Epilogue
By 1750 the structure of religious leadership in colonial New England had evolved through three stages since the first Puritan settlements. In the earliest period, the ministers were the admired religious leaders of a relatively harmonious society. In the second stage, the ministers sought to establish a quasi-aristocratic control over a society of contending factions. In the third stage, they based their leadership upon a principle of consent. The Great Awakening forced the ministers to acknowledge that their real power did not come exclusively from the importance of the ministerial office, but rather from the ability of individual pastors to work effectively and directly with their people. In a sense, the ministers came to engage in politics-to base their power on local support rather than upon prestige or association.
These stages were not, of course, completely separate and independent. The earliest New England clergymen were aware that their educations had qualified them to playa distinct occupational role as ministers. In this sense there was already a ministerial "profession" in 1630. In the second period, the ministers were still -accorded a degree of traditional deference, albeit less than their predecessors. Finally, the ministers after 1745 continued to meet in associations, to license candidates, and to uphold their professional distinctiveness. The deferred-to-authority, the professional expert, and the pastoral shepherd were, in varying degrees, present among the clergy throughout the colonial period, but historical circumstances caused them to emphasize different parts of their work at different times. The first half of the eighteenth century was the preeminent period of the pastor as professional expert. Had not the Great Awakening undercut the tendencies that appeared among the clergy by 1740, it is possible that the Congregational clergy might have acquired the hierarchy, the ceremonies, and even the Arminian doctrine associated with the Anglican clergy.
But this did not occur. Instead the Great Awakening undercut the unique importance of the ministry by emphasizing the sanctity of all Christian believers. And, faced with new circumstances, the clerical community possessed the resiliency to adjust. The democratic leadership of the post revival Congregational ministers was, no doubt, made possible by many developments of the early eighteenth century. The ministers who had justified the plain style as a means of adjusting preaching to the intellectual capacity of an audience and who made pastoral visits in order to offer religious advice to their individual parishioners were already well aware of the need to apply religious principles to individual circumstances. What the Awakening did was simply to make this concern for the people the essence of clerical leadership.
What occurred then was not a complete transformation of the ministry, but rather a new emphasis upon an old aspect of the ministers' work. This shifting of emphasis was significant, however, for the future of American history, for this was the period in which American society was assuming the form it would carry into the American Revolution. The relationships between the Great Awakening and the American Revolution are as intriguing as they are elusive. Scholars have sought to discover connections in theological, social, and ecclesiastical history. The story of the clergy in the early eighteenth century furnishes one piece of the puzzle.1
In the past decade historians have become increasingly aware of the early sources of the American Revolution. The current view, best represented by the works of Jack P. Greene and Bernard Bailyn, stresses the ambiguity of the American identity in the pre-Revolutionary period. Americans were both attracted by Britain's apparent elegance and stability and repelled by her seeming corruption and tyranny. They were careful students of the English libertarian ideology, which stressed the duty of the ruler to the ruled, and at the same time they were followers of English standards of aristocratic leadership.2
As we have seen, the ministers, like other eighteenth-century Americans, were pulled in different directions by their society. On the one hand they sought to adopt a courtly conception of their position and authority. Their education, ordinations, and associations were calculated to confer upon them an elite status and exclusive authority in religious matters. Even 'revivalism, which ultimately worked against elitism, was originally expected to strengthen the authority of the minister by endowing him with a charismatic influence. But at the same time that the ministers were seeking to improve their status, they were drawn by their experience to a more democratic conception of leadership. The same men who received college educations, underwent dignified ordinations, and attended ministerial associations were also pastoral guides. In their parishes they shared the daily experiences of their people and ministered to their needs through sermons and pastoral visits. In practice, the effectiveness of their leadership in their own congregations depended on their ability to relate religious doctrine to the needs of their people.
Eventually, the idea of the leader who was close to his people would become an American norm. But despite the popularity of the country ideology of the early eighteenth century, most Americans were still attracted to an idea of political legitimacy based on the high status of the leader. Among the ministers, dependence on the people was still regarded as an unfortunate circumstance. The Great Awakening changed this situation by forcing the ministers to regard with favor a condition they had formerly regretted. To borrow from Bernard Bailyn's description of a later change in the American political consciousness, the Awakening resulted in a "lifting into consciousness and endowing with high moral purpose" what had hitherto been regarded as an aberration and an embarrassment.3
The revival, like the Revolution, caused Americans to reexamine their views of leadership. This is not to say that the new view of ministerial authority was a necessary precondition of the American Revolution. But the ministers' close relationship to the people did enable them to play an important role in that event. Many were among the foremost advocates of American liberties and were active participants in the Revolution as chaplains and as representatives to constitutional conventions.4 Moreover, during the 1740s-ministers had worked out problems in defining clerical legitimacy, which would be confronted in politics thirty years later. In the 1740s religious leadership based upon entrenched status proved too brittle to direct the energies of a religiously energized community. In 1776 the people of North America declared their independence from another power, a civil authority, that had proven too brittle to govern a politically awakened people. In each case the idea of government by virtual representation, by men whose power was based upon membership in an elite group, was rejected in favor of leaders who would associate with the people.5 Finally, in each period the colonists were able to draw upon the past while entering the future. In 1776 the experience of self-government in town meetings and colonial legislatures furnished the foundations of a new political system. During the Great Awakening the ministers' experience in pastoral relations with their people furnished the basis of a new sense of religious community.
