USA > Massachusetts > Commonwealth history of Massachusetts, colony, province and state, volume 4 > Part 24
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21 | Part 22 | Part 23 | Part 24 | Part 25 | Part 26 | Part 27 | Part 28 | Part 29 | Part 30 | Part 31 | Part 32 | Part 33 | Part 34 | Part 35 | Part 36 | Part 37 | Part 38 | Part 39 | Part 40 | Part 41 | Part 42 | Part 43 | Part 44 | Part 45 | Part 46 | Part 47 | Part 48 | Part 49 | Part 50 | Part 51 | Part 52 | Part 53 | Part 54 | Part 55
255
CONGREGATIONALISM
In some respects it was unfortunate that the term "Unitarian" should have become affixed to their way of thinking; for this especial term had, and still has in many minds, a definite opposition to the reverence and honor which the Unitarians themselves paid to the person and character of Jesus; it aroused antagonism on one point where there would have been agreement on others. To many minds that one point seemed at that day the essential point.
CONGREGATIONALISM AND UNITARIANISM
When Burke spoke of the ideas of New England Congre- gationalism as the "dissidence of dissent and the protestant- ism of the Protestant religion," he had in mind the extremely free and individualistic view of religion which in the eighteenth century was gradually taking an important place in a body which had heretofore been characterized by the spirit of orthodoxy. The polity of the New England churches, from their beginning in the seventeenth century, was congre- gational. That is, each congregation was a separate and inde- pendent church. Such churches joined themselves in local associations, but these bodies had no clearly defined powers over their constituent members, either in matters of doctrine or anything else. And just as the different churches were independent, so to a considerable degree were individual mem- bers independent in respect to each other.
This individuality of statement of doctrine among churches was paralleled by much freedom in individual bodies. Many churches toward the end of the eighteenth century had no definite creed to which they demanded assent from members. In earlier days creeds were not indispensable, because there had been no widely expressed statements of disbelief ; when beliefs began to vary, the churches never found just the right time to formulate the accepted principles. In place of a creed which stated forms of belief, the churches sometimes had a covenant which stated aims of conduct and life. As time went on, the ideas and beliefs of the churches, as a religious body, might be said to have changed also, except that there was often no definite way of determining just what were the ideas and beliefs of any particular church. However illogical such a
256
RELIGIOUS AND SOCIAL REFORMS
condition, for a long time it appeared quite sufficient to every- body. Perhaps it would not have been wiser to continue the system, had it been possible. The so-called Unitarian churches at the beginning of the nineteenth century were probably (as a fact) no more heterodox than many congregations in every American Protestant sect a hundred years later. Where they differed from most later churches was that, feeling definitely assured that unity of aim was more important than unity of doctrine, they not only made no attempt at definite statement of doctrine, but declared themselves entirely opposed to any such statement.
AIM OF UNITARIANISM
(1780-1840)
This lack of creed grew more and more important as the nineteenth century began, as is evident from significant facts and utterances. Andrew Peabody later was of opinion that "in 1780 nearly all the Congregational pulpits in and around Boston were filled by Unitarians." Certainly they did not as- sume that name. If they were called anything it would have been Arminian; though the particular doctrine of Unitarian- ism was openly preached and discussed here as in England. Various forces tended to relax the strictness of received belief. Not only had new ideas become current, but the general atti- tude of the political revolution against older authority en- couraged liberalism in the church; while the spirit of the time led the clergy to lay more stress on religion as an illustration of patriotism than on soundness of doctrine.
For example, James Freeman was the minister of King's Chapel at the close of the Revolution, which was the leading Episcopalian church of the New England provinces ; but many of its members were expatriated. Such members of it as were still left in Boston were by no means among the most devoted to their particular way of belief.
JAMES FREEMAN (1781-1800)
They found themselves in 1786 without an ordained minis- ter. James Freeman had been their pastor for three years, but he had received no Episcopal ordination and was ecclesiasti- cally no more than one of themselves, save perhaps in being
257
CREEDS
better able to preach and pray than his fellows. Freeman was not an ordained clergyman, but a layman called by his associ- ates to minister to them. In faith he was a Unitarian rather after the fashion of the English Unitarians of the time; and probably most of his congregation sympathized with him in a general way.
