1784; and, having a letter to Mr. Eliot, who received him with great
kindness, he was introduced on that very day to the Boston
Association of Ministers. The venerable Chauncy, at whose house it
happened to be held, entered into a familiar conversation with him,
and showed him every possible respect as he learned that he had been
acquainted with Dr. Price. Without knowing at the time anything of
the occasion which led to it, ordination happened to be the general
subject of discussion. After the different gentlemen had severally
delivered their opinions, the stranger was requested to declare his
sentiments, who unhesitatingly replied that the people or the
congregation who chose any man to be their minister were his proper
ordainers. Mr. Freeman, upon hearing this, jumped from his seat in a
kind of transport, saying, 'I wish you could prove that, Sir,' The
gentleman answered that 'few things could admit of an easier proof.'
And from that moment a thorough intimacy commenced between him and
Mr. Freeman. Soon after, the Boston prints being under no
_imprimatur_, he published several letters in supporting the cause of
Mr. Freeman. At the solicitation of Mr. Freeman he also published a
Scriptural Confutation of the Thirty-nine Articles. Notice being
circulated that this publication would appear on a particular day, the
printer, apprised of this circumstance, threw off a hundred papers
beyond his usual number, and had not one paper remaining upon his
hands at noon. This publication in its consequences converted Mr.
Freeman's congregation into a Unitarian church, which, as Mr. Freeman
acknowledged, could never have been done without the labors of this
gentleman."
[49] American Unitarianism, from Belsham's Life of Lindsey, 12,
_note_.
[50] American Unitarianism, 16.
[51] American Unitarianism, note.
[52] Ibid., 20.
[53] American Unitarianism, 17.
[54] "Oxnard was a merchant, born in Boston in 1740, but settled in
Portland, where he married the daughter of General Preble, in 1787.
He was a loyalist, and fled from the country at the outbreak of the
war. He returned to Portland in 1787. A few years later, 1792, the
Episcopal church being destitute of a minister, he was engaged as lay
reader, with the intention of taking orders. His Unitarianism put a
sudden end to his Episcopacy, but not to his preaching. He gathered a
small congregation in the school-house, and preached sometimes
sermons of his own, but more often of other men. He died in 1799."
John C. Perkins, How the First Parish became Unitarian,--historical
sermon preached in Portland.
[55] American Unitarianism, 18.
[56] Ibid., 17, 20.
[57] American Unitarianism, 24.
[58] American Unitarianism, 22.
[59] Church Records, in MS., II. 7.
[60] Rev. Thomas Robbins, Diary for October 13, 1799, I. 97, heard Mr.
Kendall, and said: "He appears to be an Arminian in full. I fear he
will lead many souls astray." See John Cuckson, A Brief History of
the First Church in Plymouth, eighth chapter.
[61] Chauncy against Chandler, 152.
[62] These particulars are taken from the Debates and Proceedings in the
Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts held in the year
1788, and which finally ratified the Constitution of the United
States, Boston, 1856.
V.
THE PERIOD OF CONTROVERSY.
