Congregationalism Divided: A Case Study of Beverly, Massachusetts' First Parish Congregational Church Split, 1802-1834

By

Caitlin LampmanApril 30, 2013

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for theMaster of Arts in History

Dual-Degree Program in History and Archives ManagementSimmons College

Boston, Massachusetts

The author grants Simmons College permission to include this thesis in its Library and to make it available to the academic community for scholarly purposes.

Submitted by

Caitlin Lampman

Caitlin Lampman

Approved by:

______ Professor Stephen Berry Professor Laurie Crumpacker

© 2013, Caitlin Lampman

1

Table of Contents

Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Chapter 1: And Then There Were Two, First Parish Divided, 1802-1814 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Chapter 2: No Middle Ground, The Orthodox versus the Unitarians, 1818-1828 . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Chapter 3: Polarization in Beverly, 1828-1834 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

2

Acknowledgements

First, I want to thank my family for putting a roof over my head and for their love and support over the last three years. I could not have completed this program without you. I also want to thank my friends, Katie, Amelia, Maura, Kathleen, and Jane for keeping me sane and understanding my crazy. To my classmates Catherine Roberston, Martha Meacham, Taylor Kalloch, Becki Doyon-Lavallee, and Jen Hornsby, I thank you for your support and all the comic relief. I also thank my thesis adviser, Professor Stephen Berry, for all his assistance in helping me pull this thesis together over the last semester. In addition, I thank Sarah Leonard and Laura Prieto for all their support through the thesis process but also throughout the length of the History program. I cannot thank Darren Brown, Sue Goganian, and Terri McFadden at the Beverly Historical Society enough for their patience, help and encouragement over the last two years. And lastly, many thanks to Charlie Wainwright at First Parish UU Church for sacrificing more than a few Saturdays to allow me access to their collections. I owe everyone on this list copious amounts of baked goods and gratitude. Thank you.

3

Introduction

This thesis studies the division of the First Parish Congregational Church and the Third

Congregational Society in Beverly, Massachusetts between 1802 and 1834. The split was

demonstrative of the theological differences between orthodox and liberal Congregationalists. A

faction of strict Calvinists seceded from First Parish Congregational Church in 1802 and

incorporated into the Third Congregational Church and Society. Orthodox Congregationalists

ascribed to Calvinistic doctrines and were Trinitarians. Liberal Congregationalists rejected

Calvinistic doctrines and some rejected the Holy Trinity. Liberal Congregationalist who rejected

the Trinity matured to become Unitarians. Between these two groups were a body of moderates

whose belief systems were not as well defined. Third Parish became the outpost for orthodox

Congregationalists in Beverly. After the secession of Calvinists, First Parish retained the

moderate and liberal bodies of Congregationalists. The careful diplomacy of Rev. Abiel Abbot's

ministry at First Parish fostered a place for religious moderates. The divide was theological, but

parish operations created another source of conflict.

At this time parish lines were territorial drawn and residency within a territory

determined parish membership. Each parish had one church and a minister which was supported

through taxation of it members. Municipal matters as well as church matters were managed

through the parish system. Each male over the age of twenty-one who owned property were

eligible to vote on parish matters. Church membership was separate from parish membership and

was voluntary although payment of taxes was not voluntary. First Parish was one of the largest

parishes in Massachusetts with approximately 3,000 inhabitants, but only approximately several

hundred of the 3,000 inhabitants were active church members.

4

Third Congregational's need to cultivate a tax base drove them to pursue legislation to

support the freedom to transfer parishes. The active pursuit of parish members contrasted with

the limited number of members actually admitted into the Third Congregational Church. Third

Parish minister Rev. Joseph Emerson's targeted and specific adherence to orthodox doctrines

limited the scope of persons eligible to join. Emerson's discriminating preaching and stance

allowed First Parish's Rev. Abiel Abbot to foster a place for religious moderates within his

parish. Abbot's view on religious doctrine was not as limited, and he focused his religious

instruction to the wants of his parishioners, providing services tailored to their varying needs.

Abbot's style drew larger numbers of church members to First Parish than those seen at Third

Parish.

This trend continued until Rev. Emerson was dismissed from Third Parish in 1816. The

installation of his successor, Rev. David Oliphant, in 1818 changed the dynamic between the

liberal and orthodox factions in Beverly. Oliphant unlike Emerson challenged Abbot's theological

views through public debates and his fierce defense of orthodox persons. Oliphant did not hold

such selective views on church admission, and the number of church members at Third Parish

spiked in the years after his installation. Abbot, whose theological views became more liberal

over the course of his ministry, intentionally never declared his personal theological beliefs in the

face of these attacks to maintained his moderate position. Abbot above all else was an advocate

for peace, and he did not want to alienate anyone in congregation. Abbot's ability to bring peace

to his own congregation ceased with his death in 1828.

Abbot's death sparked a major change in First Parish. The congregation was split over

what type of minister to install, and the majority backed a liberal candidate. This development

5

transformed First Parish into a declared Unitarian Church in 1830. The minority succeeded from

First Parish and joined Third Parish. This swing into Third Parish upset the balance in that parish

and tensions grew. A portion of that congregation petitioned for the removal of Rev. Oliphant

from the church and was successful.

Critical to studying these events in Beverly was the discovery of sources. The main

sources used were the First and Third Parish's records. Secondly, sermons, biographies and

memorials of each minister, as well as personal accounts, newspaper articles and books

supplement the official records of each pariah. Also in order to gage whether Second Parish had

any impact their records had to be researched. Second Parish had little impact on the events and

struggles between First and Third parishes. Their records indicate they did not provide or receive

any large movement of parish or church members as a result of the divergence in First Parish. An

important component of church records is that Parish records and Church records were kept

separately and need to be compared to create a complete picture of the operations and

proceedings of each church. First Parish was a well established church with a systematic and

comprehensive record keeping process. Third Parish in its infancy was less systematic and

methodical record keeping. Third Parish also lost a bulk of its records in a fire in 1832. The size

of each church also impacted the level of detail in certain aspects of their record keeping. First

Parish was a large parish and did not keep overly detailed membership lists. Third Parish on the

hand was small and kept very detailed information regarding membership. Therefore, all

numbers for church membership in First Parish, in this thesis are approximate. The removal,

death, or transferal of members were not tallied on a year to year basis. To cross reference church

6

records, parish records, tax records with birth and death records was out side the scope of this

project.

The Congregational Churches of New England split into Liberal and Orthodox factions in

a complicated evolution that encompassed more than differences in religious doctrine. Many

factors including politics, government, and theological debate, impacted communities as they

were reshaping their religious organizations. The once central role of the Church was changing

and communities now had to accommodate more than one religion. There was now more than

one church and one minister in control of the moral and spiritual center of a community. The

pluralization of American Protestantism in the nineteenth century was a complex spectrum with

many new groups emerging and gaining great numbers. Historians tend to isolate one group,

minister, or body of theological thought in order to examine religious development which does

not fully contextualize the subtleties of these evolutions.

Study of the theological debates between liberal and orthodox Congregationalists is a

well established. The bulk of the history of Unitarianism in America was written by the late

Professor Conrad Wright of Harvard Divinity School. His work was the first to focus on how

Unitarianism developed in America versus its European roots. Earlier works by Earl Morse

Wilbur focused on the roots of the early Unitarian movements in Europe and its journey to the

New World.1 Wright's work, The Beginnings of Unitarianism in America, examines the

theological developments of Unitarianism in the eighteenth century particularly in Eastern

Massachusetts.2 Wright frames Arminian theology as the segue from the Puritanism of the

seventeenth century to Unitarianism of the nineteenth century in Massachusetts. Arminian

1 Earl Morse Wilbur, A History of Unitarianism, (Boston: Beacon Press, 1945).

2 Conrad Wright, The Beginnings of Unitarianism in America, (Hamden, CT: Arcon Books, 1976).

7

theology formed the foundation of liberal thought and rejected elements of Calvinism. Wright

defines Arminian beliefs in three parts: the belief that man was not completely given over to sin

but was capable of righteousness, a belief in super rationalism, and the Arian-based rejection of

the Holy Trinity. Wright's work also links socio-economic trends to the development of

Arminians. Arminianism became a theology of the elite in Eastern Massachusetts and had little

influence outside this particular geographical area. He argues that the appeal of liberal theology

to the upper merchant classes was due to their prosperity particularly in port towns of Boston and

Salem. Their prosperity conflicted with the Calvinist belief in the absolute depravity of man,

where as Arminianism preached that wealth and prosperity were not sins. Its focus on the free

will of man allowed material wealth to harmonize with religious belief. Arminian theology

ascribed a positive association between earthly success and salvation. Wright's work provides

context for the theological position of Congregational ministers, such as Rev. Dr. Abiel Abbot of

First Parish in Beverly, who were not wholly liberal or orthodox. Rev. Abbot's beliefs changed

over the course of his ministry at First Parish. He was an Arminian who eventually rejected the

doctrine of the Holy Trinity. His ministry acted as the segue to Unitarianism which was declared

in First Parish after his death in 1828.

A book of essays on Unitarianism, edited by Wright, marks a shift from large, over-

arching discourses on Unitarianism to smaller, more focused topical studies.3 Wright's opening

essay, “Institutional Reconstruction after the Unitarian Controversy,” studied a particular town

incident. Wright described the case of Rev. Codman of Dedham and the town’s struggle between

liberal and orthodox Congregationalists which coexisted in that Parish. The case's outcome

3 Conrad Wright, ed., The Liberal Christians: Essays on American Unitarian History, (Boston: Beacon Press, 1970).

8

created a precedent that impacted the established church system in Massachusetts. Detailed case

studies of particular schisms are few, yet contribute greater context of how singular communities

impact the greater developments.

Another influential scholar on Unitarianism is Daniel Walker Howe. His work was

contemporaneous with Wright's work. His book, The Unitarian Conscience, identified key

intellectuals who made up what he calls the “Unitarian Moralists” of Harvard College.4 The

“Harvard school” of Unitarian thought is common in the literature on Unitarians; especially in

the controversy surrounding the appointment of Henry Ware to the Hollis Chair in 1805. Howe

describes in detail how each of these intellectuals contributed to this school of thought as well as

outlining the body of philosophy created by these men. The geographical area of influence was

small but had deep impact on the individuals connected with this community.

The evolution of liberal thought is juxtaposed by the orthodox movement which was

responding to the liberalizing of religious thought. Liberalization of Protestant theology

threatened the Standing Order that had long prevailed in New England. Congregational Churches

in New England were changing. However before congregational splits occurred, the beliefs of a

church, whether liberal or orthodox, were largely determined by the minister’s leanings. The

changing roles of ministers and the collapse of the Standing Order have been argued by Donald

M. Scott and Peter S. Field. Scott's book, From Office to Profession, discussed the evolution of

theological education and the role of minister in New England.5 Field's book, The Crisis of the

4 Daniel Walker Howe, The Unitarian Conscience: Harvard Moral Philosophy, 1805-1861,(Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1970).5 Donald M. Scott, From Office to Profession: The New England Ministry, 1750-1850, (Philadelphia: University of

Pennsylvania Press, 1978).

9

Standing Order, explored the fight of orthodox ministers to preserve the Standing Order in light

of the liberalization that was occurring in New England.6

Critical to studying the history of religion in Massachusetts was the relationship between

the State and the Church. Congregational Churches in Massachusetts were state supported

through taxation. Establishment of a new church required legislation and greatly impacted how

dissenting groups went about organizing themselves. Massachusetts was the last state to repeal

its laws regarding state supported churches which added difficulties to the religious landscape of

the early nineteenth century. Works by Jacob Conrad Meyer, Franklin Hamlin Littell, and John

D. Cushing all addressed religious pluralism under the Massachusetts system and the breaking

down of the system until it was finally repealed in 1833. Meyer's book, Church and State in

Massachusetts from 1740 to 1833, was particular to Massachusetts and encompassed chapters on

the Congregationalist schism and it influence of the disestablishment of Church and State.

Meyer's work placed cases, like the Dedham case seen in Wright's work, into the makeup of the

theological schism. Littell's book, From State Church to Pluralism, provides a more

comprehensive look at the regional effects of Protestant pluralism.7 Cushing wrote an article

using the court case of John Murray vs. The Inhabitants of First Parish in Gloucester to explore

the evolutions in Massachusetts law.8 The article, which is contemporary with Littell's work,

outlined the flaws in the law and how it specifically impacted one community. Third Parish in

Beverly, MA used previous cases in order to inform and argue their own incorporation. The legal

6 Peter S. Field, The Crisis of the Standing Order: Clerical Intellectuals and Cultural Authority in Massachusetts, (Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1998).

7 Franklin Hamlin Littell, From State Church to Pluralism: A Protestant Interpretation of Religion in American History, (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1962).

8 John Cushing “Notes on Disestablishment in Massachusetts, 1780-1833 ” The William and Mary Quarterly 26, no. 2 (Apr., 1969): 169-190.

10

proceeding in Parish disputes illuminate conflict in more than just religious beliefs. The legal

rights of a parish were just as important to the success and survival of a church as its theological

basis.

Missing from the body of literature is a study that combines all of the elements above.

Theological studies tend to explore the extreme views and ignore moderate bodies. The over

arching studies lack specificity that flesh out the gray areas in evolutions. In the same vain

studies that focus on the legal impacts focus on the key cases and key players in those

developments, and again ignore the subtitles that existed. Analyzing the religious divide in one

community over a period of time allows for motivations and direct impacts to be measured. The

actions of individual ministers can be gaged against the body of the congregation and then again

against the body of the parish and town. The liberals and orthodox may have separated their

houses of worship, but they still had to coexist under the common law and within the

communities in which they resided. To single out just one aspect of these transition misses the

scope of the overall impact.

This case study of First and Third Parish in Beverly over a thirty years period fleshes out

the more subtle elements that are involved in the evolution of religion. The strength and actions

of moderate bodies can have great impact of the progression or infiltration of certain ideas. Acts

of neutrality serve to temper the extremes. Rev. Abbot served the tempering agent in Beverly. His

acceptance of moderates and his willingness to create a place for them strengthened his

congregation. Orthodox ministers Emerson and Oliphant's limited acceptance and firm

disagreement with opposing views repelled moderates believers from Third Congregation. The

death of Abbot caused a schism between First Parish's moderate and liberal bodies. In the period

11

following his death the bodies fought for dominance and the liberal body won. The loss of a

place for moderates in First Parish, then triggered a schism in Third Parish as the moderates

fought for a place within that parish.

