leading Americans to discard the Puritan habit of mind and the religious
beliefs it had cherished. An intellectual revolt caused the rejection of
many of the Protestant doctrines, and a political revolt in the direction
of democracy led to the acceptance of religious principles not in harmony
with those of the past. Many Americans shared in these protests who did not
openly break with the older faiths. Washington was of this class; for,
while he remained outwardly a churchman, he had little intellectual or
practical sympathy with the stricter beliefs. Franklin was thoroughly of
the Deistic faith of the thinkers of England and France in his time. These
tendencies had their effect upon such men as John Adams, Timothy Pickering,
Joseph Story, and Theophilus Parsons, as well as upon Thomas Jefferson and
William Cranch. They showed themselves with especial prominence in the case
of Jefferson, who always remained outwardly faithful to the state religion
of Virginia, in which he had been educated, attended the Episcopal church
in the neighborhood of his home, sometimes joining in its communion, but
who was, nevertheless, intellectually a pronounced Unitarian.
With Jefferson his Unitarianism was a part of his democracy, for he was
consistent enough to make his religion and his politics agree with each
other. As he would have kings no longer rule over men, but give political
power into the hands of the people, so in religion he would put aside all
theologians and priests, and permit the people to worship in their own way.
It was for this reason that he rejoiced in the emancipating work of
Channing, of which he wrote in 1822, "I rejoice that in this blessed
country of free inquiry and belief, which has surrendered its creeds and
conscience neither to kings nor priests, the genuine doctrine of only one
God is reviving; and I trust there is not a young man now living who will
not die a Unitarian."[2] Jefferson's revolt against authority was tersely
expressed in his declaration: "Had there never been a commentator, there
never would have been an infidel."[3] This was in harmony with his
saying, that "the doctrines of Jesus are simple and tend all to the
happiness of man."[4] It also fully agrees with the claims of the early
Unitarians with regard to the teachings of Jesus. "No one sees with greater
pleasure than myself," he wrote, "the progress of reason in its advance
toward rational Christianity. When we shall have done away with the
incomprehensible jargon of the Trinitarian arithmetic, that three are one,
and one are three; when we shall have knocked down the artificial
scaffolding reared to mask from view the simple structure of Jesus; when,
in short, we shall have unlearned everything taught since his day, and got
back to the pure and simple doctrines he inculcated--we shall then be truly
and worthily his disciples; and my opinion is that, if nothing had ever
been added to what flowed purely from his lips, the whole world would at
this day have been Christian."[5]
However mistaken Jefferson may have been in the historical opinions thus
expressed, we cannot question the sincerity of his beliefs or fail to
recognize that he had the keenest interest in whatever gave indication of
the growth of a rational spirit in religion. These opinions he shared with
many of the leading men of his time; but he was more outspoken in their
utterance, as he was more consistent in holding them. That Washington,
though remaining an Episcopalian, was in fullest accord with Jefferson in
his principles of toleration and religious freedom, is apparent from one of
his letters. "I am not less ardent in my wish," he wrote, "that you may
succeed in your toleration in religious matters. Being no bigot myself to
any mode of worship, I am disposed to indulge the professors of
Christianity in the church with that road to heaven which to them shall
seem the most direct, easiest, and least liable to exception."[6]
Intellectually, Franklin was a Deist of essentially the same beliefs with
Jefferson, as may be seen in his statement of faith: "I believe in one God,
the creator of the universe; that he governs it by his providence; that he
ought to be worshipped; that the most acceptable service we render to him
is doing good to his other children; that the soul of man is immortal, and
will be treated with justice in another life respecting its conduct in
this. These I take to be the fundamental points in all sound religion. As
to Jesus of Nazareth, I think his system of morals and his religion, as he
left them to us, the best the world ever saw, or is likely to see; but I
apprehend it has received various corrupting changes, and I have some
doubts of his divinity; though it is a question I do not dogmatize upon,
having never studied it."[7] Franklin was a member of a Unitarian church
in London.
[Sidenote: Some Representative Unitarians.]
The church in Washington, not having been popular or of fine appointments,
has been a test of the Unitarian faith of those frequenting the capital
city. It has included in its congregation, from time to time, such men as
John Adams, John Quincy Adams,[8] John Marshall, Joseph Story, Samuel F.
