You can read through this 31 page document that Bill Fortenberry compiled that has John Adams discussing his opinions on fellow unitarian Joseph Priestley. I come to a different conclusion than Mr. Fortenberry. I think Adams' opinion on Priestley is a net positive.
One thing about unitarians like Adams and Thomas Jefferson -- and I agree this radical individualism is a consequence of Protestantism -- is they liked to make their minds up for themselves on theological matters and didn't necessarily carry anyone else's water. Jefferson for instance, loved Priestley but had plenty of disagreements with him. Priestley actually thought the Book of Revelation was inspired (and foretold the coming success of the French Revolution) while Jefferson thought it represented the delusions of a madman.
I seriously doubt Adams believed the Book of Revelation was inspired at all. He had a falling out with Priestley over their differences about the French Revolution. It was issues like this and others like the perfectibility of man that caused Adams to criticize Priestley. It was not over Priestley's core tenets of unitarianism, the orthodox doctrines they both thought of as "corruptions of Christianity" on which orthodox Protestants AND Roman Catholics agree.
On balance, I support Dr. Gregg Frazer's work, but also not
without qualification. Instead of naming Priestley as guru to the "key Founders," rather I
would have included Priestley as notable figure in a cohort of British
contemporaries including Richard Price and lesser known figures like Benjamin Vaughan. These are
the "dissenters" in Britain who Ben Franklin invoked to Ezra Stiles that had
"doubts" about Jesus' divinity and were members of the Club of Honest
Whigs. I would have explored their beliefs as a cohort and noted the
parallels with those of the "theistic rationalists."
There were earlier American unitarians who mentored John Adams into the creed when he was a young man. The one figure who seemed to touch Adams then and leave a lasting impression was Richard Cranch, someone most today who study this issue have never heard of.
No comments:
Post a Comment