Chapter one covers the events surrounding the 1802 schism in First Parish and the

incorporation of Third Parish, the legal battles of the first decade of separation, and the

establishment of ministers in both First and Third parishes. Chapter two introduces a new

minister to Third Congregation, the orthodox use of ecclesiastical councils, and the growing

distance between liberal and orthodox parties. Chapter three explores the aftermath of Abbot's

death, the declaration of Unitarianism at First Parish, and the division of Third Parish.

12

Chapter One: And Then There Were Two, First Parish Divided, 1802-1814

Beverly, Massachusetts in 1800 was a bustling seaside town. Located twenty miles north

of Boston, Beverly was originally a part of neighboring Salem. In the seventeenth century, the

Bass River side of Salem separated to form a new town known as Beverly. Under the ministry of

Rev. John Hale the First Parish Congregational Church was established in 1667. As the town

expanded, the farmers on the northern side established Second Parish Congregational Church in

1715 because the distance to the First Parish meetinghouse was too great for families to attend

Sunday services. By 1800, Beverly had grown to 3,881 inhabitants of which approximately

3,000 resided within First Parish. First Parish encompassed the center of town, the wharfs, and

the bulk of the densely populated areas. The local economy was based in manufacturing of boots,

shoes, cabinet making, and other wares, as well as trade.9 Fisheries exported cod and mackerel.10

Other goods like timber, corn, potatoes, and onions were also exported. Manufacturing employed

approximately 500 persons while sailing vessels employed between 400 and 500 persons

throughout the first part of the nineteenth century.11 Trade was prosperous, but suffered under the

Embargo Act of 1807 and again with the commencement of the War of 1812. Beverly's wealth

never matched that of Salem, yet a few Beverly families built large fortunes and built homes in

the center of town. First Parish encompassed these wealthy traders, the sailors they employed, as

well as craftsmen and farmers. This diverse population had coexisted within the confines of First

Parish Congregational Church peacefully until the end of the eighteenth century.

9 Edwin M. Stone, History of Beverly, Civil and Ecclesiastical, from its settlement in 1630 to 1842 (Boston: James Munroe & Co, 1843), 200.

10 Stone, History of Beverly, 200. 11 Ibid.

13

Theological Divergence in First Parish

The first traces of theological difference in First Parish surfaced during the ministry of

Joseph McKeen. McKeen was installed at First Parish in 1785, after Rev. Joseph Willard left to

become President of Harvard. McKeen graduated from Dartmouth College in 1774 and

afterward worked as a school teacher in his home town of Londonderry, New Hampshire. He

took a short break from teaching to serve in the Continental army under General Sullivan during

the Revolutionary War. While teaching McKeen studied for his ministry under Rev. McGregor of

the Presbyterian Church. After eight years, he left New Hampshire and went to Cambridge to

study mathematics under Professor Samuel Williams at Harvard College. After attending

Harvard, McKeen again went to back to New Hampshire to further study for the ministry and

became a licensed Presbyterian clergyman. While working as an assistant at Andover school, he

began preaching in the Boston circuit. He was well accepted, and McKeen answered the call of

First Parish in Beverly in 1785. McKeen proceeded to “dissolve his connection with the

Presbytery”and was ordained in Beverly as a Congregational minister.12 The accounts of his

character held him in high esteem: “So judicious was he in all his movements that he rarely gave

offense to persons of any party or sect, save to a very few individuals who were of ultra political

views. His unbending integrity and spotless morals were acknowledged by all, and often

applauded by persons of every class.”13 His ministry lasted seventeen years, before he sought

dismissal to become the first President of Bowdoin College in Brunswick, Maine in 1802.

While McKeen's parting from the Parish was gracefully accepted, his departure exposed

differences within the congregation. The quote above shows McKeen had alienated a sect of

12 William Sprague, Annals of the American Pulpit: Trinitarian Congregational (1857), 217.13 Sprague, Annals of the American Pulpit: Trinitarian Congregational, 217.

14

members who were dissatisfied with his preaching. The dissenting sentiments of these “strict

Calvinists” were well-known in First Parish, and they had verbalized their preference for the

preaching of Daniel Hopkins and Joshua Spaulding of Salem over that of McKeen. These

members ventured over to Salem to hear these men preach instead of attending services at First

Parish.14 This group “spoke lightly of [McKeen] as a preacher” and preferred the more

Calvinistic leanings of other ministers.15 After McKeen's dismissal, this group quickly joined

forces and, unbeknownst to the First Parish Church, petitioned the State to secede from First

Parish. McKeen's last duties at First Parish were on August 23, and on October 15 John Dike and

other members of First Parish submitted a petition to establish a separate religious society. 16

Shortly after the petition was delivered to the state, the founding members of Third

Congregational Society met to define their beliefs. There were seven founding member of the

Third Congregational Society: Thomas Appleton, Polly Brown, Isaac Haskell, Abigail Lovett,

William H. Lovett, Elizabeth Pickard, and Caleb Wallis. Prior to the official incorporation

granted by the state, these seven members called an ecclesiastical council to gather at the home

of Polly Brown on November 9, 1802. At this meeting the group was sanctioned by the convened

ecclesiastical council as a religious society and wrote a new covenant for themselves. The new

covenant asserted their belief in the Holy Trinity and assured this tenet of faith would not be

removed.

The founding group ,with exception of the Appletons, were very young. They ranged in

age from 22 to 29, while the Appletons were in their 60s at the time of the founding. This group,

14 Robert Rantoul, Autobiography, Robert Rantoul Collection, Beverly Historical Society and Museum, Beverly, MA, 159.

15 Rantoul, Autobiography, 160.16 Petition by John Dike and others dated October 15, 1802, First Parish Church UU Historical Archive Collection,

Beverly, MA.

15

subsequently joined by fifty other members who petitioned First Parish for dismissal, formed the

original membership of the Third Congregational Church.

Their petition was received by the General Court of Massachusetts, which presented the

petition to First Parish and asked to respond. The petition took the parish by surprise, but public

opinion did not oppose the separation on religious terms. A parish meeting was called on October

25 to address the petition of John Dike and others. At that meeting, the parish decided to vote on

the petition on January 29, 1803. The initial vote of parish members at that January meeting

stood at 83 Yeas and 117 Nays.17 In 1803 First Parish had 543 eligible voters, and 200 votes

indicated a high level of interest in the matters by the parish memebers.18 Objection to the

petition hinged on disagreement of one term the petitioners sought: “the Liberty of all to change

their parochial relations from the one to other annually as they may please forever hereafter.” 19

First Parish did not want to agree to the fluidity of unrestricted parish changing. This fluidity

would impact the taxation and voting powers of the parish. A subsequent vote gave consent to

the incorporation of the religious society, but only if the provision of the liberty of changing from

one to the other without expiration was revoked.20 First Parish succeeded, and the Court

restricted the terms of transferal to the new parish. In March of 1803, the Court granted the

incorporation of the Third Congregational Society and allowed inhabitants of First Parish two

years to move from one parish to the other with only a written note to the Parish Clerk of the

chosen parish. First Parish had asked that the window of time be six months, but the court

17 Rantoul, Autobiography, 156.18 Total Poll numbers for First Parish in 1803 cited from “Estimation of the First Parish in Beverly, 1803,” First Parish Church UU Historical Archive Collection, Beverly, MA.; and Rantoul, Autobiography, 156. 19 First Parish Church Records, Vol. 3, 44. 20 Rantoul, Autobiography, 156.

16

decided that two years was a compromise between unrestricted time and the wishes of First

Parish.

The objection from First Parish indicated that their matters of concern were not

theological, but the legal and municipal repercussions of the separation. The driving force for the

division was theological, but opposition to the separation was based on the legalities of parish

operation. The petitioners argued that large size of the existing parish, some 3000 inhabitants,

enabled it to support another parish. The addition of a parish within the existing one weakened

First Parish and would complicate municipal matters.

From a religious perspective the separation was simple. The religious needs of the

inhabitants of First Parish were changing and could no longer be met by one minister or church.

A growing tension lingered while McKeen resided as minister and quickly surfaced once he was

dismissed from office. The moment of opportunity arose in that vacancy. In 1802, First Parish

considered itself Congregational, as the liberal and orthodox leanings at this time had not been

institutionally defined and developed. In Beverly, the orthodox group, as they soon would be

called, solidified early and incorporated as the Third Congregational Society, while the liberal

faction would take decades to coalesce. The terms of liberal and orthodox did not emerge in

Beverly until public debates surfaced in the late 1810s as the theological difference began to

deepen. The largest group in First Parish in these early years were moderates who were not

drawn to either side. This faction was content with the preaching provided at First Parish and

after the separation of Third Parish was fully invested in selecting a new Congregational

minister.

17

The doctrinal dissatisfaction of the seceding group is evidence of a slow liberalization of

religious doctrine that was starting to emerge in the Congregational churches. The strict

Calvinists wanted to retain the older religious notions stemming from the Congregational

Churches' Puritanical past. The Calvinist Congregationalists reacted to a stepping away from key

points of belief, primarily a rejection of the Trinity which divided Congregationalists into

Trinitarians and non-trinitarians, sometimes known as Unitarians. More subtly, yet consistently,

there was a rejection of the belief in the total depravity of man, this rejection was called

Arminianism. An emphasis on the role of free will was replacing Calvinistic notions of

predestination and the inherently sinful nature of man. This emphasis on free will allowed men to

live a righteous life in the name of God to achieve eternal salvation. These shifts changed the

tone and temperament of preaching by ministers of moderate or liberal standing. Although the

liberals in Eastern Massachusetts eventually became a unified and separate sect known as

Unitarians, there was a generation of ministers that existed between the stricter Calvinists and the

Unitarians. These Arminians, as they were called, held three views that separated them from their

Calvinistic counterparts based on a different interpretation of the Bible. First, they held the belief

that man was not born into sin, but was capable of achieving righteousness. Second, they

believed in super rationalism, and thirdly, some rejected of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity.21

In Beverly, both the new Third Congregational Society and First Parish Church had to

find new ministers. Third Congregational sought a minister to support their Calvinist views

which had been lacking in the ministry of McKeen. First Parish sought to find a more moderate

minister. First Parish went about its selection process by having a succession of local ministers

21 Winthrop S. Hudson, Religion in America: An Historical Account of the Development of American Religious Life (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1965); Conrad Wright, The Beginnings of Unitarianism in America, (Hamden, CT: Archon Books, 1976).

18

fill the vacant pulpit. These invitations were sent out by a committee of First Parish Church

members who were in charge of pulpit supply. As visiting pastors came to town, some enjoyed

popularity, and the parish would vote on sending a call to this particular minister. This allowed

the congregation to become familiar with the preaching style and personality of the minister prior

to hiring them. It also allowed the minister to gain some sense of the congregation and the parish.

Multiple calls were usually sent before a minister accepted the call. The recent split in First

Parish could have deterred some ministers from settling there. The discord of the inhabitants

might have been daunting to some ministers who would not want to settle in a place with such

tumultuous sentiments.

Third Congregational Society found a minister first, and Rev. Joseph Emerson was

installed on September 21, 1803. In March of 1803, Emerson spent six weeks preaching in

Beverly and was sent a call that June.22 Emerson was a native of Hollis, New Hampshire born in

1777. He suffered from illnesses as child and his weak constitution encouraged his family to an

early decision that he should seek a life in the ministry. He pursued his preparatory studies at an

academy under the direction of Mr. John Hubbard in New Ipswich, New Hampshire. He

matriculated at Harvard in 1794 where, in 1797, he made a public profession of faith. After

teaching at an academy in Hollis, New Hampshire, Emerson moved to Franklin, Massachusetts

in 1799 to study religion under Dr. Nathaniel Emmons for two years.23 Emerson began preaching

in Lynn and was soon called to Beverly.24 Emerson spent thirteen years at Third Congregational

until his poor health made him step down to pursue other avenues.

22 Stone, History of Beverly, 291. 23 Ralph Emerson, Life of Rev. Joseph Emerson, pastor of the Third Congregational Church in Beverly, MA and

subsequently principle of a female seminary (Boston: Crocker and Brewster, 1834) 120-1.24 Augustus A. Galloupe, “Historical Sketches”, History and Manual of the Dane Street Congregational Church

and Society of Beverly, Massachusetts, 1802-1897. (Boston: Frank Wood Printer, 1897) 7.

19

First Parish installed Rev. Abiel Abbot just a few months later on December 14 th, 1803.

Between the dismissal of McKeen and the settlement of Abbot, First Parish employed twelve

ministers.25 The first candidate, Joshua Bates, was introduced by McKeen and was an orthodox

minister. Bates after only two Sabbaths did not satisfy the dissenting groups desire for an

orthodox candidate.26 This dissatisfaction was most likely the impetus behind the petition for

fifty members from First Parish to leave. Another candidate, James Thompson, was the favorite

of the majority, but the minority was so opposed that he was invited back to preach again to see

if that could settle the differences of opinion.27 Before the differences were resolved, Abbot had

already accepted the call and was to be settled in Beverly.

Rev. Abiel Abbot (1770-1828) was born in Andover, MA in 1770, and raised by pious

parents belonging to the yeomanry class of New England. Abbot displayed an astute scholarly

aptitude and his sickly constitution made him a good candidate for a life of ministry. Abbot

began his preparatory studies at Phillips Academy in Andover and then matriculated to Harvard

University in 1788. Upon his graduation in 1792, he took an assistant teaching position in his

native town of Andover and began his theological studies under Rev. Jonathan French.28 At age

twenty-four he began preaching and eventually accepted a call in the nearby town of Haverhill.

Abbot spent eight years in this community until the needs of his growing family forced him to

leave and accept the call of First Parish Church in Beverly. The parish in Beverly was much

larger than that of Haverhill and able to offer him a higher salary, accommodating his growing

family's needs. The opportunity also presented a larger congregation. Rev. Abbot would spend

the rest of his life and career aiding First Parish through the ever evolving theological landscape.

