Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

knowledge of his religious sentiments; and his church, almost to a man, assented to his course in regard to exchanges, and wished him to remain with them. And the parish, with all their efforts, were able to secure only a small majority against their minister. It was a determined resistance, on the part of what were termed liberal men, to the initial steps towards a separation between the Orthodox and the Unitarian churches and ministers. After a protracted contest, the question was finally decided by the casting vote of the moderator of the council, and Mr. Codman was allowed to remain with his church, and to choose whom he would for exchanges.†

*"Of one hundred and fifty church members, all but seven or eight were anxious to retain Mr. Codman as their minister." -Panoplist, x, 294–95.

†The documents relating to this controversy, which attracted the attention of ministers and churches all over the country, are quite voluminous. The church published Proceedings of the Second Church and Parish in Dorchester, 8vo, 124 pages. Boston: S. T. Armstrong, 1812. And the "Proprietors of the New South Meeting-House in Dorchester" published their Memorial to the Ministers of the Boston Association, and a report on the same; 8vo, 48 pages. Boston: Watson and Bangs, 1813. The Panoplist reviewed at great length the entire controversy, in its June and July numbers, 1814, vol. x, pp. 256-81 and 289-307. The two councils which were called to consider the questions at issue between the Dorchester parties were among the ablest ever assembled in this State. A near relative, who was a delegate, with Dr. Samuel Worcester, on both councils, has repeatedly described to the writer the intense interest which every member felt in the proceedings; and how every layman, as well as every minister, availed himself of his privilege to speak twice before the final vote was taken.

CHAP. XVI.]

CONSOCIATIONISM PROPOSED.

633

[ocr errors]

About this time occurred the first ejectment of an Orthodox pastor and his church by a "liberal' people. On the 5th of September, 1811, the Rev. Jonathan Burr, of Sandwich, was forcibly prevented from entering the pulpit of the Congregational church of Sandwich, the parish, by a majority of three votes (83 to 80), having voted to dismiss him on account of his outspoken and earnest Orthodoxy; and though nine tenths of the church adhered to Mr. Burr and followed him in a body, the Massachusetts courts gave all the church funds and property, even their communion ware, to the insignificant remnant of the old church which adhered to the parish and called themselves the "First Church of Sandwich." *

During the progress of this great controversy on doctrines, the attention of the Congregational churches was called to an ancient document, originally prepared, probably, by Dr. Cotton Mather, bearing date, "Boston, 1 d. 4 m. 1704;" and said. to have been "assented to by delegates of the Associations, met according to former agreement, at Boston, September 13th, 1705, to be commended unto the several Associations and ministers in the several parts of the country, to be duly considered," and "further approved and confirmed by a General Convention of the ministers, at Boston, 30 d. 3 m. 1706." This ancient document, which contained the identical proposals to

* Clark, 244-45.

[ocr errors]

establish Consociationism in Massachusetts which John Wise, of Ipswich, attacked with mingled wit, ridicule and argument, and utterly squelched a hundred years and more previously this very document was brought before the General Association, at their annual meeting in Dorchester, June 28th to 30th, 1814. It was referred to a large committee, who reported favorably on the proposition for the establishment of a system of consociated government of the ministry and churches. In 1816 this report was taken up by the General Association, discussed, and referred to another committee, who presented a "revised report," which was accepted in the following cautious language: "They believe that the Report of the [first] committee on the subject, which is now before the Association, accords in its general principles with the examples and precepts of the New Testament; and in those parts of the Commonwealth in which the sentiments of ministers and churches are favorable to its adoption, this Association have no objection against their proceeding immediately to organize themselves into Consociations upon the general principles of said Report."

And this was the ultimatum of all consociational action in Massachusetts, notwithstanding the labored efforts of writers in the Panoplist * in

*The original documents may be found in the Panoplist for July, 1814; the report of the first Committee, of which Dr. Morse was chairman, is in the Panoplist for August, 1815; and the final action of the Association is in the Minutes of the Gen

CHAP. XVI.]

UNITARIANISM UNVEILED.

635

favor of Consociationism. The movement died of neglect. This was the third time that efforts to introduce this system into Massachusetts had failed.

Though substantial Unitarianism was believed to have been extensively embraced in Massachusetts for many years previous to 1815, it was not till about that year that the system was fairly unveiled in this country as a system which denied and rejected the traditional faith of the early New England churches.* Had this revelation

eral Association held at Leicester, June 25th, 1816, in the Panoplist for August, 1816, pp. 367–69.

Several communications in favor of Consociation may be found in the volumes of the Panoplist already referred to; vol. x1, pp. 507-18, 537–45; vol. x11, 489-95. See, also, The Churches' Quarrel Espoused, by John Wise; repeatedly published — first in 1710, second edition 1715, third edition 1717, fourth edition 1772, fifth edition 1860-by the Congregational Board of Publication; with an Introductory Notice by Dr. Joseph S. Clark. Spirit of the Pilgrims, 111, 606-12. The first attempt to fasten Consociationism on our churches was made in 1662.

*Dr. Ellis, in his Half-Century of the Unitarian Controversy,

says:

"For the sake of convenience and brevity, we shall freely use the terms Unitarian and Orthodox to designate the two parties. Our own sense of perfect justice to our predecessors would dispose us to use the word Calvinist instead of the word Orthodox; for it was Calvinism, the real concrete system of the Genevan Reformer, and not the vague and undefined abstraction entitled Orthodoxy, which our predecessors assailed ” —- page 4.

True, it was Calvinism on which the assault was first made; but Trinitarianism, whether Calvinistic or Arminian, was next assailed; and, really, the whole controversy finally revolved around the questions, "What think ye of Christ? Whose Son is he?"

been voluntary and frank, it would have been more satisfactory in the end to both parties in this controversy, more especially to the Unitarians. The revelation, however, was involuntary, and came on this wise: In 1812 the Memoirs, etc., of the Rev. Theophilus Lindsey, a prominent Unitarian minister of London, were published by the Rev. Thomas Belsham, another English minister of like faith. These Memoirs, without doubt, were immediately known and read by prominent American Unitarians. But they were not brought into public notice until April, 1815; not, in fact, until an Orthodox man got hold of the volume and published selections from it in a pamphlet, entitled: "American Unitarianism, or a Brief History of the progress and present state of the Unitarian Churches in America.' Compiled from Documents and Information communicated by Rev. James Freeman, D.D., and William Wells, Jr., Esq., of Boston, and from other Unitarian gentlemen in this country. By Rev. Thomas Belsham, Essex Street, London. Extracted from his Memoirs of the Life of the Rev. Theophilus Lindsey, printed in London, 1812, and now published for the benefit of the Christian churches in this country, without note or alteration. Boston: Printed by Nathaniel Willis, No. 76 State Street, 1815." 8vo, 48 pages.

[ocr errors]

The full title of this important little pamphlet tells the whole story of its character and design. The editor's name is not given, but common re

« AnteriorContinuar »