Miller, Millard Fillmore, William Cranch, George Bancroft, Nathan K. Hall,
James Moore Wayne, and Senators Daniel Webster, John C. Calhoun, William S.
Archer, Henry B. Anthony, William B. Allison, Timothy O. Howe, Edward
Everett, Justin S. Morrill, Charles Sumner, William E. Chandler, George F.
Hoar, and John P. Hale. William Winston Seaton and Joseph Gales, once
prominent in Washington as editors and publishers of The National
Intelligencer, were both Unitarians.
In New York the Unitarian churches have had among their attendants and
members such persons as William Cullen Bryant, Catherine M. Sedgwick, Henry
D. Sedgwick, Henry Wheaton, Peter Cooper, George William Curtis, George
Ticknor Curtis, Moses H. Grinnell, Dorman B. Eaton, and Joseph H. Choate.
The churches in Salem have had connected with them such men as John Prince,
Nathaniel Bowditch, Benjamin Peirce, Timothy Pickering, John Pickering,
Leverett Saltonstall, Joseph Story,[9] Jones Very, William H. Prescott,
and Nathaniel Hawthorne.[10]
[Sidenote: Judges and Legislators.]
During the early Unitarian period "the judges on the bench" included such
men as Theophilus Parsons, Isaac Parker, and Lemuel Shaw, all of whom held
the office of chief justice in Massachusetts. Other lawyers, jurists, and
statesmen were Fisher Ames, political orator and statesman; Nathan Dane,
who drew the ordinance for the north-western territory; Samuel Dexter,
senator, and secretary of the treasury under John Adams; Christopher Gore,
senator, and governor of Massachusetts; and Benjamin R. Curtis, of the
United States Supreme Court. Other chief justices of the Supreme Court of
Massachusetts have been George T. Bigelow, John Wells, Pliny Myrick,
Walbridge A. Field, Charles Allen; and of associates in that court have
been Ebenezer Rockwood Hoar, Benjamin F. Thomas, Seth Ames, Samuel S.
Wilde, Levi Lincoln, and John Lowell. Among the governors of Massachusetts
have been Levi Lincoln, Edward Everett, John Davis, John H. Clifford, John
A. Andrew, George S. Boutwell, John D. Long, Thomas Talbot, George D.
Robinson, J.Q.A. Brackett, Oliver Ames, Frederic T. Greenhalge, and Roger
Wolcott. The first mayors of Boston, John Phillips, Josiah Quincy,[11] and
Harrison Gray Otis, were Unitarians. Then, after an interval of one year,
followed Samuel A. Eliot and Jonathan Chapman.
It has often been assumed that Unitarianism attracts only intellectual
persons; but it also appeals to practical business men, legislators, and
the leaders of political life. In Maine have been Vice-President Hannibal
Hamlin, Governor Edward Kent, and Chief Justice John Appleton. In New
Hampshire it has appealed to such men as Chief Justices Cushing, Henry A.
Bellows, Jeremiah Smith, and, Charles Doe, as well as to Governors Onslow
Stearns, Charles H. Bell, Benjamin F. Prescott, and Ichabod Goodwin; in
Rhode Island, Governors Lippitt and Seth Paddelford, Chief Justices Samuel
Ames and Samuel Eddy, General Ambrose E. Burnside, and William B. Weeden,
historian and economist. Alphonso Taft and George Hoadly, both governors of
Ohio, were Unitarians, as were Austin Blair, John T. Bagley, Charles S.
May, and Henry H. Crapo, governors of Michigan. Among the prominent
Unitarians of Iowa have been Senator William B. Allison and General George
W. McCrary. In California may be named Leland Stanford, Horace Davis, Chief
Justice W.H. Beatty, and Oscar L. Shafter of the Supreme Court.
[Sidenote: Boston Unitarianism.]
