THE life of a christian minister, spent in labour, for the eternal welfare of his fellow-beings, must always be an object of the greatest veneration and love to every Christian community. The life of such a man, a christian people will always wish to become acquainted with; for such a life will not only strengthen the affection of the good and virtuous, to the great Redeemer of mankind, and their resolution to adhere to the precepts of his gospel; but it will have some tendency to promote a reformation among the sinful and unbelieving.
A true christian will never rest satisfied with his own belief in the truth of the gospel; neither will he be satisfied with well wishing its dissemination: he will himself labour in the vineyard; he will “plough in hope,” although the harvest of his labours may be cut short; he will use always his best exertions to make the ignorant and prejudiced mind accessible to divine truth, both by precept and example.
The minister of the gospel of Christ, who sincerely labours in his calling, is also an object of the greatest respect. Whatever we may think of that statesman, who, by the labours of his closet is able to set a continent in arms, or of that philosophy which throws open the mysteries of the natural world; or of those splendid achievements which adorn a warrior’s name; how trifling and insignificant, how like the “stuff dreams are made of,” do they all appear, in comparison with the soldier of Christ, who conquers the world; who having “ buckled on the armour of God,” follows the “great Captain of our salvation” to the conquest of the “world, the flesh, and the Devil.” There is, in fact, something so soul captivating in the christian warfare, that we must indeed be “trumpet-tongued” before we can speak its praise. There is also such a dignity of character in the christian soldier, as well as meekness and gentleness, that if respect did not always accompany sincere affection, we could hardly determine whether we respected or loved him most.
These few desultory remarks were suggested by reflecting on the ministry of the late Rev. Doctor Hitchcock, a short account of whose life we now present to our readers. We however do not affirm, that Doctor Hitchcock ought to be ranked among the greatest divines: he was probably not so great as he was good. His doctrines however were truly evangelical. He believed that Jesus Christ was the way, and the only way to eternal salvation. His sermons were usually calculated to persuade and convince, rather than terrify or command. He preached the unbounded mercy and goodness of God oftener perhaps, than the terrour of divine wrath and justice; although he always made the sinner acquainted with his real situation; what he had to do and believe, before he could expect that goodness and mercy. That God would administer justice, he sincerely believed—but he believed he would administer it in tender mercy. He always looked up to God as a merciful father, who could not take pleasure in the death of the wicked: still he believed that justice must be done, and that the vicarious sufferings of our Saviour satisfied that justice; not however universally, but with respect to those who were willing to take his “yoke upon them.”
His sermons also usually contained sound moral precepts.— He was convinced that sound morality was essentially requisite in every well regulated community; that in fact the civil order of things depended, in great measure, upon it. And although it was not in itself sufficient to “see God,” it greatly aided and prepared the way for the dissemination of gospel truth. “He was convinced, in fact, that it not only strengthened the social compact, and rendered mankind more willing to obey the new commandment of our Saviour, to “love one another,” but that it also prepared the mind for the reception of evangelical knowledge, and the heart, with the assistance of “preventing grace,” for that new birth, which our Saviour said to a ruler of the Jews, was necessary, to “see the kingdom of God.” Perhaps he more forcibly felt the necessity of morality from the circumstance of his having been a chaplain in the American army; where from the nature of his situation, he must have witnessed depravity of the most odious character: where in fact morality was the only thing he could hope to inculcate with any degree of success.— The din of war, the loud yelling cries of blood and battle, are too incompatible with the mild and gentle accents of the gospel; however painful the thought they cannot be heard: the dulcet notes of the “new song” are too often overpowered. If a chaplain can enforce, even with the assistance of a strict military discipline, an observance of moral rectitude, in such a place, it is all ' he can reasonably expect.
This circumstance might have been the cause, why he so forcibly inculcated morality—why he so usually blended the moralist with the divine. But whether we consider him the one or the other, we find sufficient to admire. He was as faithful a servant of Christ, as he was a sound moral teacher. He was born at Springfield, in the State of Massachusetts, of respectable parents, in the year 1744. We have no record of his early life; it is probable, however, that nothing remarkable occurred; his genius was not of that east, which would be likely to burst forth in extraordinary youthful blazes. It was left to the maturity of age to stamp his character with usefulness. His early education however was not neglected; he was fitted and entered college, and received the honours of Harvard University, in the year 1767. Soon after he graduated, he devoted himself to the study of divinity; this however was no new study, although his views. were now directed thereto, with more particular reference to entering on the gospel ministry; in which, his course afterwards was continually progressing and luminous, and in the course of two or three years, became a preacher of the gospel. “His performances, while a candidate, met with general acceptance, and in 1771 he was ordained a colleague with the venerable and excellent Mr. Chipman, Pastor of the second church in Beverly, whose age and infirmities incapacitated him from publick services. While his life continued, the two Pastors lived together in great mutual affection and harmony. Dr. Hitchcock exerted himself for the spiritual and temporal interests of his people, enjoyed their affectionate esteem, and acquired the approbation and friendship of neighbouring societies and ministers.”
