The Term ‘New Thought’ in Early 20th-Century Reference Works: How Dictionaries Defined the Movement

Introduction

The term “New Thought” entered the lexicon of American religious and philosophical movements in the late 19th century, but its formal definition in early 20th-century reference works offers a unique window into how contemporaries understood this eclectic and rapidly evolving movement. Dictionaries and encyclopedias of the period—ranging from Webster’s Dictionary to the Encyclopedia Americana—captured the movement’s central tenets, its therapeutic claims, and its philosophical underpinnings with remarkable consistency. These definitions not only documented the movement’s existence but also shaped public perception, distinguishing New Thought from its close cousin Christian Science and from secular psychotherapy. This article traces how these reference works defined New Thought, situating those definitions within the broader historical context of the movement’s rise and its lasting influence on American spirituality and self-help culture.

Historical Context

The New Thought movement emerged in the mid-19th century from a confluence of intellectual and spiritual currents: New England transcendentalism, with its emphasis on the immanence of God and the inherent goodness of humanity; the practical optimism of the American self-help tradition; and the healing practices associated with mesmerism and the mind-cure movement. The Encyclopedia Americana (1920) explicitly identifies New Thought as “a direct successor of New England transcendentalism, but much more practical and democratic” [3]. Unlike the seclusive idealism of Emerson and his circle, New Thought was “preached and practised on the high-roads and carried into the minutiæ of daily life,” often taking on the forms of religion and philosophy [3].

This context also includes the emergence of Christian Science, founded by Mary Baker Eddy in the 1870s. Both movements shared a belief in the mental or spiritual origin of disease and the power of thought to heal, but they diverged in theology and practice. Webster’s Dictionary (1913) explicitly defined New Thought as “any form of belief in mental healing other than (1) Christian Science and (2) hypnotism or psychotherapy” [1][4]. This negative definition—what it was not—reveals the need to distinguish New Thought from its more institutionalized sibling and from the growing field of medical psychology. The 1910 New Catholic Dictionary further emphasized the movement’s philosophical radicalism, noting that it “denies all idea of atonement, regarding evil ‘as only misdirected energy'” [2].

Main Narrative

Definition: Core Principles as Recorded by Dictionaries

Early 20th-century reference works converge on several key elements in their definitions of New Thought. According to Webster’s Dictionary (1913), the central principle is “affirmative thought, or suggestion, employed with the conviction that man produces changes in his health, his finances, and his life by the adoption of a favorable mental attitude” [1]. This emphasis on practical results—health, finances, life circumstances—distinguishes New Thought from purely speculative philosophy. The dictionary also notes that as a therapeutic doctrine, New Thought “stands for silent and absent mental treatment, and the theory that all diseases are mental in origin” [1]. This aligns with the practice of mental healing that was widespread in the movement.

The New Catholic Dictionary (1910) offers a more philosophical definition, describing New Thought as “a form of philosophy based on the progressive ability of mankind” [2]. It enumerates the fundamental ideas: “that God is omnipresent and immanent in all created things; that man is a divine soul ‘a microcosm of God’; that he is under the domination of universal law” [2]. This definition captures the metaphysical optimism and the belief in human potential that characterized the movement. It also notes that New Thought “recognizes no authority save the voice of the soul speaking to each individual,” which explains the movement’s lack of centralized doctrine or hierarchy [2].

The Encyclopedia Americana (1920) adds that New Thought “boasts of being the greatest healer the world has yet seen and scorns the idea of being mere speculation” [3]. This self-image as a practical, healing-oriented movement is consistent across all definitions.

Origins and Early Apostles

The Encyclopedia Americana identifies the first apostles of New Thought as P. P. Quimby of Portland, Maine, Dr. W. F. Evans, and their immediate disciples [3]. Phineas Parkhurst Quimby (1802–1866) was a clockmaker and mesmerist who developed a system of mental healing that rejected the material basis of disease. His ideas influenced Mary Baker Eddy, who later founded Christian Science, but also directly shaped the New Thought movement through his patient and student Warren Felt Evans, a Swedenborgian minister who wrote several books on mental healing. These early figures laid the groundwork for a movement that would spread through lectures, periodicals, and independent centers.

Who Popularized It: The Movement’s Institutional Growth

While the early apostles were Quimby and Evans, the movement gained widespread popularity through a later generation of teachers and organizers. Emma Curtis Hopkins (1849–1925), sometimes called the “teacher of teachers,” trained many future leaders, including Charles and Myrtle Fillmore, founders of Unity, and Malinda Cramer and Nona Brooks, co-founders of Divine Science. Ernest Holmes (1887–1960) synthesized New Thought principles into the Religious Science movement, publishing his seminal work Science of Mind in 1926. These figures expanded the movement’s reach through publications such as Unity Magazine, The Nautilus (edited by Elizabeth Towne), and Science of Mind magazine. The Encyclopedia Americana noted that New Thought “will not create any new religion or creed” and that its representatives claimed “they are not desirable, because they are based on will, not on thought” [3]. This anti-creedal stance allowed for a diversity of interpretations and practices, which the reference works captured as a defining characteristic.

