July 9, 2000
Sarasota
[Expanded from the original, dated 1976 and filed under 1979]
Reading: APOSTLE OF LIBERTY, George Akers, p. 70-71 (Jonathan Mayhew)
Thus for example, we ought not to believe that there is, or that there is not a God; that the Christian religion is from God, or an imposture; that any particular doctrine fathered upon it is really contained in it, or not; or that any particular sect of Christians is in the right, or in the wrong; ’til we have impartially examined the matter. And see evidence on one side or the other. For to determine any point without reason or proof cannot be to judge freely, unless it be in a bad sense of the word.
To attempt to dragoon men into sound orthodox Christians, is as unnatural and fruitless as to attempt to dragoon them into good poets, physicians, or mathematicians. A blow with a club may fracture a man’s skull; but I suppose he will not think and reason the more clearly for that; though he may believe more orthodoxly according to the opinions of some.
... We may as well pick our neighbor’s pocket for fear he should spend his money in debauchery, as take from him his right of judging for himself, and chusing his religion, for fear he should judge amiss and abuse his liberty.
Let us all stand fast in the liberty wherewith Christ has made us free; and not sufer ourselves to any human impositions in religious matters; it is better to throw off the yoke even now, than let it gall us for a life time: it is not too late to assert our liberty, and free ourselves from an ignominious slavery to the dictates of men.
Sermon:
Jonathan Mayhew lived forty-five years between 1720 and 1766. Years after his death, some named him, “The Morning Star of the Revolution”; and a church historian has called him “The link between 18th century Puritan religion and 19th century Unitarianism.” Robert Treat Paine, a signer of the Declaration of Independence, said that Jonathan Mayhew was the “father of civil and religious liberty in Massachusetts and America.”
Surely he ought to be of interest to us. Particularly, because he would have been outraged to be called either “the star” or “the link.” Mayhew was loyal to the British King and British Parliament. In terms of Unitarianism as it developed, Mayhew was passionately opposed to the Arian, Deistic, and Socinian theologies which characterized many 19th century Unitarians. Mayhew would be equally irate at Universalist salvation theology of the time because he believed thoroughly in divine judgment, punishment, and hell.
Jonathan Mayhew was not always consistent with his own deeply-held principles. He preached tolerance, but was guilty of intolerance on more than one occasion. His contemporary, John Adams, who said he had been influenced by Mayhew, said that “a dozen volumes would be required to delineate the character of Jonathan Mayhew.”
Therefore, I am attempting to high-light the life of Jonathan Mayhew – his remarkable family heritage; the religious climates that prevailed in his age, the political influence he had on two continents, even though he was never in his life more than 100 miles from Boston, and the crucial intersections between his religious beliefs, the issues of the day, and how he used his pulpit to energize public opinion.
HIS REMARKABLE FAMILY
When Jonathan Mayhew was born in 1720, he was a fifth generation American. To me, a 1st generation American, born in the twentieth century, I am awed that an early 18th century child was a fifth generation American.
His forbear, Thomas Mayhew, left Tisbury, England, in 1631, one of the astonishing number of 20,000 persons who migrated to Massachusetts in 13 years. In 1641, Thomas Mayhew acquired title to the island of Martha’s Vineyard, 100 miles square. Thomas Mayhew named himself “Governor Mayhew”, with some accuracy because Martha’s Vineyard was the only feudal manor in New England until it was annexed by Massachusetts in 1691.
Martha’s Vineyard was not a deserted island. Living there were 3000 Pokanoket Indians, a branch of the Narragansett tribe.
While Thomas Mayhew Sr. was interested in land and making money from it, his son, Thomas Mayhew Jr., who had emigrated from England with his father, and somehow had received a liberal education, devoted himself to bringing Christianity to the Pokanokets. Thomas Jr. spent the remainder of his life as a missionary on Martha’s Vineyard with remarkable results. By the year 1652, “there were 283 converts, a school for Indian children and two Indian meetings each Sabbath.”
