John Locke is oft-referred to, for good reason, as "America's philosopher." On how governments ought to treat their citizens, including and especially on religious matters, Locke matters.
And we can almost be certain that Locke was not an orthodox Trinitarian Christian. So that means he must have been something else. But Locke had a problem with putting his explicit religious cards on the table: In Great Britain in Locke's time, it was illegal to publicly deny the Trinity. Yet many did doubt or deny the Trinity back then. They just tended to, for safety, do it in private.
So Locke writes the book called "The Reasonableness of Christianity" where he sets out his ideal understanding of the common faith. Locke proposes a formula for defining who gets to be a "real Christian" as we might put that term today. And it's this: Jesus is a unique Messiah.
That's pretty much it (yeah, we can get into some other details, like you have to repent).
This simple formula got Locke accused by an orthodox theologian of being a Socinian. Because it's true that Socinians could pass Locke's test. But I don't think Locke was a Socinian. Rather he probably was some kind of Arian (this is what Locke scholar the late Paul Sigmund of Princeton told me, citing other Locke scholar John Marshall of Johns Hopkins).
So as it turns out Locke's orthodox critic probably was right that Locke was a unitarian, but wrong on which kind.
Still, Trinitarians, Arians, Socinians, Modalists, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Swedenborgians among others all believe Jesus Messiah and therefore get to be "Christians" according to Locke's formula.
Or as John Adams described the American landscape, that implemented Locke's ideas, some time later:
... There were among them, Roman Catholicks English Episcopalians, Scotch and American Presbyterians, Methodists, Moravians, Anababtists, German Lutherans, German Calvinists Universalists, Arians, Priestleyans, Socinians, Independents, Congregationalists, Horse Protestants and House Protestants, Deists and Atheists; and “Protestans qui ne croyent rien.” Very few however of Several of these Species. Never the less all Educated in the general Principles of Christianity: and the general Principles of English and American Liberty."Socinians" actually made Adams' list twice. Most American Socinians probably wouldn't be imbibed in the "Racovian Confession," but rather influenced by Joseph Priestley's theology, which is a form of Socinianism. "Priestleyans" are Socinians.
I've heard people claim John Adams was an Arian, but I am not convinced. I know that Adams was a fervent unitarian, but of which kind I'm not sure Adams himself knew. He just "knew" the Trinity was false.
47 comments:
What is a "Socinian?" You did not say. After that, name some.
"Socinian" Joseph Priestley opened a church in Philadelphia. John Adams refused to set foot in it. Why?
You have not offered any proof that the "Socinians" mattered in the least. If Englishman Richard Price mattered at all [he did], it was despite his unitarianism/Socinianism. Benjamin Rush implored Price to shut up about it lest it darken his credibility on other matters.
Define "Socinian" in the American context. Merely believing Jesus was a great teacher, as Jefferson did, means nothing. I'm a "Straussian." So what?
"What is a "Socinian?" You did not say. After that, name some."
Someone who believes Jesus 100% human (not divine at all in His nature) but on a divine mission.
In terms of who qualifies: Joseph Priestley, William Bentley, Thomas Jefferson, perhaps John Adams, John Marshall, Joseph Story, Jared Sparks, maybe even George Washington, James Madison and Ben Franklin. And all of those John Adams mentioned who were in "that Army of fine young Fellows" that he referenced.
But again, I would concede there is uncertainty. John Adams was a unitarian. We know that. Whether he was Arian or Socinian, we don't know.
"'Socinian' Joseph Priestley opened a church in Philadelphia. John Adams refused to set foot in it. Why?"
It had nothing to do with Priestley's theology. It 100% related to a political dispute they had. If anything Priestley and Adams were more connected to one another theologically that either were to Jefferson. All three embraced the "unitarian" label. But Jefferson's theology steered closer into something more deistic. Priestley and Adams believed in Jesus' resurrection; Jefferson didn't.
"You have not offered any proof that the "Socinians" mattered in the least."
I actually did offer proof. Just not sufficient to meet your uber-skeptical of the claim standard of proof.
"Define 'Socinian' in the American context. Merely believing Jesus was a great teacher, ..."
Again, more than that. Jesus as the world's greatest moral teacher. A 100% human 0% divine in nature Messiah, but on a divine mission.
