2. That good works, or the love of our neighbor, are nothing.
3. That faith is everything, and the more incomprehensible the
proposition, the more merit in its faith.
4. That reason in religion is of unlawful use.
5. That God, from the beginning, elected certain individuals to be
saved, and certain others to be damned; and that no crimes of the former
can damn them; no virtues of the latter, save.
Now, which of these is the true and charitable Christian? He who
believes and acts on the simple doctrines of Jesus; or the impious
dogmatists, as Athanasius and Calvin? Verily I say these are the false
shepherds foretold as to enter not by the door into the sheepfold, but
to climb up some other way. They are mere usurpers of the Christian
name, teaching a counter-religion made up of the deliria of crazy
imaginations, as foreign from Christianity as is that of Mahomet. Their
blasphemies have driven thinking men into infidelity, who have too
hastily rejected the supposed author himself, with the horrors so
falsely imputed to him. Had the doctrines of Jesus been preached always
as pure as they came from his lips, the whole civilized world would
now have been Christian. I rejoice that in this blessed country of free
inquiry and belief, which has surrendered its creed and conscience
to neither kings nor priests, the genuine doctrine of one only God is
reviving, and I trust that there is not a young man now living in the
United States, who will not die an Unitarian.
But much I fear, that when this great truth shall be re-established, its
votaries will fall into the fatal error of fabricating formulas of
creed and confessions of faith, the engines which so soon destroyed the
religion of Jesus, and made of Christendom a mere Aceldama; that they
will give up morals for mysteries, and Jesus for Plato. How much wiser
are the Quakers, who, agreeing in the fundamental doctrines of the
Gospel, schismatize about no mysteries, and, keeping within the pale
of common sense, suffer no speculative differences of opinion, any
more than of feature, to impair the love of their brethren. Be this the
wisdom of Unitarians, this the holy mantle which shall cover within its
charitable circumference all who believe in one God, and who love their
neighbor! I conclude my sermon with sincere assurances of my friendly
esteem and respect.
Th: Jefferson.
LETTER CLXIII.--TO JOHN ADAMS
TO JOHN ADAMS.
Monticello, June 27, 1822.
Dear Sir,
Your kind letter of the 11th has given me great satisfaction. For
although I could not doubt but that the hand of age was pressing heavily
on you, as on myself, yet we like to know the particulars and the
degree of that pressure. Much reflection, too, has been produced by
your suggestion of lending my letter of the 1st, to a printer. I have
generally great aversion to the insertion of my letters in the public
papers; because of my passion for quiet retirement, and never to be
exhibited in scene on the public stage. Nor am I unmindful of the
precept of Horace, ‘_Solve senescentem, mature sanus, equum, ne
peccet ad extremum ridendus_.’ In the present case, however, I see a
possibility that this might aid in producing the very quiet after
which I pant. I do not know how far you may suffer, as I do, under the
persecution of letters, of which every mail brings a fresh load.
They are letters of inquiry, for the most part, always of good will,
sometimes from friends whom I esteem, but much oftener from persons
whose names are unknown to me, but written kindly and civilly, and to
which, therefore, civility requires answers. Perhaps, the better known
failure of your hand in its function of writing, may shield you in
greater degree from this distress, and so far qualify the misfortune of
its disability. I happened to turn to my letter-list some time ago, and
a curiosity was excited to count those received in a single year. It
was the year before the last. I found the number to be one thousand two
hundred and sixty-seven, many of them requiring answers of elaborate
research, and all to be answered with due attention and consideration.
