The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1890-07-13


The book bearing the above title. for which
we are indebted to the Rev. OcTAv1Us BROOKS
FRoTHISGHAM Putnam. fills a gap in the his
tory OF religion in New England. Much has
been written concerning those tyres OF Uni
tarianism with which the names OF William
Ellery Charming and Theodore Parker are re-
spectively associated. There was. however,
q considerable body OF Unitarian opinion
which, II We look at its nucleus. seems as dis
tibet from Channings spirtualism on the one
hand as from Parkers naturaism on the
other. We refer 10 the conservative habit OF
thought in matters theological OF which Presi-
dent James Walker was conspicuous repre-
sentative. and which was also strikingly ex-
emplled in DR.. Nathaniel Langdon Frothing-
ham. the father OF the author Of this volume
By defining his fathers attitude In relation to
religious questions the author enables us to
understand a kind OF Unitarianism which has
now vanished but which. rs regards the num-
Der OF its adherents. may be said to have been
dominant In Boston during a large part OF the
present century.
Mr.. rockingham begins by describing the
Unitarianism protested and expounded by his
father and the majority OF Unitarian clergy
men in Massachusetts, between 1920 and 1850,
a. rationalism in the sense that 1t was neither
spirtualistic nor naturaistic He Is careful.
however, to point out later that their rational
ism had scarcely nything in common with the
meaning given to the same term in Germany.
1t would perhaps be better to describe 1t as an
ethical rather than a theological system. 1t
denied. indeed on the ground that such doc
trines could not be reconciled to the human
reason. the depravity OF human nature atone
ment, election. substitution, and everlasting
punishment; on the other hand. 1t took for
granted the inspiration Of the Bible aud
I'D In To
ture It accepted the supernatural; 1t denied
the deity Of Shrist and still called him the Son
OF God; 1t received as authentic the stories Of
the resurrection. the ascension. the raising Of
the dead the multiplication OF the loaves. and
other miracles. and yet insisted upon applying
human reason to the story Of the superhuman
birth. The truth Is that there was no such
thing IA Biblical criticism in the United
States during the first half OF the present
century. and Massachusetts Unitarisns were
unacluainted even with that instament OF
critical work which had been accomplished In
Germany and Holland. All speculative ques-
tons were avoided. The preaching was almost
entirely practical, but practical after the an
Client pattern. not according to mod
ern humanitarian and social ideas.
Men like James Walker md John
G. Palfrey dwet much in the pulpit on
tho virtues OF "piety." Viewed collectively, |
the Unitarian preachers OF this type liked to
move along the sober level OF the common mo- |
rality. stunning doGmatism and following the |
line Of plain. average duty 1t is the fashion to |
depreciate these men. compared with Chan |
ming on the one hand or Parker on the other. |
Mr.. rockingham admits that they were desti-
tute OF positive creative force. but he afflrms |
that they exercised. over by no means con-
tracted field, wholesome and benignant in |
iuence. 1T was" he says. their Office to |
create an almost here rather than to advance |
cause: TO dlffuse n spirit OF liberality rather |
than to promote the interests OF a system of
thought, whether doctrinal or philosophical. |
They were not organizers: they were not SEQ
tarieS: they were not champions OF any
school; they were not possessed by any domi- |
nant idea; they had no passion for social re-
FORM" In this and following passage the |
writer has In mind the general attitude OF
many Unitarian divines. but his words are par
ticularly applicable to two men who have held |
the post of President OF Harvard College. and
one OF whom is still living. We refer. OF course.
to James Walker and Andrew p. Peabody or |
men ike these Mr.. rockingham we'll says that |
they were scholars and gentlemen. dignhed. |
gracious. genuine. sweet; fond Of elegant stud |
les, Of courteous ways. Of poetic expression.
servatiVe OF existing institutions, In so far as
they allowed the free movement OF cultivated
minds. and desired no change except in the d. |
rection of mental emancipation. They pushed |
against no barriers that did not limit the right |
to walk over all the fields Of literature unim- |
Ieded aud unchalIenGed For the rest. they |
were con1enied with things as they were
and dsllEed innovation dreading the in |
trusion Of untried ideas; they deplored agta- |
ton. violence. and vehFmence; even Ia the adj
Nocacy of Just principles They believed in |
the prevaence OF sweetness and light"
1t may be true tn ut such men were not crea- |
tors or leaders IN the sense in which the |
secs or tho, stirrers of revolution; but |
no one who has had the privilege OF know |
ing them will deny that they were friends |
and promoters Of intellectual freedom and in.
Dependence Notwithstanding their want OF |
science. their indifference to philosophy. and |
the vaGuencss OF their theological opinions. |
They were humani2ers. educators, and. with |
out any pretrnSl ons to play he part Of CAL |
Win, they had Il Dr Ototyue in lFuSmuS.