Letter to the Editor of the Boston Daily Advertiser

November 5, 1836

Norton was one of those who were upset by George Ripley's review of James Martineau's book. He wrote a letter of objection to be published in the Unitarian weekly, The Christian Register, but the editor had reservations about printing it. So Norton decided to send it to the local newspaper instead.   

To the Editor of the Boston Daily Advertiser.

SIR—As the editor of the Christian Register, from personal considerations to which I fully assent, is reluctant to publish the following communication, will you give it a place in your paper, and oblige

Yours, etc.

ANDREWS NORTON

Cambridge, 4th Nov. 1836.

I have seen with great surprise and sorrow in the last number of the Christian Examiner, the conclusion of an article on "Martineau's Rationale of Religious Enquiry" (pp 248-254). I should not think it necessary to express these feelings in so public a manner, but every individual, however little conspicuous, has a certain degree of influence which it is his duty not to suffer to be perverted; and my name has been connected with that work since its commencement, and lately announced among those of its supporters. I, therefore, feel bound to the performance of a duty, which, on many accounts, is of the most unpleasant nature: to declare that I wholly dissent from the main opinions (for there seems to me much inconsistency) in the passage referred to, that I consider them as vitally injurious to the cause of religion, because tending to destroy faith in the only evidence on which the truth of Christianity as a revelation must ultimately rest, and that I regard the publication of them in the work in which they have appeared as directly and indirectly disastrous to the progress of religious truth. I speak only of the opinions, for I am well aware that almost any form of faith or skepticism may be held in connection with many amiable and respectable qualities. Nor is it here the place to enter into any discussion of them. My present purpose is personal, arising from a wish to have it understood by all who may feel any interest in the subject, that I am in no degree responsible for their publication, and that I shall not continue one of the supporters of a work in which such opinions are maintained.

It is but doing justice to many other gentlemen who have heretofore been contributors to the work to say that I am persuaded they agree with me in the sentiments I have expressed.

To preclude all occasion of mistake I wish distinctly to present to view the sole ground of this communication. It is that the article in question having appeared in the Christian Examiner, others beside the writer seem responsible for the publication of opinions from which they entirely dissent. I have no wish to interfere with the rights of free discussion, but these rights, I may add, are sometimes misunderstood. Without intending any particular or unkind application to the case before us, of which I am not qualified to judge, it may be laid down as general principle that he who controverts doctrines, which many, who have thought most concerning them, think of the highest importance to the happiness of man, should thoroughly settle his own belief, that he should satisfy himself that he has ability to discuss the subject and has viewed it, as far as possible, in all bearings, and that he should further be convinced, after very serious consideration, the promulgation of his views will serve the interests of truth and goodness. Let him then publish them in such a form, as far as may be, that they will first go into the hands only of those who are capable of judging of their correctness.

Source: Andrews Norton, [Letter to the Editor], Boston Daily Advertiser, 5 November 1836, p. 2.

Read George Ripley's response: click here.