Take an average of this number for a week or a day, and I will repeat
the question suggested by other considerations in mine of the 1st. Is
this life? At best it is but the life of a mill-horse, who sees no
end to his circle but in death. To such a life, that of a cabbage is
paradise. It occurs, then, that my condition of existence, truly stated
in that letter, if better known, might check the kind indiscretions
which are so heavily oppressing the departing hours of life. Such a
relief would, to me, be an ineffable blessing. But yours of the 11th,
equally interesting and affecting, should accompany that to which it is
an answer. The two, taken together, would excite a joint interest, and
place before our fellow-citizens the present condition of two ancient
servants, who, having faithfully performed their forty or fifty
campaigns, _stipendiis omnibus expletis_, have a reasonable claim
to repose from all disturbance in the sanctuary of invalids and
superannuates. But some device should be thought of for their getting
before the public otherwise than by our own publication. Your printer,
perhaps, could frame something plausible, ------‘s name, should be left
blank, as his picture, should it meet his eye, might give him pain. I
consign, however, the whole subject to your consideration, to do in it
whatever your own judgment shall approve, and repeat always, with truth,
the assurance of my constant and affectionate friendship and respect.
Th: Jefferson.
LETTER CLXIV.--TO WILLIAM T. BARRY, July 2, 1822
TO WILLIAM T. BARRY.
Monticello, July 2, 1822.
Sir,
Your favor of the 15th of June is received, and I am very thankful for
the kindness of its expressions respecting myself. But it ascribes to me
merits which I do not claim. I was only of a band devoted to the cause
of independence, all of whom exerted equally their best endeavors for
its success, and have a common right to the merits of its acquisition.
So also in the civil revolution of 1801. Very many and very meritorious
were the worthy patriots who assisted in bringing back our government
to its republican tack. To preserve it in that will require unremitting
vigilance. Whether the surrender of our opponents, their reception into
our camp, their assumption of our name, and apparent accession to
our objects, may strengthen or weaken the genuine principles of
republicanism, may be a good or an evil, is yet to be seen. I consider
the party division of whig and tory the most wholesome which can exist
in any government, and well worthy of being nourished, to keep out those
of a more dangerous character. We already see the power, installed
for life, responsible to no authority (for impeachment is not even a
scare-crow), advancing with a noiseless and steady pace to the great
object of consolidation. The foundations are already deeply laid by
their decisions, for the annihilation of constitutional State rights,
and the removal of every check, every counterpoise to the ingulphing*
power of which themselves are to make a sovereign part. If ever this
vast country is brought under a single government, it will be one of the
most extensive corruption, indifferent and incapable of a wholesome care
over so wide a spread of surface. This will not be borne, and you will
have to choose between reformation and revolution. If I know the spirit
of this country, the one or the other is inevitable. Before the canker
is become inveterate, before its venom has reached so much of the body
politic as to get beyond control, remedy should be applied. Let the
future appointments of judges be for four or six years, and renewable
by the President and Senate. This will bring their conduct, at regular
periods, under revision and probation, and may keep them in equipoise
between the general and special governments. We have erred in this
point, by copying England, where certainly it is a good thing to have
the judges independent of the King. But we have omitted to copy their
caution also, which makes a judge removable on the address of
both legislative Houses. That there should be public functionaries
independent of the nation, whatever may be their demerit, is a solecism
in a republic, of the first order of absurdity and inconsistency.
To the printed inquiries respecting our schools, it is not in my
power to give an answer. Age, debility, an ancient dislocated, and now
stiffened wrist, render writing so slow and painful, that I am obliged
to decline every thing possible requiring writing. An act of our
legislature will inform you of our plan of primary schools, and the
annual reports show that it is becoming completely abortive, and must
be abandoned very shortly, after costing us to this day one hundred and
eighty thousand dollars, and yet to cost us forty-five thousand dollars
a year more until it shall be discontinued; and if a single boy has
received the elements of common education, it must be in some part of
the country not known to me. Experience has but too fully confirmed the
early predictions of its fate. But on this subject I must refer you
to others more able than I am to go into the necessary details; and I
conclude with the assurances of my great esteem and respect.
Th: Jefferson.
LETTER CLXV.--TO DOCTOR WATERHOUSE, July 19, 1822
TO DOCTOR WATERHOUSE.
Monticello, July 19, 1822.
