While the Puritans spurned the writings of the medievalrnsehoolmen, they were nonetheless obsessed with logie. As thernmoniunental work of the late Perry Miller suggests, the Puritansrntraded what they perceived to be the syllogistic logic of Aristotlern(and St. Thomas) for the aesthetic logie of Petrus Ramus. Ramus,rna French humanist who converted to generic Protestantismrnin 1561, was a Platonist who believed that “sciencernought to shidy the lessons that are innate in .select minds” andrnuse them as a model to “formulate the rules for those who desirernto reason well.” The incarnahonal philosophy of St. Thomas,rnwhereby man builds his store of knowledge through real-worldrnexperience—founded on mankind’s historic encounter withrnthe Incarnate Christ—is replaced by the inward-himing pursuitrnof innate ideas alongside the revealed truths of Scriphire, underrnthe alleged guidance of the Holy Ghost. For Aristotle, outwardrnappearances were all we have to go by; for American Puritan divinesrnsuch as Thomas Hooker, godly men arc to judge truthrnbased on the experience of “what is found and felt in the heart.”rnHence, the Incarnation as a real-world event did not have a directrninfluence on the Puritan divines’ pursuit of truth.rnDenying that regeneration is wrought by God through thernSacrament of Baptism, the Puritans insisted fliat God works directlyrnon the mind and the heart, when man looks squarely onrnthe biblical statements of “prophet bards” through the lens ofrnhuman reason. Thus, they emphasized dramatic conversions,rnin which the light of God immediately penetrates the darkenedrnmind of the sinner, and he is born from above, henceforth unablernto do anything but follow God and obey His will.rnTwo strains of emphasis were commingled in Puritanrnthought (bofli were signs of the enlightened hmes): on thernone hand, the direct, immediate divine working on the heartrnand mind of the individual to produce a radical conversion; onrnthe other iiand, the direct, immediate working of human reasonrnon both nahirc and the Bible to produce or distill new theologicalrntruths. These two contradictory impulses parted companyrnduring the so-called Great Awakening of the mid-18th cenhiry.rnSeeond-gencrahon Puritan immigrants had failed to grasprnthe covenantal vision that had driven their parents to cross thernAtlantic, and they had failed to catechize their children. Despiternfiery jeremiads and annual Elechon Days, stalwart divinesrnsuch as Increase Mather were incapable of motivating them torngra.sp hold of the ideology of the founders—John Cotton, GovernorrnWinthrop — even though they were upheld before thernpeople as icons almost on par with the Church Fathers. NewrnTaigland was prepared for nonconformist, itinerant preachersrnsuch as George Whitcfield and John and Charles Wesley tornsweep through the towns, preaching the “Gospel” of the conversionrnexperience—without the cumbersome Ramist logiernand covenant flicology of the Puritans—to disaffected yeomenrnon the frontier along die Connecticut River Valley, as well asrnriiosc less forhmate in flie Fastcrn cities. Masses of unconverted,rnthird-generahon Puritans flocked to flie fields (Wliitcfieldrnwas banned by many of the New England churches) to be bornrnagain or to rcdcdieate themselves to Cod. Soon, great numbersrnof Yankee colonfsts had become “Christians” independent ofrnany church and were setting out to find churches that catered torntheir need for excifing preaching and lively music. Evangelicalismrn—emphasizing the conversion experience and the moralrnlife of believers—was born.rnU]D|5er-class professionals in eastern Massachusetts (especiallyrnBo.ston) and flicir rafionalist Puritan ministers were .shockedrnand dismayed at the news from the West that business was beingrnneglected as folks dropped everything to partake of the “excitements”rnof the “new way.” In the words of the Rev. CharlesrnChauncy, some werernexhorting, some singing, some clapping their hands,rnsome laughing, some crying, some shrieking and roaringrnout; and so invincibly set were they in these ways, especiallyrnwhen encouraged by any ministers (as was too oftenrnthe case, that it was a vain thing to argue with them tornshow them the indecency of such behavior).rnSuch behavior was incongruous with the moral austerity of thernurban East. Partly as a reaction to the “excitements” ofrn”women, children, negroes, and ignorant men,” and partly becausernof the rationalism that had been transmitted to them fromrntheir forebears, the ground had been prepared for the freethinking,rnSoeinian liberalism that was sweeping Scotland and Englandrnto take root in the established churches of urban NewrnEngland. During the latter half of the 18th century, scholarlyrnministers began to apply the light of pure reason to the Incarnafionrnitself, and the suprarational notion tiiat God became Manrnin the Person of Jesus Christ seemed less and less tenable. “I’hernGospel, they determined, means the fransformafion of the characterrnof the individual by following the examples set forth in thernBible. American Unitarianism—emphasizing reason and thernmoral life of believers—was born.rnModern religious observers often note that evangelicalism isrnvirtually flic same as liberalism, just 50 years behind. That is because,rnby and large, they share many core principles, as well asrna common origin in the Puritans. Wliat distinguishes evangelicalismrnfrom Unitarianism is an intellectual commitment tornwhat came to be known as the “ftindamentals” in the early 20thrncentury. Evangelicals retain a belief in the transcendent, supernaturalrncharacteristics of orthodox Christianity: the VirginrnBirth of Christ, His substifritionary atonement for the sins of thernworld. His resurreefion from the dead, and even His Inearnafionrnin the womb of the Virgin Mary. ‘These core commitmentsrncause evangelicals to follow the Puritans in emphasizing a dramatic,rnsupernahirally enabled and inspired conversion experience.rnBut for those already converted, the pursuit of individualrnpiety is much the same as the liberals’—devoid of Sacramentsrnand the “working out of salvation” that accompanies them.rnSince salvation comes through the instant conversion of thernmind and heart, the Incarnation plays little part in the processrnof ereahng or maintaining faith and its goal, the forgiveness ofrnsins. The Inearnafion merely makes it possible, in the divinernscheme of redemption, for the individual to receive Christ “inrnthe heart,” whether that means the historic Jesus (as evangelicalsrnhold) or the Jesus of myth (as the Unitarians hold). Personalrn(and social) moral bettennent thus becomes the emphasisrnof Christian piety, since “salvahon” is either something yournhave already got out of the way, or it is unnecessary. Thus, thernmeaning and use of Scriphire, in sermons and Bible studies, isrnfound in following the example of Jesus—or David, or Paul, orrnJohn the Baptist. Unitarians may not have invented thernbracelet, but they have been asking “Wliat would Jesus do?”rnsince the dawn of the 19th century. A Yankee eoalihon of evangelicalsrnand Unitarians aiLswered that question by marchingrnfrom one cause to another during the 19th and 20th centuriesrn—from Abolifionism, to Prohibitionism, to suffrage, to thern”war to end all wars.”rnDECEMBER 2001/19rnrnrn