Check it out here. A taste:
This book is a righteous tribute to Loyalist pastors, who took up their cause with integrity, erudition, and a sincere spirit of peace. Far from being dupes of the British elite or proxies of a tyrant, the Loyalist clergy saw themselves as true lovers of America who were equally committed to the flourishing of their communities. Frazer aims “to show that the Loyalists do not fit nicely into a simplistic category, were not ideologically shallow, and were not motivated by fear. They were ... well-meaning and seeking what they thought was best for their home: America.”
One reason the Loyalist clergy have been misunderstood is that much of their writing was destroyed during the Revolution. Another reason, to put the matter simply, is that the Patriots were victorious, and the victorious party typically has the upper hand in shaping how the contest will be remembered.
[...]
In grounding their support of the mother country in Scripture, Loyalist clergy often handled God’s Word more conscientiously than their Patriot counterparts. Frazer points out that pro-revolution pastors frequently read their own biases into passages like Romans 13, consistent with Jonathan Mayhew’s precedent-setting 1750 sermon on the 101st anniversary of the execution of Charles I, “A Discourse concerning Unlimited Submission and Non-Resistance to Higher Powers.” Furthermore, Frazer asserts that while the Loyalists appealed mainly to Scripture, history, and the law, Patriot clergy relied on “theory, fear, and John Locke.”
The Bible formed the cohesive foundation for the Loyalists’ argument, and their commitment to a plain reading of Scripture stands in stark contrast to the often allegorical and typological interpretive methods favored by the Patriots. ...
27 comments:
Furthermore, Frazer asserts that while the Loyalists appealed mainly to Scripture, history, and the law, Patriot clergy relied on “theory, fear, and John Locke.”
but Gregg doesn't take sides, LOL
>The Bible formed the cohesive foundation for the Loyalists’ argument, and their commitment to a plain reading of Scripture stands in stark contrast to the often allegorical and typological interpretive methods favored by the Patriots
IOW, "fundamentalist"
but Gregg doesn't take sides ;-)
this is theology, not history, and is clearly polemical
First: part of that is the reviewer's language -- not mine (but since you haven't read mine, you wouldn't know that). Second, the Patriot preachers themselves did not claim that their interpretations were based on a literal reading or that they took passages at face value. Third, for me to merely note that the Loyalists did take the passages at face value (as opposed to the Patriots) and for you to assume that I'm taking sides on that basis indicates that you think the passages SHOULD be taken literally at face value; I'm shocked that you think that.
Fourth, I actually use scholarship to show that the three eminent scholars (Daniel Dreisbach, James Byrd, and Mark Noll) who have written the three most prominent and respected (award-winning) works on the Patriot sermons also say that the Patriot position was based on a "nuanced interpretation of Scripture, articulated in the wake of the Protestant Reformation" as opposed to a literal interpretation articulated in the historical context of the writing of those passages; and that the Patriots thought biblical texts were to be "qualified by the narrative and practices" in the Bible; and that they departed from a "conventional reading of Romans 13:1"; and that they drew from "political tradition," "the ancient classics, and the works of the church fathers and Reformers" in their interpretation of Scripture. [this is all Dreisbach's commentary] You agree that that is what they did; that's why you're insisting that Aquinas/Bellarmine/etc. be included in the discussion.
James Byrd reports that "Patriots read these passages through the prism of republican ideology" and that they tried to "shift attention from [Paul's and Peter's] words." Mark Noll similarly says that they tried to "reconcile seeming contradictions" and "to make self-evident truths ... agree with some plain declarations of scripture." He concludes that "exegetical precision was not required in order to enlist the Bible for the patriot cause."
But he agrees with the Patriots' take. One need not assert that an interpretation is the "plain reading" in order to agree with it and one need not agree with what recognizes is the plain reading.
Not one of these scholars is a fundamentalist and they all support the Patriot position and interpretation, but they recognize that it requires "nuance" and is not the "plain reading" of the text.
1 "Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation." What IS the plain reading -- the face value reading -- of this text, if not that all powers are ordained by God and that we must, therefore, be subject to them and that we will be punished if we're not?