In the spring of 1805 Rev. Henry Ware, who had been for nearly twenty years
pastor of the first church in the town of Hingham, was inaugurated as the
Hollis Professor of Divinity at Harvard College. The place had been made
vacant by the death of Professor David Tappan, who was a moderate
Calvinist; that is, one who recognized the sovereignty of God, but allowed
to man a limited opportunity for personal effort in the process of
salvation. It was assumed by the conservative party that a Calvinist would
be appointed, because the founder of this important professorship, it was
claimed, was of that way of thinking, and so conditioned his gift as to
require that no one but a Calvinist should hold the position. This was
strenuously denied by the liberals, who maintained that Hollis was not only
liberal and catholic in his own theology, but that he made no such
restrictions as were claimed.[1] When the nomination of Mr. Ware was
presented to the overseers, it was strongly opposed; but he was elected by
a considerable majority. A pamphlet soon appeared in opposition to him, and
this was the beginning of a controversy that lasted for a quarter of a
century.[2]
This war of pamphlets was made more furious by Rev. John Sherman's One God
in One Person Only, and Rev. Hosea Ballou's Treatise on the Atonement, both
of which appeared in 1805. Mr. Sherman's book was described in The Monthly
Anthology as "one of the first acts of direct hostility against the
orthodox committed on these western shores."[3] The little book by Hosea
Ballou had small influence on the current of religious thinking outside the
Universalist body, to which he belonged, and probably did not at all enter
into the controversy between the orthodox and the liberal
Congregationalists. It was, however, the first positive statement of the
doctrine of the atonement in a rational form, not as expiatory, but as
reconciling man to the loving authority of God. Within a decade it brought
the leading Universalists to the Unitarian position.[4] These works were
followed, in 1810, by Rev. Noah Worcester's Bible News of the Father, Son,
and Holy Ghost, which presented clearly and forcibly an Arian view of the
Trinity, or the subordination of Christ to God. These definitions of their
position on the part of the liberals were met by the publication of The
Panoplist, which was begun by Dr. Jedidiah Morse, of Charlestown, Mass., in
1805. This magazine interpreted the orthodox positions, and devoted itself
zealously to the defence of the old ideas, as understood by its editors. It
was not vehemently aggressive, but was largely devoted to general religious
interests, and to the promotion of a higher spirit of devotion. It was
followed by The Spirit of the Pilgrims, which was more combative, and in
some degree intolerant. In the year 1808 the Andover Theological School was
founded, the result of a reconciliation between the Hopkinsians and the
Calvinists of the old type, affording an opportunity for theological
training on the part of those who could not accept the liberal attitude of
Harvard.
Most of the liberal men of this time refused to bring their beliefs to the
test of exact definition. It was their opinion that no theological
statement can have high value in relation to Christian attainments. Under
these conditions were trained the men who became the leaders in the early
Unitarian movement. William Ellery Channing, who was settled over the
Federal Street Church in June, 1803, was distinctly evangelical, and of a
profound and earnest piety. Slowly he grew to accept the liberal attitude,
as the result of his love of freedom, his lofty spirituality of nature, and
his tolerant and generous cast of mind. He gave spiritual and intellectual
direction to the new movement, guided its philanthropic efforts, and
brought to noble issue its spiritual philosophy. Early in the year 1804,
Joseph Stevens Buckminster was settled over the Brattle Street Church; and,
though he preached but a little over six years before a blighting disease
took him away, yet he left behind a tradition of great pulpit gifts and a
wonderfully attractive personality. Another to die in early manhood was
Samuel Cooper Thacher, who was settled at the New South in 1811, and who
was long remembered for his scholarship and his zeal in the work which he
had undertaken. Charles Lowell went to the West Church in 1806, and he
nobly sustained the traditions for liberality and spiritual freedom that
had gathered about that place of worship. In 1814 appeared Edward Everett,
at the age of twenty (which had been that of Buckminster when he entered
the pulpit), as the minister of the Brattle Street Church, to charm with
his eloquence, learning, grace, and power. Francis Parkman began his career
at the New North in 1812,--"a man of various information, a kind spirit,
singular benevolence, polished yet simple manners, fine literary
taste."[5] A few years later John Gorham Palfrey became the minister of
the Brattle Street Church, and James Walker was settled over the Harvard
Church in Charlestown. Among the laymen in the churches to which these men
preached were many persons of distinction. The liberal fellowship,
therefore, was of the highest social and intellectual standing. The piety
of the churches was serious, if not profound; and the religion presented
was simple, sincere, intellectual, and earnestly spiritual.
[Sidenote: The Monthly Anthology.]
