Women in the Nineteenth Century Unitarian Controversy Kimberly Hornback
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Florida State University Libraries Electronic Theses, Treatises and Dissertations The Graduate School 2007 Women in the Nineteenth Century Unitarian Controversy Kimberly Hornback Follow this and additional works at the FSU Digital Library. For more information, please contact [email protected] THE FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF ARTS AND SCIENCES WOMEN IN THE NINETEENTH CENTURY UNITARIAN CONTROVERSY By Kimberly Hornback A Thesis submitted to the Department of History in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts Degree Awarded: Fall Semester, 2007 The members of the committee approve the thesis of Kimberly Hornback defended on October 25, 2007. ____________________________________ Neil Jumonville Professor Directing Thesis ____________________________________ Maxine Jones Committee Member ____________________________________ Amanda Porterfield Committee Member The Office of Graduate Studies has verified and approved the above named committee members. ii This work is dedicated to my husband and my parents. Without your ability to see farther for me than I can see for myself, who knows where I would be. I am thankful for all of your love. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract v Introduction 1 1. Private Lives 20 2. Public Lives 37 Conclusion 55 References 58 Biographical Sketch 63 iv ABSTRACT Despite the work that has been done on the Unitarian controversy in nineteenth century Boston, little is known about the effects of the controversy on women. This study examines the lives of Catharine Beecher, Elizabeth Peabody, and Mary Ware. An analysis of their lives yields answers to the question: How did the Unitarian controversy affect the private and social lives of these women? In addition, this study seeks to uncover some of the broader currents of American thought that accompanied the growth of Unitarianism. v INTRODUCTION By 1805, the religious landscape of Boston was undergoing great changes. Some of these changes were due to the emergence of Unitarian theology and the break between the Congregational and Unitarian churches. The Unitarian controversy is not a new subject of study to historians. Much work has been done over the years on the theological and legal disputes contained within the Unitarian controversy. Additionally, the thoughts of leading Calvinist and Unitarian theologians have been well-documented. What has not been thoroughly examined, however, are the effects of this religious disagreement on Bostonian culture and society at large – especially on the women of Boston. Because of the rancorous nature and church-splitting consequences of the Unitarian controversy, it is not likely that the debate or the effect of growing religious liberality was limited to rival theologians. The objective of this study is to look at the effects of the Unitarian controversy on the lives and roles of three white, middle to upper class antebellum women of Massachusetts. For example, how did this controversy affect the private and social lives of the women who had some connections with the theological rivalry? Did the controversy affect them at all? This will be examined on a microcosmic scale through the evaluation of three women: Mary L. Ware, Catharine Beecher, and Elizabeth Palmer Peabody. Moreover, I hope to answer, in some small part, the question that Donald M. Scott raised in his book review of Daniel Walker Howe’s The Unitarian Conscience: what can the growth of Unitarianism tell us about the changes that were transforming American society?1 So, in addition to examining the ramifications of the Unitarian controversy upon women, I hope to uncover some of the broader currents of American thought with regards to women which made room for the Unitarian church to arise in the first place. In the late eighteenth century, New England was a bastion of Calvinist thought. The bulwark which supported this thought was the Congregational church – a loose connection of parish churches which held basic beliefs in common yet still maintained control over their local congregation. The founding tenets of American Congregationalism were based in the hopes of a holy commonwealth in which dissenters 1 Donald Scott, “The Unitarian Conscience: Harvard Moral Philosophy, 1805-1861,” Church History 41, no.3 (September, 1972): 416. 