Page:The Atlantic Monthly Volume 52.djvu/24

no part, had little sympathy with Dr. Channing, and, though personally intimate with R. W. Emerson, F. H. Hedge, George Ripley, Theodore Parker, and other leaders in the new movement, could not be persuaded to concern himself with it, even in its initiatory stages. When invited to conferences, he courteously declined, as one might do who did not feel called to leave his wonted round of pursuits. But his interest in theological and Biblical literature was very keen, as the books on his shelves and his translations of Herder's Briefe abundantly attest. It is on the strength of these translations, and of an article in the Christian Examiner on The Beginning and Perfection of Christianity, evidently prepared for the pulpit, that Mr. Ripley assigns to him a place among the friends of Transcendentalism. This place he undoubtedly deserved, for, although averse to public demonstration, and unoccupied with speculative issues, topics, or discussions, his mind lived in the spirit of the new ideas. He was at heart an idealist. His sermons were free from dogma, from doctrinal bias, from controversial animosity, almost from debatable opinion on the theological ground. He was a friend of knowledge. With him, refined reason was the test of truth. He loved air and light, liberty combined with law. Views that exhilarated, books that cheered, intercourse with expansive, joyous intellects, charmed him especially. If hard-pushed by antagonists, he might have called himself an idealist, but he never was hard-pushed. The smooth and even tenor of his life fell in with his scholarly disposition, and allowed him to pursue his favorite studies undisturbed by polemical aggressions. He had all the liberty he wanted. Emerson called him an Erasmus, and he had some warrant for his definition. But it must be remembered that Mr. Frothingham belonged to an older generation, and consequently was less open than young men are to new emotions. Had he been Luther's contemporary he would have been more open to criticism than he was. The only ones of his generation who took an active part in the new protest were Convers Francis and Caleb Stetson. Dr. Channing was in sympathy with the movement, but did not join it. The rest were new men. Belonging to the most liberal sect of Christians, while others broached new doctrines or contended for larger spiritual freedom, his gentle, peace-loving spirit was contented with the permission to read and think without embarrassment. Neither Dr. Channing's earnest pleading for the dignity of human nature, nor George Ripley's calm exposition of the powers of the soul, nor James Walker's vindication of the spiritual philosophy, nor Theodore Parker's vehement denunciation of formalism in religion, nor William Lloyd Garrison's arraignment of the United States Constitution stirred his enthusiasm. The numerous projects for regenerating society which hurtled in the air offended him. He was not of the crowd which followed Mr. Emerson. He never visited Brook Farm. Like Longfellow, he hated violence, delighting in the still air of his books, and lacking faith in the transforming efficacy of insurgent ideas. His was a poetic mind,—delicate, fastidious, disinclined to entertain depressing views, averse to contention on any field. The evils of the world did not shroud him in gloom, or summon him to the combat with either error or sin. Very far from being self-indulgent,—on the contrary, being generous, affectionate, disinterested,—he was wanting in the vigor of conviction which makes the champion, the reformer, or the martyr. His conscience was overlaid by the peradventures of critical thought. Ile detested Calvinism, for in his nostrils it smelt of blood. He had no liking for the ordinary Unitarianism, which, in his view, was prosaic. Idealism fascinated him by its poetic beauty rather