We oft-hear the phrase "right reason" bandied about to describe reason's proper function; some use the term to describe reason's limits or that it is subservient to the Bible's text.
I argue "the Founders" or at least a great deal of them and the influential philosophers and divines they followed, held a higher view of man's reason than this. While many viewed man's nature as crooked ("partially depraved" I think would be a fair standard) they didn't view the intellect as corrupt. The Founders certainly had no use for Luther's idea that "reason" is the Devil's Whore.
Some Founders like Jefferson, J. Adams and Franklin thought their reason so keen that it could "discern" which parts of the Bible were legitimately revealed which parts weren't. Some argue, like my friend Tom Van Dyke, that the prevailing "rationalism" of the Founding was probably more like Aquinas' -- that the Bible is infallible and if reason & revelation appear to conflict then fallen man's reason must be in error.
No doubt some held to this view. However, the Founders adhered to some widely held premises that exalted reason to a higher level. One of them was reason was God's first revelation to man. Accordingly scripture was God's second revelation to man. I've seen John Adams, James Wilson, and Ben Franklin endorse this theory. If reason is the first revelation, that automatically seems to relegate scripture's role to secondary. Revelation's role is to "support" or "corroborate" the findings of man's reason. As James Wilson put it, describing scripture's "secondary" role in "Works":
But whoever expects to find, in [Scripture], particular directions for every moral doubt which arises, expects more than he will find. They generally presuppose a knowledge of the principles of morality; and are employed not so much in teaching new rules on this subject, as in enforcing the practice of those already known, by a greater certainty, and by new sanctions. They present the warmest recommendations and the strongest inducements in favour of virtue: they exhibit the most powerful dissuasives from vice. But the origin, the nature, and the extent of the several rights and duties they do not explain; nor do they specify in what instances one right or duty is entitled to preference over another. They are addressed to rational and moral agents, capable of previously knowing the rights of men, and the tendencies of actions; of approving what is good, and of disapproving what is evil. [Bold mine.]
Did you get that? The Scriptures were designed not really to teach man new moral rules, but to clarify and support that which "rational" and "moral" man already knew without the Bible. This entirely contrasts with the evangelical idea that men are lost without scripture.
In 1735 Ben Franklin defended a Presbyterian preacher named Hemphill from a heresy charged and echoing Hemphill noted something similar:
Now that natural Religion, or that the Laws of our Nature oblige us to the highest Degrees of Love to God, and in consequence of this Love to our almighty Maker, to pay him all the Homage, Worship and Adoration we are capable of, and to do every thing we know he requires; and that the same Laws oblige us to the Love of Mankind, and in consequence of this Love, as well as of our Love to God, (because he requires these things of us) to do good Offices to, and promote the general Welfare and Happiness of our Fellow-creatures…What Hemphill means by the first Revelation which God made to us by the Light of Nature, is the Knowledge, and our Obligations to the Practice of the Laws of Morality, which are discoverable by the Light of Nature; or by reflecting upon the human Frame, and considering it’s natural Propensities, Instincts, and Principles of Action, and the genuine Tendencies of them.
Franklin goes on to describe the proper relationship between reason and revelation and positions scripture as secondary revelation, with “reason” or “the light of nature” as primary:
Now, that to promote the Practice of the great Laws of Morality and Virtue both with Respect to God and Man, is the main End and Design of the christian Revelation has been already prov’d from the Revelation itself. And indeed as just now hinted at, it is obvious to the Reason of every thinking Person, that, if God almighty gives a Revelation at all, it must be for this End; nor is the Truth of the christian Revelation, or of any other that ever was made, to be defended upon any other Footing. But quitting these things; if the above Observations be true, then where lies the Absurdity of Hemphill’s asserting,
Article I.
That Christianity, [as to it’s most essential and necessary Parts,] is plainly Nothing else, but a second Revelation of God’s Will founded upon the first Revelation, which God made to us by the Light of Nature.
The notion of a God given natural law discovered by reason is itself controversial in orthodox circles precisely because of the "un-biblical" results that could be "snuck in." Still some parts of orthodox Christendom, through Aquinas, believe in the "natural law," (which has its antecedents in Aristotle). But, the "Christian" natural law has its way of putting "right reason" in its place.
As above mentioned, my friend Tom Van Dyke noted the "Christian" view of natural law teaches what's discovered by reason must accord with the Bible; if reason and revelation appear to conflict, it must be reason that erred. However, the idea that reason is God's first revelation to man can easily lead to resolving the seeming contradiction the other way. At least that was the case with John Adams' approach.
As Adams wrote to Jefferson December 25, 1813:
Philosophy, which is the result of reason, is the first, the original revelation of the Creator to his creature, man. When this revelation is clear and certain, by intuition or necessary inductions, no subsequent revelation, supported by prophecies or miracles, can supersede it.