25 Rantoul, Autobiography, 164-5.26 Ibid., 164.27 Ibid., 165.28 Stone, History of Beverly, 239.

20

Legalities Between the Parishes

Massachusetts law necessitated legal action in order to establish another parish in

Beverly. Since 1692, religion in Massachusetts had been state supported through public taxation

of parish members. The purpose was to support and provide public worship through providing a

minister's salary. Under the 1692 charter, every town formed territorial parishes which in

addition to managing church affairs also dealt with town affairs. If a second church was

established in the town, the geographical area was divided, and affairs spilt by parish. Inhabitants

of each parish were taxed accordingly, even if they were not members of the church. This

dynamic set up two distinct constituents in church affairs: the parish which was made up of all its

inhabitants, and church members who voluntarily professed their faith and participated in church

affairs. This arrangement also created two voting bodies, the parish vote and the church vote.

Members of the parish voted on church matters, including the selection of ministers, and could

override the vote of the church members. The payment of taxes allowed the parish inhabitants to

vote on matters concerning public worship. Membership in the church was not required, but

payment of taxes was. All matters concerning public worship were addressed by the

Massachusetts General Court.29

Beverly had established First Parish in 1667, and then Second Parish in 1715; both were

geographically separate portions of town. The introduction of a third parish complicated matters

within the town; Third Parish was geographically located within First. This dissenting group of

Calvinist were a “gathered” church, which is a voluntary gathering of persons based on shared

beliefs rather than the traditional territorially organized parish. This dissenting group

29 Paragraph based off John D. Cushing, “Notes on the Disestablishment in Massachusetts1780-1833.” The William and Mary Quarterly, Third Series, Vol. 26, No. 2 (April 1969), 169-190.

21

encountered little difficulty gaining incorporation because they were seeking to establish a

Congregational Society, unlike other dissenting groups like the Baptists. The overlap of the

parishes was also reflected in the physical locations of their meeting houses which were located

only a few blocks from each other.

Third Parish was granted all rights as an established parish and church. State support

would be provided through taxation, but this public support meant inhabitants had to declare

membership to one parish or the other. This transfer of membership was meant to be a clean and

simple process. Changing of parish did not obligate anyone to become a church member of the

Third Congregational Society, but it did mean that their taxes would support the minister of this

new parish.

The removal of the Calvinists to Third Parish lessened the conflicting religious views

within First Parish Church, but the separation created difficulties with the long standing taxation

system. The collectors and assessors of each parish now found themselves placed in a precarious

position. People could evade taxes by claiming membership in the other parish. Other factors,

like the dissenting group of Baptists, those too poor to pay, and just regular folks who did not

want to support religious worship in which they did not participate, contributed to the confusion

as well.

The leading issue was that tax assessments were being miscalculated. Taxes were

assessed on four factors: the number of eligible voters in a household, the value of real estate, the

value of personal estate, and income.30 Each voter equals one “poll” and were taxed at a varying

rate year to year. Rates differed by parish. The other three factors were tallied and a percentage

30 First Parish Tax Records, First Parish Historical Archive Collection, First Parish UU Church, Beverly, MA.; Third Parish Tax Records, Dane Street Church Historical Archives Collection, Beverly, MA.

22

was taxed, again at a rate that varied year to year and parish to parish. Miscalculations were

happening based on numbers of polls in a household, and some families were incorrectly taxed

by the wrong Parish. In addition to tax confusion, the separation terms set out in the original

incorporation were consistently being challenged. Third Parish wanted to push the boundaries of

the current system that restricted the movement of between the parishes. They wanted members

to be able to float and attend either church as they saw fit. Members of First Parish were not

enthusiastic about “open doors.”31 First Parish fought this very point in the original petition. So

adamant were members of First Parish that after the 1803 incorporation, they formed a

committee to write a memorial to the General Court addressing the subject of “open doors.”

The complications of taxation persisted to be contentious between the parishes for many

years. The March 1, 1805 deadline for joining the Third Parish should have settled some of the

mistakes taking place in the tax assessments, but the problems continued. In February of 1806,

the issue appeared on the agenda for the next First Parish meeting. A vote was needed to decide

whether First Parish would meet with Third Parish to resolve the “difficulties” between the

parishes.32 In March, First Parish formed a committee of three members - Israel Thorndike,

Moses Brown, and Thomas Davis - to meet with the committee from Third Parish. These

meetings were meant to resolve the assessment issues at last, and the combined committee

addressed several contributing factors. The joint committee agreed that children of Third Parish

members were to be assumed to be members of Third Parish unless otherwise specified to First

Parish. Furthermore, they determined that both parishes had different terms of incorporation

31 Rantoul, Autobiography, 156. 32 First Parish Records, Vol. 3, 1798-1830, 82.

23

leading to different criteria for tax assessment and double taxation.33 After these meetings, First

Parish assumed that matters had been handled and the issues would cease.

Besides the issue of taxation, socio-economic power was at work too. The three members

on the committee of First Parish were an influential group. Israel Thorndike and Moses Brown

were both very wealthy and influential men. They both built their fortunes in trade and owned

many of the vessels that sailed in and out of Beverly harbor. At this time Third Parish only had

one wealthy family in its parish, the Burleys, so did not have the same influence in local politics.

Besides the wealth of First Parish's committee, they also had the upper hand politically as

Thorndike and Thomas Davis were both state representatives, and well versed in the legalities of

court proceedings.34

The private meetings between the parishes, however, did not settle issues for Third

Parish, and in 1807 they filed a petition to the General Court to amend their terms of

incorporation. The petition presented sought two things: first the annexing of a group of

members from First Parish to Third, and secondly an amendment of section two of the original

petition. Third Parish was again petitioning for “granting liberty to all persons living within the

limits of the first parish in Beverly, to change their parochial relations any time at their pleasure

forever and here after.”35 Third Parish cited the intermixing of the two parishes as causing

constant movement between the parishes due to “intermarriage and other causes.” Third Parish's

position was that unless this term was granted “permanent happiness” is not possible between the

parishes. First Parish thought the petition was “unjust, unreasonable, and [at] this present time

33 First Parish Records, Vol. 3, 1798-1830, 82-85. 34 Acts and Laws of the Commonwealth, Vol. 4, 591. 35 First Parish Records, Vol 3. 91.

24

unnecessary.”36 They assumed that these issues had been worked out and that they had open

communication with Third Parish so returning to court seemed unnecessary.

The Court did not want to get involved in this fight and pushed it back until the next

session, instructing the parishes to negotiate and settle on terms before returning. Committees

formed by First and Third went back and forth with differing terms on the “open doors” issues.

First Parish agreed to the transferal of the First Parish members that wanted to be annexed to

Third Parish. They agreed not to oppose that point as long as the appropriate taxes were paid to

First Parish. The debates lingered on terms of future movements. Third Parish suggested an

additional year of unrestricted movement and even proposed having the month of February every

three years be a set time for transferring.37 First Parish rejected all suggestions, and when they

returned to Court in 1808, the court granted the annexing of fourteen persons along with their

families, polls, and estates to Third Parish, provided that “each person shall be held to pay all

taxes legally assessed on them by the said First Parish prior to this date”38 and nothing else.

There was no extension or amending of the original transferal terms between First and Third

Parishes. Again First Parish prevented any changes to the incorporation of Third Congregational

Church. First Parish sought to protect the bleeding of their own parish. The harder Third Parish

pushed, the harder First fought to defend its membership. Forcing individuals to appeal to the

Church for transfer prevented their leaving so First Parish could retain tax payers.

The number of people that moved to Third Parish was a small portion of the overall

population of the parish. Third Parish claimed in 1802 that First Parish had upwards of 3,000

inhabitants, but the acceptance letter of Abiel Abbot cites First Parish having approximately

36 First Parish Records, Vol. 3 (1798-1830) 91. 37 First Parish, Historical Collection, 1807 documents binder. 38 Acts and Laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Vol. 8, 407.

25

2,400 inhabitants.39 If accurate, Third Parish gained approximately 600 parish members from

First before Abbot was settled in 1803. One hundred thirty one names appeared on the Act of

Incorporation for the Third Congregational Society. The same act granted two years for

additional members of First Parish to exchange their membership. The families of the named

persons were also presumed to have switched over to the Third Parish. The exact numbers in

each parish were not officially counted until the local 1810 census. This census showed that in

1810 Third Parish had 1,014 people, made up of 179 families. In the same year, First Parish's

whole person count was 2,269 persons, made up of 473 families.40 The poll count for First Parish

was down to 509 from 543 in 1803; the poll count for Third Parish was not listed in the census,

but would have been much lower than First Parish based on its smaller size and fewer family

count. Church membership for both churches was much lower than the overall parish

populations. Third Parish only had 58 church members in 1802 versus several hundred in First

Parish.

The fight to block unrestricted movement between the parishes did not cease after the

1807-1808 battle. Third Parish made a last effort in 1811, when the Religious Freedom Act was

passed, which allowed for religions of different denominations to pay taxes and support the

ministers and society of their choice as long as they maintained membership in that society. First

Parish rejected any petitions to transfer to Third Parish. First Parish asserted that the Act was

meant for dissenters like the Baptists, and not for a fellow Congregational parish. Their parishes

were in the same denomination and anyone paying taxes was supporting a Congregational

39 First Parish Church Records, Vol. 3. 1803-1830, 61.40 “1810 Local Beverly Census,” Robert Rantoul Collection, Beverly Historical Society and Museum, Beverly,

MA.

26

minister. Third Parish saw themselves suffering injustices from First Parish's refusal to allow for

freedom of movement.

This continued resistance to allowing members to move was further revealed when in

1814, First Parish implemented a practice for evaluating who they will grant dismissals to. The

practice encompassed “the principle of not dismissing members, in ordinary cases, to other

churches in the town, but to recommend them when desired, if their christian character be fair”41

This practice allowed First Parish to deny dismissals allowing them to retain greater parish

numbers, while not denying the worshippers the right to attend the other church. Routine

dismissals by First Parish were granted after a marriage occurred. Prior to marriage couples

commonly belonged to opposing parishes, and after marriage the couple sought membership in

one parish necessitating a dismissal from the other.

The legal disputes between these parishes continued for the first decade of separation.

The parishes could not find common ground on the issue of unencumbered transferal of parish

membership. First Parish fought to maintain the status quo and staunchly defended the upholding

of the state supported church system. Third fought to distinguish itself from First while building

a base for support through greater numbers. Concerns over taxation were fought on the parish

level.

The recruitment of parish members was contrasted with efforts to seek church members.

Both parishes had new ministers who were charged with the responsibility to establish their

ministry in Beverly. The overlapping of parishes meant they were competing for members from

the same pool. Their individual beliefs and styles would have a great impact on whom they

attracted.

41 First Parish Church Records,Vol. 3., 1803-1830, 46.

27

Rev. Joseph Emerson and Rev. Abiel Abbot: Two Congregational Ministers, Two Different

Styles

Both First and Third Parishes represented the same denomination and were so physically

close that their ministers competed for new church members from the same pool of inhabitants.

Acquiring new members thus depended on their particular theological leanings, their pastoral

style, and their ministerial skills to draw people into their church. The differences in

temperament and style between the orthodox minister of Third Congregational Society Rev.

Joseph Emerson and the liberal leaning minister of First Parish Congregational Church Rev.

Abiel Abbot is best demonstrated by comparing a sample of their work. Early in each man's

ministry in Beverly, they delivered sermons addressing the mariners of Beverly. Beverly, as a

costal town, had a large maritime community with a reputation for lude behavior and ungodly

lifestyle. Sailing was a dangerous occupation and kept many men of the community away for

extended periods of time. Death at sea was always an imminent possibility, but their absence for

months or even years also placed a great stress on their families. This particular audience

provided each pastor with the challenge of being relevant and making a lasting connection with

the town's populace.

Rev. Abiel Abbot delivered his sermon, The Mariner's Manual, to his congregation at

First Parish on March 4, 1804. Abbot opened with Psalm 107: 23-24, “they that go down to the

sea in ships, that do business in great waters; these see the works of the Lord, and his wonders in

the deep.”42 For Abbot the occasion was a solemn one as he acknowledged the dangerous work

and lengthy absences of these members of his flock. Abbot 's two main points in this sermon

were: “I. To consider those works and wonders of God, which seafaring men constantly behold

42 Rev. Abiel Abbot, A Mariner's Manual (Salem, MA: Joshua Cushing printer, 1804), 3.

28

in the deep.” and “II. To apply the subject to them, suitably to their employment and situation.”43

His first point spoke to the wonderment of God's work and creations. Those sailors who were

fortunate enough to embark on adventures on the seas should take time to appreciate these

wonders. Abbot spoke of the wonders of the sea; its depths, vastness, and creatures are beyond

our knowing but are all products of the greatness of God. Abbot advised the men to be

thoughtful, serious, and to “often think and endeavor to realize the providence of God.”44 Abbot

asked for seriousness but presented a joyful perspective on the experience at sea. He offered an

uplifting and wonder-filled journey of the greatness of God's creations to inspire reverence and

righteousness.

Abbot's second point laid out how sailors should address issues of worship and why

modification of their behavior would improve their relationship with God. Abbot presented a

case for how God was represented in all things, and sailors should recognize His role in all things

and give thanks and praise. Abbot posed questions to his audience. He appealed to his audience

to think. He did not present his case in absolutes or commands. This construction influenced the

overall tone of his sermon. His counsel was contextualized with examples that his audience

could relate to. When he spoke of fishing he used the bounty of the banks of Newfoundland, a

common fishing destination for locals, to point to the providence of God. Then he would pose

the question, “Who can fail to observe the merciful goodness of God?”45 Abbot's technique

illustrated to his audience the wonders of God instead of telling them God was good to them. His

method made his message relevant and relatable to his audience.