The practical and tolerant aims of the liberals were shown by the manner in
which they began to give expression publicly to their position. In The
Monthly Anthology they first found voice, although that publication was
started without the slightest controversial purpose. Begun by a young man
as a monthly literary journal in 1803, when he found it would not support
him, he abandoned it;[6] and the publishers asked Rev. William Emerson,
the minister of the First Church in Boston, to take charge of it. He
consented to do so, and gathered about him a company of friends to aid him
in its management. Their meetings finally grew into The Anthology Club,
which continued the publication through ten volumes. Among the members were
William Emerson, Samuel Cooper Thacher, Joseph S. Buckminster, and Joseph
Tuckerman, pastors of churches in Boston and vicinity of the liberal
school. There was also John S.J. Gardiner, the rector of Trinity Church,
who was the president of the club throughout the whole period of its
existence, and one of the most frequent contributors to the periodical. The
members were not drawn together by any sectarian spirit, but by a common
aim of doing something for literature, and for the advancement of culture.
The Monthly Anthology was the first distinctly literary journal published
in this country. It had an important influence in developing the
intellectual tastes of New England, and of giving initiative to its
literary capacities. The spirit of The Monthly Anthology was broad and
catholic. Naturally, therefore, in its pages the liberals made their first
protest against party aims and methods. In a few instances theological
problems were discussed, the extreme Trinitarian doctrines were criticised,
and the liberal attitude was defended.
[Sidenote: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, Piety, and Charity.]
In the year 1806 Rev. William Emerson began the publication of The
Christian Monitor, in his capacity as the secretary of the Society for
promoting Christian Knowledge, Piety, and Charity, a society then newly
founded by residents of Boston and its vicinity for the purpose of
publishing enlightened and practical tracts and books. This series of small
books, each containing one hundred and fifty or two hundred pages, and
issued quarterly, was begun for the purpose of publishing devotional works
of a practical and liberal type. The first number contained prayers and
devotional exercises for personal or family use, and there followed Bishop
Newcombe's Life and Character of Christ, a condensed reproduction of Law's
Serious Call, Bishop Hall's Contemplations, Erskine's Letters to the
Bereaved, and two or three volumes of sermons on religious duties and the
education of children.
Besides The Christian Monitor this society issued a series of Religious
Tracts which had a considerable circulation. Then it undertook the
publication of books for children, and for family reading. In aiming to
publish works of pure morality and practical piety, its methods were
thoroughly catholic and liberal; for it was unsectarian, and yet earnestly
Christian. The spirit and methods of this society were thoroughly
characteristic of the time when it was organized, and of the men who gave
it life and purpose. Not dogma, but piety, was what they desired. In the
truest sense they were unsectarian Christians, zealous for good works and a
devout life.[7]
[Sidenote: General Repository.]
The Monthly Anthology and The Christian Monitor represented the mild and
undogmatic attitude of the liberals, their shrinking from all controversy,
and their desire to devote their labors wholly to the promotion of a
tolerant and catholic Christianity. The beginning of the controversial
spirit on the liberal side found expression in The General Repository and
Review, which was begun in Cambridge by Rev. Andrews Norton, in April,
1812. In the first number of this quarterly review the editor said that the
discussion of the doctrine of the Trinity "in our own country has hitherto
been chiefly confined to private circles," and cited the books of John
Sherman and Noah Worcester as the only exceptions. The review opened,
however, with a defence of liberal Christianity which was aggressive and
outspoken. In later issues an energetic statement was made of the liberal
position, the controversial articles were able and explicit, and in a
manner hitherto quite unknown on the part of what the editor called
"catholic Christians." One of the numbers contained a long and interesting
survey of the religious interests of the country, and summed up in an
admirable manner the prospects for the liberal churches. After the
publication of the sixth number, Mr. Norton withdrew from the work to
become the librarian of Harvard College; and it was continued through two
more issues by "a society of gentlemen." To this journal Mr. Norton was by
far the largest contributor; but other writers were Edward Everett, and his
brother, Alexander H. Everett, Joseph S. Buckminster, John T. Kirkland,
Sidney Willard, George Ticknor, Washington Allston, John Lowell, Noah
Worcester, and James Freeman, most of them connected with Harvard College
or with the liberal churches in Boston. It is evident, however, that the
liberal public was not yet ready for so aggressive and out-spoken a
journal.