Joseph Priestley, William Bentley, Thomas Jefferson
Priestley was British. Jefferson is stipulated, a "sect unto himself" who does not even qualify as Christian, really. He wrote his own Bible fer crissakes. Even Luther didn't do THAT. And William Bentley???? Who is he? And he matters why?
perhaps John Adams, John Marshall, Joseph Story, Jared Sparks, maybe even George Washington, James Madison and Ben Franklin.
Perhaps? Weak tea. Guesswork at best. And only Adams is really a founder. Marshall comes in at the tail end and Story was born in 1779 and Sparks in 1789, making them completely irrelevant here.
.
Marshall was part of the officer corp in the revolution and fought in several huge battles; Brandywine, Monmouth etc,.
I don't know if Dr. Frazer made this point, but by logic alone, theistic rationalism or unitarianism etc., had to have some influence among the founding fathers because they existed and the orthodox allowed it.
It wasn't about theology and they didn't care.
I'm not positive but I think u could add in high federalist timothy Pickering. TJ, JA and marshall, throw in ethan allen, robert treat paine, and they had friends too.
What about quakers? Stephen Hopkins was an important ff. I know they rejected several scriptures about church authority and men "over the flock."
The enlightenment had the greatest effect because it neutralized the teaching in the churches and churches couldn't do anything about it since there was no consensus among the colonies.
Cont. The only consensus was to allow it all, which poisoned the tree at the root.
There was no consensus anywhere in Protestantism. In Germany, the new "Lutherans" slaughtered the Anabaptists. In England, the Calvinists led the "Puritan Revolution."
Except for Calvin's Geneva, the "Protestant Rome." It was a bloody nightmare. William Manchester writes:
In Calvin’s Orwellian theocracy, established in 1542, acts of God—earthquakes, lightning, flooding—were acts of Satan. (Luther, of course, agreed.) Copernicus was branded a fraud, attendance at church and sermons was compulsory, and Calvin himself preached at great length three or four times a week. Refusal to take the Eucharist was a crime. The Consistory, which made no distinction between religion and morality, could summon anyone for questioning, investigate any charge of backsliding, and entered homes periodically to be sure no one was cheating Calvin’s God. Legislation specified the number of dishes to be served at each meal and the color of garments worn. What one was permitted to wear depended upon who one was, for never was a society more class–ridden. Believing that every child of God had been foreordained, Calvin was determined that each know his place; statutes specified the quality of dress and the activities allowed in each class.
‘But even the elite—the clergy, of course—were allowed few diversions. Calvinists worked hard because there wasn’t much else they were permitted to do. “Feasting” was proscribed; so were dancing, singing, pictures, statues, relics, church bells, organs, altar candles; “indecent or irreligious” songs, staging or attending theatrical plays; wearing rouge, jewelry, lace, or “immodest” dress; speaking disrespectfully of your betters; extravagant entertainment; swearing, gambling, playing cards, hunting, drunkenness; naming children after anyone but figures in the Old Testament; and reading “immoral or irreligious” books.
Tom Van Dyke said...
There was no consensus anywhere in Protestantism"""
This is a false statement. The reformers theology formed the consensus. The movements that didn't conform got kicked out of the church at dort.
Your statement is illogical anyway, for how can someone prevent a heretic from starting a movement.
In Germany, the new "Lutherans" slaughtered the Anabaptists"""
Another false statement. It was the nobels that killed the anabaptists, which started the revolt. They were always for revolution and their leader was a polygamist, and a modern day communist. I think muntzer was a spiritist.
Except for Calvin's Geneva, the "Protestant Rome."""
Patently false. Calvin wasn't a citizen of Geneva till 1558. If he ruled like a pope like catholics say, he would have made himself one.
The entire catholic narrative against calvin and geneva is bogus.
You deny this?
William Manchester writes:
In Calvin’s Orwellian theocracy, established in 1542, acts of God—earthquakes, lightning, flooding—were acts of Satan. (Luther, of course, agreed.) Copernicus was branded a fraud, attendance at church and sermons was compulsory, and Calvin himself preached at great length three or four times a week. Refusal to take the Eucharist was a crime. The Consistory, which made no distinction between religion and morality, could summon anyone for questioning, investigate any charge of backsliding, and entered homes periodically to be sure no one was cheating Calvin’s God. Legislation specified the number of dishes to be served at each meal and the color of garments worn. What one was permitted to wear depended upon who one was, for never was a society more class–ridden. Believing that every child of God had been foreordained, Calvin was determined that each know his place; statutes specified the quality of dress and the activities allowed in each class.