43 Abbot, A Mariner's Manual, 4. Note: emphasis in original text.44 Ibid., 10. 45 Ibid., 7.

29

The sin of swearing is a particular issue addressed by both Abbot and Emerson in their

sermons. Abbot approached the subject to “solemnly caution” against committing this

“peculiarly offensive” crime against God. Abbot warned, “he will not hold himself guiltless, who

taketh his name in vain.”46 God was offended by the carelessness and the disregard by man for

his work that speaking his name in vain demonstrated. While Abbot asserted swearing was

wrong and a sin, he did not resort to scare tactics. He acknowledged that “seafaring men are said

to most frequently to fall into this sin,” but adds, “I do not bring it as a charge applicable to all in

this way of life.”47 He accentuated the positive, stating “I rejoice in believing, and even in being

informed, that many of you are free from this dreadful impiety.”48 Abbot's message was clear and

firm and left his audience with this thought on the subject, “When the sky is serene and the

ocean calm, O bar not that door by profaneness, which you wish may be open to your prayers in

a tempest.”49

Abbot's work did not mention the Trinity, he referred only to God in the singular

throughout the entire sermon. He made no mention of Christ. The scripture used was mostly

from the Old Testament. His choice of Psalm 107: 23-24, was applicable to the audience, and

was up lifting in temperament. He did not select a perilous story wrought with death and the

wrath of God as Rev. Emerson did.

Noted in Abbot's published sermon was an acknowledgement of a recent event that

claimed the lives of nine men; seven men and two boys. A schooner commanded by Thomas

Wales was lost in a storm the preceding autumn. This vessel was one of a dozen caught in the

storm while journeying back to port. Only this vessel was lost, and the community was now

46 Abbot, A Mariner's Manual, 10. Emphasis in original text. A parallel translation or truncation of Exodus 20:7.47 Ibid., 11.48 Ibid.49 Ibid., 12.

30

confident no one would return, and the families were beginning to mourn their loss. This event

was not uncommon is a seafaring town, and would have struck a cord with much of the

community. Abbot's acknowledgement spoke to his ability and commitment to connect with this

community. Emerson did not tailor his sermon to include local elements. Emerson chose to

present terrific perils at sea which would certainly resonate with his audience. Abbot, on the

other hand, did not summon up scenes of distress. He did not singularly focus on the dangerous

moments in maritime life. His approach was softer, providing counsel and guidance by engaging

his audience.

Shortly after Abbot addressed his congregation, Rev. Emerson delivered his sermon, A

Chart for Seaman, at Third Congregational on March 18, 1804. Emerson chose Matthew 8:25,

“Lord, Save us; we perish!”50 Emerson's chosen verse relayed a terrifying scenario of a ship

caught in a storm while out at sea. In this moment of peril the men turn to Christ for rescue from

the storm and looming death. Emerson used this story to make two points: “I. To show that

persons in perils of water should feel their dependence upon Christ; and II. To show that persons

in perils of water should pray to Christ for assistance.”51 To support his first point Emerson

claims seamen should depend on Christ because “he is their Creator,” “he upholds all things in

existence,” “he governs all things,” “and, as they could not have had any existence without

having been created, they should acknowledge their dependence upon him every moment of their

lives.”52 Emerson used his first point to deduce through scripture that Christ is God and thus the

Creator. Emerson referenced the doctrine of the Trinity several times in his sermon, and

50 Rev. Joseph Emerson, A Chart for Seamen. (Salem, MA: Joshua Cushing printer, 1804) 3. 51 Emerson, A Chart for Seamen, 4. 52 Ibid., 6.

31

emphasized Christ throughout the entirety. In contrast to Abbot's uplifting references to the many

wonders of the sea, Emerson presented a terrifying scenario of peril on the sea.

Emerson approached his audience differently than Abbot. Emerson did not ask his

audience to be mindful or to ponder God's role in their lives. Emerson delivered his message

with absolute certainty. He appealed to high emotion to instruct his audience. For example, point

five on why sailors should pray to Christ was, “Persons in perils of water should pray to Christ;

because they must perish, unless he is pleased to save them.” He did not threaten his audience

with death, but conveyed with certainty that their salvation was in the hands of Christ. Emerson

did not personalize the message to his audience. All examples were Scriptural.

Emerson's also addressed the sin of swearing. To illustrate his point Emerson revisited

the scene of the tempest from his opening. He painted a dreary scene where “Darkness reigns

around – more than Egyptian gloom, except when interrupted by flashes of lightening, which

seem but the flaming lamps of God to light them down to their watery tombs.”53 He harkened

back to remind mariners that in times of peril they cry out to Christ with the same mouth that

spews profanity. His point was the same as Abbot's just presented differently, and his concluding

remark on the subject was, “Ye mariners, behold the picture. . . And do not forget, if any of you

be addicted to the abominable practice of swearing, I entreat you, if you value your own souls,

do not forget, that for every idle word, you shall speak, you must give account at the day of

judgement.”54 Emerson's colorful admonishment again appealed to fear to motivate his audience

away from sin.

53 Ibid., 21.54 Ibid., 22.

32

The preaching style and recruiting technique of each minister was different. Abbot

possessed a reputation as a fine speaker and was good on his feet. Abbot noted in February of

1805, that he was able to acquire nearly fifty new members in his first year of settlement in

Beverly.55 Abbot also remarked how pleased he was with the seriousness and attentiveness of his

new flock. They prompted him to provide additional services that took the form of lectures on

the history and doctrine of Christ. Abbot's eloquence was contrasted with accounts of Emerson

preaching which was described as uncomfortably loud.56 Emerson was also cited as using overly

simplified language with the intention of reaching the least educated members of the audience.

Emerson's preaching was described as “very discriminating” and “dwelt more on terrific

subjects.”57 These factors were attributed to account for the “smaller number making a

profession of religion while he was pastor than in after years.”58 Emerson preached along very

particular lines which did not appeal to a majority. His tutor, Dr. Emmons, remarked he

“acquired very clear and consistent views of the peculiar and fundamental doctrines.”59

In addition to Emerson's preaching style, he was cited as being selective with church

membership. Emerson was particular and sought specific evidence before admission. He wanted

proof of “credible change,” “a knowledge of scripture doctrine, and the nature of the gospel

ordinances,” and evidence of “a morally honest and devout life.”60 He was also cautious because

“he supposed there was great danger of people getting false hopes, and, coming into the church

with such hopes, were in great danger of losing their souls.”61 This selectivity diminished large

55 “Abiel Abbot, D.D., 1794-1828.” Unitarian Congregational, 311. 56 Emerson, Life of Rev. Joseph Emerson, 221.57 Galloupe, “Historical Sketches: Founding Members of the Church and its first Supporters.” 8; Emerson, Life of

Rev. Joseph Emerson, 220.58 Galloupe, “Historical Sketches: Founding Members of the Church and its first Supporters.” 8. 59 Emerson, Life of Rev. Joseph Emerson, 120. 60 Ibid., 222-23.61 Galloupe, “Historical Sketches: Founding Members of the Church and its first Supporters.” 8.

33

advances in church membership at Third Congregational. After the initial fifty members from

First Parish who were admitted in 1802, membership dropped off for the remainder of Emerson's

ministry. In some years only one person was admitted, and only forty eight members total were

granted membership between 1803 and 1814.62

Abbot's preaching was described as “calm and fervent, never dull, seldom impassioned,”

and he had a voice that was “natural and graceful.”63 His “greatest merit as a preacher was the

uniform adaptation of his sermons to time, place, and circumstances.”64 Abbot's manner drew in

many new members. He matched Emerson's total membership count in the first year of his

settlement in Beverly. Abbot's message and less particular requirements for membership allowed

him to create a place for persons whose convictions were not strictly Calvinist. Emerson's

selectivity became an asset for Abbot to draw in moderates and liberals into First Parish. Early in

Abbot's ministry he provided additional classes and lectures on the “history and doctrines of

Christ” at the request of his parishioners.65 These actions have been cited as satisfying the more

conservative members of First Parish who sought greater edification in religious matters.

Abbot's receptiveness to the wants of his parishioners earned him great esteem.

Conclusion

The split of Calvinists from First Parish came on the heels of the dismissal of Joseph

McKeen in 1802. McKeen's departure and their dissatisfaction led them to incorporate into a

62 Francis J.Van Horn and Louis H. Baker, “Historical List of Members,” History and Manual of the Dane Street Congregational Church and Society of Beverly, Massachusetts, 1802-1897 (Boston: Frank Wood Printer, 1897), 43-44.63 Sprague, Unitarian Congregational, 318. 64 Ibid.65 Ibid., 311.

34

separate religious society. The legal battles that riddled the first decade of separation stemmed

from complications in the overlap of the parishes and disputes regarding taxation. As a new

parish, Third Parish had a strong need to build a tax base in order to establish themselves and

support their minister. Third Parish's adamant pursuit to obtain freedom of movement between

parishes was defeated several times in Court by First Parish. It was in the best interest of First

Parish to retain the largest tax base possible to support their own operation costs.

These activities of the parish level were contrasted with the ministerial pursuits of the

pastors at First and Third Churches. Third Parish's Rev. Joseph Emerson, while revered by his

own people, was not motivated to recruit large numbers into his church. His discriminating

practices made his membership selective and exclusive, and effectively allowed Abbot full reign

to persons of moderate or liberal theological standing. Abbot's talents to draw and retain persons

of more liberal standing as well as moderate standing went unchallenged while Emerson held

office at Third Congregational.

35

Chapter Two: No Middle Ground, The Orthodox versus the Unitarians

After the legal battles that dominated the early years, each parish settled into its own

pattern. Third Congregational had carved out a niche in Beverly but was still less than half the

size of First Parish. After the last petition requesting unrestricted movement between the parishes

in 1811, the legal fights between the two parishes ceased until 1820. Rev. Emerson and Rev.

Abbot while differing in doctrinal views and preaching style were able to maintain peace, and the

town adjusted to having two churches in one local area. This lull in disputes continued until

1818, when the tensions began to rise again. Three changes disrupted the lull: the removal of

Rev. Emerson in 1816 from Third Parish, the appointment of his successor Rev. David Oliphant,

and finally, the temporary leave of Rev. Abbot from First Parish. These disruptions of the status

quo opened the door for a new wave of agitation and movement within the parishes.

Rev. Emerson sought dismissal from Third Congregational in 1816, due to health issues.

He had been sickly from childhood, but in 1811 developed an ailment in his right wrist that

disabled him from writing. This ailment soon spread to both wrists and ankles. Emerson tried to

prolong his pastoral duties as long as he could, even sitting while preaching. Finally in 1816 he

sought dismissal after he was advised to head south in hopes of improving his condition.66

Emerson was released from his pastoral duties on September 21, 1816, exactly thirteen years

after his installation. His dismissal left a vacancy in Third Parish which now needed to be filled.

Emerson was replaced by Rev. David Oliphant who was installed on February 18, 1818.67

Oliphant represented a new breed of minister. Unlike Emerson and Abbot who had received their

ministerial training through apprenticeship to a practicing minister, Oliphant was a graduate of

66 Stone, History of Beverly, 292-93. 67 Stone, History of Beverly, 294.

36

Andover Theological Seminary. Emerson and Abbot both received training in an unsystematic

form with no set curriculum or established length of time before settling into their own pastoral

duties. The apprenticeship ministerial training model had began to subside in the early nineteenth

century as more formal ministerial training was now being provided to men.68 The formation of

professional schools also allowed for ministers to train in particular schools of thought or

theological belief. Andover Theological Seminary was established by a group of orthodox

ministers in 1808, in reaction to the liberal take over of Harvard. The orthodox decided that they

needed a place to train men to resist the spread of heterodox ideas. Oliphant came into Third

Congregation with a firm and vocal disapproval of congregations like First Parish which

harbored liberal thought.

In 1818, Abbot's health also started to fail. While he had suffered from health concerns

most of his life, he developed respiratory issues, forcing him to take a temporary leave from his

pastoral duties. On October of 1819, Abbot sailed from Boston to Charleston, South Carolina to

pass the winter in a milder climate.69 The absence of Abbot allowed for newcomer Oliphant to

gain some footing in town. After passing the winter in the south, Abbot returned in the spring of

1820 to his pastoral duties. During his absence another petition had been presented to the Court

from members of First Parish wishing to be annexed into Third.

This petition was granted on June 14, 1820 and allowed seventeen persons along with

their families to transfer parishes.70 First Parish did gain one person when for the first time

someone petitioned to leave Third and to join First. The number of polls can gage the loss First

68 Scott, From Office to Profession, 62-3.69 William B. Sprague, “Abiel Abbot, D.D. 1794-1828,” Annals of the American Pulpit: Unitarian Congregational

(New York: Robert Carter & Brothers, 1865), 312. 70 Acts and Resolves, Vol. ?, 433-34.

37

Parish was suffering to its parish numbers. In 1819, First Parish had 413 eligible voters.71 This

number was down from the 509 in 1810. This number decreased slightly to 405 in 1820 with the

withdrawal of those seventeen persons to Third Parish.72 A steady decrease in the poll count of

First Parish was seen across the 1820s which corresponded to the increased poll count at Third

Parish. In 1822, First Parish was down to 382 while Third Parish rose 240.73 These numbers

reflect the shuffling of parish membership. While First Parish was still larger, Third Parish was

making great strides.

1820 proved to be a record year for Third Congregational Society, as they not only

annexed First Parish members but experienced their peak year in church membership. Sixty new

members joined the church, including Rev. Oliphant's wife, Mary.74 In 1821 another thirty-four

new members joined the church.75 This increase in membership marked a change from Emerson's

ministry where membership stayed low. Oliphant apparently did not harbor the same fear for

people's souls that Emerson had.

The changing of ministers in Third Congregational and the temporary removal of Abbot

from First Parish also coincided with actions in the larger debate between liberals and orthodox.

Oliphant was firmly aligned with the orthodox and he was vocal in his position. Rev. Emerson's

inward focus and discriminating manner regarding membership and conversion was replaced by

Oliphant's vocal and outward rejection of Unitarianism and his desire to actively recruit persons

71 “First Parish Tax Estimates 1808-1828,” First Parish Historical Archive Collection, First Parish UU Church, Beverly, MA.

72 Ibid.73 Ibid.; “1822 Estimate,” Dane Street Historical Archives Collection, Dane Street Church, Beverly, MA.

74 Francis J.Van Horn and Louis H. Baker, “Historical List of Members,” 44-5.75 Ibid.

38

to his church. Oliphant stood to combat the spread of liberal thought and attacked Abbot's

character and position in the community in order defend his orthodox position.