[Sidenote: The Christian Disciple.]
What was desired was something milder, less aggressive, of a distinctly
religious and conciliatory character. To this end Drs. Channing, Charles
Lowell, and Tuckerman, and Rev. S.C. Thatcher, with whom was afterwards
associated Rev. Francis Parkman, planned a monthly magazine that should be
liberal in its character, but not sectarian or dogmatic. They invited Rev.
Noah Worcester, whose Bible News had cost him his pulpit, to remove from
New Hampshire to Boston to become its editor. Although Mr. Worcester's
beliefs affiliated him with the Hopkinsians in everything except his
attitude in regard to the inferiority of Christ to God, yet he was
compelled to withdraw from his old connections, and to find new fields of
activity. He began The Christian Disciple as a religious and family
magazine, the first number being issued in May, 1813. It was not designed
for theological discussion or distinctly for the defence of the liberal
position. Its tone was conciliatory and moderate, while it zealously
defended religious liberty and charity. Its aim was practical and
humanitarian, to help men live the Christian life, as individuals, and in
their social relations. When it touched upon controverted questions, it was
in an expository manner, with the purpose of instructing its readers, and
of leading them to a higher appreciation of true religion. As his
biographer well said of Noah Worcester, he made this work "distinguished
for its unqualified devotedness to the individual rights of opinion, and
the sacred duty of a liberal regard to them in other men."[8]
Dr. Worcester was not so much a theologian as a philanthropist; and, if he
was drawn into controversy, it was accidentally, and much to his surprise
and disappointment. It was not for the sake of defending his own positions
that he replied to his critics, but in the name of truth, and from an
exacting sense of duty. His gentle, loving, and sympathetic nature unfitted
him for intellectual contentions; and he much preferred to devote himself
to philanthropies and reforms. In the briefest way The Christian Disciple
reported the doings of the liberal churches and men, but it gave much space
to all kinds of organizations of a humanitarian character. It advocated the
temperance reform with earnestness, and this at a time when there were few
other voices speaking in its behalf. It devoted many pages to the
condemnation of slavery, and to the approval of all efforts to secure its
mitigation or its abolition. It gave large attention to the evils of war, a
subject which more and more absorbed the interest of the editor. It
condemned duelling in the most emphatic terms, as it did all forms of
aggressiveness and inhumanity. In spirit Dr. Worcester was as much a
non-resistant as Tolstoï, and for much the same reasons. More extended
reports of Bible societies were given than of any other kind of
organization, and these societies especially enlisted the interest of Dr.
Worcester and his associates.
With the end of 1818 Dr. Worcester withdrew from the editorship of The
Christian Disciple, to devote himself to the cause of peace, the interests
of Christian amity and goodwill, and the exposition of his own theological
convictions. The management of the magazine came into the hands of its
original proprietors, who continued its publication.
Under the new management the circulation of the magazine increased. At
first the younger Henry Ware became the editor, and he carried the work
through the six volumes published before it took a new name. It became more
distinctly theological in its purpose, and it undertook the task of
presenting and defending the views of the liberals. In 1824 The Christian
Disciple passed into the hands of Rev. John Gorham Palfrey, and he changed
its name to The Christian Examiner without changing its general character.
At the end of two years Mr. Francis Jenks became the editor, but in 1831 it
came under the control of Rev. James Walker and Rev. Francis W.P.
Greenwood. Gradually it became the organ of the higher intellectual life of
the Unitarians, and gave expression to their interest in literature,
general culture, and the philanthropies, as well as theological knowledge.