The plain, face value reading MIGHT NOT BE RIGHT, but it is, nonetheless the plain reading and merely saying so does not establish that one has taken a "side." I don't think these other scholars -- who approve of the Patriot cause -- would appreciate you (by extension) denigrating their scholarship as polemical and not historical.
Re you first entry here: which of the three elements I identified as emphases of the Patriot clergy is inacccurate?
Did they not emphasize THEORY? You say they did (Aquinas, Bellarmine, Beza, Sidney, etc.)!
Did they not emphasize FEAR? Did they not emphasize fear that the Quebec Act would lead to a rise of "papism" in America? Did they not raise fear of the prospect that an Anglican bishop in America would lead to domination by the Church of England? Did they not emphasize the fear that a two-penny voluntary tax on tea would result in SLAVERY? Did they not hyperbolically use the word "slavery" in almost every publication in order to promote fear? Did they not promulgate fear of a conspiracy on the part of the King and Parliament to take away their freedom and fear of the King's ministers as "Robinarchs?" Did they not promulgate false stories of supposed atrocities by British soldiers (the reason so many "patriots" showed up at Lexington)? Did they not capitalize on the fear of Indians on the frontier?
Did they not emphasize LOCKE?
As for the Loyalist clergy, I am not going to re-type my book to prove what should be obvious to anyone who has read any of their publications: they emphasized history, law, and Scripture.
If presenting uncomfortable facts equals taking sides, then I am guilty of taking sides -- and so is every other historian and political theorist. Though it is not expressed in the review, in THE BOOK (that Carnac need not read in order to know all that is in it), I also present uncomfortable facts concerning the Loyalists and their arguments. I guess I take both sides?
It is really easy to take one statement out of a book of 240 pages and disparage the whole thing -- certainly easier than actually reading the whole thing and taking the whole of the thesis and evidence into account.
pejoratives, especially "fear"
your biases are clear
the Patriot position was based on a "nuanced interpretation of Scripture, articulated in the wake of the Protestant Reformation"
now that's proper writing, not taking sides
So, to be clear: you do not think -- that is, feel -- that all of those examples, especially regular references to "slavery" and their false manufactured stories of rapes and murders of women and children by British soldiers (before the war), were appeals to fear. Hmmmm
And the fact that the author of that stellar writing agrees with my assessment of the difference between Patriot and Loyalist treatment of Scripture, of course, isn't important because it doesn't fit Carnac's narrative. It invalidates MY scholarship, objectivity, and legitimacy, but not his. Hmmmmm
I guess you're right; anyone reading this exchange is clearly seeing bias, too.
"fear" is a pejorative
and your argument defending its use [which I object to as unscholarly] is irrelevant to the theological questions
further, a "nuanced interpretation of Scripture, articulated in the wake of the Protestant Reformation" was normative for 100s of years, not "plain reading"
and further, The two English civil wars of the 1600s that killed one king and exiled another had obviated most of the theological controversy
few if any were swayed by the Loyalist theology
and further still, Paine's argument against monarchy was quite Biblical
neither theory, Locke nor fear
http://americancreation.blogspot.com/2010/04/thomas-paines-common-sense-as-heard-by.html
From the comments:
Jonathan Rowe said...
Tom: I know you can point that Paine seemed to borrow ideas from "real" believing Christians like the Catholic and Presbyterian sources that anticipated the of "resisting tyranny" that the Enlightenment made famous.
But still, what does that tell us about the biblical authenticity of such arguments that a non-believer like Thomas Paine would borrow from you for propagandistic purposes?
April 13, 2010 at 7:47 PM
Tom Van Dyke said...
Why should we care about "biblical authenticity" any more than we care about "correct" interpretations of the Qur'an?
