I think they drop the ball when they start claiming Locke and others like Ben Franklin as secret atheists. Still, there is something to the notion that when orthodoxy is enforced at the point of a gun either literally or metaphorically, the heterodox will speak in code to avoid facing the music.
Still, I think it's important to claim only that esoterism for which there is solid evidence. I see, among the notable, relevant figures I chiefly study, more solid evidence of hushed up theistic heterodoxy than secret atheism. I also see more public generic God words that could mean more than one thing to one person than blatant public lying.
So when Thomas Jefferson, as a public statesman, indeed as 3rd President of the United States, spoke publicly of "Providence," he could esoterically mean something unitary (in which he truly did devoutly, personally believe) that might convey "Triune" meaning to an orthodox listener who wished to "read that in." When Washington used "Providence" (his favorite God word), we really aren't sure what he meant; though I strongly suspect he meant something unitary.
The exoteric God words are generic. And the generic approach permits honesty of personal conviction. Such terms are compatible with secret heterodox esoteric meaning and a more orthodox meaning entrenched forces attempting to control public institutions might wish to read in.
Ezra Stiles, notable patriotic preacher of America's Founding era, President of Yale, and personal friend to many of America's "key Founders," was one of the few who later explicitly detailed his secret beliefs in "non-respectable" positions that could have earlier ruined his career and standing in "respectable" society.
It seems though, rather than beat around an esoteric bush, often times he just lied. In 1751, believed to be near death and from which he would recover, Stiles gave an orthodox confession to an orthodox confessor while later admitting that not only did he NOT believe Christianity was "divine" at that time, but had never told another human being of his secret "infidelity." Keep in mind, Stiles was
Years later,
Stiles was a notable, perhaps even a "key" player during America's Founding era. Arguably, he typified the revolutionary-republican, "Whig" political thought and its theology. And his life -- his words and deeds -- makes us question whether that theology and thought meaningfully accords with or derives from traditional orthodox biblical Christianity at all.
15 comments:
Let me point out a couple of things. First, you are mistaken to say that Ezra Stiles was an ordained minister in 1751. According to his own diary, he was ordained on October 22, 1755. In 1751, he was a 23 year old tutor at Yale who had been licensed to preach.
This day A.D. 1755 I was ordained to the Work of the Evangelical Ministry in Newport, and have by the Grace of God been carried thus far through my Ministry -- but with so much Imperfection that I cannot think of it, but with more Distress than Pleasure. The good Lord pardon me hitherto, and strengthen me to greater Fidelity. In the 17 years of my Ministry I have had under my pastoral care about one thousand Souls, a third of which are now in Eternity -- without doubt many of them are in Misery -- I have reason to fear some have perished through my Neglect. And yet I would humbly hope that I have warned all, taught them the Evil and danger of sin, and represented the Way of Salvation by a bleeding Savior: though I might have inculcated these Things with greater Frequency, Zeal and Assiduity. O how great the Work, how solemn and awful the Account for the Blood of Souls! Onus Humeris angelicis formidandum. http://books.google.com/books?id=a-5IAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA295
We can also see in this diary entry that Stiles taught the same message of salvation throughout his years as an ordained minister. That message was that salvation comes through the shed blood of Jesus Christ. Stiles recorded more on his view of atonement in February of the same year when he wrote:
Mr. Enoc Lyon a Jew came to visit me desiring some religious Conversation. He spent four hours with me conversing upon the Things of God. We freely conversed on Things respecting Judaism and Christianity. I shewed him from the Rabbins, that by Quotations from the Talmud, some of them allowed the first Appearance of Messiah was to be in Humiliation and particularly that they applied 53rd Chapter of Isaiah to Messiah, Also that by the Jewish Writings the Messiah was Jehovah; As he allowed original sin and the infinite Evil of sin, I labored to shew the necessity of punishment in the persons of the sinner, or of him that should bare the Iniquities &c. He allowed Jesus to be a holy and good Man giving a holy Law. But did not see the necessity of Satisfaction or a Messiah's Atonement, God being infinitely merciful. http://books.google.com/books?id=a-5IAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA214
This same view was expressed a year later in his comment that:
I spent this evening at Brother Abraham Dennis's, and had much profitable Conversation with him on experimental Religion, and the Evidences of a Gracious Estate. We went thro' a Trial and Examination on three heads. 1. Faith in Christ. 2. evangelical Repentance, and 3. on Love of God and Holiness. Where these were found in reality, there must have been a Work of God within the Soul, evidential of our being intituled to that great Work without, the Atonement and Righteousness of Christ, which alone is justifying in the sight of God. http://books.google.com/books?id=a-5IAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA353
Further evidence of Stiles' beliefs can be seen in his description of the portrait that he commisioned Samuel King to paint for him:
I prize this learning only for the scattered Remains of the antient Doctrine of the Trinity, & a suffering Messiah, preserved in the Opinions of some of the Rabbins before Christ -- the very Labors of the modern Rabbins to obviate or interpret them into another sense & Application evincing their Genuiness & Reality...