They desired, however, as things began to be settled, that he should receive ordination; and application was made to Bishop Provoost of New York, but unsuccessfully. Applica- tion was then made to Bishop Seabury of Connecticut, also without success. The church then took what appeared the obvious course and ordained their own minister themselves. With this act they ceased to be members of the Episcopal Church of America, a matter which caused them little concern.
Their minister was of Unitarian views ; that is, he had some time before led his congregation to a statement of theological doctrine which omitted any definite statements concerning the Godhead of the Athanasian Creed. These views were doubtless the cause of the reluctance of the Episcopalian Bishops to give him ordination. It does not appear, however, that his position among his brethren in Boston was impaired by his heterodoxy nor was King's Chapel (or "the Stone Chapel," as it was often called) in common estimation less a Christian church than before. Each church interpreted the Word of God according to its lights, usually as disclosed by its minister, and received to its communion such persons as were in sympathy with its aims and its conduct. Doubtless many of the clergy of Boston who differed from Dr. Freeman in theological matters respected and loved him as a man of saintly life and active Christian effort. Public opinion per- mitted what was doubtless in many cases logical inconsistency. People were beginning more and more to think that some form of religious freedom was as necessary as the political freedom which had been but recently gained at such cost.
CREEDS
In 1785 the Congregation of King's Chapel revised their Book of Common Prayer by omitting "everything which gave or might be suspected to give offence to tender consciences" ;
1
258
RELIGIOUS AND SOCIAL REFORMS
guiding themselves, however, "by the holy scriptures which they heartily agreed with the Church of England contained all things necessary to salvation." There had been many desires in the past, they pointed out, to reform the Liturgy, and the present time (when connection with King and Church was dis- solved) seemed favorable for such an act. They called atten- tion to the 19th Article of the church, which declared that "the visible church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, in which the true Word of God is preached, and the sacraments duly administered, according to Christ's ordinance." They went on: "The Liturgy, contained in this volume, is such as no Christian, it is supposed, can take offense at, or find his conscience wounded by repeating. The Trinitarian, the Uni- tarian, the Calvinist, the Arminian will read nothing in it which can give him any reasonable umbrage. God is the sole object of worship in these prayers; and as no man can come to God but by one Mediator, Jesus Christ, every petition is here offered in His name, in obedience to His positive com- mand." They continued: "It is not our wish to make pros- elytes to any particular system or opinions of any particular set of Christians. Our earnest desire is to live in brotherly love and peace with all men, and especially with those who call themselves the disciples of Jesus Christ."
UNITARIAN CLERGY (1780-1840)
Cases more or less similar began to occur elsewhere. When Rev. James Kendall preached at the First Church at Plymouth in the closing years of the eighteenth century, the parish was more or less divided in doctrine, and the call given him was thought a triumph for the more liberal element in the congre- gation. He was elected by a clear majority of the church and a large majority of the society, and was ordained by the council called for that purpose.
In July, 1783, Aaron Bancroft was called to Worcester. As the church was in the main Calvinistic and he was already strongly opposed to the theology of his earlier days, he had not been agreeable to the majority and a second church had been formed, consisting of those friendly to his views. This church made no profession of faith, for Mr. Bancroft thought
259
CONGREGATIONAL DIVISION
one generation could not state the creed of another. They adopted the Bible as sufficient rule of faith and practice.
Rev. Nathaniel Thayer, pastor of the church at Lancaster from 1793 to 1840, was one of the first ministers in Massa- chusetts to omit some of the definitely Calvinistic articles of their creeds and substitute a platform to which a Unitarian could subscribe, as it proposed only faith in Christ, leaving every one to define the expression according to his own private judgment.
Rev. Samuel Willard on being called to the church at Deerfield was refused ordination by the council, called for that purpose, of the ministers of towns near by, because the council did "not discover in him that belief in the true and essential divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ," nor some other important beliefs. A second council was therefore called the next month, made up of ministers from farther east, which voted to proceed immediately to ordination.