We have no dog in the fight as historians. Scriptures mean whatever their believers believe they mean.
and we shall place this here, as it contains the germ of my own argument
"The Right of Resistance in Calvinism and Lutheranism"
https://books.google.com/books?id=DeUkFt1AOTQC&pg=PA177&lpg=PA177&dq=nefarious+perfidy,+because+they+fraudulently+betray+the+liberty+of+the+people,+while+knowing+that,+by+the+ordinance+of+God,+they+are+its+appointed+guardians.%22&source=bl&ots=7ZFX5QLgiJ&sig=zs-pV16QTYPmp2n7E0piHuG8JV4&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjSguXdpOneAhUBDHwKHTrlC2EQ6AEwAHoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=nefarious%20perfidy%2C%20because%20they%20fraudulently%20betray%20the%20liberty%20of%20the%20people%2C%20while%20knowing%20that%2C%20by%20the%20ordinance%20of%20God%2C%20they%20are%20its%20appointed%20guardians.%22&f=false
"Fear" CAN be a pejorative, but it is not so inherently. It is a pejorative when unfairly or inaccurately applied in order to discredit someone or something. That is not the usage to which I put the word -- which you would know IF you READ the context in which I use it in the book and saw (with an open mind) the evidence that I give for it.
I did not say -- nor do I say in the book that you have not read -- that the Loyalist approach was normative; nor do I deny that the "nuanced" approach was normative. I make no claim one way or the other -- I simply say that "plain reading" was the Loyalist approach and it was not the approach of the Patriot preachers (which is a fact). You are the one attaching bias to the mere statement of fact (as if merely recognizing this fact shows that I favor the Loyalists). This seems to indicate that you think that the plain reading approach is superior, since you think recognition of the difference is somehow a disadvantage for the Patriot side.
You have no idea how many were swayed by the Loyalist theology because you have not done the research. I have done the research and cited sources. In the book that you have not read, there is documented evidence of its persuasiveness when it was allowed to be promulgated. Of course, it did not sway as many as it might have done because it was not allowed to be spoken or printed -- it was silenced and destroyed.
Paine's argument against monarchy was not at all biblical. "Scriptures mean whatever their believers believe they mean" is nonsensical. But it does explain a lot of your comments re my books (which you have not read). First, Paine was NOT a believer, so it is meaningless in the context. Second (and more importantly): you apparently think that words and sentences have no meaning other than that which you bestow upon them. I hope you do not treat prescriptions or road signs that way. It does explain a lot, though. To believe that there is no inherent/"right" meaning to written texts allows you to pontificate and play games without responsibility. I've seen a lot of that.
I take your statement that "few if any were swayed by the Loyalist theology" as actually saying that it influenced everyone. Since I'm a believer in the Carnac scriptures, that is what your statement actually means.
So, in your quest to deny that they emphasized fear, you are on record as saying that the Patriots did not emphasize theory or Locke. That's another way in which you are unique; no one else who has written on the subject would say such a thing -- including the Patriots themselves who often cite Locke and other theorists who you mentioned (before having to deny it in order to oppose everything that I say).
"Fear" CAN be a pejorative, but it is not so inherently.
Of course it is, Gregg. Especially the way you used it.
“theory, fear, and John Locke.”
You used all three pejoratively.
And you know that because you read the sentence in its context in the book, right?
"You used all three pejoratively." I have it on supreme authority (Controller of Language and Keeper of the Flame of History Tom Van Dyke) that texts have no actual meaning, but mean only what readers of them ascribe to them. So, I've decided that this statement means "you used all three appropriately." So, thank you for the admission and the compliment.
Oh, yes, of course "fear" is inherently pejorative -- that's why you should sue your psychiatrist if he/she says you have a fear of heights or of small spaces or of anything else. And we should not repeat FDR's famous line, either -- it was pejorative (and he used the forbidden word TWICE!). I have it on the highest self-proclaimed authority.
"[T]he only thing we have to fear is fear itself — nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance." Fear is bad, irrational--FDR himself argues against you.
Your sophistry is tiring, Gregg. And I don't think you know much about Locke either, especially that he was regarded by the Founding generation as a Christian, making your complaint moot.
I'll check back periodically to see if anyone wants to discuss either my book or the subject of my book.
If anyone wants to do that, I would be happy to interact with you.
The subject of your book IS being discussed, Gregg. You refuse to participate and defend your thesis, which does not hold against the facts.