Dear Sir,
An anciently dislocated, and now stiffening wrist, makes writing an
operation so slow and painful to me, that I should not so soon have
troubled you with an acknowledgment of your favor of the 8th, but for
the request it contained of my consent to the publication of my letter
of June the 26th. No, my dear Sir, not for the world. Into what a nest
of hornets would it thrust my head! the _genus irritabile vatum_, on
whom argument is lost, and reason is, by themselves, disclaimed in
matters of religion. Don Quixote undertook to redress the bodily
wrongs of the world, but the redressment of mental vagaries would be an
enterprise more than Quixotic. I should as soon undertake to bring the
crazy skulls of Bedlam to sound understanding, as inculcate reason into
that of an Athanasian. I am old, and tranquillity is now my _summum
bonum_. Keep me, therefore, from the fire and faggots of Calvin and his
victim Servetus. Happy in the prospect of a restoration of primitive
Christianity, I must leave to younger athletes to encounter and lop off
the false branches which have been engrafted into it by the mycologists
of the middle and modern ages. I am not aware of the peculiar resistance
to Unitarianism, which you ascribe to Pennsylvania. When I lived in
Philadelphia there was a respectable congregation of that sect, with a
meeting-house and regular service which I attended, and in which Doctor
Priestley officiated to numerous audiences. Baltimore has one or two
churches, and their pastor, author of an inestimable book on this
subject, was elected chaplain to the late Congress. That doctrine has
not yet been preached to us: but the breeze begins to be felt which
precedes the storm; and fanaticism is all in a bustle, shutting its
doors and windows to keep it out. But it will come, and drive before it
the foggy mists of Platonism which have so long obscured our atmosphere.
I am in hopes that some of the disciples of your institution will become
missionaries to us, of these doctrines truly evangelical, and open our
eyes to what has been so long hidden from them. A bold and eloquent
preacher would be no where listened to with more freedom than in this
State, nor with more firmness of mind. They might need a preparatory
discourse on the text of ‘Prove all things, hold fast that which is
good,’ in order to unlearn the lesson that reason is an unlawful guide
in religion. They might startle on being first awaked from the dreams of
the night, but they would rub their eyes at once, and look the spectres
boldly in the face. The preacher might be excluded by our hierophants
from their churches and meeting-houses, but would be attended in
the fields by whole acres of hearers and thinkers. Missionaries from
Cambridge would soon be greeted with more welcome, than from the
tritheistical school of Andover. Such are my wishes, such would be my
welcomes, warm and cordial as the assurances of my esteem and respect
for you.
Th: Jefferson.
LETTER CLXVI.--TO JOHN ADAMS
TO JOHN ADAMS.
Monticello, November 1, 1822.
Dear Sir,
I have racked my memory and ransacked my papers, to enable myself to
answer the inquiries of your favor of October the 15th; but to little
purpose. My papers furnish me nothing, my memory, generalities only.
I know that while I was in Europe, and anxious about the fate of our
seafaring men, for some of whom, then in captivity in Algiers, we were
treating, and all were in like danger, I formed, undoubtingly, the
opinion that our government, as soon as practicable, should provide a
naval force sufficient to keep the Barbary States in order; and on this
subject we communicated together, as you observe. When I returned to
the United States and took part in the administration under General
Washington, I constantly maintained that opinion; and in December, 1790,
took advantage of a reference to me from the first Congress which met
after I was in office, to report in favor of a force sufficient for
the protection of our Mediterranean commerce; and I laid before them
an accurate statement of the whole Barbary force, public and private.
I think General Washington approved of building vessels of war to that
extent. General Knox, I know, did. But what was Colonel Hamilton’s
opinion, I do not in the least remember. Your recollections on that
subject are certainly corroborated by his known anxieties for a close
connection with Great Britain, to which he might apprehend danger from
collisions between their vessels and ours. Randolph was then Attorney
General; but his opinion on the question I also entirely forget. Some
vessels of war were accordingly built and sent into the Mediterranean.
