about Christ, for Christ himself, as the principles of our fellowship and union."[12] These words exactly define what was sought for, which was liberty within the limits of Christianity. The primary insistence was upon discipleship to Jesus Christ, but it was maintained that loyalty to Christ is compatible with the largest degree of personal liberty.
Fundamentally, this controversy was a continuation of that which had agitated New England from the beginning, that had divided those opposed to "the great awakening" of the middle of the eighteenth century from those who favored it, that led the Unitarians away from the Orthodox, and that now divided radical and conservative Unitarians. The advance was always towards a more pronounced assertion of individualism, and a more positive rejection of tradition, organization, and external authority. Indeed, it was towards this end that Unitarianism had directed its energies from the beginning; and the force of this tendency could not be overcome because some called for a creed, and more had come to see the need of an efficient organization for practical purposes.
What the radicals desired was freedom, and the broadest assertion of individuality. It was maintained by Francis E. Abbot that "the spiritual ideal of Free Religion is to develop the individuality of the soul in the highest, fullest, and most independent manner possible."[13] The other distinctive principle of the radicals was that religion is universal, that all religions are essentially, the same, and that Christianity is simply one of the phases of universal religion. David A. Wasson defined religion as "the consciousness of universal relation,"[14] and as "the sense of unity with the infinite whole," adding that "morals, reason, freedom, are bound up with it."[15] This means, in simple statement, that religion is natural to man, and that it needs no authentication by miracle or supernatural manifestation. It means that all religions are essentially the same in their origin, and that none can claim the special favor of God in their manner of presentation to the world. According to this conception of religion, as was stated by. William J. Potter, Christianity is "provisional, preparatory, educational, containing, alongside of the most valuable truth, much that is only human error and bigotry and superstitious imagination."[16] "The spiritual ideal of Christianity," said Francis E. Abbot, "is the suppression of self and perfect imitation of Jesus the Christ. The spiritual ideal of Free Religion is the development of self, and the harmonious education of all its powers to the highest possible degree."[17]