How Different New Thought Groups Understood It

Reference works of the period also reflect the internal diversity of the movement. Webster’s Dictionary noted that the term is “essentially synonymous with the term High Thought, used in England” [1], indicating an international dimension. The New Catholic Dictionary, written from a Catholic perspective, emphasized the movement’s rejection of traditional Christian doctrines like atonement and its reliance on “universal law” rather than divine grace [2]. This critical perspective highlights how New Thought was perceived as a departure from orthodox Christianity. On the other hand, the Encyclopedia Americana presented New Thought as a positive, practical philosophy, noting that it “boasts of being the greatest healer” and that its aim is “through thought, to direct energy properly” [3][2]. The movement’s own literature, such as Ernest Holmes’s New Thought Terms and Their Meanings, sought to codify its vocabulary, further shaping how the term was understood [5].

Historical Development: From Mind-Cure to a Movement

By the early 20th century, New Thought had evolved from a loose network of healers and writers into an organized movement. The International New Thought Alliance (INTA) was founded in 1914, consolidating various groups under a common banner. The definitions in reference works reflect this consolidation. Webster’s Dictionary’s description of New Thought as a “cult” with “its unifying idea the inculcation of workable optimism in contrast with the ‘old thought’ of sin, evil, predestination, and pessimistic resignation” [1] captures the movement’s optimistic worldview. The Encyclopedia Americana noted that New Thought “will not formulate any new system of metaphysics” because “life and thought cannot be confined in a system” [3]. This anti-systematic stance was both a strength and a challenge for the movement, allowing for flexibility but also leading to fragmentation.

Related Concepts: Christian Science, Transcendentalism, and Psychotherapy

All the reference works define New Thought in relation to other movements. Webster’s Dictionary explicitly excludes Christian Science and hypnotism/psychotherapy from the definition [1]. This boundary-setting was crucial in a period when many mental healing movements competed for legitimacy. The Encyclopedia Americana traces New Thought’s lineage to transcendentalism, while the New Catholic Dictionary contrasts it with Catholic theology. These comparisons helped readers understand New Thought’s place in the religious landscape. The movement also shared ideas with the broader “mind-cure” tradition and with the emerging field of positive thinking, which would later be popularized by Norman Vincent Peale and others.

Modern Legacy: How the Definitions Shaped Perceptions

The definitions in early 20th-century reference works have had a lasting impact on how New Thought is understood today. They established key tropes: New Thought as a practical, healing-oriented philosophy; its distinction from Christian Science; its emphasis on affirmative thought and optimism; and its rejection of traditional religious authority. These definitions also influenced academic and popular treatments of the movement. For example, the New Catholic Dictionary‘s description of New Thought as denying atonement and recognizing only “the voice of the soul” [2] foreshadowed later critiques of New Thought as narcissistic or heretical. Conversely, the Encyclopedia Americana‘s positive portrayal helped legitimize New Thought as a serious philosophical movement. Modern historians of American religion often cite these early definitions when tracing the movement’s evolution.

Why It Matters in New Thought History

The way early 20th-century reference works defined New Thought is not merely a curiosity of lexicography; it reveals the movement’s self-understanding and its place in American culture. These definitions served as gatekeepers, distinguishing New Thought from Christian Science and psychotherapy, and thus shaping the movement’s identity. They also documented the movement’s core beliefs—affirmative thought, mental healing, the immanence of God—which continue to influence modern self-help and spiritual movements. For students of New Thought history, these dictionary entries provide a snapshot of how the movement was perceived at its peak of influence, before it became absorbed into broader currents of New Age spirituality and positive thinking. Understanding these definitions helps us trace the movement’s legacy from Quimby and Evans to the present day, and to appreciate the diversity and dynamism that early observers recognized.

Primary Sources

• Webster’s Dictionary of the English Language (1913) – Entry for “New Thought” as reprinted on Archli.com. Provides the standard definition emphasizing affirmative thought and mental healing.
• New Catholic Dictionary (1910) – Entry for “Thought, New” available on StudyLight.org. Offers a Catholic perspective on the movement’s philosophy and its deviations from Christian doctrine.
• The Encyclopedia Americana (1920) – Article on “New-Thought” on Wikisource. A comprehensive overview that places the movement in the context of transcendentalism and describes its practical orientation.
• FineDictionary.com – Compilation of definitions from Webster’s Revised Unabridged Dictionary, including quotations about New Thought. Useful for comparative analysis.
• Ernest Holmes, New Thought Terms and Their Meanings – A dictionary of terms used within the movement itself, providing an insider’s perspective on the vocabulary and concepts.