It was during his ministry in Beverly, that he married Miss ACHSAH JOURDAN, of Portland, in the District of Maine, a lady of unaffected piety, whose mind was accomplished, and whose heart was affectionately disposed. With such a wife he lived in the full enjoyment of connubial happiness. Mrs. Hitchcock was a member of the church under his pastoral care—and she lived in holy communion with her spiritual master, which she evinced by the purity of her life, and a steady adherence to the outward institutions of the visible church on earth. She died on the fifth day of May, A. D. 1801, lamented by all who had enjoyed the happiness of her acquaintance.
Early in our national revolution, Dr. Hitchcock became a chaplain in the army. He was induced to this, from a sense of duty he believed he owed his country. He probably revolved the whole contest between the mother country and her colonies in his own mind, before he engaged. He probably viewed it, as it really was, a contest for dominion on the one side, and self-defence on the other. He considered the pretensions of Great Britain unwarrantable; totally inconsistent with our established rights; and that, had we submitted, instead of being British subjects, we should have been British slaves—slaves to a British ministerial faction, who made encroachments on our rights, not so much from the hope of gain, or of adding strength to the British empire, as from the pride of dominion. Had the faction permitted us to have been British subjects in reality—to have enjoyed all the privileges of British subjects, the probability is we should have owed them allegiance much longer: but being the sons of Sydney, Russell and Hampden, we could not, we would not be slaves. As our warm and powerful advocate, the Hon. Edmund Burk observed, “we were a high minded people, who snuff at the approach of tyranny in every tainted breeze.”— Such was our character, and such was the character of the faction which wished to triumph over us; and being viewed as such, Dr. Hitchcock felt himself impelled by a principle of duty to uphold his native country, in the struggle. Whatever, as a christian, he might have thought of war in general, a war of self-defence was a righteous war; a war warranted by the first law of nature.
While he was chaplain in the army, “his social qualities and engaging deportment made him highly acceptable; while his nice regard to decorum and dignity of character commanded respect and added weight to his efforts on the side of order and virtue, of patriotick bravery, zeal and perseverance.” But if any proof was wanting of the estimation in which he was held in the army, the marked attentions, which the father of our country shewed him might be adduced. With Washington he was not only personally acquainted, but on intimate terms of friendship. That great and illustrious chief, at the mention of whose name every eye sparkles with rapture, respected and loved him; often invited him to his quarters, when leisure from the “tented field” allowed him to listen to the accents of friendship and religion—and when that immortal hero slept with his fathers, the impression which that event made upon his mind was deep indeed: but being accustomed to practice as well as to teach the precepts of his divine master, he was enabled to say—“father; not mine, but thy mill be done.”
His funeral discourse on the death of his friend, abundantly shews in what light he viewed him, and what were his feelings—notwithstanding he was compelled to exclaim in the language of his text on that occasion1—“The beauty of Israel is slain upon thy high places. How are the mighty fallen, and the weapons of war perished”—and mourn, “incessantly mourn,” as Israel did, the death of Moses; notwithstanding, in this instance, he felt the peculiar effect of the awful sentence of “dust to dust,” still he was enabled to say, “the Lord gave, the Lord taketh away, blessed be the name of the Lord.” But besides a duty of resignation, his discourse, on that event, finely illustrates the publick and private character of Washington. It is also replete with instruction, both on moral and political subjects. It shows the necessity of civil institutions; the necessity of restraints from civil law, as well as the duty of civil obedience ; all which are forcibly inculcated; while a vein of unaffected piety runs throughout the whole.
