Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T15:30:19.721Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

“In Our Nature”: The Kenotic Christology of Charles Chauncy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 June 2011

Norman B. Gibbs  and
Lee W. Gibbs
Norman B. Gibbs
Affiliation:
Syracuse University
Lee W. Gibbs
Affiliation:
Cleveland State University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Charles Chauncy (1705–1787), for more than sixty years the pastor of the influential First (“Old Brick”) Church in Boston, was a leading participant in many of the greatest controversies of his century. Best known for his opposition both to Jonathan Edwards and to what he regarded as the emotional excesses of the Great Awakening, he is also well remembered for his vigorous protest against Anglican efforts to establish bishops in America. He became such an ardent champion of the colonists in their struggle for a free and independent nation that above all others he deserves the title “theologian of the American Revolution.”

Type
Research Article
Information
Harvard Theological Review , Volume 85 , Issue 2 , April 1992 , pp. 217 - 233
Copyright
Copyright © President and Fellows of Harvard College 1992

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 See also Gibbs, Norman B. and Gibbs, Lee W., “Charles Chauncy: A Theology in Two Portraits,” HTR 83 (1990) 259–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2 Chauncy's eighteenth-century publications have not been reprinted, and most are available only in the rare book rooms of a few select libraries. Since there are no satisfactory secondary works that definitively interpret his thought, Chauncy himself must be read and reread if one desires to understand him. All of his published works are conveniently listed in the excellent biography by Griffin, Edward M., Old Brick: Charles Chauncy of Boston, 1705–1787 (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1980) 219–27Google Scholar.

3 One of the historical factors that led to the obscuring of Chauncy's theological position was the Unitarian take-over of the First Church in Boston shortly after his death. Arthur B. Ellis, for example, took the date for the dedication of the new “Old Brick” Church in 1808 as “a symbolic date of the transition from Congregationalism to Unitarianism” (History of the First Church in Boston 1630–1880 [Boston: Hall and Whiting, 1881] 228Google Scholar).

4 Martyn Dexter, for example, made no mention of Chauncy or of his approximately sixty-one publications in The Congregationalism of the Last Three Hundred Years, as Seen in Its Literature, with a Bibliographical Appendix (New York: Burt Franklin, 1880)Google Scholar.

5 Williston Walker observed (Ten New England Leaders [New York: Silver, Burdett and Co., 1901] 297–98Google Scholar) the complex unity of liberal and conservative in Chauncy's thought: ”This moderation of most of Chauncy's utterances renders him a hard man to classify…. His sermons contain much that is ‘calvinistick,’ as that term was later used by American Unitarians; but Chauncy himself was no Calvinist, and some of his theories are not in accord with any historic presentation of the Evangelical faith. The ‘orthodox’ and the ‘liberal’ are inextricably mixed in him, and in that characteristic he was probably typical of the contemporary stage of development of the movement which ultimately became Massachusetts Unitarianism.”

6 See, for example, Wright, Conrad (The Beginnings of Unitarianism in America [Boston: Beacon, 1954] esp. 3–8Google Scholar), who introduced Chauncy and his liberal colleague, Jonathan Mayhew, as the leaders of the liberal “Arminian” party in Boston during the eighteenth century.

7 Quoted by Ellis, History of the First Church, 193.

8 The Literary Diary of Ezra Stiles, 15 February 1787 (ed. Dexter, Franklin Bowditch; 3 vols.; New York: Scribner's, 1901) 3Google Scholar. 326, 255. William Ellery Channing (1780–1842), for example, held “that Jesus Christ is a derived, dependent, subordinate being, and a distinct being from the Father” (see “Christian Worship,” in The Works of William Ellery Channing [Boston: American Unitarian Association, 1882] 414Google Scholar).

9 Walker, Ten New England Leaders, 308.

10 Lippy, Charles H., The Seasonable Revolutionary: The Mind of Charles Chauncy (Chicago: Hall, 1981) 25, 112Google Scholar. For a review that praises the historical contribution of this book while criticizing the interpretation of Chauncy's thought, see Gibbs, Norman B., “The Mind of Charles Chauncy,” JRelS 10 (1983) 1–8Google Scholar.