"The colonial clergymen who justified political resistance to British authorities from 1763 to 1783 did so in continuity with previous justifications of political resistance found within Reformed Protestantism. Clergymen such as Jonathan Mayhew who justified a right of resistance in the eighteenth century did not rely upon new varieties of Enlightenment or Lockean rationalism in formulating their arguments for political resistance. They instead reasserted common arguments found in traditional Protestant views of political resistance. The colonial clergy followed the theological precedents that were found not only in seventeenth-century resistance to Stuart absolutism and but also to the Stuart-imposed government of Edmund Andros over New England. The clergy tended to justify resistance to British policies on the basic grounds of self-defense as conflict with Britain intensified in the mid-1770s. The protests and arguments used by American clergymen were not uniquely American, as the same positions were held by many of the British clergy as well."--Dr. Gary Steward. Assistant Professor of History, Colorado Christain College.
"Clergymen such as Jonathan Mayhew who justified a right of resistance in the eighteenth century did not rely upon new varieties of Enlightenment or Lockean rationalism in formulating their arguments for political resistance. They instead reasserted common arguments found in traditional Protestant views of political resistance."
If we make a list of the mid 18th Cen. clergy and see who they quoted, it was a hell of a lot more Locke than the traditional Protestants -- the Calvinist resisters.
Though I'll have to reread Mayhew's classic sermon. Dreisbach told me Mayhew doesn't cite Locke or anyone. So he might be up for grabs.
Though his personal theology looked a lot closer to Locke's than to that of the Calvinists. And, Locke didn't cite Rutherford or the Calvinist resisters either. This is the bottom line that we've noted for many years.
Dreisbach told me Mayhew doesn't cite Locke or anyone.
“theory, fear, and John Locke.”
You see the problem here.
https://digital.library.sbts.edu/handle/10392/5336
Though I'll have to reread Mayhew's classic sermon.
the relevant text of Mayhew re Romans 13 is here:
"http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/discourse-concerning-unlimited-submission-and-non-resistance-to-the-higher-powers/
FTR, I agree with Dave Kopel that
http://www.davekopel.com/Religion/Jonathan-Mayhew.htm
"The "Discourse Concerning Unlimited Submission "presented a popularly accessible form of John Locke's analysis of Paul's epistle to the Romans. Its central idea is that the Christian duty to submit to governments that govern justly creates a correlative duty to resist and overthrow governments that are tyrannical, since unjust government is the very antithesis of true Christian government. Like most other Congregationalist ministers, Mayhew had studied Locke at Harvard, and considered him a Christian intellectual ally."
And that analysis is why I posted it here. Mayhew's sermon takes the same form and argument.
http://americancreation.blogspot.com/2018/11/john-locke-on-romans-13.html
The argument is this: that Romans 13 is not applicable because King George II [George III ascended in 1860], because of his tyranny and oppression, is not a legitimate ruler. And that argument does not originate with Locke, but is 150 years older than that--and is thoroughly Christian, albeit not Biblical fundamentalism ["plain reading"].
But Biblical fundamentalism without theology was never normative Christianity, not Catholic, not Protestant. The Trinity itself is arguably un-Biblical!!
https://www.biblicalunitarian.com/100-scriptural-arguments-for-the-unitarian-faith
Who decides? I say the last one to decide is the historian!!
The subject of Gregg's book certainly IS being discussed here. I would also add that I think his argument against George II's honoring Charles I [the subtitle of the sermon is "A Discourse concerning Unlimited Submission and Non-Resistance to the Higher Powers: With some Reflections on the Resistance made to King Charles I. And on the Anniversary of his Death: In which the Mysterious Doctrine of that Prince's Saintship and Martyrdom is Unriddled"] fits well with John Calvin's exception re his commentary on the Book of Daniel. But that will have to take place outside any discussion involving Dr. Frazer's "brand."
OK, at least the antipode of the subject of my new book is being discussed; i.e. the subject of chapter 3 of my first book. I guess that's something. I would remind readers that the subject of my new book is the arguments made by the Loyalist clergy -- not the Patriot clergy.
That said, pardon me if I do not accept one statement from a dissertation (that happens to support Mr. Van Dyke's view) as encompassing "the facts." Multiple peer-reviewed books published by top-level university presses have said the contrary (see Dworetz, "The Unvarnished Doctrine" and Zuckert, "The Natural Rights Republic" and Baldwin, "The New England Clergy and the American Revolution" and Frazer, "The Religious Beliefs of America's Founders").