While he was chaplain, his duty compelled him to relinquish the pastoral charge of his people at Beverly. Accordingly he was amicably dismissed from that people in the year 1780.— Soon after that event, he occasionally preached in Providence, when he had leisure from the duty of the camp. The first congregational church and society, in this place, were so much charmed with his preaching, so much delighted with his doctrines, and his character as a servant of Christ, that they earnestly gave him a call to become their Pastor. His feelings told him he was sincerely called, and we hope and trust, called of God, “as was Aaron,” to the high and responsible office of priesthood. With humility he obeyed the call, accepted the office of Pastor, and was installed minister of that society on the first day of October, A. D. 1783. In this office, beloved by his flock, he continued for nearly twenty years, till the 26th day of February, A. D. 1803, when he departed this life, regretted by all, in the 59th year of his age, and expiring said “I sleep in Jesus.”
As we before observed, we do not rank him with those who possess the greatest talents; but we may with those who possess the most useful. While in the performance of his ministerial duties in this town, he not only promoted with all his power the best interests of the religion he professed, but he never let pass an opportunity of rendering unto society any other essential benefit. The education of youth, in a particular manner, occupied his attention. Impressed with the necessity of early and good education, he was always foremost in the establishment of institutions for that purpose. He was the first “who led the way” to the establishment of free schools in this State, and to procure an act to be passed the Legislature for that purpose. The wisdom of design, and the benevolent execution of this plan, will always be remembered with gratitude and love. ‘Thousands of poor and orphan children, who otherwise would have been left to the uncertainty of chance, or to the frigid support of extorted alms, even for those first rudiments, which are necessary, in the unshapen beginning, in the Aurora of the mind, must now always remember his spirited and noble exertions for its2 establishment, with the most thankful hearts.
How must, also, many a useful citizen feel, when he discovers that to the exertions of this philanthropist, he owes all his importance, all his reputation in society, and all his ability to be useful to his fellow-beings. Surely his soul will cling to his memory, as humble repentance does to the remembrance of forgiving mercy.—His remembrance “being written within the book and volume of the brain,” he will not, he cannot forget him.
But the exertions Doctor Hitchcock made to establish free schools, and to promote the education of youth, constitute by no means the most valuable part of his character. Notwithstanding he was a friend to youth, he was a greater friend to manhood and old age. In the language of Dr. Tappan, who preached his funeral discourse, “he laboured with great zeal to promote brotherly union among christians, and ministers of different denominations. For this purpose he introduced and eagerly cherished stated friendly meetings—one embracing the several clergymen of this town—another, the pastors and other leading members of the various christian communions. The result of these and similar measures, was the growth of mutual esteem, and confidence of religious candour and fellowship, with all their lovely and happy effects. He was also distinguished by habitual and active benevolence. This he exemplified in his warm and steady friendship, in his generous and cheerful hospitality; in his kind and soothing offices to the sick and afflicted; in his tender and liberal donations to the needy; in large contributions to publick and pious uses. The same spirit remarkably adorned and endeared his domestick conduct. His affectionate and unceasing attention to his amiable consort, amid her long continued bodily infirmities; his paternal goodness, living and dying, to his adopted child; the benevolent patronage which he afforded to other connexions; his humane and condescending behaviour to his servants, especially to a faithful African, whom his kindness redeemed from bondage and exceedingly attached to his person and service—these facts are striking monuments of his excellent disposition.”
“His discourses from the desk,” says the same pious divine, “were chiefly occupied in explaining and urging evangelical faith and repentance, goodness and charity, and the whole train of christian virtues, as recommended by the example of our divine Master, and enforced by the gracious and sublime discoveries of his gospel. The style of his compositions was perspicuous, neat and correct.” “The closing scene of his life gave an impressive display of the force and excellence of his christian principles. It exhibited that patient resignation to the will of God; that triumph over pain and death; that comforting anticipation of future glory which the spirit and hope of the gospel are fitted to inspire.” But his exertions to promote the interests of religion may be considered the most valuable. He not only exerted himself in the pulpit, in private meetings and families, to promote the gospel, but he gave more than six thousand dollars to the first congregational church in Providence, for the support of a christian ministry. Such a noble enthusiasm in the cause of religion and virtue, must always be remembered with gratitude and joy, and we hope will have tendency to induce others to do likewise.
Very soon after his settlement in Providence, he was elected into the fellowship of Rhode-Island College, (now Brown University) and in that important office rendered very essential services to that seminary of learning. He very often suggested to the professors and tutors, useful plans for government and instruction: in fact, very few were so adequate in devising ways and means “to teach the young idea how to shoot,” or to direct the mind into the most useful channel.