I've found evidence of Adams twice denying the Trinity on the basis that it violates this "first" revelation of God to man. As Adams reacted to John Disney's thoughts:
D[isney]: The union of all Christians is anticipated, as it has been demonstrated to be the doctrine of Christ, his apostles and evangelists, as also of Moses and the prophets. Nor is it less the language of the religion of nature than of revelation . . .
A[dams]: The human understanding is the first revelation from its maker. From God; from Heaven. Can prophecies, can miracles repeal, annul or contradict that original revelation? Can God himself prove that three are one and one three? The supposition is destructive of the foundation of all human knowledge, and of all distinction between truth and falsehood. ["Prophets of Progress," p. 297-98.]
And Adams to Jefferson on Sept. 14, 1813:
We can never be so certain of any prophecy, or the fulfillment of any prophecy, or of any miracle, or the design of any miracle, as we are from the revelation of nature, that is, nature’s God, that two and two are equal to four….This revelation had made it certain that two and one make three, and that one is not three nor can three be one….Had you and I been forty days with Moses on Mount Sinai, and admitted to behold the divine glory, and there been told that one was three and three one, we might not have had the courage to deny it, but we could not have believed it.
Adams intimates even if the Trinity were revealed to him by God Himself with Moses on Mt. Sinai he wouldn't believe it. This is what we mean when we say "reason" trumps "revelation."
Another controversial issue at the time of the Founding is that God Himself is "rational." Now, perhaps the scriptures can be perfectly reconciled with reason. But what if they don't appear to be? Some might note it's reason that's the problem; others like Jefferson might counter it's the Bible that's the problem -- someone snuck a "corruption" into the text that made God look less than rational. Since God is perfectly rational, the Bible must be wrong. Under this impression, Jefferson felt free to take his razor to the Bible editing large parts out.
Again, my friend TVD asks, since Jefferson kept his cut up Bible private, what could the FFs get away with saying publicly. I would turn to the minister Rev. Samuel West. Like the key Founders, he was a secret unitarian. And like them, he believed in a "rational" God. Such God was incapable of giving irrational revelation. Thus if something in the Bible appeared to be irrational, it could not have been from God. This is what West noted in a PUBLIC sermon.
First the discoveries of "right reason" are as binding scripture:
Now, whatever right reason requires as necessary to be done is as much the will and law of God as though it were enjoined us by an immediate revelation from heaven, or commanded in the sacred Scriptures.
And second that God is perfectly rational:
A revelation, pretending to be from God, that contradicts any part of natural law, ought immediately to be rejected as an imposture; for the Deity cannot make a law contrary to the law of nature without acting contrary to himself,--a thing in the strictest sense impossible, for that which implies contradiction is not an object of the divine power.
The thrust of West's sermon is to find a right to revolt against tyrants. Where does he look for this right, the Bible? NO. In nature.
The doctrine of nonresistance and unlimited passive obedience to the worst of tyrants could never have found credit among mankind had the voice of reason been hearkened to for a guide, because such a doctrine would immediately have been discerned to be contrary to natural law.
Now, Jefferson was someone who disregarded everything the Apostle Paul wrote as "corruption," so he didn't have Romans 13 on his conscience. West wasn't, or couldn't have been so overtly heterodox; but Rev. West in his own subtle way elevated reason over revelation. Note that West already determined by looking to natural reason whether men had a right to revolt. With that question already answered he looked to the Bible for "secondary support." As James Wilson would put it, "corroboration."
West is confronted with Romans 13 which on its face seems to forbid revolt and demand submission to the worst of tyrants. But that CAN'T be "right revelation" because reason already determined that men had a right to revolt against tyrants. Here is how Rev. West deals with Romans 13:
I know it is said that the magistrates were, at the time when the apostle wrote, heathens, and that Nero, that monster of tyranny, was then Emperor of Rome; that therefore the apostle, by enjoining submission to the powers that then were, does require unlimited obedience to be yielded to the worst of tyrants. Now, not to insist upon what has been often observed, viz., that this epistle was written most probably about the beginning of Nero's reign, at which time he was a very humane and merciful prince, did everything that was generous and benevolent to the public, and showed every act of mercy and tenderness to particulars, and therefore might at that time justly deserve the character of the minister of God for good to the people,-- I say, waiving this, we will suppose that this epistle was written after that Nero was become a monster of tyranny and wickedness; it will by no means follow from thence that the apostle meant to enjoin unlimited subjection to such an authority, or that he intended to affirm that such a cruel, despotic authority was the ordinance of God. The plain, obvious sense of his words, as we have already seen, forbids such a construction to be put upon them, for they plainly imply a strong abhorrence and disapprobation of such a character, and clearly prove that Nero, so far forth as he was a tyrant, could not be the minister of God, nor have a right to claim submission from the people; so that this ought, perhaps, rather to be viewed as a severe satire upon Nero, than as enjoining any submission to him.