11 Smith, H. Shelton, Handy, Robert T., and Loetscher, Lefferts A., American Christianity: An Historical Interpretation with Representative Documents (2 vols.; New York: Scribner's, 1960) 1. 379, 382Google Scholar. Compare Winthrop Hudson (Religion in America: An Historical Account of the Development of American Religious Life [4th ed.; New York: Macmillan, 1987] 72Google Scholar): ”The ‘Old Lights,’ under the leadership of Chauncy,… tended to move in the direction of ‘rationalism’ in theology and constituted the group out of which Unitarianism later emerged.” Ahlstrom, Sydney E. remarks (“Theology in America: A Historical Survey,” in Smith, James Ward and Jamison, A. Leland, eds., The Shaping of American Religion, vol. 1: Religion in American Life [Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1961] 251–52Google Scholar): “Chauncy was an outspoken assailant of the Great Awakening, a critic of Edwards, and the intellectual leader of the steady yet barely perceptible process by which ‘Arianism,’ Universalism, and more optimistic views of human nature came to dominate the Harvard-educated clergy of the Boston area.”

12 Smith, Handy, and Loetscher (American Christianity, 1. 377–83) employ this methodology extensively. After introducing Chauncy and Mayhew as “the most influential liberals of their generation,” quotations from one are used as if they documented the thought of the other concerning “the basic categories: (1) the Creator, (2) human ability, and (3) the Mediator.” Compare Conrad Wright, who states the presupposition: “The two always complemented one another well,” noting that Mayhew “had no hesitation about saying quite bluntly the sort of thing that Chauncy would write down at length on paper and then set aside until the time was ripe for publication”; and then applies this technique of assimilation by relating the anti-Athanasian and Arian views of Mayhew to those supposedly of Chauncy; see Wright, The Beginnings of Unitarianism in America, 67, 209. Although he never focuses upon Chauncy's christology in particular, John Corrigan follows this same methodological approach and reaches the same conclusion in The Hidden Balance: Religion and the Social Theories of Charles Chauncy and Jonathan Mayhew (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1987) esp. ix–xii and 110–13.

13 Smith, Handy, and Loetscher, American Christianity, 1. 377; and Lippy, The Season-able Revolutionary, 48.

14 The terms “kenotic” and “kenosis” are derived from the Greek verb KEVOCO, “to empty” or “to pour out.” This verb is used in the description of the self-limitation of Jesus Christ (in Chauncy's view, the Logos or eternal Son) in Phil 2:7, who “emptied (ὲκένωσεν) himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men” (RSV). Phil 2:5–11 is the classic text on the kenotic theme, along with the parallel text in 2 Cor 8:9. On Chauncy's interpretation of Phil 2:1–11 and Heb 2:6–9 (including a kenotic christological exegesis of Psalm 8), see Chauncy, Charles, The Mystery hid from Ages and Generations, made manifest by the Gospel-Revelation; or the Salvation of All Men. The Grand Thing aimed at in the Scheme of God, As opened in the New Testament Writings, and entrusted with Jesus Christto bring into Effect. In Three Chapters. By One who wishes well to the whole Human Race (London: Dilly, 1784) 173–97Google Scholar; see also Gibbs and Gibbs, “A Christology in Two Portraits,” 265–66. It should be pointed out that John Owen (1616–1683), whose works Chauncy read and cited in his own writings, set forth a Reformed, Calvinist, and Puritan version of a kenotic christology; see, for example, Goold, William H. and Quick, Charles W., eds., The Works of John Owen (2 vols.; Philadelphia: Leighton, 1867) 1. 92–93Google Scholar. For suggestive recent interpretations of Phil 2:5–11, see Lohmeyer, Ernst, Die Briefe an die Philipper, an die Kolosser und an Philemon (Göttingen: Vandernhoeck & Ruprecht, 1930) 90–99Google Scholar; Jeremias, Joachim in Sevenster, J. N. and van Unnick, W. C., eds., Studia Paulina (Haarlem: Bohn, 1953) 152–54Google Scholar; and Davies, W. D. (Paul and Rabbinic Judaism [London: SPCK, 1958] 274)Google Scholar who shows the correlation of the passage to the Servant Song in Isa 52:13–53:12. For general surveys of the kenotic motif, see Loofs, Friedrich, “Kenosis,” ERE 7 (1928) 680–87Google Scholar; and Dawe, Donald G., The Form of a Servant: A Historical Analysis of the Kenotic Motif (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1963)Google Scholar.