Unitarian Beliefs and the Unitarian Controversy:

The growing tension between liberals and the orthodox in the greater Boston area reached

critical mass during this time. The “Unitarian Controversy” had been brewing since Rev. Henry

Ware was elected to the Hollis Chair at Harvard College in 1805. The orthodox had retreated

from Harvard and established a seminary of their own. The orthodox had been on the offensive

against the liberals for years, when the liberals decided to take a decisive action of their own,

define their doctrine, and to organize themselves separately from Congregationalists. In 1819

William Ellery Channing delivered a sermon at the ordination of Rev. Jared Sparks in a new

liberal church in Baltimore, which served as a declaration of Unitarian theology and a call to

action for the liberal faction. In this sermon liberals affirmed the label “Unitarian” which had

been given to them by the orthodox. Their doctrine which had been evolving was finally defined.

Unitarian Christianity became the single most important sermon in Unitarian history. Unitarians

formally shed the doctrines of complete depravity, divine selection, and the Trinity. Channing

defined how to interpret the Bible and what parts of the Bible were the most import; “Our

religion, we believe, lies chiefly in the New Testament.”76 Channing defended their application

of reason and how it applied to their interpretation of the Bible. Unitarian belief contextualized

Scripture, stressing that the Word of God needs to be interpreted in context of its “infinite

connexions and dependences” for “nothing stands alone.”77 The Unitarian practice of applying

76 David Robinson, ed., William Ellery Channing: Selected Writings (New York: Paulist Press, 1985), 72.77 Robinson, William Ellery Channing, 73.

39

reason to interpretation of the Bible was not a new concept, but had been viciously criticized by

the orthodox, and Channing meant to defend clearly their intent and thought processes.

Channing identified five tenets of Unitarianism which distinguished them from other

Christians. First, he stated the belief in the unity of God and the rejection of the doctrine of the

Trinity. The doctrine of the Trinity made God into three beings: the Father, the Son, and the Holy

Spirit. Trinitarians believed in one God who was made up of these three beings which coexisted

and were equal to each other. Unitarians believed that the three beings model took away from

monotheism.

Second, Unitarians subscribed to the unity of Jesus Christ. “We believe, then, that Christ

is one mind, one being, and, I add, a being distinct from the one God.”78 The doctrine of the

Trinity also made Jesus Christ into two beings, one human and one divine. Channing challenged

the orthodox in their views while asserting his own: “Jesus, in his preaching, continually spoke

of God. The word was always in his mouth. We ask, does he, by this word, ever mean himself?

We say, never,”79 Christ is inferior to the one Supreme God.

Third, they believe in the “moral perfection of God.”80 This point addresses the moral

character of God. “We believe that God is infinitely good, kind, benevolent, in the proper sense

of these words; good in disposition, as well in act; good, not to a few, but to all; good to every

individual, as well as to the general system.”81 Unitarians believed in God's goodness and not

what they conceived to be a more detrimental view of God as punisher or judge. Unitarians

ascribed to the paternal character of God and related that his punishments were doled out with

the desire for improvement. God, like a Father, showed concern for man and this “world as a

78 Ibid., 83. 79 Ibid. 80 Ibid., 87. 81 Ibid.

40

place of education, in which he is training men by prosperity and adversity.”82 Channing related

how this belief in the moral perfection of God directly rejects the belief in the depravity of man

which the orthodox propagated. Unitarians rejected the belief that God brought man into the life

wholly depraved with a “nature averse to all good and propense to all evil.”83 This system of

belief ascribed children to damnation before they possessed the tools to understand Christian

duties and was a “merciless despotism.”84 In conjunction with idea of total depravity was the

doctrine of election to grace in which God selects a few for salvation from “the common ruin.”85

To Unitarians this system of belief served “to discourage the timid, to give excuses to the bad, to

feed the vanity of the fanatical, and to offer shelter to the bad feelings of the malignant.”86 These

declarations shook off the Calvinistic systems of beliefs that were harbored in

Congregationalism, and declared Unitarianism as firmly based on a benevolent and merciful

God.

Channing's forth tenet stated their perspective of the mediation of Christ and the purpose

of his mission. This tenet addressed the connection between Christ's death and human

forgiveness. This tenet rejected the “popular system” that ascribed Christ's death and resurrection

as the event that evoked God's mercy and forgiveness of mankind.87 Unitarianism was rejecting

the sentiment that Christ's death appeased God's wrath and that the highest object of Jesus'

mission was to advert punishment. This sentiment was derogatory to God's character which was

contrary to their belief in the benevolence of God. Channing asserted that Jesus' highest object

was “the recovery of men to virtue” and that Jesus was sent by God to redeem mankind from sin

82 Ibid., 88. 83 Ibid., 89. 84 Ibid. 85 Ibid., 89. 86 Ibid., 89-90. 87 Ibid., 91.

41

by means of his instruction and moral character.88 His suffering, death, and resurrection “bore

witness to his divine mission, and brought down to men's senses a future life.”89 Jesus' role was

not to change the mind of God but of man, and Jesus' mission, as set forth by God, was to act as

the guide for mankind to obtain eternal life.

Channing's fifth and final tenet addressed their view of the nature of Christian virtue. “All

virtue has its foundation in the moral nature of man, that is, in conscience, or his sense of duty,

and in the power of forming his temper and life according to conscience.”90 They did not deny

the importance of God's aid, but rejected the doctrine of irresistible divine influence. Unitarians

placed the highest value on the virtue of the love of God which was essential for happiness and

strengthened and perfected all other virtues. Channing was careful to distinguish their breed of

love of God from other more zealous claims of other groups. He was distinguishing the liberal

perspective and rejection of revivalist tactics used by the orthodox to convert followers.

Channing stated, “We cannot sacrifice our reason to the reputation of zeal.”91

The defining of tenets served to explicitly declare how Unitarian beliefs differed from

their contemporaries. The outlining of these beliefs formalized the liberal's position and

separated them from Congregationalism. This declaration was a critical point in the liberal's

development and came at a time when Beverly was in flux. Abbot would return to Beverly to

many heated debates and accusations regarding his beliefs. To the staunchly orthodox Oliphant

any agreement with the tenets of Unitarianism made one a Unitarian, while Abbot would try to

maintain and preserve a moderate position. Abbot was attempting to temper both extremes in

order to create unity and peace in religious matters.

88 Ibid., 94. 89 Ibid., 91.90 Idid., 94.91 Ibid., 95.

42

With the declaration of Unitarian tenets, Abbot's belief could now be compared to these

tenets and be measured. Abbot's preaching reflected some of the Unitarian tenets. Abbot had

implicitly rejected the doctrine of the Trinity. His view of a singular God was present in his

earliest preaching in Beverly by his use of language in referring to only God, and not Christ or

Christ as a substitute for God. In memoirs of Abbot's life it is commonly noted that Abbot had

been a Trinitarian in his early ministry and that he had subsequently changed his beliefs as his

ministry progressed.92 The marked emphasis in a singular use of God in his Mariner's sermon

reflects this sentiment and eludes to this change taking place within his early years of settlement

in Beverly, if not prior to his arrival in Beverly.93 Also present in his early preaching is the

absence of the depravity of man and the emphasis on innate sinfulness of man. Abbot preached

to the benevolence of God without ever expressly rejecting specific doctrines.

The Case of Tamma Kilham

Abbot's theological position was consistently expressed implicitly. Abbot was serious

about deepening the seriousness of his parishioners and sought to provide enough religious

instruction to suit all his members. Abbot harbored a deep conviction in the permanence of

church membership. The profession of faith and the act of joining the church were a serious

matter and not to be broken lightly In 1820, Abbot returned to his pastoral duties amongst

another secession of parish members to Third Parish and a great up swing in the Third Parish

church membership. Abbot defended his position on the permanence of membership and the case

92 Rantoul, Autobiography, 160-61; “Abiel Abbot, D.D., 174-1828.” Unitarian Congregational, 315. 93 It is also noted in Sprague, “Abiel Abbot, D.D. 1794-1828,” 315, that his rejection of the doctrine of the Trinity was formed “probably before leaving Haverhill.”

43

of Tamma Kilham's dismissal exposed the extensive measures the orthodox went in the name of

their cause.

First Parish church member, Tamma Kilham, submitted a request to First Parish to be

dismissed and recommended to Third Parish for the reason of “better edification” on June 2,

1820.94 Kilham, a forty three year old single woman, had been a member of First Parish since

October 7, 1810.95 Her request for dismissal was rejected by the committee at First Parish, but

she was granted recommendation to Third Parish and freedom to worship and convene with

them. A letter from Rev. Abbot to Kilham stated that he and the committee “feel obliged by their

sacred covenant to watch over you and that for you good in a spirit of meekness, tenderness, and

love so long as God in his Providence shall continued you residing among us in such nearness as

to admit of our inspection and care.”96 Abbot did not believe in dissolving membership over the

excitement he believed was taking place in Third. He granted her recommendation but was not

willing to grant her dismissal because it was his duty to watch over her religious edification.

Kilham sent a letter asking to appeal the decision, since she did not feel anything in her

character warranted the watch and care of First Parish. She saw no reason for First Parish to hold

her to a parish that she no longer wished to be part of. Kilham's stated reason for dismissal had

been used by other members of the community successfully. Most women seeking dismissal did

so on the terms that their husband belonged to the other parish. The committee always agreed to

these dismissals on the principle that women should worship where their husbands worshiped.

The committee cited a rule of practice they adopted in 1814 as the precedent for

94 First Parish Church Records, 1803-1830, 41.95 Ibid., 76.96 Letter copied into the record books by Robert Rantoul, Parish Clerk. First Parish Church Records, 1803-1830, 41-2.

44

deciding Kilham's case and claimed that she was not “opposed by passion or prejudice”97

because the principle had been instituted six years prior to her request. The practice they cited

was “the principle of not dismissing members, in ordinary cases, to other churches in the town,

but to recommend them when desired, if their Christian character be fair”98 This policy was

practical for two reasons. First, it allowed First Parish to hold onto its members, while allowing

them to attend the other church. It maintained the permanence of church membership. Secondly,

it allowed First Parish to retain the taxes of persons not dismissed, while not restricting the

person from worshipping as they pleased. Abbot objected to members leaving on voluntary

conditions.

Tamma Kilham's case would have passed unnoticed if she had not taken further action. In

reaction to the denial of her request for dismissal, she wrote to a local orthodox minister asking

to convene an ecclesiastical council to hear her case. Her effort was successful and a council

meet in her home on October 10, 1821. The council was chosen by Rev. Thomas Snell of North

Brookfield and consisted of Rev. J. H. Church of Pelham, NH, Rev. Reuben Emerson of South

Reading, Rev. Samuel Walker of Danvers South Church, Rev. Brown Emerson of Salem South

Church, Rev. Justin Edwards of Andover South Church, and Rev. Worcester of Salem

Tabernacle. All seven of these men were of orthodox leanings and sympathized with her position.

Kilham sought to leave a liberal church which was not providing her with the proper Christian

teachings.99 First Parish was not informed of the council's convening and was not able to defend

themselves by partaking in the proceedings. The ex-parte nature of the council excluded First

97 First Parish Church Records, Vol.3, 1803-1830, 52.98 Ibid., 46.99 After looking in to the lives of these men all of them have associations with orthodox organizations like The Panoplist, a orthodox run publication, and foreign missionary groups that were also popular with those in the orthodox camp.

45

Parish's participation. Kilham's actions were not received kindly by First Parish's committee who

believed she had over-stepped by calling an ex-parte council.

Kilham's case was heard by the council and they ruled in her favor. They advised that she

seek dismissal from First Parish again, and if she continued to be denied that she had the

authority by the council to join Third Parish without receiving dismissal from First. The council

reported their findings to the committee at First Parish. Kilham had received the answer she

wanted from the council, but First Parish was not going to let her and the ecclesiastical council

embarrass them. Robert Rantoul, a member of the First Parish committee, found a discrepancy in

Kilham's report of events that she had presented to the council. Rantoul used this discrepancy as

evidence of her lying to the council and rejected her request for dismissal on a technicality. The

discrepancy was that she reported she had been denied dismissal and recommendation to Third

Parish.100 Rantoul argued that she had been denied dismissal but not recommendation to Third, so

they again denied her dismissal.

First Parish and Rantoul's case against Kilham had been shaky from the start, but they

certainly did not anticipate Kilham's tenacity and the aid she would garner from the orthodox

ministers. This case exhibits the subjectivity of dismissal cases, and the sensitivity that still

existed around members switching parishes even eighteen years after the churches split. After

First Parish again rejected her request, Kilham went ahead with license of the ecclesiastical

council and became a member of Third Congregational in 1821 without full dismissal from First

Parish.

This case illuminates an extreme measure taken to seek dismissal from First Parish.

Kilham 's case was unique in Beverly as she was not a church official, yet was successful in her

100 First Parish Church Records, Vo.3, 1803-1830, 198.

46

call for the convening of an ecclesiastical council. Kilham was within her rights as governed by

the Cambridge Platform which regulated the proceedings of the Congregational Church to call

for a council to hear her case. Ecclesiastical councils could be called to settle unresolvable cases

of dismissal. Her particular case was further thrusted into the public light when published in The

Boston Recorder in February of 1822. Her case shows how the authority of First Parish was

undermined by the orthodox council. The committee's reluctance to dismiss her may have been a

reaction to the large number of persons proclaiming membership to Third Parish in that year

which was then further aggravated by the council's intervention into the matter. Abbot may have

viewed Kilham's desire to leave as a rash decision which he did not think wise and was seeking

to retain her and provide guidance. Abbot's position was not explicitly recorded in the records of

First Parish. His approval of the repeated rejection of her request shows he was not willing to

back down from his original position. Abbot did not back down even with opposition from his

peers.

Kilham's case would not be the last time the orthodox butted heads with First Parish.

Soon after the Kilham case, the installation of Rev. Ebenezer Poor to Second Congregational

Church in Beverly again brought the tension between First Parish and Third Parish into the

public sphere. Abbot's character was slandered by Oliphant. Oliphant advocated for the

separation of Orthodox and Unitarian ministers.

Public Debate on the Ecclesiastical Council Proceedings for Rev. Ebenezer Poor

In October of 1823, the ordination of Rev. Ebenezer Poor to the Upper parish, which was

Second Parish Congregational Church in Beverly, spurred a heated debate among the ministers in

47

Beverly. Rev. Abbot was asked to join the ecclesiastical council for the ordination of Rev. Poor.