The first point -- the epistle was written during the beginning of Nero's reign when he was "nicer," not towards the end when he was a tyrant -- strikes me as invoking hair splitting context to reach a desired result.
The second point -- if Paul said this when Nero was indeed acting tyrannical, he must not have meant it! -- shows West's willingness disregard scripture which disagrees with reason. Maybe Paul didn't mean it when he preached against homosexuality either.
West's sermon seems a clear example of public Founding era preaching on how "right revelation" was that which submitted to "reason." This wasn't as overt as Jefferson cutting up his Bible, but perhaps West's subtle method made his heterodoxy more dangerously subversive to the existing Christian order.
39 comments:
But Christian theology itself is the application of "right reason" to scripture. If Rev. West was out on a limb, It was a 600-year old one, perhaps far older.
I defer to Dave Kopel here for the rest:
God, Man, and Tyrants
John of Salisbury and the Bestselling Book of the Twelfth Century
Who said "Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God"? Pat yourself on the back if you answered "Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin." They proposed placing the motto on the Great Seal of the United States. Pat yourself even harder if you knew that the phrase was created by John Bradshaw (1602–1659), the lawyer who served as President of the Parliamentary Commission which sentenced British King Charles I to death. But who thought up the idea?
The idea is implicit in much of the Old Testament, which is full of righteous Hebrews overthrowing tyrants. And certainly the history of Republican Rome and classical Greece has many similar stories. But in the first millennium of Western Christianity, Christians fell under the sway of the law of the Roman Empire, which emphasized absolute obedience to government, and claimed that the government was above the law. Cicero, who lived in the last days of the Republic, was the last great writer to articulate the right of revolution.
The man who restored the right to Western political thought was an English bishop named John of Salisbury. In 1159, he wrote Policraticus ("Statesman’s Book"), which became the best-seller of the century. Although Policraticus is mostly forgotten today, it is one of the few books which truly changed the world...
http://www.davidkopel.com/Misc/Mags/Policraticus.htm
In one post, you lambast Pulitzer prize scholars, in the next, you cite a shrill partisan think tank PR shill (Kopel, on the laurels of Coors and other "market-oriented" organs) funded by wingnut welfare…
Even-handed? Hardly…
Well said, Naum. Want to join the blog? Since you'll never let me on board, I nominate Naum. He sees through the crap.
Hey, I like Dave Kopel. I think TVD might be somewhat turned off by Kopel's Libertarianism (btw, I've written for the same magazine in which Kopel's article first appeared).
Why does being pro-free market = not credible?
I'm not standing behind Kopel, I just didn't feel like writing a whole new essay on John of Salisbury.
See if you can get past the personalities, Mr. Daum. I gave substantive arguments against Hedges' sloppy work that was featured on our mainpage and my snark at Moyers was at the tail end of a comments section.
The topic is Samuel West and perhaps John of Salisbury. Peace.
Well,
What's notable is that West doesn't cite Salisbury or use his reasoning. I am aware that Rutherford, likewise, posited a living Calvinist idea of resisting the "licentiousness" of kings. But the patriotic preachers like West didn't cite Rutherford, Salisbury, but Locke and the method of looking into "nature" to discover these substantive rights, like a right to revolt against tyrants.
Jon: "Why does being pro-free market = not credible?"
It is off-topic, but I'd love to see a response to that!
My bet, is the only replies (if any) would be strawmen.
ok ... the hook is baited, let's see who bites ;-)
Well, Jon, the history of ideas is a dotted line. They don't quote Aquinas in the Founding either, but he's all over it via Hooker. West could have got Salisbury via Bradshaw or any number of other derivative thinkers.
It certainly appears that Policraticus was part of the canon of Western philosophy, and folks knew the canon once upon a time.
West tells us where he gets it:
The doctrine of nonresistance and unlimited passive obedience to the worst of tyrants could never have found credit among mankind had the voice of reason been hearkened to for a guide, because such a doctrine would immediately have been discerned to be contrary to natural law.
A page later, "he" adds ...
"This plainly shows that the highest state of liberty subjects us to the law of nature and the government of God. The most perfect freedom consists in obeying the dictates of right reason and submitting to natural law. When a man goes beyond or contrary to the law of nature and reason, he becomes the slave of base passions and vile lusts; he introduces confusion and disorder into society, and brings misery and destruction upon himself. This therefore can not be called a state of freedom but a state of the vilest slavery and the most dreadful bondage. The servants of sin and corruption are subjected to the worst kind of tyranny in the universe. Hence we conclude that where licentiousness begins, liberty ends."
The Pulpit of the American Revolution Or, the Political Sermons of the Period 1776 By John Wingate Thornton
Jon:This entirely contrasts with the evangelical idea that men are lost without scripture.
Wilson isn't talking about salvation. Morality doesn't save anyone. Evangelicals do not believe that.