The additions to these in your time, I need not note to you, who
are well known to have ever been an advocate for the wooden walls
of Themistocles. Some of those you added, were sold under an act of
Congress passed while you were in office. I thought, afterwards, that
the public safety might require some additional vessels of strength,
to be prepared and in readiness for the first moment of a war, provided
they could be preserved against the decay which is unavoidable if kept
in the water, and clear of the expense of officers and men. With this
view I proposed that they should be built in dry docks, above the level
of the tide waters, and covered with roofs. I further advised, that
places for these docks should be selected where there was a command of
water on a high level, as that of the Tiber at Washington, by which
the vessels might be floated out, on the principle of a lock. But the
majority of the legislature was against any addition to the navy,
and the minority, although for it in judgment, voted against it on a
principle of opposition. We are now, I understand, building vessels to
remain on the stocks, under shelter, until wanted, when they will be
launched and finished. On my plan they could be in service at an hour’s
notice. On this, the finishing, after launching, will be a work of time.
This is all I recollect about the origin and progress of our navy. That
of the late war, certainly raised our rank and character among nations.
Yet a navy is a very expensive engine. It is admitted, that in ten or
twelve years a vessel goes to entire decay; or, if kept in repair, costs
as much as would build a new one: and that a nation who could count on
twelve or fifteen years’ of peace, would gain by burning its navy and
building a new one in time. Its extent, therefore, must be governed by
circumstances. Since my proposition for a force adequate to the piracies
of the Mediterranean, a similar necessity has arisen in our own seas
for considerable addition to that force. Indeed, I wish we could have
a convention with the naval powers of Europe, for them to keep down
the pirates of the Mediterranean, and the slave ships on the coast of
Africa, and for us to perform the same duties for the society of nations
in our seas. In this way, those collisions would be avoided between the
vessels of war of different nations, which beget wars and constitute the
weightiest objection to navies. I salute you with constant affection and
respect.
Th: Jefferson.
[The annexed is the letter to which the foregoing is a reply.]
TO THOMAS JEFFERSON.
Montezillo, October 15, 1822. Dear Sir,
I have long entertained scruples about writing this letter, upon a
subject of some delicacy. But old age has overcome them at last.
You remember the four ships ordered by Congress to be built, and the
four captains appointed by Washington, Talbot, and Truxton, and Barry,
&c, to carry an ambassador to Algiers, and protect our commerce in the
Mediterranean. I have always imputed this measure to you; for several
reasons. First, because you frequently proposed it to me while we
were at Paris, negotiating together for peace with the Barbary powers.
Secondly, because I knew that Washington and Hamilton were not only
indifferent about a navy, but averse to it. There was no Secretary of
the Navy; only four Heads of department. You were Secretary of State;
Hamilton, Secretary of the Treasury; Knox, Secretary of War; and I
believe Bradford was Attorney General. I have always suspected that you
and Knox were in favor of a navy. If Bradford was so, the majority was
clear. But Washington, I am confident, was against it in his judgment.
But his attachment to Knox, and his deference to your opinion, for I
know he had a great regard for you, might induce him to decide in favor
of you and Knox, even though Bradford united with Hamilton in opposition
to you. That Hamilton was averse to the measure, I have personal
evidence; for while it was pending, he came in a hurry and a fit of
impatience to make a visit to me. He said, he was likely to be called
upon for a large sum of money to build ships of war, to fight the
Algerines, and he asked my opinion of the measure. I answered him that
I was clearly in favor of it. For I had always been of opinion, from the
commencement of the Revolution, that a navy was the most powerful, the
safest, and the cheapest national defence for this country. My advice,
therefore, was, that as much of the revenue as could possibly be
spared, should be applied to the building and equipping of ships. The
conversation was of some length, but it was manifest in his looks and in
his air, that he was disgusted at the measure, as well as at the opinion
that I had expressed.