A majority of the council were orthodox and divided in their regard for Abbot. He was respected

and well liked by many in the church and society of Upper parish, but a few fellow ministers on

the council were not pleased with Abbot having any role in the proceedings or even of his sitting

on the council. It was decided by the council after long debates that Abbot would have a smaller

part in the ordination and deliver the consecrating prayer.101

After the ordination, two of Abbot's supporters, who were privy to the council's

proceeding, decided that an account of the debates concerning Abbot's part in the ordination

should be made public. Abbot's supporters felt he had been slighted and his position in the

community disrespected, and that the actions of the council went against the wishes of the parish

who esteemed Abbot as he had supplied the pulpit for many Sabbaths during the vacancy. The

letter published in the paper stated that it had been the wish of the parish that Abbot preach the

sermon, but the council decided against it. The letter further expressed that the orthodox

ministers wished to exclude Abbot from any part of the proceedings because they did not agree

with his doctrinal views. The letter pointed specifically at Rev. Oliphant of Third Congregational

and Rev. Walker of Danvers for rallying against Abbot.102

This submission set off a debate that would play out in the papers for the next two

months. The exchange publicized many of the sentiments floating around town, but directly

pitted Rev. Oliphant against Rev.Abbot. All the submissions were printed in the newspaper under

pseudonyms, but the identities of three writers have been identified. The first submission was

written by Bernard Whitman, a man studying divinity under Abbot, with help from Robert

101 Paragraph sourced from the Autobiography of Robert Rantoul 161-63 and the Salem Gazette, “Communication” October 31, 1823.102 “Communication,” Salem Gazette, October, 31, 1823 and Rantoul, Autobiography, 161-63.

48

Rantoul who attended the ordination as a delegate of First Parish and was also a close personal

friend of Abbot's. Rantoul in his autobiography written in the 1850s owned up to his role in the

debate. The reply received and printed in November 20th edition of the Salem Gazette was from

Rev. Oliphant of Third Congregational who signed as “The Friend to Truth.” Oliphant's reply

charged the first writer with defamation of his character, and stated that the purpose of the letter

was to lower the reputation of said men and not to disperse the truth of the events. In Oliphant's

opinion the proceedings were not a public matter but rather a private affair of the ministers. His

reply confirmed the point that it was not unfounded that “the less prominent parts have been

given to Unitarians by other Orthodox Councils.”103 It is noteworthy that Oliphant openly labels

Abbot as a Unitarian. The term Unitarian is used derogatorily, as it often was by members of the

orthodoxy. Oliphant used this label to tie these events to the larger debate among Unitarians and

the Orthodox. For Oliphant any hint liberal belief made you a Unitarian. Abbot was certainly

more liberal than Oliphant, but Abbot never went so far to call himself a Unitarian. Abbot

equally never pretended to be in the conservative camp either. Abbot maintained neutrality in an

attempt to avoid the type of public debate that was now taking place.

Abbot was the subject of this debate, but he never participated in it. Rev. Oliphant, on the

other hand, entered the fray. After repudiating accusations made by Whitman, Oliphant stated

that the council should have taken a stand against Abbot and restrict his participation based on

doctrinal disagreement. If events could be redone “they believe it is the only safe and consistent

course which the orthodox can pursue, relative to those who differ from them in essential points

and with whom, at other times, they have no christian fellowship.”104 Oliphant wanted separation

103 “For the Salem Gazette, The Late Council in the Upper Beverly,” Salem Gazette, November 20, 1823. 104“For the Salem Gazette, The Late Council in the Upper Beverly”, Salem Gazette, November 20, 1823.

49

of the orthodox from the Unitarians. He did not believe there was common ground between them

and that their differences were greater than their similarities.

Abbot opposed the separation of beliefs that the orthodoxy mandated. Abbot like most

ministers in this time participated in pulpit exchanges. It allowed for vacancies to be covered and

also for preachers and congregations not to get bored with each other. Orthodox ministers closed

ranks and refused to exchange pulpits with liberals. Abbot started to experience this segregation

in 1810 when ministers of orthodox leanings who had previously exchanged with him were no

longer willing to do so.105 Abbot opposed this attitude and thought it harmed the Christian

community. Focusing on differences did not bring more people into the fold, instead it created

division in communities.

Oliphant slandered Abbot's character unabashedly, which is ironic after he chastised

Whitman for the unchristian assault upon his own character. According to Oliphant, Abbot was

the one who demanded a prominent part, “and he enforced his demands by assuring the Council,

that there would be difficulty between Mr. Poor and his people if his wishes were not

gratified.”106 Abbot muscled his way into the part of consecrating prayer and it was not the desire

of Mr. Poor or the Council. The rest of Oliphant's letter was a discourse on how the orthodox had

to defend itself against the liberals. Oliphant paints a radically different picture of Abbot than

was accustomed. He cites Abbot as being entitled and pushy. Oliphant's attack on Abbot's

character pushed the issue of the ordination to the background of his reply and made the attack

personal.

105Rantoul, Autobiography, 161 and “Abiel Abbot, D.D., 1794-1828,” Unitarian Congregational, 311-12.106“For the Salem Gazette, The Late Council in the Upper Beverly,” Salem Gazette, November 20, 1823.

50

Oliphant's accusations caused a reply by Whitman and Rantoul. This reply called out

Oliphant for his attack on Abbot's character, but retorted “The personal abuse so liberally

bestowed, as a specimen of “christian feelings,” will not be retorted upon the Rev. gentleman by

a layman.”107 Oliphant had damaged his own character with his reply. Defenders of Abbot sought

to take the higher road and to avoid any further character assassination.

Whitman did take issue with Olpihant's use of the label Unitarian. Whitman addressed

the multitude of beliefs that existed within First Parish and openly admitted that differing

sentiments had never been denied or hidden. Whitman wrote, “Although in first parish there are

Trinitarians and Unitarians, Calvinists and Arminians, of all the various grades of distinction that

appertain to all those denominations, yet there had been no want of accordance of views and

feelings between the ministers and the members of the society, or between those who entertain

these various opinions. No inquisitorial power has been requisite to preserve harmony.”108 First

Parish was a congregation where differing beliefs were supported and coexisted in peace. Abbot's

leadership fostered and protected these differences. The various sentiments held by members of

First Parish were acknowledged. It was not Oliphant's place to create discord between parishes

and ministers. Oliphant showed a need to usurp power from Abbot in an effort to defend the

orthodox position.

The particulars about the proceedings and the differing opinions continued to be debated

in the paper. Abbot did not partake in the newspaper debates, but he aired his opinion on the

matter from the pulpit. Abbot delivered a two part sermon, The Duty of Christians to Comfort

and Edify One Another, to his parish. In part two under the section on duties of edification, Abbot

107 “Communications: Ordination at Beverly,” Salem Gazette, November 25, 1823.108 Ibid.

51

advised that the selection of religious conversation should be discreet on “matters of

controversy.” Abbot stated:

“But I have not often seen that disputants, who sit down to write in their closets, and deliberately to publish, can refrain from unchristian reflections upon their antagonists; and the little light, which may be struck out, is often dearly boughtby the loss of good feelings and the ornament of meekness. If those, then, who claim to be considered as leaders, and who should also be exemplars to their weaker brethren, lose something of their temper and graces in conducting controversy from the press, is it to be expected that Christians of humbler talents,and of less experience, in the heat of conversation and of debate, face to face, should preserve good temper and kind feelings, and discuss prudently and profitably?”109

Abbot's role as a leader was to lead by example which meant he did not participate in debates

that created discord or spread unchristian feelings. Abbot expressed his disagreement with

Oliphant's tactics and questioned his judgement as a leader. Abbot did not resort to the

newspaper to address these issues, he approached them in the context of providing guidance for

appropriate action. Robert Rantoul during this debate encouraged Abbot to explicitly state his

opinions and beliefs, but Abbot refrained and answered Rantoul that “he knew the character of

his parishioners better than anyone else, and that knowledge would be his guide.”110 Abbot knew

the boundaries of his parishioners, and felt an explicit declaration of his beliefs would only create

havoc. Abbot's faithfulness to his position provided a place for a multitude of different belief

systems to exist within First Parish. Abbot could not control the actions of his parishioners or

Oliphant, but he could lead by example and advise them to behave in a particular manner.

109 S. Everett, ed.,“Duty of Christians to Comfort and Edify One Another, Part II,” Sermons by the late Rev. Abiel Abbot, D.D. of Beverly, Mass. (Boston: Wait, Greene & Co, 1831) 98.

110 Rantoul, Autobiography, 163.

52

The Last Contributions of Abiel Abbot

Abbot's position always advocated for peace and not separation between liberals and

orthodox. Abbot disagreed with many of the orthodoxy's methods. He did not condone the

excitement revivalists created to convert people. A letter from 1826 stated, “It is far more

desirable to have additions from the sober on reflection than from high excitement; and that

persons should be coming in, one, two, three, at a Communion season, than in tens and

twenties.”111 Abbot advised that time was better spent “deepening the seriousness of your

flock.”112 To Abbot the rash decision to profess faith did not yield stronger numbers overall and

left a pastor to question “how little may remain when the wind has gone by.”113

Abbot never declared himself to be a Unitarian. In the 1820s, he did join the Unitarian

Association in Boston and attended their meetings.114 Abbot was further aligning with the

Unitarians when he was awarded the Doctor of Divinity degree from Harvard University in

1821.115 While he participated with Unitarian organizations, he did not break from the ranks of

Congregational ministers. He took the opportunity to delivered the Annual Address at the Annual

Conference of Congregational Ministers of Massachusetts in May of 1827.

Abbot's goal was to unite the variety of beliefs in his congregation. He wanted to focus

on the similarities that they shared as opposed to focusing on the differences. He was a smart

man, who knew that if he were to take a side he would lose members. Abbot united his

congregation by addressing their particular needs and making his work as personal as possible.

He is cited as being consistent in his treatment of all his members. He maintained a tradition in

111 Sprague, “Abiel Abbot, D.D. 1794-1828,” 312.112 Ibid.113 Ibid.114 Rantoul, Autobiography, 161.115 Sprague, “Abiel Abbot, D.D. 1794-1828,” 313.

53

First Parish of delivering notes from members during Sunday services. Members would submit

notes which contained announcements for example of births or asking for prayers. Abbot did not

gloss over any note and addressed each one individually in order not to place higher importance

on any one over another.116 He also addressed his sermons to specific occasions that arose in

parish. It is noted that the published version of his sermons have been edited to remove parts that

were too specific to his flock.

Theologically, Abbot had been accused of hiding his Unitarian beliefs. On these charges

he was defended by his supporters. Unitarian Rev. Andrew Peabody, who attended First Parish

during Abbot's ministry as a child, provided a thorough breakdown of Abbot's theological

leanings in his memorandum of Abbot. Peabody remarked that Abbot at beginning of his

ministry in Haverhill was a Trinitarian, but soon became a “high Arian” and rejected the doctrine

of the Trinity. Evidence of this can be seen in Abbot sermon, A Mariner's Manual, which he

delivered in 1804. Abbot also preached the inferiority of Jesus to God, which is a tenet of

Unitarianism. Where Abbot strayed from the Unitarians was in his use of the Old Testament.

Unitarians focused on the New Testament, while only occasionally using doctrines from the Old.

In addition, Abbot offered additional services in the form of lectures on doctrine, and to some,

these were interpreted as “revivalist measures” which would have appealed to the more orthodox

members of his church. Abbot was able to appeal to both sides of his congregation, because he

agreed with aspects of both sides.

Abbot's last public work was the Annual Address at the Annual Convention of

Congregational Ministers of Massachusetts in 1827. His sermon, Ecclesiastical Peace

Recommended, was a plea for clergy to unite and promote peace among themselves. Peace,

116 Sprague, “Abiel Abbot, D.D. 1794-1828,” 319.

54

Abbot stated, is “important in a high degree; and ought to be presented often and earnestly, till

there be a better state of feeling among Christians.”117 The discord present in the religious

community was pressing to Abbot. This address was not used by Abbot for personal promotion

of his particular beliefs, he remarked in the address “the thing farthest from my intention is to be

personal or sectarian in my remarks.”118 His purpose was to convey to ministers the important

role they played in promoting peace, and that the benefits of peace were social as well as

personal.

The advise doled out by Abbot echoed his methods used to maintain harmony in Beverly.

The 1820s had been a vocal period in Beverly with much discord and public debate, and Abbot

had great experience in trying to quell the issues. Abbot placed responsibility on religious leaders

to be the example: “The noiseless influence of a few may often dissipate a gathering storm, and

even of one, if he be a minister of Christ, blessed of God with wisdom and gentleness, and

moving among his people in the spirit of the his Master.”119 He argued that “An assault on

persons, or sects, or names, or favorite notions inflames all parties, and puts them in the worst

state to be edified. The pulpit is too sacred a place to become an arena.”120 Abbot's position was

that discord did not serve the greater good and it took away from the more serious intent to bring

people to God and the righteous path. Ministers who partook in fostering discord were not

aiding any cause but turning parishioners against each other. Abbot placed peace within the

congregation above personal beliefs. He advised that “the language of irritation must be

suppressed; and minor sacrifices or different sides must be cheerfully made to secure the

117 Everett, “Ecclesiastical Peace Recommended,” 278.118 Ibid. 119 Ibid., 283.120 Ibid., 295.

55

inestimable blessings of union, strength, and peace.”121 Abbot made sacrifices throughout his

years in Beverly for the greater good of his congregation. He suppressed explicit declaration of

his own beliefs and withstood attacks on his character in order to be an agent of peace. He

wanted other clergy to do the same.

This sermon culminated Abbot's life work and clearly reflected his position and purpose

of his ministry. In a letter he wrote to his family from Cuba the following year, Abbot lamented

that his message had not been heard. After his death Abbot's legacy was claimed by the liberals

and most of his work and memorials were published in Unitarian publications, but he had been a

true advocate for all forms of Congregationalists.

Conclusion

The installation of Rev. Oliphant to Third Parish brought the greater debate between the

orthodox and Unitarians to Beverly. Oliphant challenged Abbot and fervently defended the

orthodox position. In light of Oliphant's actions, Abbot purposefully did not explicitly expose his

beliefs and tried to act as a mediator between the liberal and orthodox positions. Abbot while

agreed with most of the liberal tenets of Unitarianism, he did not fully subscribe to all Unitarian

beliefs and was able to preach and edify the more conservative members of his flock. This

position was highly disagreeable to Oliphant and he wished to expose and undermine Abbot's

intentions by publicly challenging him.