DIVISION OF THE CONGREGATIONAL CHURCH (1780-1805)
Thus the growth of Unitarianism was popular. Sometimes a pastor and his church became Unitarian in so gradual a manner that one could hardly put a finger upon the time of actual change. Sometimes a church continued for many years with a pastor of a tolerant spirit and definitely Unitarian views, who was recognized (largely through the medium of exchanges) by both the orthodox and the Unitarian wings. Sometimes the calling of a Unitarian minister led to a division in church or congregation, so that a new congregation was formed. Sometimes a church under the ministry of a strong preacher "passed without division or controversy into the Unitarian fellowship."
Growing and developing in the manner that has been de- scribed, Unitarianism (to use the later name) was after 1800 a considerable element in Massachusetts culture. Had cir- cumstances been somewhat different, we might imagine Uni- tarianism continuing to develop in much the same manner, until its liberalism became itself conservative ; then (according to its principles) the same process would be repeated. This would have been a free growth of religious opinion whereby
260
RELIGIOUS AND SOCIAL REFORMS
the followers of Christ, however much they might differ in their beliefs on matters of doctrine which were difficult of decision, would be able to work together for the improvement of those conditions concerning which they were in agreement. Something of the sort did take place, but only after other events had done much to destroy its beneficent effect.
In Boston, as elsewhere, dwelt many people of ideas very different from these, who attached importance to different elements of creed and doctrine. Some attached especial importance to purity of doctrine and correctness of belief. Such persons, whether called conservative or liberal, are characterized by attaching more importance to thinking than to feeling or acting; at least they believe that right knowledge only is the cause of right action. Add to this view the common human predilection for affirming that one's own views are the best, and a strong doctrinal combination is formed. The element in Massachusetts to which the older and stricter ideas were important was not small. The more active minds may have been Unitarian, or Arminian, or Arian, but many laymen and clergy felt it important to hold to the more definite forms of belief.
So long as some churches were stricter and some more liberal, the rift in opinion was not critical or was not easily noticed; for under the policy inherited from the Puritans the beliefs of any church or minister were not matters which con- cerned any other minister or church. When in 1805 Rev. Henry Ware was elected Hollis Professor of Divinity at Harvard College, an interior conflict developed.
HARVARD COLLEGE THEOLOGY
Harvard College had long been the training school for the ministers of Massachusetts; indeed it had been founded espe- cially for that purpose. Times had changed, and various other educational purposes were prominently in the minds of men, but not so as to lessen the importance of this original idea in the minds of those particularly interested in it. The Chair of Divinity to which Henry Ware was appointed had been founded in 1723 by Thomas Hollis, an English merchant. The incumbent must be of sound and orthodox belief. Rev.
261
CHANNING CONTROVERSY
Jedidiah Morse of Charlestown, editor of the Panoplist, attacked the appointment of Henry Ware. The Corporation in its reply held that the idea of an examination into the creed of a candidate was a barbarous relic of the Inquisi- tion; and it added that Thomas Hollis himself had not been a strict Calvinist, and that in the statutes of the Chair he had prescribed the Scriptures of the Old and New Testa- ment as the rule for the faith of his professor and not the Assembly Catechism. This answer rather evaded the issue. Strictly speaking, the theology of the founder in 1723 was not particularly important in determining what was ortho- dox in 1805. Still, the polity of the Massachusetts churches offered no obvious test of orthodoxy, and the matter appar- ently lay entirely within the power of the Corporation of the college. No action was obvious on the part of anybody else and none was taken.
THE CHANNING CONTROVERSY (1815)
In 1815 another controversy arose, when a pamphlet by Thomas Belsham entitled American Unitarianism was re- viewed in a number of the Panoplist. The review was charac- terized by the statement of the reviewer that "it has been known for at least a quarter of a century by those who have been well informed on the subject that there has been a defec- tion from those doctrines of the Bible which have usually been denominated orthodox in Protestant communities." It is probable that the readers of the review knew much more about the matter than did Mr. Belsham; for the chief facts he mentioned were the founding of a Unitarian church (trans- formed from an Episcopalian church) in Portland, and the advocacy of Unitarian doctrines by two ministers. The tone of the review, however, implied that there were many clergy- men of Unitarian views who, for their own reasons, did not state their convictions openly.
