Lucius R. Paige, History of Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1630-1877, with a genealogical register

“ [299] to the fear of death. . . . . He died on the Lord's-day morning, May 9, 1790, in the forty-fourth year of his age.” ¹ His “bereaved, affectionate flock,” erected a suitable monumental slab, in the old burial-place, over his mortal remains.

Mr. Hilliard was succeeded in the pastoral office by Rev. Abiel Holmes, who was born in Woodstock, Conn., Dec. 24, 1763, Y. C. 1783, and was ordained pastor of a church at Midway, Georgia, Sept. 15, 1785, which church removed thither bodily from Dorchester, Mass. He resigned his pastorship of this church in June, 1791, and was installed pastor of the church in Cambridge, Jan. 25, 1792. His ministry was long and eventful. His parish was much enlarged by the establishment and growth of villages at Cambridgeport and East Cambridge, and it was subsequently diminished by their incorporation as a separate parish,² and the organization of churches in both villages. A new church was organized, Nov. 6, 1814, under the auspices of the College, which withdrew many of the officers and students from his congregation. These changes were effected peacefully, and with the cooperation of Dr. Holmes. He preached at the dedication of the meeting-house of the Cambridgeport Parish, and at the ordination of their first minister. He also assisted in the organization of the College Church.

But another change occurred, which occasioned much grief and sadness, and which he resisted earnestly and steadfastly though unsuccessfully. About the year 1815, a difference in opinion, which had for several years existed between the Trinitarian and Unitarian Congregationalists, attained such prominence as to disturb the relations between pastors of churches, and to rend the churches themselves into fragments. Such was the sad effect here. The pastor felt it to be his duty to bear testimony against what he regarded as the errors of Unitarianism, and to prevent their dissemination from his pulpit. A majority of his church approved the measures which he adopted, and adhered to him with unswerving fidelity. A minority of the church, with a majority of the parish, disagreed with him in opinion, and insisted that, if he could not conscientiously teach such doctrines as they believed to be true, he should at least allow other clergymen to do so in his pulpit. A long and unhappy controversy ensued,