‘But even the elite—the clergy, of course—were allowed few diversions. Calvinists worked hard because there wasn’t much else they were permitted to do. “Feasting” was proscribed; so were dancing, singing, pictures, statues, relics, church bells, organs, altar candles; “indecent or irreligious” songs, staging or attending theatrical plays; wearing rouge, jewelry, lace, or “immodest” dress; speaking disrespectfully of your betters; extravagant entertainment; swearing, gambling, playing cards, hunting, drunkenness; naming children after anyone but figures in the Old Testament; and reading “immoral or irreligious” books.
The first sentence proves what Manchester wrote is bogus because Calvin wrote against theocracy and helped establish Geneva as a republic not a theocracy.
oh, this is a theocracy all right
The Consistory, which made no distinction between religion and morality, could summon anyone for questioning, investigate any charge of backsliding, and entered homes periodically to be sure no one was cheating Calvin’s God.
But rather than quibble about the term, do you deny the rest?
Refusal to take the Eucharist was a crime.
Legislation specified the number of dishes to be served at each meal and the color of garments worn. What one was permitted to wear depended upon who one was, for never was a society more class–ridden. Believing that every child of God had been foreordained, Calvin was determined that each know his place; statutes specified the quality of dress and the activities allowed in each class.
‘But even the elite—the clergy, of course—were allowed few diversions. Calvinists worked hard because there wasn’t much else they were permitted to do. “Feasting” was proscribed; so were dancing, singing, pictures, statues, relics, church bells, organs, altar candles; “indecent or irreligious” songs, staging or attending theatrical plays; wearing rouge, jewelry, lace, or “immodest” dress; speaking disrespectfully of your betters; extravagant entertainment; swearing, gambling, playing cards, hunting, drunkenness; naming children after anyone but figures in the Old Testament; and reading “immoral or irreligious” books.
A theocracy is rule by God.
The next sentence u posted is bogus as well. He doesn't understand who "Calvin's God" is.
Even the ff's believed law is legislating morality.
so you think all this is ok?
Refusal to take the Eucharist was a crime.
Legislation specified the number of dishes to be served at each meal and the color of garments worn. What one was permitted to wear depended upon who one was, for never was a society more class–ridden. Believing that every child of God had been foreordained, Calvin was determined that each know his place; statutes specified the quality of dress and the activities allowed in each class.
‘But even the elite—the clergy, of course—were allowed few diversions. Calvinists worked hard because there wasn’t much else they were permitted to do. “Feasting” was proscribed; so were dancing, singing, pictures, statues, relics, church bells, organs, altar candles; “indecent or irreligious” songs, staging or attending theatrical plays; wearing rouge, jewelry, lace, or “immodest” dress; speaking disrespectfully of your betters; extravagant entertainment; swearing, gambling, playing cards, hunting, drunkenness; naming children after anyone but figures in the Old Testament; and reading “immoral or irreligious” books.
It's not correct or legitimate information.
William Manchester?
uh huh
frankly I don't think you have the foggiest idea one way or the other
but assuming it's true for the sake of argument, do you find it all acceptable?
what is unacceptable?
I don't believe it's true because the guy doesn't know the difference between a theocracy and a republic. But, some of it sounds like laws for ancient Israel and is what you'd expect in a Christian nation.
One of the problems with the way you are framing the issue Tom is that unitarianism didn't exist like Trinitarianism did during America's founding. Trinitarianism was institutionalized in churches with creeds; unitarianism was more of a theological philosophy that free thinking individuals attached to Trinitarian churches either flirted with or believe in.
So for instance we have James Madison, attached to the Anglican-Episcopalian Church.
"I found the President more free and open than I expected, starting subjects of conversation and making remarks that sometimes savored of humor and levity. He sometimes laughed, and I was glad to hear it ; but his face was always grave. He talked of religious sects and parties, and was curious to know how the cause of liberal Christianity stood with us, and if the Athanasian creed was well received by our Episcopalians. He pretty distinctly intimated to me his own regard for the Unitarian doctrines.— TICKNOR, GEORGE, 1815, Letter to his Father, Jan. 21 ; Life, Letters and Journals, vol. I, p. 30."