Yes OFT, that's the idea. The political theology that is EVIDENT in Wilson's Works turns "Christianity" into a generic moralizing religion whereby men are saved through their good WORKS, not grace.
As Franklin (whose language often parallels Wilson's) put it:
“Faith is recommended as a Means of producing Morality: Our Saviour was a Teacher of Morality or Virtue, and they that were deficient and desired to be taught, ought first to believe in him as an able and faithful Teacher. Thus Faith would be a Means of producing Morality, and Morality of Salvation. But that from such Faith alone Salvation may be expected, appears to me to be neither a Christian Doctrine nor a reasonable one….Morality or Virtue is the End, Faith only a Means to obtain that End: And if the End be obtained, it is no matter by what Means.”
– “Dialogue between Two Presbyterians,” April 10, 1735.
Though Wilson is not so explicit, EVERYTHING he writes in Works is compatible with this notion and implicitly points towards it.
On Kopel: it has nothing to do with Libertarianism… …on the contrary, I enjoy the takes of many of the writers at Lew Rockwell, even if I don't fully subscribe to the sentiments… …even some of the think tank output of CATO (and Hoover) I don't categorically dismiss as blind agitprop… — it's about his blind zeal and his omission and blind allegiance to stances that the facts do not support… …you can google for yourself to examine his shaky scholarship in further detail…
2nd, it is Naum, not Daum…
Some other takes:
- Romans 13 must be read in the context of a continuation of Romans 12. I'm sure this has popped up here in previous posts, but it irks me to no end to see verses plucked out (or worse, pastors that preach on the basis that the NT books as ordered in the bible are in chronological order…)
- FF were products of the Enlightenment which meant a recoil from fundamentalist vein of religion. The many books I've read on the matter all suggest they were religious but far less devout than the public at large. Like the spouse of a dutiful chuchgoer, they went along to get along, and not stick out. As Franklin stated He that spits against the wind spits in his own face.
- And while I read these posts with great interest, a lot of this gets down to semantics. What is a "Christian"? In the parlance of the 18th century, perhaps the FF would be termed "Christian" as their concept of what "Christian" entailed. But I find it rather odd that the same group that proclaims a "Christian Nation" would be aghast and refuse to call those FF (and I am referring to the key leadership that carved the nation — Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, Madison, etc.…) Christian in any sense. At best, today, they would be thought of in the same light as Mormons or Christian Science cultists or dare I write as Rev. West called them, the "2nd beast of Revelation" - Catholics (for many strains of today's fundamentalist Christianity)… …just tune into Christian radio/TV, where even the President (who believes in Trinity, divinity of Christ) as castigated as unChristian for his "liberal" worship and deviance from tenants that a majority of evangelicals deem mandatory to truly be a Christ follower…
Just to say something good about TVD, I'll lift a quote from a previous post that is nicely worded - "Terms dissolve, only attempts at understanding remain: Reductionism is the enemy of truth. Mankind---man---is much more interesting than academia makes it."
Jon,
What's the best example you can come up with for a FF (or enlightenment philosopher) having a high, rather than a limited, view of human understanding and reason? I take the enlightenment view to be like that attributed to Luther at Worms: "Unless I am convicted by scripture and plain reason - I do not accept the authority of the popes and councils, for they have contradicted each other - my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not recant anything for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. Here I stand. I cannot do otherwise. God help me, Amen!" Never mind that the words were likely juiced up between speaking and printing; the attitude is thoroughly enlightenment, with perhaps more emphasis on scripture relative to reason than the FFs would use, but still the same punchline: "I cannot do otherwise."
So, when you say some founders "thought their reason so keen that it could discern which parts of the Bible were legitimately revealed", my counter is that no, they didn't think their reason so keen, they simply had no other tool suited to the task (having ditched Church authority). They were constantly speaking of reason in terms of its limitations, what it cannot do, rather than exalting it.
Consider, for instance, reason as God's first (meant in the sense of priority, not temporal sequence) revelation to man. How does Adams put it? Does Adams say "God gave me reason to make me judge and arbiter over his other revelations"? Of course not. Adams said that God having given him reason, he cannot help but think that two and one make three, and three is not one. Adams says that God made him wired a certain way, and that wiring is inflexible in certain (to us highly "reasonable") ways. Adams is not saying he is so great, he is saying he is so limited (albeit limited in a way he doesn't mind - there is no passage that I can think of where Adams laments his reason and its stubborn inflexibility).
You keep saying things like "Adams intimates even if the Trinity were revealed to him by God Himself with Moses on Mt. Sinai he wouldn't believe it. This is what we mean when we say 'reason' trumps 'revelation.'" But as you yourself must know by now, this just ain't so. It is not a matter of wouldn't, but couldn't. Adams does not say anything about his will, or inclination, or preference, but about his lack of choice in the matter.