At the Top of the visible part of the Pillar & on the side of the Wall, is an Emblem of the Universe or intellectual World. It is as it were one sheet of Omniscience. In a central Glory is the name יהוה (Yahweh) surrounded with white Spots on a Field of azure, from each Spot ascend three hair Lines denoting the Tendencies of Minds to Deity & Communion with the Trinity in the divine Light. http://books.google.com/books?id=a-5IAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA131
And, of course, Stiles' high regard for the Trinity is evident from his condemnation of the Tories that he overheard speaking blasphemy:
Some of the Tories in Newport, among other high Expressions respecting the higher Powers & the absolute submission due to them, suffer this blasphemous Assertion to excape them, viz, "that the King Lords & Commons are the same upon Earth as God Almighty is in Heaven." -- I heard another add, "the Parliament made a Trinity on Earth." Blasphemy! http://books.google.com/books?id=a-5IAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA559
All of this indicates that from at least 1755 onward, Ezra Stile had a proper view of Christian doctrine.
By the way, Stiles' portrait can be found online at: http://www.fineart-china.com/htmlimg/image-04232.html
"All of this indicates that from at least 1755 onward, Ezra Stile had a proper view of Christian doctrine."
Actually the sources you site show that from 1755-1772 -- the 17 years to which he refers -- he doubted the actual truth of that doctrine, so much so that when he seemed to come around to actually believing it, he blamed his doubt for not preaching those doctrines as effectively as he desired.
There is nothing in the text about him doubting. The only way to arrive at your conclusion from the material that I posted is to assume that conclusion from the beginning.
There most certainly IS evidence is ES's doubt or skepticism from the years 1755-1772 in what you reproduced:
"In the 17 years of my Ministry I have had under my pastoral care about one thousand Souls, a third of which are now in Eternity -- without doubt many of them are in Misery -- I have reason to fear some have perished through my Neglect. And yet I would humbly hope that I have warned all, taught them the Evil and danger of sin, and represented the Way of Salvation by a bleeding Savior: though I might have inculcated these Things with greater Frequency, Zeal and Assiduity." [Bold face mine.]
Oh and there is also this:
"This day A.D. 1755 I was ordained to the Work of the Evangelical Ministry in Newport, and have by the Grace of God been carried thus far through my Ministry -- but with so much Imperfection that I cannot think of it, but with more Distress than Pleasure. The good Lord pardon me hitherto, and strengthen me to greater Fidelity. [Bold face mine.]
This is a blatant admission of "infidelity" for periods of time during that 17 years.
No. It is not an admission of infidelity. It is a wish for greater fidelity. The two are not equal.
Fidelity is synonymous with faithfulness. It is not a reference to one's beliefs but rather to one's actions in light of those beliefs. Stiles was admitting that he could have taken more actions in light of his beliefs than he actually did during the previous 17 years of his ministry. However, he followed that admission with the statement that he at least presented everyone in his ministry with the message of the Gospel, and then he explained how he could have been more faithful by saying that he should have presented the Gospel more often (frequency), more passionately (zeal) and with more attention (assiduity). There is no admission of unbelief to be found in this statement.
So you admit that he admits he could have been more "faithful" during this time period. That and the other words he uses is evidence of the doubt and skepticism towards the orthodox Christian doctrines we stipulate he always preached from the pulpit, even when he didn't believe in what he was preaching.
You're just equivocating. I've provided definitions of thee terms that Stiles used, and I've demonstrated how those terms work together to show that he was referring to his action's and not to his beliefs. Can you do the same for your position?
"However, he followed that admission with the statement that he at least presented everyone in his ministry with the message of the Gospel, and then he explained how he could have been more faithful...." [Bold Face Mine.]
You conceded it was his faith.
I suppose you think that Old Faithful is a very religious gRyder.
*geyser.
There you go again you eccentric word parser.
Leo Strauss's scholarly-forensic technique of "close reading" is built on "parsing" every word, since in the olden days, one false word could get you hanged.
The great Founders' influence Algernon Sidney was hanged in 1683 by the British crown; by contrast, afterward John Locke published almost everything he wrote anonymously!
[Lest he be hanged like Sidney!]
Post a Comment