The sub-title of Theological Review, which it bore during the first five
volumes, indicated its preference for subjects of speculative religious
interest; but during the half-century of its best influence it was the
General Review or the Religious Miscellany, showing that it was theological
only in the broadest spirit.
[Sidenote: Dr. Morse and American Unitarianism.]
Reluctant as the liberal men were, to take a denominational position, and
to commit themselves to the interests of a party in religion, or even to
withdraw themselves in any way from the churches with which they had been
connected, they were compelled to do so by the force of conditions they
could not control. One of the first distinct lines of separation was caused
by the refusal of the more conservative men to exchange pulpits with their
liberal neighbors. This tendency first began to show itself about the year
1810; and it received a decided impetus from the attitude taken by Rev.
John Codman, who in 1808 became the minister of the Second Church in
Dorchester. He refused to exchange with several of the liberal ministers of
the Boston Association, although he was an intimate friend of Dr. Channing,
who had directed his theological training, and also preached his ordination
sermon. The more liberal members of his parish attempted to compel him to
exchange with the Boston ministers without regard to theological beliefs;
and a long contention followed, with the result that the more liberal part
of his congregation withdrew in 1813, and formed the Third Religious
Society in Dorchester.[9] The withdrawal of ministerial courtesies of
this kind gradually increased, especially after the controversies that
began in 1815, though it was not until many years later that exchanges
between the two parties ceased.
In 1815 Dr. Jedidiah Morse, the editor of The Panoplist, and the author of
various school books in geography and history, published in a little book
of about one hundred pages, which bore the title of American Unitarianism,
a chapter from Thomas Belsham's[10] biography of Theophilus Lindsey, in
which Dr. Lindsey's American correspondents, including prominent ministers
in Boston and other parts of New England, had declared their Unitarianism.
Morse also published an article in The Panoplist, setting forth that these
ministers had not the courage of their convictions, that, while they were
Unitarians, they had withheld their opinions from open utterance. His
object was to force them to declare themselves, and either to retract their
heresies or else to state them and to withdraw from the churches with which
they had been connected. In a letter addressed to Rev. Samuel C. Thacher,
Dr. Channing gave to the public a reply to these charges of insincerity and
want of open-mindedness. He said that, while many of the ministers and
members of their congregations were Unitarians, they did not accept Dr.
Belsham's type of Unitarianism, which made Christ a man. He declared that
no open declaration of Unitarianism had been made, because they were not in
love with the sectarian spirit, and because they were quite unwilling to
indulge in any form of proselyting. "Accustomed as we are," he wrote, "to
see genuine piety in all classes of Christians, in Trinitarians and
Unitarians, in Calvinists and Arminians, in Episcopalians, Methodists,
Baptists, and Congregationalists, and delighting in this character wherever
it appears, we are little anxious to bring men over to our peculiar
opinions."[11]
The publication of Dr. Morse's book, however, gave new emphasis to the
spirit of separation which was soon to compel the formation of a new
denomination. It was followed four years later by Dr. Channing's Baltimore
sermon and by other positive declarations of theological opinion.[12] From
that time the controversy raged fiercely, and any possibility of
reconciliation was removed. Before this time those who were not orthodox
had called themselves Catholic, Christians or Liberal Christians to
designate their attitude of toleration and liberality. The orthodox had
called them Unitarians; and especially was this attempted by Dr. Morse in
the introduction to his American Unitarianism, in order to fasten upon them
the objectionable name given to the English liberals. It was assumed that
the American liberals must agree with the English in their materialism and
in their conception of Christ as a man. Dr. Channing repudiated this
assumption, and declared it unjust and untrue; but he accepted the word
Unitarian and gave it a meaning of his own. Channing defined the word to
mean only anti-Trinitarianism; and he accepted it because it seemed to him
presumptuous to use the word liberal as applied to a party, whereas it may
be applicable to men of all opinions.
[Sidenote: Evangelical Missionary Society.]