The case of Tamma Kilham highlighted the tension that existed in First Parish as

members sought dismissal. The orthodox were ready to defend and fight for converts. Abbot in

both the case of Kilham and the in the ordination of Rev. Poor was challenged by an orthodox

121 Ibid.

56

council. In both cases Abbot stood his ground, but never attacked the opposing side. Abbot did

not wish to undermine and diminish the orthodox, but to create a place of peace and provide

guidance and instruction.

Abbot's final work in his address to his peers revealed his motives and explicitly outlined

his views regarding the controversy that had dominated his time in the ministry. He was an

advocate of peace and unity and saw no gain or fellowship in the debates taking place. Abbot's

ability to maintain peace among his own flock was confirmed by the disruption that commenced

after his death. In his absence the parishes of Beverly became more opposed which caused

further disruption among the people of Beverly.

57

Chapter Three: Polarization in Beverly

Death of Abiel Abbot and the Selection of a New Minister for First Parish

Abiel Abbot had consciously toed the line throughout his ministry to not alienate the

more conservative segment of his congregation. He had preached for unity and peace, even

though his beliefs evolved over time. The public debates that had persisted over the years had

done much to divide the people of First and Third parishes along theological lines. Abbot in

1827 again left his parish to travel south for his health. He left with great reluctance and wrote

many letters to his parish during his absence, which would later be published. Abbot reflected on

his life before he sailed for Cuba and wrote, “I have endeavored to check the spirit of contention

among Christians, and as a disciple of the Prince of Peace, to diffuse the spirit of love and peace,

to inspire Christians with a warmer zeal for the great objects of religion. The efforts were great.

My health, and perhaps my life are the sacrifice.”122In his last letters home, Abbot laments that

his message of peace had not been heeded by the ecclesiastical community. On his return voyage

from Charleston to New York City, Abbot contracted yellow fever and died aboard ship in New

York harbor. His body was quarantined and buried on Staten Island. His death was met with

great sadness but also sparked a new battle within First Parish. The mutual respect and

admiration for Abbot that maintained harmony among those in First Parish was now gone.

Abbot's death was the turning point for First Parish. Opinions that had been under the

surface while Abbot was alive now rose to the surface. The absence of a minister created great

instability. Many members of First Parish who stayed out of respect and reverence for Abbot

122 Rev. Edmund Q. Sewall, ed. “A Sermon delivered in Beverly on the occasion of the lamented death of Rev. Abiel Abbot, D.D. By James Flint, D.D.” The Unitarian Advocate, Vol 1-2. (Boston: Bowles & Dearborn, 1828) 97.

58

were now on the move. The rise of dissension was so palatable that Rev. Dr. James Flint in his

sermon delivered at First Parish on the occasion of Abbot's death, warned the congregation,

“with that dying appeal of your pastor in your hands, you, my brethren of this ancient and

respectable society, will feel yourselves inexcusable in the sight of heaven, if you allow discord

to arise among you or division to scatter you.”123 He asked the congregation to remember the plea

for peace that Abbot had made at the end of his life, and to act in accord with this idea. Abbot's

wishes were not to be met by this congregation, and the last of the major secessions from First

Parish was in the making.

First Parish's selection of a new minister would prove to be a key moment in its history.

Abbot had become increasingly more liberal throughout the course of his ministry, yet he never

openly proclaimed Unitarianism. After over two decades of liberal-leaning preaching, this

congregation was certainly familiar with the principle tenets of Unitarianism. The members of

the congregation who were not comfortable with this theology, now faced the inevitability of the

liberals installing a liberal or even a declared Unitarian minister. The majority of the parish

supported the liberal direction, it seemed incongruous for the parish to step backwards to

Calvinistic theology after so many years of rejecting it. Yet within First Parish existed a faction

that fought for the installation of an orthodox minister. This faction's existence is puzzling, in

light of the existence of Third Congregational. Why did the conservative members not transfer to

Third Parish, an established orthodox Congregational Church. Besides the long time ties to First

Parish, this hesitancy could speak to the unpopularity of their minister David Oliphant. This

123 “A Sermon delivered in Beverly on the occasion of the lamented death of Rev. Abiel Abbot, D.D. By James Flint, D.D.” The Unitarian Advocate, 96.

59

faction was not willing to simply leave First to join Third, but would try to keep First Parish

from turning Unitarian.

The two factions in First Parish rallied behind existing leaders in the church, their

Deacons Robert Rantoul and Thomas Davis. Robert Rantoul recounts, in his autobiography, the

personal struggle he experienced with his friend, Thomas Davis.124 Rantoul and Thomas Davis

were both elected to the office of Deacon in 1812.125 Rantoul acknowledged that they had always

held opposing views theologically but had worked together in harmony for years. They had

worked together on many committees, including the committees that opposed the freedom of

transferal to Third in the early years. This friendship and harmony came to an end after the death

of Abbot. The task of selecting a minister to replace Abbot brought their differences to a head.

Davis wanted to the church to select a more orthodox minister but this was not the wish of

Rantoul. Behind Davis was about one third of the parish who wanted to settle an orthodox

minister, while the remaining two thirds were behind Rantoul and in favor of a liberal minister.

This third while in the minority was large enough to dissuade some ministers from settling.

Parishes always tried for unanimous votes when sending a call to a prospective minister. A large

dissenting faction would be problematic for an incoming pastor.

A total of sixteen ministers preached at First Parish during the vacancy.126 Only three

garnered enough support to consider a vote for the issuing of a call. Rev. Samuel K. Lathrop split

the vote almost evenly and the stalemate nulled any further action on the part of First Parish. A

second candidate, Rev. Benjamin Huntoon of Canton gathered great support while preaching in

Beverly, but he declined the call after the parish refused to provide a salary of $2,000 per

124 Rantoul, Autobiography, 163.125 Ibid.126 Ibid., 165-66.

60

annum.127 A third candidate, Rev. Christopher T. Thayer, was selected. The petition to send a call

to Thayer listed 83 names in his favor, but the official vote was 76 Yeas to 38 Nays.128 The one

third orthodox to two third liberal divide is clearly evident in this vote. The orthodox third

refused to vote for a Unitarian. It was clear that an unanimous vote would not be possible in this

parish for the smaller portion would not back down. The call was sent to Thayer, but fearful that

he would decline Robert Rantoul, wrote a letter to Thayer explaining the divide in the parish. 129

Rantoul wanted to express that if Thayer were to accept the call the dissenting portion of the

parish would mostly likely leave the parish. Rantoul stated, “We have been tossed about by the

zeal of opposing parties for almost a year and for my own part I almost began to despair of a

union of a majority, in favor of anyone.” He continued, “from present appearance it may be

reasonably inferred that you will have the whole of the Liberal party in your favor – those who

are decidedly Calvinistic in their [ways], have opposed the Call and will preserve in their

opposition as long as the have any hope of affecting your determination.”130 Rantoul was clear

that this was not to be viewed as a reflection on Thayer, himself, as he was greatly liked by those

who supported the call, but that the opposing portion would secede upon the placement of any

liberal leaning minister.

Thayer accepted the call to First Parish Church in December of 1829. In his acceptance

letter he addressed the “respectable number” who dissented: “I take the liberty in the

communication to assure them of my best wishes and fervent prayers for their earthly and

spiritual good, and that they may rely on my unremitting and faithful endeavors as a Christian

127 Ibid., 166. 128 Petition for the call of Christoper Thayer, First Parish Church Records, Vol .3 1803-1830, . 129 Letter from Robert Rantoul to Christoper Thayer, Dated August 30, 1829, First Parish Church Records, Robert

Rantoul Sr and Robert Rantoul Jr Folder, Old Collection #78. 130 Letter from Robert Rantoul to Christoper Thayer, Dated August 30, 1829, First Parish Church Records.

61

minister to promote their edification and happiness.”131 Thayer accepted the call and was the first

openly Unitarian minister to be installed in First Parish. As a declared Unitarian minister, unlike

Abbot, Thayer would not be able to bridge the gap that existed in First Parish. The orthodox

faction knew their cause was lost with the settlement of a Unitarian minister. Once Thayer was

installed, the orthodox faction, including Davis, departed mainly for Third Congregational.132

Davis stepped down from office and attended services elsewhere, but did not seek full dismissal

from First Parish until 1837.133 Rantoul lamented that this last wave of secession left First Parish

with only “ordinary” numbers, when it had been one of the largest parishes in Massachusetts

prior to establishment of Third Congregational.134 Thayer was installed at First Parish on January

27, 1830.

The numbers that Rantoul laments were echoed in the poll counts. In 1830, fifty persons

transferred to Third Parish. Thirty of the thirty eight men moved their families, including Thomas

Davis, and the remaining thirteen person were women.135 Again tax records assessed the eligible

voters. In 1829, Third Parish had 239 polls and then in 1832 that number was up to 261. The

transferal of 38 men in 1830 accounted for this growth. As was seen in the 1820s, Third Parish's

growth coincided with First Parish's decrease. In 1829, First Parish was down to 308 voters this

number plunged to 228 in 1830.136 For the first time since the incorporation of Third Parish in

1803, Third Parish's poll count outnumbered that of First Parish. The declaration of

Unitarianism at First Parish greatly impacted its parish membership as well as its church

131 Copy of a letter from Christoper Thayer to Robert Rantoul, December 31, 1829. Copied by Charlotte Rantoul. Charlotte Rantoul Papers. Beverly Historical Society.

132 Rantoul, Autobiography, 166.133 Ibid., 167.134 Ibid.135 Notebook of Nehemiah Smith, Dane Street Church Files, Beverly Historical Society and Museum, Beverly,

MA. 136 “Records Assessment 1830,” First Parish Historical Archives Collection, First Parish UU Church, Beverly, MA.

62

membership. The shifting and polarization of theological stances between the churches

diminished each church. First Parish was no longer the large powerful parish it had once been,

and Third Parish was on the verge of a schism.

Fire at Third Congregational Church

The single most destructive event that occurred in either church was in December of

1832. On the evening of December 8, the Third Congregational meeting house went up in

flames, and the entire structure was lost. The cause of the fire was determined to be arson, but the

persons responsible were never caught or charged. The local newspaper reported, “It is our

painful duty to state, that there is not a doubt existing, that this work of destruction was effected

by the hand of some wicked INCENDIARY!”137 The article goes on to list evidence to support

this claim: no meetings had taken place that week meaning no fires had been burning, the fire

had two “distinct” starting places, and a side door was routinely left unlocked for the purposes of

ringing the bell. No suspects were named, and even with an added incentive of a $500 reward

offered by the parish committee no one was ever found at fault for this incident.138 Even ten years

later when Stone wrote the History of Beverly he reports the fire at the meeting house as an

incident of arson.

All published accounts of the fire cited arson as the cause. An anonymous unpublished

account of the fire, written in the mid 1880s by a Beverly citizen, reported a very different

perspective of the event. The account sheds light onto the temperament of the town at the time of

the incident. The identity of the writer is unknown but his father owned a shop on Knowlton

137 “Destruction of a Meeting House” Salem Gazette, December 11, 1832. 138 Stone, History of Beverly, 289.

63

Street near Third Congregational Church. His personal account supplied evidence missing from

the newspaper accounts and the local histories. The account suggested the fire was not started by

arson but by a local workman, Samuel Lunt, and an assistant hired by the Church to work on the

stoves and funnels in the Church.139 This directly contradicts the newspaper's report that no one

had been in the Church on that Saturday. The presence of the workmen was known to the writer

because Samuel Lunt and his assistant came into his father’s shop to borrow a hammer. During

this encounter the assistant was witnessed to be smoking a pipe. The writer goes on to explain

that the stoves and funnels were always kept in the hallway under the stairs in the bell tower,

and that this is where the fire broke out. He remarked about witnessing a small fire that started

under the stairs and the attempt made to extinguish it, but not enough water could be obtained

and the fire quickly spread up the bell tower.

From this account of the fire it seems the arson rumors were spun to add to the growing

tension in town. The writer stated that it was Rev. Oliphant's work as a temperance reformer that

fueled the arson rumors. Oliphant's preaching and lecturing on the subject had caused many to

oppose him. The writer pointed to Oliphant's tactics as the source of his unpopularity. Unlike

others who advocated for temperance reform, Oliphant did not target the youth of the town, but

all moderate drinkers. He did not contain his disapproval of drinking to his own church but

included all citizens. Oliphant resorted to using “radical” measures and his efforts as a reformer

were “unsuccessful” due to the mounting lack of public opinion.140 The temperance issue in

conjunction with his outspoken nature triggered resentment and dislike towards Oliphant. The

fire at the Church was seen as an act of retaliation, and the rumor went unchallenged.

139Anonymous,“Burning of Dane Street Church” Dane Street Church files, Beverly Historical Society and Museum, Beverly, MA.

140 Ibid.

64

The Dismissal of Rev. David Oliphant

In the personal account of the fire a growing divide forming within Third Congregational

was also mentioned. The upswing in parish and church membership in 1830 and 1831 did not

bring cohesion to Third Parish. The moderates that left First Parish mainly settled into Third

Parish. Their efforts to secure an orthodox minister had failed in First Parish, and they were now

causing issues in Third Parish. Oliphant was not able to unite this growing parish and tension

rose. Third Parish had gained 132 new church members between 1830 and 1832, the largest

increase in their history.141 The situation came to a head when a faction of the congregation

sought the dismissal of Oliphant from the church in 1833. A petition led by Ezra Cleaves and

others was presented to the church and a church meeting was scheduled.142 The vote at the church

meeting on July 18, 1833 showed an almost even split, 50 votes for Oliphant to stay and 41 votes

for Oliphant to be dismissed.143 Although unsuccessful in gaining the majority vote, this

dissenting faction proceeded to write letters calling for an ecclesiastical council to hear the case

against Oliphant remaining as pastor. The council convened on December 26, 1833.