There is a fundamental humility in the FFs attitude toward reason that you turn upside down into exaltation.
You also are flat out wrong when you say "Another controversial issue at the time of the Founding is that God Himself is 'rational.'" I know of no controversy. Who, among the FFs, ever suggested that he knew God was rational? Now what they did say, which is very Christian (Christ himself taught that we should judge future prophets by whether they adhered to the Gospel), was that we ought not believe apparent revelation that contradicts prior revelation: "A revelation, pretending to be from God, that contradicts any part of natural law, ought immediately to be rejected". The reason for such rejection is not that "God is not insane", something I'm sure the FFs hoped and believed but didn't assert, but rather that contradiction of the laws of reason is "in the strictest sense impossible".
You seem to get caught in a tangle when you say stuff like "If reason is the first revelation, that automatically seems to relegate revelation's role to secondary." You have to limit your use of the term "revelation" to when you really mean revelation, and use other terms (like "scripture") for other purposes.
You bring up the case of Hemphill, but not in sufficient detail. It is worth noting that Hemphill's reputation for heterodoxy and defiance of synod orders was established prior to his arrival in America, and he was brought over by the Philadelphia synod in spite of (or perhaps because of?) his heterodox ill-disciplined reputation.
Franklin, in defending Hemphill, really spent his energy attacking clericalism and Presbyterian sectarianism, e.g. the Presbyterians' "bigotry and utter lack of charity toward any who disagree with them". This line of attack (and Hemphill's hiring in the first place) is very much in keeping with what I have called American unorthodox protestantism.
You seem to get caught in a tangle when you say stuff like "If reason is the first revelation, that automatically seems to relegate revelation's role to secondary." You have to limit your use of the term "revelation" to when you really mean revelation, and use other terms (like "scripture") for other purposes.
I think you are right here; I changed some of the terms for clarification. With blogging, much less time is spent on relentless editing than when something is submitted for publication. And even then an editor would be able to catch and change these thing. As I noted I was short for time yesterday.
What's the best example you can come up with for a FF (or enlightenment philosopher) having a high, rather than a limited, view of human understanding and reason?
How about Jefferson to Carr (with which I know you are familiar):
On the other hand shake off all the fears & servile prejudices under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear. You will naturally examine first the religion of your own country. Read the bible then, as you would read Livy or Tacitus. The facts which are within the ordinary course of nature you will believe on the authority of the writer, as you do those of the same kind in Livy & Tacitus. The testimony of the writer weighs in their favor in one scale, and their not being against the laws of nature does not weigh against them. But those facts in the bible which contradict the laws of nature, must be examined with more care, and under a variety of faces. Here you must recur to the pretensions of the writer to inspiration from god. Examine upon what evidence his pretensions are founded, and whether that evidence is so strong as that its falsehood would be more improbable than a change in the laws of nature in the case he relates. For example in the book of Joshua we are told the sun stood still several hours. Were we to read that fact in Livy or Tacitus we should class it with their showers of blood, speaking of statues, beasts, &c. But it is said that the writer of that book was inspired. Examine therefore candidly what evidence there is of his having been inspired. The pretension is entitled to your inquiry, because millions believe it. On the other hand you are astronomer enough to know how contrary it is to the law of nature that a body revolving on its axis as the earth does, should have stopped, should not by that sudden stoppage have prostrated animals, trees, buildings, and should after a certain time have resumed its revolution, & that without a second general prostration. Is this arrest of the earth’s motion, or the evidence which affirms it, most within the law of probabilities? You will next read the new testament. It is the history of a personage called Jesus. Keep in your eye the opposite pretensions 1. of those who say he was begotten by god, born of a virgin, suspended & reversed the laws of nature at will, & ascended bodily into heaven: and 2. of those who say he was a man of illegitimate birth, of a benevolent heart, enthusiastic mind, who set out without pretensions to divinity, ended in believing them, & was punished capitally for sedition by being gibbeted according to the Roman law which punished the first commission of that offence by whipping, & the second by exile or death in furcâ. See this law in the Digest Lib. 48. tit. 19. §. 28. 3. & Lipsius Lib. 2. de cruce. cap. 2. These questions are examined in the books I have mentioned under the head of religion, & several others. They will assist you in your inquiries, but keep your reason firmly on the watch in reading them all. Do not be frightened from this inquiry by any fear of it’s consequences. If it ends in a belief that there is no god, you will find incitements to virtue in the comfort & pleasantness you feel in it’s exercise, and the love of others which it will procure you. If you find reason to believe there is a god, a consciousness that you are acting under his eye, & that he approves you, will be a vast additional incitement; if that there be a future state, the hope of a happy existence in that increases the appetite to deserve it; if that Jesus was also a god, you will be comforted by a belief of his aid and love. In fine, I repeat that you must lay aside all prejudice on both sides, & neither believe nor reject anything because any other persons, or description of persons have rejected or believed it. Your own reason is the only oracle given you by heaven, and you are answerable not for the rightness but uprightness of the decision.
