Nor did they shrink because of danger from setting an example of passive obedience to their congregations. The Rev. Dr. Beach graduated at Yale in 1721 and became the Congregational pastor of Newtown. He was afterward converted, and during the war was forbidden to read the prayers for the royal family; but he replied, “that he would do his duty, preach and pray for the king, till the rebels cut out his tongue.” [Footnote: O’Callaghan Documents, iii. 1053, 8vo ed.]
In estimating the energy of a social force, such as ecclesiasticism, the indirect are often more striking than the direct manifestations of power, and this is eminently true of Massachusetts; for, notwithstanding her ministers had always been astute and indefatigable politicians, their greatest triumphs were invariably won by some layman whose mind they had moulded and whom they put forward as their champion. From John Winthrop, who was the first, an almost unbroken line of these redoubtable partisans stretched down to the Revolution, where it ended with him who is perhaps the most celebrated of all.
Samuel Adams has been called the last of the Puritans. He was indeed the incarnation of those qualities which led to eminence under the theocracy. A rigid Calvinist, reticent, cool, and brave, matchless in intrigue, and tireless in purpose, his cause was always holy, and therefore sanctified the means.
Professor Hosmer thus describes him: “It was, however, as a manager of men that Samuel Adams was greatest. Such a master of the methods by which a town-meeting may be swayed, the world has never seen. On the best of terms with the people, the shipyard men, the distillers, the sailors, as well as the merchants and ministers, he knew precisely what springs to touch. He was the prince of canvassers, the very king of the caucus, of which his father was the inventor.... As to his tact, was it ever surpassed?” [Footnote: Hosmer’s Samuel Adams, p. 363.] A bigot in religion, he had the flexibility of a Jesuit; and though he abhorred Episcopalians, he proposed that Mr. Duché should make the opening prayer for Congress, in the hope of soothing the southern members. Strict in all ceremonial observances, he was loose in money matters; yet even here he stood within the pale, for Dr. Cotton Mather was looser, [Footnote: See Letter on behalf of Dr. Cotton Mather to Sewall, Mass. Hist. Coll. fourth series, ii. 122.] who was the most orthodox of divines.
The clergy instinctively clave to him, and gave him their fullest confidence. When there was any important work to do they went to him, and he never failed them. On January 5, 1768, the Rev. Dr. Eliot told Hollis he had suggested to some of the members of the legislature to remonstrate against the bishops. [Footnote: Mass. Hist. Coll. fourth series, iv. 422.] A week later the celebrated letter of instructions of the house to the agent, De Berdt, was reported, which, was written by Adams; and it is interesting to observe how, in the midst of a most vigorous protest on the subject, he broke out: “We hope in God such an establishment will never take place in America, and we desire you would strenuously oppose it.” [Footnote: Mass. State Papers, 1765-1775, p. 132.]
The subtle but unmistakable flavor of ecclesiasticism pervades his whole long agitation. He handled the newspapers with infinite skill, and the way in which he used the toleration granted the Canadian Catholics after the conquest, as a goad wherewith to inflame the dying Puritan fanaticism, was worthy of St. Ignatius. He moved for the committee who reported the resolutions of the town of Boston in 1772; his spirit inspired them, and in these also the grievance of Episcopacy plays a large part. How strong his prejudices were may be gathered from a few words: “We think therefore that every design for establishing ... a bishop in this province, is a design both against our civil and religious rights.” [Footnote: Votes and Proceedings of Boston, Nov. 20, 1772, p. 28.]
The liberals, as loyal subjects of Great Britain, grieved over her policy as the direst of misfortunes, which indeed they might be driven to resist, but which they strove to modify.
Washington wrote in 1774: “I am well satisfied, ... that it is the ardent wish of the warmest advocates for liberty, that peace and tranquillity, upon constitutional grounds, may be restored, and the horrors of civil discord prevented.” [Footnote: Washington to Mackenzie. Washington’s Writings, ii. 402.] Jefferson affirmed: “Before the commencement of hostilities ... I never had heard a whisper of a disposition to separate from Great Britain; and after that, its possibility was contemplated with affliction by all.” While John Adams solemnly declared: “For my own part, there was not a moment during the Revolution, when I would not have given everything I possessed for a restoration to the state of things before the contest began, provided we could have had a sufficient security for its continuance.” [Footnote: Note of Sparks, Washington’s Writings, ii. 501.]
In such feelings Samuel Adams had no share. In each renewed aggression he saw the error of his natural enemy, which brought ever nearer the realization of the dream of independence he had inherited from the past; for the same fierce passion burned within him that had made Endicott mutilate his flag, and Leverett read his king’s letter with his hat on; and the guns of Lexington were music in his ears.
He was not a lawyer, nor a statesman, in the true meaning of the word, but he was a consummate agitator; and if this be remembered, his career becomes clear. When he conceived the idea of the possibility of independence is uncertain; probably soon after the passage of the Stamp Act, but the evidence is strong that so early as 1768 he had deliberately resolved to precipitate some catastrophe which would make reconciliation impossible, and obviously an armed collision would have suited his purpose best.