THE NEW SCHAFF-HERZOG
versalist Controversy.
volition as self-exertion and self-restraint. And, upon the basis of consciousness, criticism, and history, he affirms that " freedom is inherent in rationality." Edwards was wrong, he says, in considering the will from the point of view of efficient causation and forgetting that it might be exercised (in choice) prior to all causation.
2. The Great Controversies: The first of these to take a distinct form was the Universalist, beginning, as already said, with John Murray in 1770. Other leaders followed him, some of 1'_™tiYiti" wnom came from the Congregational ministry, such as Huntington, whose posthumous Calvinism Improved was entirely upon the basis of Relly, and Charles Chauncy (q.v.), who published a Salvation of All Men (1782). The general reply to Rellyanism was the theory of the atonement, as explained above. But elaborate replies to these and other Universalist publications were made by John Smalley (q.v.), the younger Edwards, and others. After a time whatever danger there may have been that Universalism would invade the Congregational ranks passed by, and the interest of divines in this discussion slackened, as another occupied their attention more and more. But meantime Elhanan Winchester (q.v.) had appeared as another original Universalist, and Hosea Ballou (q.v.) had made the change of Universalist theology from the old orthodox basis to a Unitarian, while Walter Balfour had written voluminous exegetical works in the interest of Universalism. Moses Stuart (q.v.) closed this controversy upon the orthodox side by elaborate exegetical discussions.
But this controversy, interesting as it is in itself, was of little importance in comparison with the Unitarian controversy. This has its roots in the early divergence to Arminianism against which Edwards set himself. Contro- Successful as he was in recalling the versy. majority of the ministers and churches back to Calvinism, there were circles in which the Freedom of the Will was regarded with great objection from the first. In view of the development of the Edwardsean school itself toward a doctrine of more genuine freedom, it may be said that Edwards made a great theological blunder when, for the sake of avoiding certain unevangelical concomitants of self-determinism, he turned his back upon so plain and simple a truth as freedom. He missed the opportunity of carrying New England forward in a common movement to a better theology, and founded a school instead of guiding a church. Many of the Edwardsean ideas were accepted by theologians who would not suffer the name of Edwardsean to be applied to them. This was particularly true of the theory of virtue. And when Arminianism began to turn in the direction of Unitarianism in New England, Edwards and his successors had for a long time nothing really helpful to say. They do not seem to have understood the issue presented, though that issue was clearly enough put in the first book of a Unitarian sort which obtained any influence in America, Thomas Emlyn's Humble Inquiry into the Scripture Account of Jems Christ (5th ed., Boston, 1756). Was the
2. The
Unitarian
theory of two natures in the one person of Christ correct? Was it so managed as to meet the difficulties raised by the evident limitations laid upon the attributes of Christ? Calvinism had been open from the time of Calvin down to the charge of substantial Nestorianism, for it had never been able to do more than assert the Chalcedon doctrine of the unity of Christ's person, and had treated the divinity and humanity in such a way as to render any true unity impossible. The old theology was now summoned either to justify its exegesis by a satisfactory rationale, or surrender its doctrine of Christology and the Trinity.
This issue was not at all met in New England. Half a century after the appearance of the book on this side of the water, Henry Ware (q.v.), believed to be a Unitarian, was made Hollis professor of divinity in Harvard College (1805). But during this period Unitarianism was 3. The TJni- progressing by private reflection and tarian Po- study, not by open controversy. The sition and public debate began after 1815 when the Answer, the large departure from the old theology became known, and after 1819, in particular, when William Ellery Channing (q.v.) preached his Baltimore sermon on " Unitarian Christianity." On the orthodox side the debate was carried on by Moses Stuart and Leonard Woods (qq.v.), professors at Andover Seminary, and closed by Nathaniel William Taylor (q.v.). On the Unitarian side, Ware and Norton came to Channing's support. Among lesser men the controversy spread over a large territory and a long time. But the Unitarian argument was completely stated by Channing. He said, " According to this [Trinitarian] doctrine, there are three infinite and equal persons, possessing supreme divinity, called the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. They love each other, converse with each other, and delight in each other's society. They perform different parts in man's redemption, each having his appropriate office, and neither doing the work of the other. Here, then, we have three intelligent agents, possessed of different consciousnesses, different wills, and different perceptions, performing different acts, and sustaining different relations; and if these things do not imply and constitute three minds or beings, we are utterly at a loss to know how three minds or beings are formed." Of the nature of Christ he said: " According to this doctrine, Jesus Christ, instead of being one mind, one conscious, intelligent principle, whom we can understand, consists of two souls, two minds; the one divine, the other human; the one weak, the other almighty; the one ignorant, the other omniscient. Now we maintain that this is to make Christ two beings." Thus was again set forth the rational issue exactly as Emlyn had done. Stuart's reply sought, first, to remove certain misunderstandings, and make certain qualifications. In these he himself left the orthodox ground of his time and approached Channing. He dropped the separation of functions of Father and Son to which Channing objected, rejected the " eternal sonship " of Christ, gave up the word " person," and reduced the Trinity to an otherwise undefined eternal " distinction " in the divine nature. He did nothing to clear up