You don't see this as exhalting reason?
You also are flat out wrong when you say "Another controversial issue at the time of the Founding is that God Himself is 'rational.'" I know of no controversy. Who, among the FFs, ever suggested that he knew God was rational?
"Rational" in the sense of being almost completely understandable on rational terms. They had a term for this, "rational Christianity." And God, according to the "rational Christians" was unitarian not Trinitarin, precisely because the Trinity flunked the test of reason.
As Jefferson put it:
I have a view of Christianity which ought to displease neither the rational Christian nor Deists, and would reconcile many to a character they have too hastily rejected. I do not know that it would reconcile the genus irritabile vatum.
Or as Franklin put it in a letter to the unitarian Richard Price:
Sir John has ask’d me if I knew where he could go to hear a preacher of rational Christianity. I told him I knew several of them, but did not know where their churches were in town; out of town, I mention’ d yours at Newington, and offer ‘d to go with him. He agreed to it, but said we should first let you know our intention. I suppose, if nothing in his profession prevents, we may come, if you please, next Sunday ; but if you sometimes preach in town, that will be most convenient to him, and I request you would by a line let me know when and where. If there are dissenting preachers of that sort at this end of the town, I wish you would recommend one to me, naming the place of his meeting. And if you please, give me a list of several, in different parts of the town, perhaps he may incline to take a round among them.
If they are qualifying Christianity with the term "rational" and rejecting the Trinity on "rational" grounds I don't see how you cannot see this as an exhaltation of reason AND consequently the connection between "rationalism" and "unitarianism" and understanding God on "rational" as opposed to revealed terms.
The reason for such rejection is not that "God is not insane", something I'm sure the FFs hoped and believed but didn't assert,
Actually Jefferson did assert this. He termed the Trinity a metaphysical insanity. To believe in the Trinity would be to believe in an insane God.
but rather that contradiction of the laws of reason is "in the strictest sense impossible".
Again, I don't get the difference between this and asserting that God is rational. I.e., since God is rational he would never act to contradict the laws of reason.
Let me note one more thing not necessarily for Kristo, but for the sake of the general reading audience (i.e., the handful of people who may actually be reading this comment thread).
but rather that contradiction of the laws of reason is "in the strictest sense impossible".
This was taken from the following quote of West's:
A revelation, pretending to be
from God, that contradicts any part of natural law, ought immediately to be rejected as an imposture; for the Deity cannot make a law contrary to the law of nature without acting contrary to himself,--a thing in the strictest sense impossible, for that which implies contradiction is not an object of the divine power.
I want to relate this back to the way one of our commenters, OFT, attempts to interpret James Wilson's Works (what I see as a faulty interpretation). OFT notes Wilson's method is first look to the "supereminently authentick" Bible, and where the answer is unclear let reason take over. I don't think that's what Wilson says or means. But that's clearly NOT what West does in his sermon. Rather West FIRST answers the question of whether men have a right to revolt against tyrants from natural reason alone. Once "reason" supplied the answer, he then goes back and looks to the Bible for support, knowing that "right revelation" MUST support the findings of reason because "A revelation, pretending to be from God, that contradicts any part of natural law, ought immediately to be rejected as an imposture;..."
I see this as an almost arrogant elevation of natural reason over scripture.
I don't think that's what Wilson says or means.>
I only posted his words. They speak for themselves.
Once "reason" supplied the answer, he then goes back and looks to the Bible for support, knowing that "right revelation" MUST support the findings of reason because "A revelation, pretending to be from God, that contradicts any part of natural law, ought immediately to be rejected as an imposture;..."
I see this as an almost arrogant elevation of natural reason over scripture.>
I stand firm only a few infidels: Jefferson and Franklin believed this, seemingly contradicting themselves in the process. The majority orthodox framers understood the above premise is illogical, since reason is flawed, as Kristo earlier referred.
Wilson's belief in miracles exempt the label rationalist put upon him, according to the Germans' definition of the term. I still cannot understand how someone can pick what is a valid violation of the laws of nature and what isn't.
I don't believe the majority of founding fathers could believe this seemingly illogical contradiction.
If reason is the first revelation, that automatically seems to relegate scripture's role to secondary.>
I think this statement is taken out of context as well. The majority of framers believed reason was first in position (our mind) not in priority (scripture).
As Adams put it, reacting to John Disney's thoughts:
D[isney]: The union of all Christians is anticipated, as it has been demonstrated to be the doctrine of Christ, his apostles and evangelists, as also of Moses and the prophets. Nor is it less the language of the religion of nature than of revelation . . .