On this matter a more important controversy arose; for Rev. William Ellery Channing was induced to state definitely what was the opinion of those persons usually called Uni- tarians. Therefore, Dr. Channing wrote to Rev. Samuel G. Thatcher, Rev. Samuel Worcester wrote to Dr. Channing,
262
RELIGIOUS AND SOCIAL REFORMS
Dr. Channing published remarks on Dr. Worcester's letters; and so on, in a coil of controversy. Dr. Channing's position, stated in a manner which carries conviction, was as follows. The difference in opinion between the so-called Unitarian ministers and their more orthodox brethren, so far as con- cerned the person of Jesus Christ, was such as would hardly be apprehended except by one particularly interested in theo- logical doctrine and definition. Both groups believed that Jesus Christ was more than man, that he existed before the world, that he literally came from heaven to save our race, that he sustained other offices than those of a teacher and witness to the truth, and that he still acts for our benefit and is our intercessor with the Father. This, Dr. Thatcher and Dr. Channing agreed, was the prevalent sentiment of their brethren.
THE MARKS OF UNITARIANISM
If such were the case, it was clearly unjust to represent them as Unitarians of the kind existent at the time in Eng- land. The English Unitarians were humanitarians; men who not only denied the divinity of Jesus Christ, but believed him to be simply a man, better and wiser than others, but still in the main a teacher, who commanded adhesion from the excellence of his teaching. The Massachusetts Unitarians, Dr. Channing contended, were clearly not of this view; in fact the difference between their views and the orthodox view of the Trinity could now hardly be appreciated except by a theological scholar. "Why is it then," asks Dr. Channing, "that our brethren are thus instigated to cut us off, as far as they have power, from the body and church of Christ? Let every Christian weigh the answer. It is not because we re- fuse to acknowledge Jesus Christ as our Lord and Master ; it is not because we neglect to study his Word; it is not because our lives are wanting in the spirit and virtues of his Gospel. It is, because, after serious investigation, we cannot find in the Scriptures, and cannot adopt as the instructions of our Master, certain doctrines which have divided the Church for ages, which have perplexed the best and wisest men, and which are very differently conceived even by those who pro- fess to receive them. It is in particular because we cannot
T'rom the portrait by Gambardello Courtesy of Halliday Historic Photograph Co. WILLIAM ELLERY CHANNING
From the New England Magazine
BROOK FARM
Courtesy of Harvard College Library
263
MARKS OF UNITARIANISM
adopt the language of our brethren, in relation to doctrine which we cannot understand, and which is expressed in words not only unauthorized by the Scripture, but, as we believe, in words employed without meaning (unless they mean that there are three Gods), by those who insist on them. This is our crime, that we cannot think and speak with our brethren on subjects the most difficult and perplexing on which the human mind was ever engaged. For this we are pursued with the cry of heresy, and are to have no rest until virtually excommunicated by our brethren."
The point of Dr. Channing's position was that the Massa- chusetts Unitarians did not in general hold a Unitarian doctrine like that of Belsham; they were in the main liberal Christians who, finding difficulties that could not be overcome in the doctrine of the Trinity, had turned their thoughts chiefly to more practical questions of life so far as their con- gregations were concerned and, while they had not preached anti-Trinitarian views, had contented themselves with silence. We have seen (what Dr. Channing did not say) that in eccle- siastical polity such as that of Massachusetts such a course was not only possible but might readily be the only course practicable. The reviewer in the Panoplist had hinted that the Unitarian ministers held their anti-Trinitarian views either by stealth or hypocrisy; but as we have seen, there was no need of supposing anything of the sort. Where there were no definite formularies except those of particular churches, and where the formularies of the particular churches did not, as a rule, contain ( for whatever reason) any definite statements of doctrine, we can see that there would be little reason for hypocrisy or stealth. Where no one had the power to coerce the belief of the separate churches, and where every church had the simple means of asking for the resignation of any minister of whose doctrines they did not approve, it was likely that every one would have a chance to hold what opinions were recommended by his reason. Such having been the usage for a very long while, people had become used to differ- ence in doctrine and had applied themselves more earnestly to attaining a unity of spirit in forms of religious work and life, concerning which there was likely to be but slight differ- ence of opinion.