Mr. Van Dyke will accuse me of appeal to authority -- right after he appealed to Dr. Steward as an authority. He will also accuse me of hitting him with my PhD -- but those in the academic, scholarly community appreciate credentials because we know how hard it is to get them and that we cannot just sit in our pajamas somewhere typing our own opinions and pass peer review by respected scholars and get published by university presses. Dissertations carry some weight, of course, but they do not demand the kind of scrutiny required of peer reviewed manuscripts by university presses.
"The facts" are that beginning with Elisha Williams in 1744, American preachers cited "the celebrated Lock," and Locke as "the noble Assertor of the Liberties of humane Nature." Peter Whitney cited "the great Mr. Locke" for his ideas; Samuel West (in his sermon that is second to that of Mayhew in terms of influence) identified "Mr. Locke" as the source of his ideas. Samuel Cooper said that the "principles and arguments" he was using were "grounded" in "the immortal writings" of Locke. John Tucker had an extensive quote from "Lock on civil Government" in the crucial part of his best-known sermon.
I doubt that Mr. Van Dyke can identify a single Patriot sermon that cites Calvin or Beza or "justifications of political resistance found within Reformed Protestantism." But, as always, I'm open to such evidence. In Donald Lutz's acclaimed study of the influences on American Revolutionary thought, there is not a single Reformer in the list, but Locke is 3rd in terms of citations. Dreisbach's chapter on the Revolutionary sermons spends 18 pages on the 16th & 17th century Reformed guys and then 6 pages on actual American preachers -- almost exclusively Mayhew. He includes no citations by Patriot preachers of any of the Reformers he had introduced as the fundamental influences. Dreisbach is, of course, right that Mayhew does not cite Locke AND that he doesn't cite the Reformed guys either.
So, whose arguments/principles are reflected in Mayhew's sermon?
Mayhew's entire argument fits and flows perfectly from Lockean presuppositions and principles, but it includes elements completely foreign to the Reformers. Most notable of these is emphasis on a state of nature -- an idea anathema to Reformers who believed in the biblical record of the beginning of man and society as recorded in Genesis.
Mayhew -- and the other Patriot preachers -- did not speak of "covenants" as did Knox et al, but rather of "contracts." They did not speak of "lesser magistrates" or of "interposition" or any of Beza's creative notions. Their arguments went right down the line of Lockean thought -- which is why Tucker seamlessly included extensive quotes from Locke in the middle of his sermon. Additionally, for his part, Calvin explicitly rejected any notion of rebellion -- as did Luther. So two of the most important and prominent voices of the Reformation were not even available to those who might have wanted to make Reformed arguments.
Again, as I note in my first book (which also has not been read by certain commentators on it), this is a primary reason that Mayhew's sermon was so influential. Those raised in Reformed churches and taught by Calvin to be subject to authority -- even tyrannical authority -- found in Mayhew a plausible excuse to rebel against an authority they found inconvenient or disagreeable. Mayhew's sermon was groundbreaking because it was new to those people -- not because it rehashed what they had already been taught.
I am not willing to re-type all of the evidence in chapter 3 of my first book because those really interested in "the facts" will want to read it all in context -- even if they don't think they'll agree with it. That's what scholars and those interested in the truth do.
Mr. Van Dyke will accuse me of appeal to authority -- right after he appealed to Dr. Steward as an authority.
No, I GOT SICK OF YOU PLAYING DIRTY BY HITTING ME OVER THE HEAD WITH YOUR DIPLOMA. I shoved your authority game up your
I am not willing to re-type all of the evidence in chapter 3 of my first book because those really interested in "the facts" will want to read it all in context -- even if they don't think they'll agree with it. That's what scholars and those interested in the truth do.
"Read my book" is not participating in a discussion. This is your problem.
Mayhew's entire argument fits and flows perfectly from Lockean presuppositions and principles, but it includes elements completely foreign to the Reformers.