A[dams]: The human understanding is the first revelation from its maker. From God; from Heaven. Can prophecies, can miracles repeal, annul or contradict that original revelation? Can God himself prove that three are one and one three? The supposition is destructive of the foundation of all human knowledge, and of all distinction between truth and falsehood. ["Prophets of Progress," p. 297-98.]
And Adams to Jefferson on Sept. 14, 1813:
We can never be so certain of any prophecy, or the fulfillment of any prophecy, or of any miracle, or the design of any miracle, as we are from the revelation of nature, that is, nature’s God, that two and two are equal to four….This revelation had made it certain that two and one make three, and that one is not three nor can three be one….Had you and I been forty days with Moses on Mount Sinai, and admitted to behold the divine glory, and there been told that one was three and three one, we might not have had the courage to deny it, but we could not have believed it.>
Also, to note, as I have noted countless times on this blog. If Adams did deny miracles, he did ONLY after he retired, which, by then, he was out of the game, and not representative of the majority of framers.
I only posted his words. They speak for themselves.
No you didn't. You posted your misunderstanding of his words, which were inapt.
If Adams did deny miracles, he did ONLY after he retired, which, by then, he was out of the game, and not representative of the majority of framers.
Another inapt comment. Adams doesn't deny miracles, rather says all truth, even the miraculous, must meet the test of reason (which the Trinity flunked).
I stand firm only a few infidels: Jefferson and Franklin believed this, seemingly contradicting themselves in the process.
And I just presented evidence of the very influential unitarian minister Samuel West publicly preaching exactly this.
The majority orthodox framers understood the above premise is illogical, since reason is flawed, as Kristo earlier referred.
Many, perhaps a majority (I'm not sure) also believed the Bible was flawed and to use Kristo's terms man's reason (however imperfect) was the only tool he had for "discerning" what was legitimately revealed in the Bible.
Jon:Adams doesn't deny miracles, rather says all truth, even the miraculous, must meet the test of reason.
A contradiction in terms. A miracle is a violation of the laws of nature.
Jon:Many, perhaps a majority (I'm not sure) also believed the Bible was flawed and to use Kristo's terms man's reason (however imperfect) was the only tool he had for "discerning" what was legitimately revealed in the Bible.
Another contradiction in terms. Man's flawed thinking processes does not determine that God's Word
is true or false, insomuch that the majority of framers affirmed the Gospel, which is supernatural.
Another contradiction in terms. Man's flawed thinking processes does not determine that God's Word
is true or false, insomuch that the majority of framers affirmed the Gospel, which is supernatural.
No contradictions here. IF the Bible is partially inspired, which many FFs thought it was, then man's reason is the ONLY tool for determining which parts were legitimately revealed.
Further many expositors of the "partially inspired" Bible view believed in the supernatural (as did Joseph Priestley and Richard Price, who believe in the ressurection and were the brilliant mentors of this philosophy which held the Bible partially inspired and man's reason the tool for determining that in the Bible which was valid and that which was not).
No contradictions here. IF the Bible is partially inspired, which many FFs thought it was, then man's reason is the ONLY tool for determining which parts were legitimately revealed.>
You would be correct if there were many framers, but there aren't, and you haven't presented any, other than the usual suspects.
Jon: "Adams doesn't deny miracles, rather says all truth, even the miraculous, must meet the test of reason."
[OFT:] A contradiction in terms. A miracle is a violation of the laws of nature.
Tell it to Samuel West:
A revelation, pretending to be from God, that contradicts any part of natural law, ought immediately to be rejected as an imposture; for the Deity cannot make a law contrary to the law of nature without acting contrary to himself,--a thing in the strictest sense impossible, for that which implies contradiction is not an object of the divine power.
Hell, tell it to James Wilson (who sounds strikingly like West]:
The law of nature is immutable; not by the effect of an arbitrary disposition, but because it has its foundation in the nature, constitution, and mutual relations of men and things. While these continue to be the same, it must continue to be the same also. This immutability of nature’s laws has nothing in it repugnant to the supreme power of an all-perfect Being. Since he himself is the author of our constitution; he cannot but command or forbid such things as are necessarily agreeable or disagreeable to this very constitution. He is under the glorious necessity of not contradicting himself. This necessity, far from limiting or diminishing his perfections, adds to their external character, and points out their excellency.
If you see this as a contradiction, that's your right. You must then conclude, however, that the political theology of the American Founding rests on a "contradiction" as you (and probably only you) OFT see it.
You would be correct if there were many framers, but there aren't, and you haven't presented any, other than the usual suspects.
And you have NO evidence that all but a handful of the "mass" of 200 or so FFs would have passed your test for a "Christian."
MY evidence is that the mass of FFs, whatever their beliefs, ASSENTED to having the so called "theistic rationalists" in power establishing the Founding rules. Jefferson, J. Adams and Franklin DID, after all, WRITE the DOI.