Mrs. Knox not long since wrote a letter to Doctor Waterhouse, requesting
him to procure a commision for her son, in the navy; ‘that navy,’ says
her ladyship, ‘of which his father was the parent.’ ‘For,’ says she, ‘I
have frequently heard General Washington say to my husband, the navy was
your child.’ I have always believed it to be Jefferson’s child, though
Knox may have assisted in ushering it into the world. Hamilton’s hobby
was the army. That Washington was averse to a navy, I had full proof
from his own lips, in many different conversations, some of them of
length, in which he always insisted that it was only building and
arming ships for the English. ‘_Si quid novisti rectius istis, candidus
imperii; si non, his utere mecum_.’
If I am in error in any particular, pray correct your humble servant.
John Adams.
LETTER CLXVII.--TO DOCTOR COOPER, November 2, 1822
TO DOCTOR COOPER.
Monticello, November 2, 1822.
Dear Sir,
Your favor of October the 18th came to hand yesterday. The atmosphere
of our country is unquestionably charged with a threatening cloud of
fanaticism, lighter in some parts, denser in others, but too heavy
in all. I had no idea, however, that in Pennsylvania, the cradle of
toleration and freedom of religion, it could have arisen to the height
you describe. This must be owing to the growth of Presbyterianism.
The blasphemy and absurdity of the five points of Calvin, and the
impossibility of defending them, render their advocates impatient of
reasoning, irritable, and prone to denunciation. In Boston, however, and
its neighborhood, Unitarianism has advanced to so great strength, as now
to humble this haughtiest of all religious sects; insomuch, that they
condescend to interchange with them and the other sects, the civilities
of preaching freely and frequently in each other’s meeting-houses. In
Rhode Island, on the other hand, no sectarian preacher will permit an
Unitarian to pollute his desk. In our Richmond there is much fanaticism,
but chiefly among the women. They have their night meetings and praying
parties, where, attended by their priests, and sometimes by a hen-pecked
husband, they pour forth the effusions of their love to Jesus, in terms
as amatory and carnal, as their modesty would permit them to use to a
mere earthly lover. In our village of Charlottesville, there is a good
degree of religion, with a small spice only of fanaticism. We have four
sects, but without either church or meeting-house. The court-house is
the common temple, one Sunday in the month to each. Here, Episcopalian
and Presbyterian, Methodist and Baptist, meet together, join in
hymning their Maker, listen with attention and devotion to each others’
preachers, and all mix in society with perfect harmony. It is not so in
the districts where Presbyterianism prevails undividedly. Their ambition
and tyranny would tolerate no rival, if they had power. Systematical
in grasping at an ascendancy over all other sects, they aim, like the
Jesuits, at engrossing the education of the country, are hostile to
every institution which they do not direct, and jealous at seeing others
begin to attend at all to that object. The diffusion of instruction, to
which there is now so growing an attention, will be the remote remedy
to this fever of fanaticism; while the more proximate one will be the
progress of Unitarianism. That this will, ere long, be the religion of
the majority from north to south, I have no doubt.
In our University you know there is no professorship of Divinity. A
handle has been made of this, to disseminate an idea that this is
an institution, not merely of no religion, but against all religion.
Occasion was taken at the last meeting of the Visitors, to bring forward
an idea that might silence this calumny, which weighed on the minds
of some honest friends to the institution. In our annual report to the
legislature, after stating the constitutional reasons against a public
establishment of any religious instruction, we suggest the expediency of
encouraging the different religious sects to establish, each for itself,
a professorship of their own tenets, on the confines of the University,
so near as that the students may attend the lectures there, and have
the free use our own library, and every other accommodation we can give
them; preserving, however, their independence of us and of each other.
This fills the chasm objected to ours, as a defect in an institution
professing to give instruction in all useful sciences. I think the
invitation will be accepted, by some sects from candid intentions,
and by others from jealousy and rivalship. And by bringing the sects
together, and mixing them with the mass of other students, we shall
soften their asperities, liberalize and neutralize their prejudices, and
make the general religion, a religion of peace, reason, and morality.