I think Madison probably was unitarian, which kind I'm not sure; he positively referenced the Arian Samuel Clarke once. If one is a unitarian, there are basically two options Arianism and Socinianism and Arianism was more popular.
But we do have evidence of Socinianism INFLUENCING James Madison. When wrote his notes where he questioned "what is Christianity?" His answer was it took three forms and Socinianism made his list of three. At least he grouped Trinitarianism, Arianism and Socinianism together as each one of three viable options.
It's in V8.
It seems to me Athanasians like Jim/OFT don't view Arianism or Socinianism as viable options for "Christianity" and wouldn't even ask the question, because to him/them the answer is obvious.
https://tinyurl.com/y2gknbxh
"Story was born in 1779 and Sparks in 1789, making them completely irrelevant here."
And yet your W.E. Channing was born in 1780. Not being fair with your standard of scrutiny. Tisk tisk. I'm not going to call you out over this on the frontpage but I think I will do a front page post on Jefferson & Channing.
June 24, 2019 at 12:33 PM
Our Founding Truth said...
"I think Madison probably was unitarian,"""
You believe that from one opinion from someone else? Doesn't sound scholarly to me. I'm not dogmatic about him, but there's way more evidence he was orthodox. What about him taking communion?
Where's the evidence of him taking communion and that he was otherwise "orthodox"?
Bishop Meade also said that he thought Madison's creed was not (me paraphrasing from memory) "strictly regulated by the Bible" and such was probably due to friends of his who had "infidel principles" ("of whom there were many") (i.e., Thomas Jefferson!).
Where's the evidence of him taking communion and that he was otherwise "orthodox"?"""
I don't know. I'm asking you
The evidence he's orthodox is he quoted the deity of Christ. He had to have taken communion. Whoever finds the evidence gets a GI badge because no one has presented that info
Bishop Meade also said that he thought Madison's creed was not (me paraphrasing from memory) "strictly regulated by the Bible" and such was probably due to friends of his who had "infidel principles" ("of whom there were many") (i.e., Thomas Jefferson!)."":"
This doesn't count because he called him a Christian, and Meade was an evangelical.
"Is it Trinitarianism, Arianism, Socinianism? Is it salvation by faith or works also, by free grace or by will, &c., &c.""
This note by JM proves he didn't ascribe one way or the other because he rejected salvation by works in his memorial. So, this is not evidence JM was unitarian.
JM quoted the deity of Christ and bishop meade didn't quote what JM said to him.
You are non-sequituring all over the place man.
June 24, 2019 at 2:21 PM
Jonathan Rowe said...
You are non-sequituring all over the place man.
How?
Below, has much more weight, legally, than someone's opinion:
Gospels.
Mat. Ch 1st Pollution[:] Christ did by the power of his Godhead purify our nature from all the pollution of our Ancestors v. 5. &c
"Christ's divinity appears by St. John, ch. XX. v. 28."
"Resurrection testified and witnessed by the Apostles. Acts, ch. IV. v. 33."
-Madison's "Notes on Commentary on the Bible" found in The Papers of James Madison, p. 51-59. Vol. I. 16 Mar 1751 - 16 Dec. 1779. Edited by William T. Hutchinson and William M. E. Rachal. 1962, by the University of Chicago Press.
Blogger Jonathan Rowe said...
"Story was born in 1779 and Sparks in 1789, making them completely irrelevant here."
And yet your W.E. Channing was born in 1780. Not being fair with your standard of scrutiny. Tisk tisk. I'm not going to call you out over this on the frontpage but I think I will do a front page post on Jefferson & Channing.
June 24, 2019 at 12:33 PM
Channing is useful because he put into words what American unitarians believed. If you want to argue unitarianism was different in 1776 or 1789, then that's valid.
But I don't think you are.
Blogger Our Founding Truth said...
Below, has much more weight, legally, than someone's opinion:
Gospels.
Mat. Ch 1st Pollution[:] Christ did by the power of his Godhead purify our nature from all the pollution of our Ancestors v. 5. &c
"Christ's divinity appears by St. John, ch. XX. v. 28."
"Resurrection testified and witnessed by the Apostles. Acts, ch. IV. v. 33."
-Madison's "Notes on Commentary on the Bible" found in The Papers of James Madison, p. 51-59. Vol. I. 16 Mar 1751 - 16 Dec. 1779. Edited by William T. Hutchinson and William M. E. Rachal. 1962, by the University of Chicago Press.