His conversation in private circles was always pleasant, but never light. He had a great idea of dignity of character on all occasions; of course he never allowed his manners or conversation to be tinctured with any thing that was light or trivial.—Perhaps his invariable dignified deportment was considered by some as originating in pride, but those who best knew him, were convinced it arose from a desire of being exemplary in all his conduct. The influence of example he thought to be great, and 80 far as his example might go, he was determined it should be good.
He was a member of the society of Cincinnati; and very few, with more warmth, “espoused the fraternal, humane and publick views of their institution.” In fact, in whatever light we view him, we find much to admire, and little or nothing to condemn. We therefore hold him up to our readers, and to the world at large, as a man, though not great, yet useful—as a man whose conduct through life was governed by honest and upright principles. He published several small but useful treatises on different subjects; and one treatise in particular, entitled, “An answer to the question, why do you observe the rite commonly called the Lord’s Supper?” certainly possesses considerable merit. He forcibly sets forth the reasons for celebrating that christian ordinance—elucidates the nature of the institution, and its use and design, while he portrays the temper and character the communicant ought to possess, to render his attendance upon it, a “service acceptable to God,” or profitable to himself. He also explains the subject in such a manner as to remove the doubts and scruples which arise in many minds, “from St. Paul’s strictures on the licentious conduct of the Corinthians.” This reproof of St. Paul has undoubtedly detered many well meaning persons from coming to the table, for fear they should eat and drink unworthily, and thereby be “guilty of the body and blood of Christ;” but from his explanation, “there is nothing in the nature of this institution to excite fearful apprehensions, nor any thing in the words, the time, or circumstances of its original appointment, that can deter any person of sober life and conversation from it.” This treatise is written in very plain and simple style, adapted to the capacity of any reader. The subject is well digested, and arranged with method: and although the arguments may not be thought conclusive by some, they must, nevertheless have great weight with all: in fact, they are generally supported by texts from scripture. It is a subject, however, about which a great deal has been said and written: we therefore forbear to make any comment; we only wish to state what were his impressions. We are sensible it has been a subject about which different sects in religion have entertained widely different opinions, about which there has been much disputation. According to our regulations therefore, we must hold ourselves aloof from espousing any particular sect, or advancing any doctrine which may be considered polemical.
He also published “a serious address to communicants, with some short meditations, devotional exercises of heart, and forms of prayer, suitable for the communion season.” This short treatise also possesses merit.—It shews his own temper of mind, and the disposition of his heart, towards that God on whom he humbly relied, in all situations in life, as well as the necessary temper of all, in the communion season. But perhaps his own words would best show what that temper was, and what the disposition of his heart. “While I adore,” says he, “the goodness of God, as, displayed in man’s redemption, let. me. consider my own meanness and unworthiness; and while I receive the symbols of a crucified Saviour, let me consider how, often I have crucified the son of God afresh, and put him to open shame. Often has he been wounded in the house of his friends. Should God be strict to mark iniquity, I cannot answer. His mercy is the ground of my hope—Christ hath begotten us to a lively hope. He is the author both of life and hope to the penitent believer. The brightness and strength of this hope is observed by the imperfection of my faith and obedience. Under a sense of my transgression let me now bow before the Lord, and: with an humble, penitent soul, seek his face and favour, that the elements now before me, may be made effectual to the end of their appointment.” In fact, the whole of this address is very well written; and when read in a proper frame. of mind, cannot fail of having very beneficial effects, It cannot fail “to wake the soul” and “mend the heart,” while. it will enlarge our knowledge of the meaning of that sacred: ordinance, the Lord’s Supper.
2 Our readers will pardon us if we embrace this opportunity to render to the town of Providence a tribute which is justly their due. Notwithstanding the act of the Legislature, entitled “An act to establish free schools,” the only publick act we believe ever passed in this State for the encouragement of education, was repealed, still the town of Providence, in their corporate capacity, governed by a policy which does honour to the hearts and to the wisdom of its citizens, would not relinquish the motives and the provisions of the act. And they still continue to pay, out of their own treasury, about four thousand dollars annually, for the support of free schools. Such conduct as this we deem worthy of the highest praise, as it is of the greatest reward: and we have no doubt the town of Providence will reap a just compensation, in the superiour value and worth of its citizens, which such policy cannot fail to promote. Such conduct as this we deem worthy of imitation, and we hope the virtuous and patriotick throughout our little State will follow the example.
SOURCE: “A Sketch of the Life and Character of the Late Rev. ENOS HITCHCOCK, D. D. Pastor of the First Congregational Church in Providence,” The Rhode Island Literary Repository, Vol. 1, No. 6, September 1814, pp. 283-92