Tell it to Samuel West:
A revelation, pretending to be from God, that contradicts any part of natural law, ought immediately to be rejected as an imposture; for the Deity cannot make a law contrary to the law of nature without acting contrary to himself,--a thing in the strictest sense impossible, for that which implies contradiction is not an object of the divine power.>
At least West was honest in his beliefs, definitely heterodox. He obviously didn't get that from the Bible though. As Witherspoon noted "God can suspend any law he wants" [my paraphrase].
If you see this as a contradiction, that's your right. You must then conclude, however, that the political theology of the American Founding rests on a "contradiction" as you (and probably only you) OFT see it.>
No, that's not it Jon. I see a contradiction in Wilson saying what you posted, and also believing in miracles. That is my problem, and, I bet, with a great many others.
And you have NO evidence that all but a handful of the "mass" of 200 or so FFs would have passed your test for a "Christian.">
I have a "whole bunch" of evidence that I am compiling. It's easy to find, surely, you know how to find it. I will not, as you would, assume someone isn't a Christian if not for written orthodox evidence.
MY evidence is that the mass of FFs, whatever their beliefs, ASSENTED to having the so called "theistic rationalists" in power establishing the Founding rules.
Jon, they didn't even KNOW what Jefferson and Adams thought because they kept it secret.
Jon, they didn't even KNOW what Jefferson and Adams thought because they kept it secret.
And the ideas, with their inherent consequences, that they kept secret were KEY to the American Founding point of view.
You can argue we shouldn't care one whit for the "subjective" intentions of Jefferson/Adams et al. And I can retort, I don't care on whit about the subjective intentions of a handful of thousands of dead white Protestant males who "assented" to the ideas (and ideals) of the key Founders.
I don't think such contract talk in the sense that (did you really understand what you are getting yourself into?) trumps. In part because with many contracts -- at least many modern contracts -- folks don't quite understand the long term implications of what they assent to. For one, I know that most folks don't read the "contracts of adhesion" that most businesses put out. Then they get surprised with that $29.00 (or more) late fee that they don't remember they assented to.
But, perhaps I've given you some ground to argue against my theory. I would note, though, that those "late fees" were key to getting rid of slavery.
And the ideas, with their inherent consequences, that they kept secret were KEY to the American Founding point of view.
That's your assertion, yes, but it's unsupported and indeed unsupportable. At best, their secret theological heterodoxies helped lead to pluralism; however, as we've seen even the Virginia statute on religious freedom was more pushed along by the minority sects than the secularists. Pluralism would have been developed even had Jefferson and his ilk not existed out of practical necessity.
Slavery is sui generis, however tempting it is analogize it to one's favorite cause. But you're quite right that the bill was extremely high when it came due.
That's your assertion, yes, but it's unsupported and indeed unsupportable.
Well I think that the original expected application (among the masses) of the DOI's and US Constitution's text and ideals are what's truly "unnsuportable." Perhaps, though, "supported" by a statistical majority of a few thousand dead, white, propertied, Protestant males. And that is, to use Robert Locke's analysis:
Crucial facts about what America was founded on are deliberately hushed up by both liberals and conservatives and admitted only by the non-respectable Left and the non-respectable Right. Namely, that this country was founded upon conquest, slavery, sexism, and class rule. The Constitution, as originally written, holds that our ownership of this land by conquest is just, that Indians are savages, that blacks may be enslaved, that women have no fit role in government, and that the (little-remembered) restriction of suffrage to men of property by state governments is valid.
It's a hard truth Tom. You either embrace or let go of the "originalist" Burkean results with all the bad that attaches to it (i.e., Robert Locke's above cited passage). And if you do let go, jump into a more modern world.
Robert Locke's analysis is through 21st century eyes, a bad way to do history. Slavery is sui generis, the story of the Native Americans is not based on constitutional principles, and in historical context the political role of women hadn't evolved yet anywhere else in the world either.
Robert Locke's analysis is through 21st century eyes, a bad way to do history.
I disagree. The leftists who want to trash the Founding for those very reasons view things thru 21st century eyes and "judge" the Founding.
If you read Locke's original article, he notes he's NOT "judging" the Founding by present day historical standards but just baldly asserting historical facts -- hard truths in which "respectable" folks have problems.
Well, slavery was justified through reason by some [paternalism---the slaves were better off], and was an institution already in place at the Founding---to uproot it would have been war, or prevented the Founding. See also Channing's argument on why Jesus and early Christianity didn't immediately go after slavery---it would have been Armageddon.
From the comfort of the 21st century, it's easy to assert the Founders should have brought on Armageddon.
John Locke thought the Native Americans didn't own the land because they didn't work it. [See his "labor theory of value."] Also, much of the mistreatment of the Native Americans came through breaking treaties, not principle.
As for female suffrage, it's a 20th century notion that democracy is self-evident. Tocqueville did not view the women of America as oppressed.
Post a Comment