1 were unwelcome.2 Through this commonwealth, the early Congregationalists would act as a city on a hill, thereby serving as an example for the rest of the world. Notably for this early commonwealth was the fact that it operated as both a civil authority and a religious authority. This pattern of civic and religious domination remained in place until the nineteenth century. Due to its early roots in America, the Congregational churches in Massachusetts were supported by taxes collected from the local parishes. Though each church maintained its own control, the parish as a whole supported the individual churches. So, if parish members did not attend a Congregational church – or were not accepted into it due to an inability to prove their own conversion – those members still owed taxes to support the church. These taxes were collected until the year 1823.3 The impetus for the Unitarian challenge found its roots in the growth of a liberal theology which had begun in the Congregational church before the nineteenth century. This theology embraced the rational ideas of the enlightenment, thereby allowing reason to be an instrument of scriptural interpretation and religious guidance. Throughout the latter part of the eighteenth century, a strand of liberal sentiment had been running through the Congregational church. Several Congregational pastors challenged the vigor of The Great Awakening and its proponents such as Jonathan Edwards, and George Whitfield. Whereas traditional Calvinism – and men like Edwards and Whitfield – placed salvation solely within the hands of a God who predestined believers for salvation, others began to give humans more agency. These men looked for an enlightened rationalism within their theology which argued against doctrines of man’s complete depravity and predestination.4 This form of religious doctrine was directly counter to the traditional Calvinist view that God had chosen to save a select group of people and that all others were subject to eternal damnation. Instead, proponents of a more liberal theology invoked what they perceived to be the kindness of God, as well as the ability of 2 J. William T. Youngs, The Congregationalists, Denominations in America, No. 4 (New York: Greenwood Press, 1990), 3. 3 Richard O. Curry, Lawrence B. Goodheart, “The Trinitarian Indictment of Unitarianism: The Letters of Elizur Wright, Jr., 1826-1827,” Journal of the Early Republic, no. 3 (Autumn, 1983): 281-296, 281-282. 4 Gary Dorrien, The Making of American Liberal Theology: Imagining Progressive Religion (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2001), 1. 2 man to reason his way through what had heretofore been supernatural, unknowable territory. The arguments of these early theologians did not, in themselves, produce the disagreements that would later create such a split in the Congregational church. What they do reveal, however, is the fact that there was an increasingly defined theological search for a way of belief that was softer than orthodox Calvinism. For many (such as Elizabeth Palmer Peabody), Calvinism was associated with punishment and censure. Unitarianism, however, allowed for a more benevolent God who was interested in individuals. Reason began to be introduced into religious discussions and, as the politics, philosophy, and social reality of America was changing, so was the religion. Liberal theologians began to develop other ideas such as Unitarianism which, at its core, believed that God’s nature was one rather than three. This, in turn, denied the divinity of Jesus and placed him in the role of an exemplary man rather than a divine. Additionally, proponents of Unitarianism argued that man was not innately depraved. This countered traditional scriptural teachings of original sin and the need for salvation.5 These doctrinal considerations were not the sole factors in the rancor that later erupted in the nineteenth century, however. For orthodox Calvinists, the Unitarian beliefs were a direct refusal of scripture and, thus, a way of life. Further, if scriptural confidence were to be shaken in areas such as the nature of God, original sin, and the divinity of Jesus, it was likely to be shaken even further in other areas. In essence, leaving the beliefs of Unitarians unchallenged was, for the Orthodox, akin to allowing a leak in the dam of morality that would ultimately burst and ruin the young nation. Many Unitarians, however, resented the social control and censure that they felt accompanied Orthodox Calvinism. They also resisted the thought that there was no room for rationalism in religion. They wanted to interpret God differently and wanted the social approbation to do so. So, though the Unitarian controversy erupted over doctrinal issues, its fires were fanned by issues of social control, punishment vs. benevolence, scriptural confidence, rationalism, morality, and independence. 5 Bruce Kuklick, ed., The Unitarian Controversy, 1819-1823 (New York: Garland Publishing, Inc., 1987), vol.1, 3. 3 Though Unitarianism itself was not considered a defined system of belief until the 1820’s (when it broke off from the Congregational church), there were many who departed from traditional Trinitarian beliefs in favor of Unitarian beliefs. The theological differences – as well as