I am not asserting that Christian missionary efforts are a worthy enterprise. These Indians would probably have been better off with their own nature religion. However, I cannot be very harsh on such missionary enterprises when I recall that for years in the Unitarian directory there was listed “The Society for propagating the gospel among Indians and Others.” The 19th and 20th century Unitarians had missionary efforts in India, and the Universalists [had missionary efforts] in Japan.
The Praying Indians, as they were called, became so well-known that by 1649, a London missionary society began to help the Mayhews’ efforts. In 1657, Thomas Jr. was lost at sea on a voyage to raise missionary funds. His father sought a replacement for the missionary work, but finding no one, took on the task himself at the age of 60 and continued in it for 25 years.
Following his death, the family carried on the work. The Mayhew family suffered many deaths – infants, mothers in childbirth, fathers, sisters, and brothers dying too young. The family economic situation deteriorated over the years. But the mission to the Indians was as example of Indian/Colonist goodwill, seldom if ever duplicated. In the bloody King Philip’s War, 1675-76, the Pokanokets, although outnumbering the Europeans 20 to 1 on the island, never attacked. A church historian (Latourette) has written that the “missionary Mayhews represent what is likely the longest and most persistent family missionary endeavor in the annals of all Christianity.”
From this island heritage, Jonathan Mayhew, son of Experience Mayhew, great grandson of Governor Mayhew, arrived at Harvard in 1740 to be educated. He was not committed to the ministry then; that call came later in his Harvard years.
During his college years the New England theological kettle was bubbling with sermonic debate. The Monday newspapers printed full sermons preached the day before. Religious news was daily fare such as the astrological predictions and Ann Landers’ column are today. For the remainder of his life, Jonathan Mayhew was to increase the heat to boiling controversies.
THE RELIGIOUS CLIMATE THAT PREVAILED
From its beginnings, the Massachusetts Bay Colony had been Calvinist in its theology. The five points of Calvinism were (a summary perhaps oversimplified):
1) Absolute predestination
2) Particular redemption
3) Total depravity
4) Irresistible grace
5) The perseverance of saints
By Mayhew’s time, this tightly woven theological system showed some signs of unraveling. The rationalistic writings of Isaac Newton, John Locke, and other Deists were being read and discussed at Harvard. Biblical revelation as the complete and unerring word of God was no longer believed by some to be as seamless and complete tapestry.
As much as Rationalism, Arminianism had been threatening Calvinism. The liberals, among whom Jonathan Mayhew could be numbered by the time he finished Harvard and decided to become a minister, were increasingly Arminian, supra-rational and hedging on the doctrine of the Trinity. [Of] Arminianism, Conrad Wright, a Unitarian Universalist historian wrote, “Arminianism asserted that men are born with the capacity both for sin and for righteousness; that they can respond to the impulse toward holiness as well as the temptation to do evil; and that life is a process of trial and discipline by which, with the assistance God gives to all, the bondage to sin may gradually be overcome ....
“Supernatural rationalism asserted that unassisted reason can establish the essentials of religion: the existence of God, the obligations of morality, and a divine order of rewards and punishments.”
But unlike Deism, it insisted that natural religion must be supplemented with a special revelation of God’s will – the Bible.
“Finally the liberals tended to be anti-Trinitarian, largely because they were convinced that the doctrine of the Trinity was not scriptural.... They were not ‘Unitarian’, since only a small minority believed in the simple humanity of Jesus.”
Quite apart from Harvard’s heady intellectual climate, Jonathan Mayhew’s father, Experience Mayhew, was Arminian in his thought. He found in his mission work with the Pokanokets on the island that it was impossible to teach the complexities of Calvinism to the Indians. A God who chooses to save only a portion of mankind (His elect) could not be the basis of a widespread appeal to the Indians to become Christian and to give up their “pagan” ways. Experience taught them, “all that truly believe in Christ, Christ will save, Indians or English, high or low, bond or free.”
Although Jonathan Mayhew had some initial difficulty locating a church, in 1747 he was elected minister of West Church, Boston, a most desirable pulpit. The parish was largely composed of rising, prosperous merchants. Mayhew's salary was set at £15 a week, plus a full woodbox and house rent – a very comfortable salary package for that time.