These were called "commonplace books," where people would transcribe stuff they read for future reference. Nothing they wrote should be taken as an endorsement or what they personally believed. Think of it as bookmarks on your browser.
These were called "commonplace books," where people would transcribe stuff they read for future reference. Nothing they wrote should be taken as an endorsement or what they personally believed. Think of it as bookmarks on your browser."""
This statement is misleading because most of them had personal devotions in their commonplace books, including JM. Here's Madison's commonplace book where he calls himself wicked:
"I know a Man, reputed moderate, just & devout, who is a Mortal Enemy to Auricular confession. And why? Is he conscious of some extraordinary & atrocious Qualities? or does he desire to appear much better than he really is? People who pretend to Religion cannot help confessing in general that they are Sinners; but they conceal or disown all Particulars. Why should I be so unwilling to confess even my Particular faults to men? Since they have the same faults or Equivalent. They may well admire my Sincerity or (if you will) my Impudence; but they cannot be surprized at my Wickedness. I am Humble before God, but confident before Men."
-Commonplace Book, 1759-1772.
You can't say nothing they wrote in those books they didn't believe in. That's nuts.
His best friend for 7yrs said he was orthodox and he had to be to get into a Presbyterian seminary.
In fact, JM said he was orthodox by affirming biblical inerrancy:
"At the same time his ingenious and plausible defence of parliamentary authority carries in it such defects and misrepresentations, as confirm me in political orthodoxy—after the same manner as the specious arguments of Infidels have established [reinforced] the faith of inquiring Christians."
-To William Bradford Jr., July 1, 1774
"Channing is useful because he put into words what American unitarians believed. If you want to argue unitarianism was different in 1776 or 1789, then that's valid.
But I don't think you are."
Jefferson on Channing (and Priestley and Price) is also useful. That's coming up.
"His best friend for 7yrs said he was orthodox and he had to be to get into a Presbyterian seminary."
And yet he never left his nominal affiliation with the Anglicans-Episcopalians.
No OFT. Meade says JM was not orthodox. Rather he was fill in the blank (Christian-Deist, unitarian, theistic rationalist).
http://jonrowe.blogspot.com/2007/09/bishop-meade-on-james-madisons-creed.html
Jonathan Rowe said...
No OFT. Meade says JM was not orthodox. Rather he was fill in the blank (Christian-Deist, unitarian, theistic rationalist).""
All he writes is this, "I was never at Mr. Madison's but once, and then our conversation took such a turn—though not designed on my part—as to call forth some expressions and arguments which left the impression on my mind that his creed was not strictly regulated by the Bible"
He didn't quote what he said, so how do u know what he meant? He could be referring to a variety of biblical subjects that have nothing to do with theology or the person of Christ, or it could be Meade was heterodox or even mistaken. Or, that meade did a coverup, or something to do with Episcopalian articles of faith.
Either way, no one knows.
Other evidence, including that of his pastor and neighbors:
"At his death, some years after this, his minister—the Rev. Mr. Jones—and some of his neighbours openly expressed their conviction, that, from his conversation and bearing during the latter years of his life, he must be considered as receiving the Christian system to be divine." [Bold face mine]
It's possible you are correct, but it's based on scanty evidence, and from a guy who burned his letters to William Bradford. James Madison was a loser in my mind for what he did to the country, and seems like a bitter and angry man because he was hiding something. Wonder what Bill F. thinks of JM.
Jonathan Rowe said...
"His best friend for 7yrs said he was orthodox and he had to be to get into a Presbyterian seminary."
And yet he never left his nominal affiliation with the Anglicans-Episcopalians""""
This doesn't follow because of his family connections.
Bradford knew JM more than Meade or anyone else. And u had to be orthodox to enter a Presbyterian seminary.
"This doesn't follow because of his family connections."
I don't know what you mean by this. Whatever he was considering when young, Madison never went to Presbyterian seminary or gave up his affiliation with the Anglican-Episcopalian. There is also part of Bishop Meade's statement on Madison's friends with those of "infidel principles." And Meade said Madison didn't kneel when praying. George Washington, if I'm not mistaken also had people observe this about him.
David Holmes who is the preeminent expert of late 18th Century American Anglicanism says it was the more statistically minded folks in that church who didn't kneel when praying.
I don't know what you mean by this"""
Maybe his parents didn't want that.