What Unitarianism has been in the lives of its men and women may be most
conspicuously seen in Boston and the region about it, for there throughout
the first half of the nineteenth century Unitarianism was the dominant form
of Christianity. Of the period from 1826 to 1832, when Dr. Lyman Beecher
was settled in Boston, Mrs. Stowe has given this testimony: "All the
literary men of Massachusetts were Unitarians. All the trustees and
professors of Harvard College were Unitarians. All the élite of wealth and
fashion crowded Unitarian churches. The judges on the bench were Unitarian,
giving decisions by which the peculiar features of church organization, so
carefully ordained by the Pilgrim fathers, had been nullified."[12] Of the
same period Dr. Beecher wrote, "All offices were in the hands of
Unitarians."[13]
These statements were literally true, except in so far as they implied that
Unitarians used high positions in order to overthrow the old institutions
of Massachusetts and substitute those of their own devising. The calmer
judgment of the present day would not accept this conclusion, and it has no
historic foundation. The religious development of Boston brought its
churches into the acceptance of a tolerant, rational, and practical form of
Christianity, that was not dogmatic or sectarian. It took the Unitarian
name, but only in the sense of rejecting the harsher interpretations of the
doctrine of the Trinity and of election. The members of the Unitarian
churches during this period were devout in an unostentatious manner, pious
after a simple fashion, loyal Christians without excess of zeal, lovers of
liberty, but in a conservative spirit. This simple form of piety enabled
the men who accepted it to govern the state in a most faithful manner. They
managed its affairs justly, wisely, and in the true intent of economy.
Sometimes it was complained that they held a much larger number of offices
than was their proportion according to population; but to this John G.
Palfrey replied that the people of the state had confidence in them, and
elected them because nobody else governed so well.
With the aid of the biography of James Sullivan, judge, legislator,
attorney-general, and diplomatist,[14] we may study the constituency of a
single church in Boston, the Brattle Street Church. We find there James
Bowdoin and John Hancock, rival candidates for the position of governor of
the state in 1785. The same rivalry occurred twenty years later between
James Sullivan and Caleb Strong, both of the number of its communicants. On
the parish committee of this church at one time were Hancock, Bowdoin, and
Sullivan, who became governors of the state, and Judges Wendell and John
Lowell.[15] Some years later there were included in the congregation such
men as Daniel Webster, Harrison Gray Otis, Abbott Lawrence, and Amos
Lawrence, who was one of the deacons for many years.
Of the distinguished business men of Boston may be named John Amory Lowell,
John C. Amory, Jonathan Phillips (the confidential friend and supporter of
Dr. Channing), Thomas Wigglesworth, J. Huntington Wolcott, Augustus
Hemenway, Stephen C. Phillips, and Thomas Tileston. Francis Cabot Lowell
was largely concerned in building up the manufacturing interests of
Massachusetts, especially the cotton industry; and the city of Lowell took
his name in recognition of the importance of his leadership in this
direction. For similar reasons the city of Lawrence was named after Abbott
Lawrence, minister of the United States to Great Britain, who was one of
the leading merchants of Boston in the China trade, and was also largely
concerned in the development of cotton manufacturing. With these business
and manufacturing interests Amos Lawrence was also connected. Nathan
Appleton[16] was associated with Francis C. Lowell in the establishment of
the great manufacturing interests that have been a large source of the
wealth of Massachusetts. Thomas H. Perkins, from whom was named the Perkins
Institute for the Blind, was also concerned in the China trade and in the
first development of railroads. Robert Gould Shaw was another leading
merchant, who left a large sum of money for the benefit of the children of
mariners. John Murray Forbes was a builder of railroads, notably active in
the financial support of the national government during the civil war, and
a generous friend of noble men and interests.[17] Nathaniel Thayer was a
manager of railroads, erected Thayer Hall at Harvard College, and bore the
expenses of Agassiz's expedition to South America.
A Boston man by birth and training, who knew the defects as well as the
merits of the class of men and women who have been named, has given
generous testimony to the high qualities of mind and heart possessed by
these Unitarians. In writing of his maternal grandfather, Octavius Brooks
Frothingham has said: "Peter C. Brooks was an admirable example of the
Unitarian laymen of that period, industrious, honest, faithful in all
relations of life, charitable, public-spirited, intelligent, sagacious,
mingling the prudence of the man of affairs with the faith of the
Christian.... As one recalls the leading persons in Brattle Street, Federal
Street, Chauncy Place, King's Chapel, the New North, the New South,--men
like Adams, Eliot, Perkins, Bumstead, Lawrence, Sullivan, Jackson, Judge
Shaw, Daniel Webster, Jacob Bigelow, T.B. Wales, Dr. Bowditch,--forms of
dignity and of worth rise before the mind. Better men there are not. More
honorable men, according to the standard of the time, there are not likely
to be.... He joined the church and was a consistent church member. He was
not effusive, demonstrative, or loud-voiced. His name did not stand high on
church lists or among the patrons of the faith. His was the calm, rational,
sober belief of the thoughtful, educated, honorable men of his day,--men
like Lemuel Shaw, Joseph Story, Daniel A. White,--intellectual, noble
people, with worthy aims, a lofty sense of duty, a strong conviction of the
essential truths of revealed Christianity; sincere believers in the gospel,
of enduring principle, of pure, consistent, blameless life and conduct.