The council, after reviewing the dissenting factions argument for Oliphant's dismissal

from office and hearing Oliphant's defense, ruled for Oliphant's removal. The council remarked,

“With respect, however, to the leading individuals in the opposition to Mr. Oliphant, the Council

have painful cause to believe that they have indulged a restless, complaining spirit, and have

pursued a course in some important respects unkind and reprehensible toward their minister.”144

141 Francis J.Van Horn and Louis H. Baker, “Historical List of Members,” 45.142 1833 Warrant. Dane Street Church Records. Box 1. 143 Meeting notes, July 18th, 1833. Dane Street Church Records. Box 1. 144 “Result of the Ecclesiastical Council convened at Beverly, Dec. 26, 1833,” (Salem: Office of the Salem Gazette,

1834), 9. Dane Street Church files, Beverly Historical Society and Museum, Beverly, MA.

65

The Council decided to dismiss Oliphant in an attempt to keep the congregation together. The

Council was adamant that Oliphant stood in good standing as a minister, but would be better

served to seek a new church. Removing Oliphant would give the congregation the chance to

install a minister that appealed to the majority. The decision did not serve to unite the

congregation as the council had hoped. Oliphant left Third Congregation and Beverly for a

church in Maine, and later that year the Forth Congregational Church was formed.

Conclusion

In the years following Abbot’s death much change occurred. The peace that Abbot had

longed for never came to fruition, and without his guidance to unite differences the parishioners

of Beverly became increasingly polarized. First Parish went to the liberals and was declared

Unitarian. Third Parish was set into limbo yet seems to have become the home for moderates

only after pushing out the extremely orthodox Oliphant out of the society. Oliphant had not been

a proponent of unity and spent his time in Beverly supporting and instigating debates. His

unpopular methods came to haunt him when his congregation rose against him and successfully

secured his dismissal. The loss of a place for moderates quickly changed the religious landscape

of Beverly and proved that efforts to unite and respect differences had an impact on the evolution

of the churches.

66

Conclusion:

This thesis navigated the evolution of the two Congregational Churches within the

boundaries of Beverly's original First Parish. The divergence of theological beliefs between the

liberal and orthodox factions of Congregationalism caused schisms in many communities in New

England. In Beverly, the liberal factions was tempered by a body of moderates within their

congregation. The varying scale of their beliefs were attended to by Rev. Abiel Abbot who served

as a unifying force in that congregation. His actions were the reverse of his orthodox

counterparts. The Orthodox Congregationalists that formed Third Congregational isolated

themselves from the liberal influences of First Parish. The fervent adherence and defense of their

beliefs alienated them from the great community.

The activities of the Third Parish contrasted with the ministerial pursuits of their pastor.

Third Parish's Rev. Joseph Emerson was not inclined to admit large numbers into his church. His

discriminating practices made his membership selective and exclusive, and effectively allowed

Abbot full reign to persons of moderate or liberal theological standing. Abbot's talents to draw

and retain persons of more liberal standing as well as moderate standing went unchallenged

while Emerson held office at Third Congregational.

The installation of Rev. Oliphant to Third Parish brought the greater debate between the

orthodox and Unitarians to Beverly. Oliphant challenged Abbot and fervently defended the

orthodox position. In light of Oliphant's actions, Abbot purposefully did not explicitly expose his

beliefs and tried to act as a mediator between the liberal and orthodox positions. Abbot while

agreed with most of the liberal tenets of Unitarianism, he did not fully subscribe to all Unitarian

beliefs and was able to preach and edify the more conservative members of his flock. This

67

position was highly disagreeable to Oliphant and he wished to expose and undermine Abbot's

intentions by publicly challenging him.

The case of Tamma Kilham highlighted the tension that existed in First Parish as

members sought dismissal. The orthodox were ready to defend and fight for converts. Abbot in

both the case of Kilham and the in the ordination of Rev. Poor was challenged by an orthodox

council. In both cases Abbot stood his ground, but never attacked the opposing side. Abbot did

not wish to undermine and diminish the orthodox, but to create a place of peace and provide

guidance and instruction. Abbot lived by example and to be a unifier he could not be an agent of

havoc in his community. Rev. Flint stated of Abbot: “Of his religious sentiment it is enough to

say, that he called no man master, that he belonged to no sect but that of good men, - to no school

but that of Jesus Christ, and that he was liberal in the best sense of the term.”145 Abbot was not

provoked by the actions of his adversaries and his deliberate lack of action yielded results in First

Parish.

Abbot's final work in his address to his peers revealed his motives and explicitly outlined

his views regarding the controversy that had dominated his time in the ministry. He was an

advocate of peace and unity and saw no gain or fellowship in the debates taking place. Abbot's

ability to maintain peace among his own flock was confirmed by the disruption that commenced

after his death. In his absence the parishes of Beverly became more strongly opposed to each

other and caused further disruption among the people of Beverly.

In the years following Abbot’s death much change occurred in Beverly. The peace that

Abbot had longed for never came to fruition, and without his guidance to unite differences the

145 James Flint, D.D., “A Sermon, delivered in the meeting house of the First Parish of Beverly, June 18 1828, on the occasion of the lamented death of the Rev. Abiel Abbot, DD., late pastor of the First Church and Society in Beverly,” Second Edition, (Salem: Published by J.R. Buffum, 1828), 21.

68

parishioners of Beverly became increasingly polarized. First Parish went to the liberals and was

declared Unitarian. Third Parish was set into limbo, yet seems to have become the home for

moderates but only after pushing out the extremely orthodox Oliphant from the society. Oliphant

had not been a proponent of unity and spent his time in Beverly supporting and instigating

debates. His unpopular methods came to haunt him when his congregation rose against him and

successfully secured his dismissal. The loss of a place for moderates quickly changed the

religious landscape of Beverly and proved that efforts to unite and respect differences had an

impact on the evolution of the churches.

Not much interest had been shed on the role of moderates in the debates between liberals

and orthodox Congregationalists. The instances and persons of the more severe leaning tend to

draw the most attention. This thesis just started to uncover the subtle influences that moderates

can have on the evolution of a religious body. There are subject areas that could be explored.

Further research into role gender played in this church split might glean some information on the

predominance of females in church membership. Females dominated church membership in both

First and Third Parish. The made up a majority of the members, but what was their influence on

the events? Women were not a voting body, but a close study of membership might reveal the

spheres of influence they held within their families or community. The specificity of that

research was beyond the scope of this thesis but might hold some interesting insight to the role of

women in churches.

Bibliography

Unitarian Movement and First Parish Congregational Church, Beverly, MA Sources:

69

Primary Sources -

Abbot, Rev. Abiel. “The Mariner's Manual, A Sermon preached in Beverly, on Lord's Day, March 4th, 1804.” Salem: Printed by Joshua Cushing, 1804.

First Parish Church Files. Beverly Historical Society and Museum, Beverly, MA.

First Parish Unitarian-Universalist Church Historical Archives Collection. First Parish Unitarian-Universalist Church, Beverly, MA.

Robert Rantoul Collection. Beverly Historical Society and Museum, Beverly, MA.

Rantoul, Robert. “Autobiography.” Unpublished manuscript, Robert Rantoul Collection, Beverly Historical Society and Museum, Beverly, MA.

Salem Gazette.“Communications.” October 31, 1823.

Salem Gazette. “The Late Council in Upper Beverly.” November 20, 1823.

Salem Gazette. “Communications: Ordination at Beverly.” November 25, 1823.

Salem Gazette. “Ordination at Beverly.” December 2, 1823.

Salem Gazette. “Ordination at Beverly, Communication.” December 5, 1823.

Salem Gazette. “Communications.” December 9, 1823.

Salem Gazette. “Communications.” December 12, 1823.

Salem Gazette. “Ordination at Beverly; concluded from our last.” December 16, 1823.

Salem Gazette. “Ordination at Beverly.” December 19, 1823.

Salem Gazette. “Destruction of a Meeting House.” December 11, 1832.

Secondary sources-

Abbot, Abiel. Letters written in the Interior of Cuba, between the Mountains of Arcana, to the East, and of Cusco, to the West, in the Months of February, March, April, and May, 1828. Boston:Bowles and Dearborn, 1829.

70

Abbot, Abiel, S. Everett, Ed., Sermons by the late Rev. Abiel Abbot. Boston: Wait, Green & Co, 1831.

Bartlett, Irving H. ed., William Ellery Channing: Unitarian Christianity and Other Essays. New York: The Liberal Arts Press, 1957.

Belsham, Thomas Rev. American Unitarianism; or a Brief History of progress and present state of the Unitarian Churches in America. Boston: Nathaniel Willis, 1815. Second Edition.

Cooke, George Willis. Unitarianism in America: History of its Origin and Development. Boston: American Unitarian Association, 1910.

Howe, Daniel Walker. The Unitarian Conscience: Harvard Moral Philosophy, 1805-1861. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1970.

Journal of Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of Delegates, chosen to revise the Constitution of Massachusetts. Boston: Published at the Office of the Daily Advertiser, 1853.

Kuklick, Bruce. Churchmen and Philosophers. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1985.

“Letters written in the Interior of Cuba, between the Mountains of Arcana, to the East, and of Cusco, to the West, in the Months of February, March, April, and May, 1828.” The Christian Examiner and General Review, Vol. VI, New Series Vol. 1. Boston: Office of the Christian Examiner, 1829, 259-272.

“Letters written in the Interior of Cuba, between the Mountains of Arcana, to the East, and of Cusco, to the West, in the Months of February, March, April, and May, 1828.” The Southern Review, Vol IV (August & November) Charleston: A.E. Miller, 1829, 123-136.

Marshall, George N. Challenge of a Liberal Faith. New York: Pyramid House , 1970.

Mendelsohn, Jack. Channing: The Reluctant Radical. Boston: Little, Brown, and Co, 1971.

Parke, David B. The Epic of Unitarianism: Original Writings from the History of Liberal Religion. Boston: Beacon Press, 1960.

Robinson, David, ed. William Ellery Channing: Selected Writings. New York: Paulist Press, 1985.

Scott, Donald M.. From Office to Profession:The New England Ministry,1750-1850. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1978.

Sprague, William B.. Annals of the American Unitarian Pulpit; or Commemorative Notices of Distinguished Clergymen of the Unitarian Denomination in the United States. New York: Robert Carter & Brothers, 1865.

71

Sprague, William B.. “Abiel Abbot, D.D. 1794-1828,” Annals of the American Pulpit: Unitarian Congregational (New York: Robert Carter & Brothers,1865) 309-320.

Sewall, Edmund Q., ed. “A Sermon delivered in Beverly on the occasion of the lamented death of Rev. Abiel Abbot, D.D. By James Flint, D.D.” The Unitarian Advocate, Vol 1-2.

(Boston: Bowles & Dearborn, 1828) 95-98.

Wright, Conrad. The Beginnings of Unitarianism in America. Hamden, CT: Archon Books, 1976.

Wright, Conrad. The Liberal Christians: Essays on American Unitarian History. Boston: Beacon Press, 1970.

Orthodox Movement and Third Congregational Church and Society Sources:

Primary Sources -

Dane Street Church Files. Beverly Historical Society and Museum, Beverly, MA.

Dane Street Church Historical Archives Collection. Dane Street Church, Beverly, MA.

Emerson, Rev Joseph. A Chart for Seaman; exhibited in a sermon preached in Beverly, March 18th, 1804. Salem: Printed by Joshua Cushing, 1804.

Oliphant, David. Why Sinners Cannot Come to Christ: A Sermon preached to the Third Congregational Church and Society in Beverly, May 1, 1831. Salem: Printed by Warwick Palfray Jr., 1831.

“Results of the Ecclesiastical Council, convened at Beverly, December 26, 1833.” Salem: Printed by the Salem Gazette, 1843.

Secondary Sources-

Conforti, Joseph A. Samuel Hopkins and the New Divinity Movement: Calvinism, the Congregational Ministry, and Reform in New England Between the Great Awakenings. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Christian University Press, 1981.

Emerson, Ralph. Life of Rev. Joseph Emerson, Pastor of the Third Congregational Church in Beverly, Ma. And subsequently Principle of a Female Seminary. Boston: Crocker and Brewster, 1834.

Field, Peter S.. The Crisis of the Standing Order: Clerical Intellectuals and Cultural Authority in Massachusetts, 1780-1833. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1998.

72

Lawrence, Robert F.. “The New Hampshire Churches: comprising histories of the Congregational and ?” 1856.

History of the First Congregational Church, Keene, New Hampshire.

Van Horn, Francis J. and Louis H. Baker. “Historical List of Members,” History and Manual of the Dane Street Congregational Church and Society of Beverly, Massachusetts, 1802-1897. Boston: Frank Wood Printer, 1897.

General Resources:

Primary Sources-

Acts and Resolves of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Vol. #. (1802-1803) (Boston: Young and Minns, 1898) 250-252.

“Records of Second Church of Christ, Town of Beverly 1715-1848.” Vol. 1, Second Congregational Church Beverly Collection, Beverly Historical Society and Museum, Beverly, MA.

“Census of Beverly, 1810” Endicott Collection, Robert Rantoul Sr.; Public Service. Beverly Historical Society and Museum, Beverly, MA.

Secondary Sources-

Boardman, George Nye. A History of New England Theology. New York: A.D.F. Randolph Company, 1899.

Cushing, John. “Notes on Disestablishment in Massachusetts, 1780-1833 ” The William and Mary Quarterly 26, no. 2 (Apr., 1969): 169-190.

Dorrien, Gary. The Making of American Liberal Theology: Imagining Progressive Religion 1805-1900. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2001.

Hudson, Winthrop S. Religion in America: An Historical Account of the Development of American Religious Life. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1965.

Larcom, Jonathan. “Diary of Jonathan Larcom of Beverly, Mass.” Essex Institute Historical Collections, Vol. 87 (1951) 65-95.

Littell, Franklin Hamlin. From State Church to Pluralism: A Protestant Interpretation of Religion in American History.New York: The MacMillan Company, 1971.

73

Newhall, James R.. The Essex Memorial, for 1836: embracing a register of the county. Salem: Published at the book store of Henry Whipple, 1836.

Stone, Edwin M. History of Beverly, Civil and Ecclesiastical, From its settlement in 1630 to 1842. Boston: James Munroe and Co, 1843.

Tweed, Thomas A. Editor. Retelling U.S. Religious History. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1997.

Vital Records of Beverly, Massachusetts to the end of the year 1849, Vol. II Marriages and Deaths. Salem, MA: Newcomb & Gauss, 1907.

74