This brings us back to the point with which we began this exploration: the New England ministers were men of their own times. Although they sought, as God's messengers, to transcend their worldly society, their history is an integral part of the story of the larger community to which they belonged.
These stages were not, of course, completely separate and independent. The earliest New England clergymen were aware that their educations had qualified them to playa distinct occupational role as ministers. In this sense there was already a ministerial "profession" in 1630. In the second period, the ministers were still -accorded a degree of traditional deference, albeit less than their predecessors. Finally, the ministers after 1745 continued to meet in associations, to license candidates, and to uphold their professional distinctiveness. The deferred-to-authority, the professional expert, and the pastoral shepherd were, in varying degrees, present among the clergy throughout the colonial period, but historical circumstances caused them to emphasize different parts of their work at different times. The first half of the eighteenth century was the preeminent period of the pastor as professional expert. Had not the Great Awakening undercut the tendencies that appeared among the clergy by 1740, it is possible that the Congregational clergy might have acquired the hierarchy, the ceremonies, and even the Arminian doctrine associated with the Anglican clergy.
But this did not occur. Instead the Great Awakening undercut the unique importance of the ministry by emphasizing the sanctity of all Christian believers. And, faced with new circumstances, the clerical community possessed the resiliency to adjust. The democratic leadership of the post revival Congregational ministers was, no doubt, made possible by many developments of the early eighteenth century. The ministers who had justified the plain style as a means of adjusting preaching to the intellectual capacity of an audience and who made pastoral visits in order to offer religious advice to their individual parishioners were already well aware of the need to apply religious principles to individual circumstances. What the Awakening did was simply to make this concern for the people the essence of clerical leadership.
What occurred then was not a complete transformation of the ministry, but rather a new emphasis upon an old aspect of the ministers' work. This shifting of emphasis was significant, however, for the future of American history, for this was the period in which American society was assuming the form it would carry into the American Revolution. The relationships between the Great Awakening and the American Revolution are as intriguing as they are elusive. Scholars have sought to discover connections in theological, social, and ecclesiastical history. The story of the clergy in the early eighteenth century furnishes one piece of the puzzle.1
In the past decade historians have become increasingly aware of the early sources of the American Revolution. The current view, best represented by the works of Jack P. Greene and Bernard Bailyn, stresses the ambiguity of the American identity in the pre-Revolutionary period. Americans were both attracted by Britain's apparent elegance and stability and repelled by her seeming corruption and tyranny. They were careful students of the English libertarian ideology, which stressed the duty of the ruler to the ruled, and at the same time they were followers of English standards of aristocratic leadership.2
As we have seen, the ministers, like other eighteenth-century Americans, were pulled in different directions by their society. On the one hand they sought to adopt a courtly conception of their position and authority. Their education, ordinations, and associations were calculated to confer upon them an elite status and exclusive authority in religious matters. Even 'revivalism, which ultimately worked against elitism, was originally expected to strengthen the authority of the minister by endowing him with a charismatic influence. But at the same time that the ministers were seeking to improve their status, they were drawn by their experience to a more democratic conception of leadership. The same men who received college educations, underwent dignified ordinations, and attended ministerial associations were also pastoral guides. In their parishes they shared the daily experiences of their people and ministered to their needs through sermons and pastoral visits. In practice, the effectiveness of their leadership in their own congregations depended on their ability to relate religious doctrine to the needs of their people.
Eventually, the idea of the leader who was close to his people would become an American norm. But despite the popularity of the country ideology of the early eighteenth century, most Americans were still attracted to an idea of political legitimacy based on the high status of the leader. Among the ministers, dependence on the people was still regarded as an unfortunate circumstance. The Great Awakening changed this situation by forcing the ministers to regard with favor a condition they had formerly regretted. To borrow from Bernard Bailyn's description of a later change in the American political consciousness, the Awakening resulted in a "lifting into consciousness and endowing with high moral purpose" what had hitherto been regarded as an aberration and an embarrassment.3
The revival, like the Revolution, caused Americans to reexamine their views of leadership. This is not to say that the new view of ministerial authority was a necessary precondition of the American Revolution. But the ministers' close relationship to the people did enable them to play an important role in that event. Many were among the foremost advocates of American liberties and were active participants in the Revolution as chaplains and as representatives to constitutional conventions.4 Moreover, during the 1740s-ministers had worked out problems in defining clerical legitimacy, which would be confronted in politics thirty years later. In the 1740s religious leadership based upon entrenched status proved too brittle to direct the energies of a religiously energized community. In 1776 the people of North America declared their independence from another power, a civil authority, that had proven too brittle to govern a politically awakened people. In each case the idea of government by virtual representation, by men whose power was based upon membership in an elite group, was rejected in favor of leaders who would associate with the people.5 Finally, in each period the colonists were able to draw upon the past while entering the future. In 1776 the experience of self-government in town meetings and colonial legislatures furnished the foundations of a new political system. During the Great Awakening the ministers' experience in pastoral relations with their people furnished the basis of a new sense of religious community.
This brings us back to the point with which we began this exploration: the New England ministers were men of their own times. Although they sought, as God's messengers, to transcend their worldly society, their history is an integral part of the story of the larger community to which they belonged.