264
RELIGIOUS AND SOCIAL REFORMS
THE TERM UNITARIAN
The Unitarians, then, so far as they were represented by Dr. Channing in 1815, had no desire to propagate any particu- lar systems of doctrine or to found a separate church. Under the independent system of New England, they had long been able to hold what views they pleased and yet to act in fellow- ship with other ministers and churches. In the eighteenth century one might know whether a church or a minister was Unitarian by hearsay or inquiry or accident, but there was no definite separation. Those of Unitarian opinion did not adopt the name "Unitarian," which had in England chiefly, but in America also, become attached to opinions which they generally condemned. They felt themselves to be liberal Christians, ministers of the gospel of Christ, who would "ex- tend the hand of fellowship to every man of every name who discovered the spirit of Jesus Christ." They felt that the fundamental thing was a desire and determination to accept Jesus as a Master and that "precision of views upon these subjects was in no degree essential to the faith and practice of a Christian."
The results of this controversy may seem to have been slight, though it was carried on for some time with letters and comments, and so forth. But it had the informal effect of drawing the lines rather closer between the parties; and it probably fastened the name Unitarian upon the liberal wing. We need not fancy that Channing or his friends were afraid of any name that truly described them. On the other hand it was of the essence of their movement that it should not be so definite as to be named, that it should be spontane- ous, and truly liberal in the sense of being free. They would probably have preferred to continue in the position wherein they stood, namely the position of Christians of no especial sect or denomination. By this time other bodies of Christians existed in Massachusetts alongside those of the older Congre- gationalism; and now in the older Congregationalism arose this difference in belief which many declared to be important. It must be admitted that the conservative-or orthodox, as they preferred to be called-had some reason on their side. The name Unitarian, which they applied to their adversaries,
265
UNITARIANISM IN ACTION
was "as little open to misconception as any other." For the moment it seemed to confound them with persons very unlike themselves, but that was an accident. The liberal wing could not and did not deny that their view of the relation of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit was not that of conventional Trinitarian- ism; nor that it more nearly resembled what was usually called Unitarianism.
When, therefore, the leading ministers of Boston and the vicinity joined in 1825 to form an association of those more particularly of their way of thinking, they assumed the name which had for some time been attached to them. They might, indeed, have taken any name they chose, for they were the dominant element in the community. Lyman Beecher on com- ing to Boston in 1823 said: "All the literary men of Massa- chusetts were Unitarians; all the trustees and professors of Harvard College; all the elite of wealth and fashion crowded Unitarian churches; the judges on the bench were Unitarian, giving decisions by which the peculiar features of Church organization so carefully ordered by the Pilgrim Fathers had been nullified, and all the power had passed into the hands of the congregation."
AMERICAN UNITARIANISM IN ACTION
The inevitable break occurred in 1825, contrary to the judgment of the older men, who as a rule were undesirous of forming a separate organization. Channing, when elected first president, felt that he could not accept the position. Chiefly through the activity of younger men, however, the organization was formed (May 25, 1825) under the name of the American Unitarian Association; thus accepting the identification of the new church organization with the more extreme English Unitarians. The organization in its state- ment of purposes placed first "the promotion of pure and un- defiled religion," and second only "the union of all Unitarian Christians in this country." Further, its operations were stated to be chiefly of a missionary character, both of publica- tion and of preaching.
At first the Association did not gain the approval, or at least the assistance, of more than half the Unitarian churches
4 .
266 RELIGIOUS AND SOCIAL REFORMS
of Massachusetts. Yet, in spite of the strong element of orthodox Congregationalism, it continued its work and in time became generally recognized as the official organization of the denomination. The formation of this strong central body, for whatever purpose, naturally had the effect of solidifying Unitarian feeling and separating Unitarians from the Congregationalists.
At the time of Channing's "Baltimore Sermon" in 1819, there were about 120 liberal churches in eastern Massachu- setts, and nine or ten in the other northeast States. Of these not one called itself Unitarian, and only one has adopted the name since. There were also Unitarian churches in Portland, Portsmouth, Worcester, Providence, and New Bedford, and in Baltimore and Charleston (1817), New York, and Spring- field (1819).
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.