Most of his Calvinistic colleagues shunned him because of his liberal views. Only a few would exchange pulpits with him, an important practice of the day. [CJW note: 3 sermons] One hundred years later, this was to happen to Theodore Parker when his Unitarian ministerial brethren refused to exchange pulpits.
One anecdote how some people detested Mayhew’s unorthodox preaching: While still a teen-ager, Paul Revere attended a service where Mayhew spoke. Paul’s enthusiasm for the sermon “resulted in a beating by his strict father, fearful that young Paul would stray into heresy.” The sermon that caused Paul Revere to be thrashed may have been one of the character inputs that years later, in 1775, motivated Paul Revere to make his famous ride awakening every Middlesex village and town that the British were coming.
Significant from the point of view of our theme of the Star and the Link were Jonathan Mayhew’s plain, bold statements on the right and duty of free inquiry, private judgment and liberty.
POLITICAL INFLUENCE AND THE INTERSECTION OF RELIGIOUS BELIEFS AND THE ISSUES OF MAYHEW’S TIME
While Mayhew always based his social commentary on scriptural foundations, inevitably because he spoke boldly, he was politically controversial. In 1750, he preached on “Unlimited submission and non-resistance to higher powers.” [CJW note: scroll Google] He cited the English traditions of the Puritan Revolution off 1642 and the Glorious Revolution of 1688 as the right of citizens to “rid their nation of a ruler who does not govern for the common good.” It was the most important defense of the right of revolution to be plainly said in the American Colonies prior to 1776. One sentence was memorable: “Rulers have no authority from God to do mischief.”
[CJW note - “ ‘Divine’ right of kings – quote Charles I: ‘The state of monarchy is the supremest thing upon earth: for kinds are not only God’s lieutenants, and set upon God’s throne, but even by God himself are called gods.’ ”]
Mayhew also infuriated the growing Anglican Church in the Colonies by denouncing Bishops and leading the fight to prevent the settling of an Anglican Bishop in Massachusetts. That such an attitude infringed upon Anglican’s liberty to have a resident Bishop if they wanted one, deterred Mayhew’s attack not at all. His fear that the alliance of Crown and surplice in Massachusetts would destroy the freedom tradition outranked his belief in religious liberty. There were other inconsistencies in his polemics. But through his preaching, along with others who supported this point of view, the British Parliament and the King were influenced – they desisted in the attempt to appoint an Anglican Bishop for Massachusetts. They feared, and rightly so, that the political cost would be too great.
The last ten years of Mayhew’s life were continuously controversial – religious and political. He attacked the Calvinistic concepts of original sin and the Trinity. He taught that Adam and Eve sinned, but since they were the only violators, they alone were guilty. Furthermore that it was unjust and impossible for God to impute the sins of their parents to posterity. Such was not agreeable to truth, reason, or scripture. Therefore Christ’s atoning death was unnecessary. He still believed in Christ’s atonement, but this was a logical weakness in his theology. It was not only what he said, a few others were also saying these things, but in the way he said it – plainly, boldly, argumentatively.
Politically, Britain and France were fighting for possession of the North American continent. When had history ever offered a richer prize? Mayhew used his pulpit as a sounding board for Holy War. To him, France was both a tyrant and the champion of Romish superstition, “forces of the devil seeking to enslave both religiously and politically.” He reviewed the progress of the war in his sermons and gloated in the fall of Quebec.
Today, it may seem somewhat bizarre, if not immoral, that Mayhew should also remind his congregation frequently how good business was in wartime. But his congregation was largely comprised of merchants who prospered under war conditions. His biographer noted, “Seldom in the annals of Christendom had righteousness and profits seemed so indissolubly welded.”
Mayhew was loyal to England and praised the coronation of King George III.
Then came sparks that would eventually ignite the fuse of the American Revolution—the Writs of Assistance – the right to search for contraband and smuggled goods, which the Colonists merchants insisted was a violation of the fundamental property rights, with which Jonathan Mayhew publicly and eloquently agreed.