15 See Lippy, The Seasonable Revolutionary, 112–13, where the author rightly points out that Chauncy's thought formally begins with “the benevolence of the Deity,” but then more questionably asserts that this concept tied all the theological doctrines of his major works together as a whole.

16 Chauncy, Charles, A Sermon Preached at the Instalment of the Rev. Mr. Thomas Frink (Boston: Rogers & Fowle, 1744) 18Google Scholar.

17 Ibid.

18 Chauncy, The Mystery, 17–18.

19 The term itself appears primarily, but not exclusively, in the Johannine literature; for example, see John 1:1, 8, and 14; 1 John 1:1–4; Rev 19:13.

20 On Chauncy's view of the role of Christ in creation and revelation, see Gibbs, Norman B., “The Problem of Revelation and Reason in the Thought of Charles Chauncy” (Ph.D. diss., Duke University, 1953) 236–49Google Scholar.

21 Chauncy, Charles, “The Method of the Spirit in the Work of Illumination,” Sermon 2, in idem. Twelve Sermons (Boston: D. and J. Kneeland for Thomas Leverett, 1765) 283Google Scholar.

22 Chauncy, The Mystery, 159–61.

23 Ibid., 125.

24 Ibid., title page.

25 Ibid., 20.

26 Ibid., 72.

27 Ibid., 124–25.

28 Charles Chauncy, “Justification Impossible by the Works of the Law,” Sermon 1, in idem, Twelve Sermons, 18 n. C; see also Chauncy's treatise, The Benevolence of the Deity, Fairly and Impartially considered (Boston: Powars and Willis, 1784) 173Google Scholar.

29 Chauncy remarked, for example, “to suppose a created being infinite, would be to suppose it equal with its Creator… absolute perfection therefore is an incommunicable glory of the only true God” (The Benevolence of the Deity, 191).

30 On Chauncy's teaching about the continuing work of the eternal Logos during the time of the incarnation, see Chauncy, Charles, Outpouring of the Holy Ghost, A Sermon (Boston: Fleet, 1742) 6Google Scholar; idem, Enthusiasm described and cautioned against (Boston: Rogers and Fowle, 1742) 6–7Google Scholar, 24; idem, A Sermon occasioned by the Death of Elizabeth Price (Boston: S. Kneeland and T. Green for B. Gray, 1732) 25Google Scholar; and idem, A Convention Sermon: Ministers cautioned against the Occasions of contempt (Boston: Rogers and Fowle, 1744) 32–33Google Scholar. The specifically Calvinist and Reformed doctrine of the kenosis which pivots around this notion of the extra-Calvinisticum is based upon the principle that the finite is not capable of containing the infinite. E. David Willis has briefly defined the extra-Calvinisticum as teaching ”that the Eternal Son of God, even after the Incarnation, was united to the human nature to form One Person but was not restricted to the flesh,” and then went on to suggest that the terms extra-Catholicam or extra-Patristicum would be more appropriate in describing this doctrine than extra-Calvinisticum; see Willis, E. David, Calvin's Catholic Christology: The Function of the So-Called Extra Calvinisticum in Calvin's Theology (Leiden: Brill, 1966) 1, 34–60Google Scholar.

31 Chauncy, The Mystery, 123–26; the term plerosis occurs on p. 124.

32 Ibid., 124, 245–7, 130.

33 Ibid., 123–26, 130, 245–47.

34 Ibid., 124–26.

35 A different list of spiritual gifts is given in Eph 4:11–13.

36 Chauncy, Charles, The Duty of Ministers: A Sermon Preached at the Ordination of the Rev. Mr. Penuel Bowen (Boston: Edes and Gill, 1766) 12–13Google Scholar, n. *.

37 The definition of the faith formulated at the Council of Chalcedon in 451 CE has remained the classic statement of the doctrine of the Person of Christ in the orthodox churches of the East and of the West, both Catholic and Protestant. See Bettenson, Henry, Documents of the Christian Church (2d ed.; London: Oxford University Press, 1963) 51–52Google Scholar.

