This quotation of Jefferson on Christianity comes to mind:
"Were I to be the founder of a new sect, I would call them Apiarians, and, after the example of the bee, advise them to extract the honey of every sect."
-- To Thomas B. Parker, May 15, 1819.
When it came to "religion" a great deal of what these "rational Christians" believed in or admired, was already dispersed throughout Christendom. Indeed, they tended to have an affinity for the "primitive Christianity" of the earliest era before it got corrupted by Trinitarian creedalism. Doctrines for which they tended to have affinities like Arianism, Socinianism, Universalism predated the Enlightenment.
But during the Enlightenment, it all started to come together. For instance, we have noted, on resisting tyrannical government, Calvinists (though not Calvin himself) and before them medieval scholastics, argued something similar to the Lockean Enlightenment theories of resistance which America's Founders adopted.
But, while I can't speak for medieval scholastics whose views on the matter I need further to research, I do know that on religious liberty -- what America's Founders thought the most unalienable of rights -- the Calvinists, including the "resisters" were horrible, as bad as Calvin himself.
This is what Samuel Rutherford said of Roger Williams' emerging views of liberty of conscience:
"It was justice, not cruelty, yea mercy to the Church of God, to take away the life of Servetus, who used such spirituall and diabolick cruelty to many thousand soules, whom he did pervert, and by his Booke, does yet lead into perdition."—Samuel Rutherfurd, A Free Disputation Against Pretended Liberty of Conscience. (1649).
Yet, Roger Williams and the Quakers did innovate on ideas of religious liberty and separation of church and state. And they were not at all in the tradition of Calvinist Christianity. (Williams at one point seemed to be a Calvinist, but quickly moved towards a unique religious sect unto himself). I have no idea how Roger Williams and the Quakers theorized, in principle on how to deal with tyrannical magistrates. Though in practice it was, if you don't want to be civilly punished, get the f--k out of our territory and found your own colony, which they did.
Locke seemed to have most of what America's Founders were looking for on both the issues of resistance and religious liberty; though America's Founders self-consciously extended religious liberty further than Locke did.
But those pre-Lockean sources that had what America's Founders were looking for, had only bits and pieces. Arianism here; Socinianism there. Universalism here; natural law there. Resisting the magistrate here; religious liberty and separation of church and state there.
The Founders operated as Apiarians, to use Jefferson's term, took from the various sects what they found useful and put it all together into a whole package during their Enlightenment times.
6 comments:
Apiarian. I love the term.
Dear Dr. Rowe - excellent "blog" as usual. In answer to your query of, “I have no idea how Roger Williams and the Quakers theorized, in principle on how to deal with tyrannical magistrates” I can recommend the following two books for some answers:
The Challenges of Roger Williams: Religious Liberty, Violent persecution and the Bible by James P. Byrd
&
Quaker Constitutionalism and the Political Thought of John Dickinson by Jane E. Calvert
If you'd like some details from these sources, I'd be glad to help.
John
Indeed, they tended to have an affinity for the "primitive Christianity" of the earliest era before it got corrupted by Trinitarian creedalism. Doctrines for which they tended to have affinities like Arianism, Socinianism, Universalism predated the Enlightenment.
Some, but a minority, almost all in New England, and their numbers are way overrated.
"almost all in New England"
Most not almost all in New England if you want to get into a pissing contest.
John Shaw: Many thanks.
Jon, basically the attempt is made to claim the Founding for anything but orthodox Christianity, be it for the Enlightenment or non-Trinitarianism.
Now there's no question the need arose for religious pluralism: for Quakers, unitarians, Anabaptists. ["Dissenters," usually describing anything but Anglicans/Church of England and Calvinist/Presbyterian/Congregationalists.]
There were just too many sects.
So then it becomes a tug-of-war: unitarian? Enlightenment? Anything but Christian!
Regardless of Locke's personal beliefs [which he kept secret], the common sense and necessity of religious toleration became apparent, even to a good Calvinist like Samuel Adams 1772:
As neither reason requires nor religion permits the contrary, every man living in or out of a state of civil society has a right peaceably and quietly to worship God according to the dictates of his conscience.
"Just and true liberty, equal and impartial liberty," in matters spiritual and temporal, is a thing that all men are clearly entitled to by the eternal and immutable laws of God and nature, as well as by the law of nations and all well-grounded municipal laws, which must have their foundation in the former.
In regard to religion, mutual toleration in the different professions thereof is what all good and candid minds in all ages have ever practised, and, both by precept and example, inculcated on mankind. And it is now generally agreed among Christians that this spirit of toleration, in the fullest extent consistent with the being of civil society, is the chief characteristical mark of the Church.
Insomuch that Mr. Locke has asserted and proved, beyond the possibility of contradiction on any solid ground, that such toleration ought to be extended to all whose doctrines are not subversive of society. The only sects which he thinks ought to be, and which by all wise laws are excluded from such toleration, are those who teach doctrines subversive of the civil government under which they live.
[Locke's original core argument is excellent, that the government can't save a man's soul against his will. But this is a Christian theological argument, not a "secular" Enlightenment one.]
Post a Comment