The Stamp Act of 1765 became a serious and inflammatory constitutional issue. British taxation without representation became obnoxious in Massachusetts. Mobs gathered and hung the English Governor in effigy. Then Mayhew preached on Sunday, August 25, 1765 (texts existing may be inaccurate). His text was from Galatians, V 12/13: “Ye have been called unto liberty.” The next evening, Monday, the mobs struck again, attacking the homes of customs officers, destroying records, looting and destroying the house of the Lieutenant Governor. Many believed, including English officials, that Mayhew’s sermon was the incendiary cause. An Episcopal clergyman wrote the Archbishop in England, “one of the most seditious sermons ever delivered, advising the people to stand up for their rights even to the last drop of blood.” !!!
Mayhew was shocked that he should be so accused. There was even some talk of transporting him to England for trial on charges of sedition. Pitt, the English Prime Minister, wisely decided that to attempt that would really inflame the Colonies. If they
did not know clearly then, who can tell now that Mayhew set off the riots? Whatever he said may have been as much in the tone, spontaneous gestures, and inflections he used as much as the actual text.
Anyway, the Stamp Act was repealed. When the notice arrived, there was the largest celebration in Boston's history – a 23 hour party with wine supplied abundantly by John Hancock, a wealthy merchant then, later the first signer of the Declaration of Independence.
But no revolution yet, for there were cheers for King and Parliament because they repealed the Stamp Act. But Parliament had reserved the right to legislate for the Colonies.
I have said nothing about Jonathan Mayhew’s happy marriage. This would be an important episode if there were Mayhew Chronicles as a few years ago there were the Adams Chronicles. Mayhew’s one surviving daughter, Elizabeth, married Peter Wainwright. Their first son was named Jonathan Mayhew Wainwright. Since then, the oldest son of the oldest son has always carried the name. Among them, JMW became an eminent Episcopal clergyman, who at the time of his death in 1854 was probably the most famous Episcopalian in the U. S. – Bishop JMW of New York. How ironic, when his grandfather had successfully been instrumental in preventing the King from naming and settling an Anglican Bishop in Massachusetts. Those who memories go back to World War II will remember General Jonathan Mayhew Wainwright, the hero of Corregidor. He was the fifth in the line to bear the name.
In 1766, three months before his 46th birthday, Jonathan Mayhew took ill, and died in a few days. The funeral procession was the longest Boston had ever seen.
Jonathan Mayhew was not a great original thinker. His logic was sometimes imprecise. He was influenced by European rational and Arminian thought. His theology was a link to later Unitarianism, although he would have been appalled at such coupling, and would have delivered a caustic, hostile sermon about it. His political thought, as well as his religious thought, was influenced by Thomas Hollis, a wealthy Colonist who constantly sent Mayhew books, particularly on political liberties as well as rational philosophical thought. Mayhew was not always ready to grant to others the privileges he claimed for himself. But thoroughly consistent heroes have never lived.
But Mayhew’s religious and political zeal was based on liberty, experience, inquiry, the right of private judgment, all undergirded by passionate convictions – guidelines which can serve all the rest of us inconsistent souls – at least until something better comes along –and that’s not likely.
Our second President, John Adams, when old in years, long retired, rich in honors, but still strong of mind and passionate for the United States, said, 68 years after he heard Mayhew’s sermon on unlimited submission, “If 4th of July orators really wish to investigate the feelings which produced the American Revolution, then that’s the sermon to read.”
[Postscript – from Abraham Lincoln]
We are a mighty nation and as we run our memory back over the pages of history, we find a race of men whom we claim as our fathers.
They were iron men, and we understand that by what they did it has followed that the degree of prosperity which we enjoy has come to us.
They were pillars of the temple of liberty; and now that they have crumbled away, that temple must fall unless we, their descendants, supply their places with other pillars hewn from the solid quarry of sober reason.
Passion has helped us, but can do so no more; it will in the future be our enemy. Reason must furnish all the materials for our future support and defense.
The sentiment in the Declaration of Independence gave liberty to the people of this country, and hope to all the world.
Let us readopt the Declaration of Independence and [with it] the practices and policy which harmonize with it.
Let all Americans, let all lovers of liberty everywhere, join in the great and good work.
On being received
1 year ago