Madison never went to Presbyterian seminary"""
Princeton was designed as a seminary. Where do u think he was learning theology under Witherspoon after his undergrad?
Neither Madison nor anyone else studied theology under Witherspoon at Princeton. Rather they studied his Scottish Enlightenment Political Philosophy.
Neither Madison nor anyone else studied theology under Witherspoon at Princeton. Rather they studied his Scottish Enlightenment Political Philosophy.""
This is a false statement because out of the
250 ministers ordained from 1758 to 1789, 120 went to Princeton and most of those guys didn't have personal tutoring before ordination, but Madison did have personal tutoring, which included theology, law, ethics and Hebrew.
All the colleges and "log colleges" before the revolution were seminaries.
James Madison went to a Presbyterian seminary that taught orthodox beliefs and his best friend called him orthodox.
Your insinuation that Madison didn't become Presbyterian, is refuted because other students didn't become Presbyterian, including his best friend William Bradford
What percentage of the attendees at College of New Jersey [now Princeton] became clergymen?
In Madison's time, I believe it's very few. At first, perhaps many. That every American college was still a seminary by 1750 or so is unsupportable, and one of David Barton's worst errors.
I do not believe Madison entered with any intention of becoming a minister. It is bad history to assume he did without some additional evidence.
Yup it was Noll, Hatch and Marsden, and then Frazer who pointed out that Witherspoon taught his students his Scottish Common Sense Enlightenment ideas that were a particular kind of natural right theory (discovered by reason).
No evidence that he was their Calvinistic theology instructor.
"David Holmes who is the preeminent expert of late 18th Century American Anglicanism says it was the more statistically minded folks in that church who didn't kneel when praying."
LOL. Why we need editors. "deistically" not "statistically."
In Madison's time, I believe it's very few. At first, perhaps many. That every American college was still a seminary by 1750 or so is unsupportable, and one of David Barton's worst errors.""""
"As is well-known, the primary purpose in the establishment of all the colonial colleges, with the possible exception of the college of Philadelphia and kings college, wss to train ministers. This purpose we have seen, they fulfilled satisfactory until past the middle of the eighteenth century."
-The Rise of Theological Schools in America
William Warren Sweet, Divinity school, univ. Of Chicago.
Church History
Vol. 6, No. 3 (Sep., 1937), pp. 260-273 (14 pages
Google it. You'll see the graduation rates for ministers decline during the revolution. Up till then, Princeton was a seminary. You're wrong about Barton too.
I do not believe Madison entered with any intention of becoming a minister. It is bad history to assume he did without some additional evidence.""""
Lol. To be a minister was his plan. That's common knowledge. He quit when he realized he couldn't speak well. That's why he was tutored for another year, to know hebrew
OFT: Whatever kind of religious zeal JM might have had when he was younger, there is no evidence of him pursuing seminary like studies at Princeton. As noted above Witherspoon taught Madison and his students his Scottish Common sense philosophy. And after that Madison's friendship with "those of infidel principles" (Jefferson) led him to likewise speak about God in generic philosophical language for the rest of his life.
That, among other reasons, is why I believe George Ticknor's testimony.
Whatever kind of religious zeal JM might have had when he was younger, there is no evidence of him pursuing seminary like studies at Princeton. """"
Colonial colleges were seminaries.
"Educated by Presbyterian clergymen, Madison, as a student at Princeton (1769-1772), seems to have developed a "transient inclination" to enter the ministry. In a 1773 letter to a college friend he made the zealous proposal that the rising stars of his generation renounce their secular prospects and "publicly . . . declare their unsatisfactoriness by becoming fervent advocates in the cause of Christ."
https://www.loc.gov/loc/madison/hutson-paper.html
"At his death, some years after this, his minister—the Rev. Mr. Jones—and some of his neighbours openly expressed their conviction, that, from his conversation and bearing during the latter years of his life, he must be considered as receiving the Christian system to be divine." [Bold face mine]
-old churches.
It would appear meade himself understood this to be about Christ. So, JM was orthodox twice, but not in the middle? That's weak.
Like i said before, he suppressed his faith along with many others people.
Remember, he wrote "divine author of our blessed religion " for GW in 1st inaugural.
He never used that himself. I think he wrote it because he knew GW believed it and he believed that himself and could get away with it without vetting himself.
Also, he called himself a Christian not a unitarian.
Post a Comment