Speculative theology he cared little or nothing about. He was no disputant,
no doubter, no casuist; of the heights of mysticism, of the depths of
infidelity, he knew nothing. He was conservative, of course, from
temperament rather than from inquiry. He took the literal, prose view of
Calvinism, and rejected doctrines which did not commend themselves to his
common sense. In a word, he was a Unitarian of the old school.... The
Unitarian laity in general, both men and women, had a genuine desire to
render the earthly lot of mankind more tolerable. It is not too much to say
that they started every one of our best secular charities. They were
exceedingly liberal in their gifts to Harvard College, and to other
colleges as well--for they were not at all sectarian, as their large
subscriptions to the Roman Catholic cathedral proved. Whatever tended to
exalt humanity, in their view, was encouraged. They were as noble a set of
men and women as ever lived."[18]
This estimate of the Unitarians of Boston during the first half of the
nineteenth century is eminently just and accurate. To a large extent these
men and their associates in the Unitarian churches gave to the city its
worth and its character; and they built up the industries, the commerce,
the educational and philanthropic interests, and the progressive
legislation of Massachusetts. They were men of integrity and sincerity, who
were generous, faithful, and just. They accepted the religion of the
spirit, and they gave it expression in daily conduct and character.
[1] F.B. Carpenter, Six Months in the White House, 190.
[2] James Parton, Life of Thomas Jefferson, 711.
[3] Charles W. Upham, Life of Timothy Pickering, IV. 327.
[4] P.L. Ford's edition Jefferson's Works, X.220.
[5] Life of Pickering, IV. 326.
[6] P.L. Ford, The True George Washington, 81.
[7] P.L. Ford, The Many-sided Franklin, 174. See Diary of Ezra Stiles,
III. 387.
[8] John Quincy Adams, in reply to a question about the church in
Washington, said: "I go there to church, although I am not decided in
my mind as to all the controverted doctrines of religion." Years
later he said to a preacher in the Unitarian church at Quincy: "I
agree entirely with the ground you took in your discourse. You did
not speak of any particular class of doctrines that were everlasting,
but of the great, fundamental principles in which all Christians
agree; and these, I think, are what will be permanent." See A.B.
Muzzey, Reminiscences and Memorials of the Men of the Revolution and
their Families, 53.
[9] William W. Story, Life and Letters of Joseph Story, 57, 93. Joseph
Story grew away from Calvinism in early manhood, and accepted a
humanitarian view of the nature of Christ. "No man was ever more free
from a spirit of bigotry and proselytism," says his biographer. "He
gladly allowed every one freedom of belief and claimed only that it
should be a genuine conviction and not a mere theologic opinion,
considering the true faith of every man to be the necessary exponent
of his nature, and honoring a religious life more than a formal
creed. He admitted within the pale of salvation Mohammedan and
Christian, Catholic and infidel. He believed that whatever is sincere
and honest is recognized by God--that as the views of any sect are
but human opinion, susceptible of error on every side, it behooves
all men to be on their guard against arrogance of belief--and that in
the sight of God it is not the truth or falsehood of our views, but
the spirit in which we believe which alone is of vital consequence.
His moral sense was not satisfied with a theory of religion founded
upon the depravity of man and recognizing an austere and vengeful
God, nor could he give his metaphysical assent to the doctrine of the
Trinity. In the doctrines of liberal Christianity he found the
resolution of his doubts, and from the moment he embraced the
Unitarian faith he became a warm and unhesitating believer."
[10] For an interesting picture of New England Unitarianism see
Recollections of my Mother (Mrs. Anne Jean Lyman), by Mrs. J.P.
Lesley. Mrs. Lyman's home was in Northampton, Mass. The Reminiscences
of Caroline C. Briggs describe life in the same town and under
similar conditions. Also Memoir of Mary L. Ware, Memorial of Joseph
and Lucy Clark Allen by their Children, and Life of Dr. Samuel
Willard.