38 ”There is one mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus.’ … The parties between whom the Christ mediates are God and men: that is, men universally, the whole race of men” (Chauncy, Charles, All Nations of the Earth Blessed in Christ: A Sermon Preached at the Ordination of the Rev. Mr. Joseph Bowman [Boston: John Draper, 1762] 12–13Google Scholar; compare idem, The Mystery, 165 on 1 Tim 2:15).

39 Chauncy, The Mystery, 115–16.

40 Ibid., 161 n. 51.

41 Ibid.

42 Ibid., 162.

43 Chauncy, “Justification Impossible by the Works of the Law,” 1–30. On Chauncy's attack on the Calvinist and Puritan doctrine of the imputation of the original sin of Adam and Eve in terms of “federalism,” and his counterproposal that the divine “judicial sentence” of physical frailty and death made sin “not necessary but inevitable,” see Smith, H. Shelton, Changing Conceptions of Original Sin: A Study in American Theology since 1750 (New York: Scribner's, 1955) 47–59Google Scholar; see also Gibbs, “The Problem of Revelation and Reason in the Thought of Charles Chauncy,” 176–200; and Griffin, Old Brick, 117–24.

44 See Aulén, Gustaf, Christus Victor: An Historical Study of the Three Main Types of the Idea of the Atonement (trans, and ed. Hebert, A. G.; New York: Macmillan, 1951) 81–92Google Scholar. Chauncy did, however, take account of the “governmental theory” of Hugo Grotius (1583— 1645), who taught that sin is an offence against God's law. From this perspective, to pardon without making perfectly clear the regard in which God holds his law would be to bring that law into contempt and to negate the sanctity of the divine government. Chauncy incorporated this argument, arguing that the sacrifice of Christ is no injustice; it is rather the divine tribute to and satisfaction of offended divine law (see Charles Chauncy, “Faith in the Affair of Justification,” Sermon 6, in idem, Twelve Sermons, 151; also idem, “The Question Answered, what shall I do that I may have eternal Life,” Sermon 12, in idem, Twelve Sermons, 334). Chauncy did not regard this account as a complete theory of the atonement, however; in fact, this position leaves out the heart of the matter, that is, God's eternal love and his eternal covenant with his Son to make “that sacrifice of himself, which… he was to offer up to God to put away sin” (Chauncy, The Mystery, 19).

45 Chauncy, Benevolence of the Deity, 171; see also idem, “Faith in the Affair of Justification,” 148–49.

46 Chauncy, The Mystery, 131–32, see also 37.

47 Chauncy, Thomas Frink, 21.

48 Chauncy, Charles, A Sermon on the Death of that Honorable and Vertuous Gentlewoman Mrs. Sarah Byfield (Boston: Green, 1731) 6–7Google Scholar. Compare idem, “Faith in the Affair of Justification,” 166, 161, 165; and idem, “Human Endeavours the way in which faith is obtained,” Sermon 8, in idem, Twelve Sermons, 208.

49 See Aulén, Christus Victor, 95–98.

50 Chauncy, “The Work of the Spirit in the Work of Illumination,” 277–316.

51 Chauncy, Benevolence of the Deity, 173.

52 Chauncy, The Mystery, 85; see also idem, “Faith in the Affair of Justification,” 161.

53 Chauncy, The Mystery, 191.

54 The basic Pauline texts upon which Chauncy based his position on universal salvation are Rom 3:23–25; 11:32; and 1 Cor 15:22. It is relevant to note here that two present-day biblical scholars have also taken Chauncy's position on Christian Universalism: see Cullmann, Oscar, Christ and Time: The Primitive Christian Conception of Time and History (trans. Filson, Floyd V.; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1950) 177–84Google Scholar; and C. H. Dodd, The Epistle of Paul to the Romans (New York/London: Harper, n.d.) 77, 185.

55 Chauncy, Benevolence of the Deity, 169.

56 Gottfried Thomasius's interpretation of the kenosis evolved over many years; his mature view may be found in Christi Person und Werk (3d ed.; 2 vols.; Erlangen: Deichert, 1886–1888)Google Scholar. The position of Wolfgang Friedrich Gess is set forth in two of his books: Die Lehrevon der Person Christi (Basel: Bahmaier's Buchhandlung, 1856)Google Scholar; and Das Dogma von Christi Person und Werk (3 vols.; Basel: Detloff, 1887)Google Scholar.

57 Chauncy, Benevolence of the Deity, 172–73.