[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
hearts of the faithful; the missionary enterprises supplied fresh converts to feed a
growing operation. The Reverend T. G. Farnsworth, pastor of the First Universalist
Society of Haverhill, Massachusetts, spoke for many of his colleagues when he
wondered in 1829 how anyone could doubt that, through missions, many ministers
were pursuing not the salvation of the heathen but their own aggrandizement and
power. 67
Suspicious of the motives of evangelical leaders and convinced of the power of
their own rational doctrine to transform both the individual and society, Universal-
ists demonstrated little insight into the appeal of evangelical culture. It has been
argued that revivalism harnessed the collective psychic energy of the new and
ever-expanding nation.68 Evangelical Protestantism became a kind of national
church, charged with maintaining the moral order.69 Perry Miller thought that when
revivalists summoned sinners to conversion they were at the same time asserting
the unity of a culture in pressing danger of fragmentation. 70 The extent to which
evangelicalism really did foster a kind of cultural unity has been disputed.71 Uni-
versalists, for their part, believed that it was a fragile, even illusory, unity built out
of fear on a theology of shifting sand. Even in an era made anxious by the nature
of free government, sectional tensions, a lawless frontier, increased mobility, and
the specter of deism and rationalism, Universalists left little room for emotional or
social sanctuary.72 Universalism remained a movement for the intellectually vigor-
ous, the confident, the buoyant.
The Threat of (Presbyterian) Theocracy
Universalist preachers and writers identified the self-styled orthodox as the most
ambitious and probably the most dangerous of the evangelicals. By the 1830s, their
fears were focused especially on the Presbyterians and Congregationalists, formi-
dable groups that appeared guilty of trying to establish and extend political power
through the imposition of Calvinism. Beneath a veil of egregious theological in-
consistencies, the forces of orthodoxy were working to achieve total social and re-
ligious control, Universalists feared. The willingness of the orthodox to profess Ar-
Controversy and Identity 65
minianism in order to compete in the evangelical fray betrayed their thirst for power.
Universalists worried that the Presbygational clergy, threatened by disestablish-
ment and frightened by the new currents of thought that had arisen in the wake of
the Revolution, were attempting to erect a new structure of dominance on the ruins
of Calvinist doctrine.
Universalists were by no means alone in their fears over Calvinist designs for
social control ; the same concerns were widespread among groups such as the
Methodists, Christians, and Baptists.73 But Universalists had a particularly pressing
reason to sound an alarm about the growth of church-state connections, for the
profession of belief in universal salvation could have serious legal consequences in
the first half of the nineteenth century. The common law borrowed from England
required that those who participated in legal proceedings avow belief in a Supreme
Being and a system of rewards and punishments; thus, Universalists were often
lumped legally with nonbelievers. The Judiciary Act of 1789 had left the determi-
nation of the competency of a witness to testify up to the states; more often than
not, Universalists were disqualified. In a famous 1827 case, Justice Joseph Story of
the U.S. Circuit Court in Providence (later, of the Supreme Court) excluded a
witness because he was a Universalist. A Unitarian, Story followed the recommen-
dation of Moses Stuart of the Andover Theological School that Universalists should
not testify. Stuart further asserted that no Universalist should hold public office.74
In matters such as this, Universalist concern went far beyond polemical sport.
Universalists worried that a new clerical aristocracy would find a vulnerable
population willing to acquiesce in its control, out of either latent religious fear or
a desire for the moral regulation of society.75 As one Universalist journal warned in
1831, a clerical elite was employing numerous means to enslave our country ;
liberty and independence were now more endangered by priestcraft than at any
time since the Revolution.76 The organization of the National Tract Society in New [ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
zanotowane.pl doc.pisz.pl pdf.pisz.pl szamanka888.keep.pl
hearts of the faithful; the missionary enterprises supplied fresh converts to feed a
growing operation. The Reverend T. G. Farnsworth, pastor of the First Universalist
Society of Haverhill, Massachusetts, spoke for many of his colleagues when he
wondered in 1829 how anyone could doubt that, through missions, many ministers
were pursuing not the salvation of the heathen but their own aggrandizement and
power. 67
Suspicious of the motives of evangelical leaders and convinced of the power of
their own rational doctrine to transform both the individual and society, Universal-
ists demonstrated little insight into the appeal of evangelical culture. It has been
argued that revivalism harnessed the collective psychic energy of the new and
ever-expanding nation.68 Evangelical Protestantism became a kind of national
church, charged with maintaining the moral order.69 Perry Miller thought that when
revivalists summoned sinners to conversion they were at the same time asserting
the unity of a culture in pressing danger of fragmentation. 70 The extent to which
evangelicalism really did foster a kind of cultural unity has been disputed.71 Uni-
versalists, for their part, believed that it was a fragile, even illusory, unity built out
of fear on a theology of shifting sand. Even in an era made anxious by the nature
of free government, sectional tensions, a lawless frontier, increased mobility, and
the specter of deism and rationalism, Universalists left little room for emotional or
social sanctuary.72 Universalism remained a movement for the intellectually vigor-
ous, the confident, the buoyant.
The Threat of (Presbyterian) Theocracy
Universalist preachers and writers identified the self-styled orthodox as the most
ambitious and probably the most dangerous of the evangelicals. By the 1830s, their
fears were focused especially on the Presbyterians and Congregationalists, formi-
dable groups that appeared guilty of trying to establish and extend political power
through the imposition of Calvinism. Beneath a veil of egregious theological in-
consistencies, the forces of orthodoxy were working to achieve total social and re-
ligious control, Universalists feared. The willingness of the orthodox to profess Ar-
Controversy and Identity 65
minianism in order to compete in the evangelical fray betrayed their thirst for power.
Universalists worried that the Presbygational clergy, threatened by disestablish-
ment and frightened by the new currents of thought that had arisen in the wake of
the Revolution, were attempting to erect a new structure of dominance on the ruins
of Calvinist doctrine.
Universalists were by no means alone in their fears over Calvinist designs for
social control ; the same concerns were widespread among groups such as the
Methodists, Christians, and Baptists.73 But Universalists had a particularly pressing
reason to sound an alarm about the growth of church-state connections, for the
profession of belief in universal salvation could have serious legal consequences in
the first half of the nineteenth century. The common law borrowed from England
required that those who participated in legal proceedings avow belief in a Supreme
Being and a system of rewards and punishments; thus, Universalists were often
lumped legally with nonbelievers. The Judiciary Act of 1789 had left the determi-
nation of the competency of a witness to testify up to the states; more often than
not, Universalists were disqualified. In a famous 1827 case, Justice Joseph Story of
the U.S. Circuit Court in Providence (later, of the Supreme Court) excluded a
witness because he was a Universalist. A Unitarian, Story followed the recommen-
dation of Moses Stuart of the Andover Theological School that Universalists should
not testify. Stuart further asserted that no Universalist should hold public office.74
In matters such as this, Universalist concern went far beyond polemical sport.
Universalists worried that a new clerical aristocracy would find a vulnerable
population willing to acquiesce in its control, out of either latent religious fear or
a desire for the moral regulation of society.75 As one Universalist journal warned in
1831, a clerical elite was employing numerous means to enslave our country ;
liberty and independence were now more endangered by priestcraft than at any
time since the Revolution.76 The organization of the National Tract Society in New [ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]