[11] Edmund Quincy, Life of Josiah Quincy, 532. In a speech to the
overseers of Harvard University in 1845, Josiah Quincy said: "I never
did and never will call myself a Unitarian; because the name has the
aspect, and is loaded by the world with the imputation of
sectarianism." His biographer says: "He regarded differences as of
slight importance, especially as to matters beyond the grasp of the
human intellect. His catholicity of spirit fraternized with all who
profess to call themselves Christians, and who prove their title to
the name by their lives." It was precisely this catholicity of spirit
that was the most characteristic feature of early American
Unitarianism, and not the rejection of the doctrine of the Trinity.
However, Josiah Quincy was undoubtedly a Unitarian, both in what he
rejected and in what he affirmed, as may be seen from these words
recorded in his diary in 1854: "From the doctrines with which
metaphysical divines have chosen to obscure the word of God,--such as
predestination, election, reprobation, etc.,--I turn with loathing to
the refreshing assurance which, to my mind, contains the substance of
revealed religion,--in every nation he who feareth God, and worketh
righteousness, is accepted of him."
[12] Autobiography, Correspondence, etc., of Lyman Beecher, II. 109.
[13] Ibid., 144.
[14] Thomas C. Amory. Life of James Sullivan.
[15] John Lowell, a son of Judge John Lowell, and a brother of Dr. Charles
Lowell of the West Church, was the author of an effective
controversial pamphlet entitled Are you a Christian or a Calvinist?
Or do you prefer the Authority of Christ to that of the Genevan
Reformer? Both the Form and Spirit of these Questions being suggested
by the Late Review of American Unitarianism in The Panoplist, and by
the Rev. Mr. Worcester's Letter to Mr. Channing. By a Layman. Boston,
1815.
[16] Nathan Appleton's interest in theology may be seen in his book
entitled The Doctrine of Original Sin and the Trinity, discussed in a
Correspondence between a Clergyman of the Episcopal Church, in
England, and a Layman of Boston, United States, published in Boston
in 1859. "I was brought up," he said in one of these letters, "in the
strictest form of Calvinistic Congregationalism; but since arriving
at an age capable of examining the subject, and after a careful study
of it, I have renounced what appear to me unworthy views of the
Deity, for a system which appears to me more worthy of him, and less
abhorrent to human reason." "I can say," he wrote in another letter,
"that the Unitarian party embraces the most intelligent and
high-minded portion of the community. It is my opinion that the views
of the Unitarians are the best and only security against the spirit
of infidelity which is prevailing so extensively amongst the most
highly educated and intelligent men in Europe." See Memoir of Nathan
Appleton, by Robert C. Winthrop.
[17] John Murray Forbes: Letters and Recollections, edited by his
daughter, Sarah Forbes Hughes.
[18] Boston Unitarianism, 93, 94, 101, 127.
XVIII.
UNITARIANS AND EDUCATION.
The interest of Unitarians in education has always been very great, but it
has not been in the direction of building and fostering sectarian
institutions. As a body, Unitarians have not only been opposed to
denominational colleges, but they have been leaders in promoting
unsectarian education. Freedom of academic teaching and the scientific
study of theology may be found where Unitarianism has no existence, and yet
it is significant that in this country such mental liberty should have
first found expression under Unitarian auspices. From the first, American
Unitarianism has been unsectarian and liberty-loving, taking an attitude of
toleration, free investigation, and loyalty to truth. That it has always
been faithful to its ideal cannot be maintained, and yet its history shows
that the open-mindedness and the spirit of freedom have never been wholly
ignored.
[Sidenote: Pioneers of the Higher Criticism.]
The attitude of the early Unitarians towards the Bible, their trust in it
as the revealed word of God and the source of divine authority in all
matters of faith, and their confidence that a return to its simple
principles would liberate men from superstition and bigotry, naturally made
them the first to welcome the higher criticism of the Bible in this
country. Such men as Noah Worcester and his successors brought to the Bible
new and common-sense interpretations, and began the work of pointing out
the defects in the common version. The Unitarians were not hampered by the
theory of the verbal infallibility of the Bible; and they were therefore
prepared to advance the critical work of the scholars, as it came to them
from England and Germany, as was no other religious body in this country.