Completely wrong. Here Mayhew directly analyses Romans 13 at great length. That he agrees with Locke does not make it unBiblical.
the relevant text of Mayhew re Romans 13 is here:
"http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/discourse-concerning-unlimited-submission-and-non-resistance-to-the-higher-powers/
Neither do you seem interested [or capable] of addressing the Charles I angle, which opens up John Calvin's Book of Daniel door to disobedience on theological grounds.
"With some Reflections on the Resistance made to King Charles I. And on the Anniversary of his Death: In which the Mysterious Doctrine of that Prince's Saintship and Martyrdom is Unriddled"
You are not participating, Gregg. The discussion began getting somewhere when you "left," and you do not get to define its terms.
Tom says that I cannot defend "my thesis" -- by which I presume he means my take on the subject of HIS choice. Tom is half-right; I cannot defend my position to someone who refuses to look at or engage the extensive evidence that I provide; instead changing the subject or deflecting away from that evidence.
To wit: in my Dec. 5, 5:30 post, I provided quotes from five preachers who identified Locke by name as their source/inspiration. I then provided evidence from a well-respected and oft-cited study of Revolutionary era citations conducted by professors at the University of Houston who are not fundamentalists that Locke was heavily cited and not a single Reformer made the top 36 (of a list of 36).
I provided other evidence as well and then invited Tom to provide ONE citation of Beza or Knox or a Reformer in any ONE sermon by a Patriot preacher. I also said that I was, of course, OPEN to that counter evidence (as a scholar is). The result: crickets. Tom skipped those two entire paragraphs and jumped down to another argument. And in doing that, he ignored the fact that I noted that some of Mayhew's fundamental, necessary assumptions are anathema to the beliefs of the Reformers that he claims were Mayhew's inspiration. Response to that fact? Crickets.
He also (again) changes the subject. After I point out that Mayhew's argument flows perfectly from Lockean presuppositions and principles, Tom responds: "That he agrees with Locke does not make it unBiblical" -- but I was not arguing that it was unbiblical. I was arguing that Mayhew was influenced by Locke and not by the Reformers. It is akin to me arguing that stop signs are red & white and Tom responding: "that they are red & white doesn't make them made out of metal." It is an entirely different argument. It is hard to tell because Tom never admits a single point, but maybe this is his way of saying that the evidence shows that I am right on this one point, so let's move to another.
This is just one example of a myriad of instances going back many years in which Tom refuses to even consider -- much less answer -- evidence and then declares that I cannot defend my viewpoint.
For the record, for those keeping track: my "thesis" [not really a thesis, but simply one general observation sentence in a book of 234 pages] was that Patriot preaching emphasized "theory, fear, and Locke." Anyone who has actually read the Patriot sermons knows this to be demonstrably true -- hence the approval of peer reviewing scholars. I asked Tom which Patriot sermons he'd read other than Mayhew's. Crickets.
Tom himself -- when he's self-aware -- says that they emphasized theory [he just identifies different theorists]. In my Nov 20, 9:41 post, I listed seven fears that they emphasized -- none of which Tom has denied. Now I've demonstrated that they emphasized Locke [as two other prominent works have also shown].
To Tom, my statement cannot be true because he doesn't like it. He has no evidence to the contrary, so he simply "refutes" it by the use of a scatological expletive. Very scholarly.
I was arguing that Mayhew was influenced by Locke and not by the Reformers.
Yes I know. But you are wrong. The question of legitimacy is the core of Reformation questioning of the reading of Romans 13 as an absolute ban on resistance and even revolution, and are not Lockean. See Bishop John Ponet, for instance, 1551, well over 100 years before Locke.
I'm not convinced after reading this thread that:
a) Mayhew was influenced by the Calvinist resisters as opposed to Locke; and
b) that the Calvinist resisters even said it was okay to have "revolution" as opposed to "resistance" under law.
The "Calvinist resisters" executed one English king and exiled another in the 1600s. This was no new thing. In fact, the colonies seceding was rather tame compared what the English Civil Wars did to their kings.
The reason Walpole said the Americans had "run away with a Presbyterian parson" is that the Calvinists had been fighting the crown for 150 years. The problem with this whole line of discussion is that nobody cited Knox or Rutherford or Ponet word for word to back up ideas that had been in the air for centuries.
Post a Comment