Briefly More From St. George Tucker on Church and State

This more from St. George Tucker's commentary on William Blackstone and common law principles. Tucker worked with Thomas Jefferson and James Madison in Virginia. He appeared to have the same ideology on church and state relations, which is strongly anti-establishment. When examining contemporary arguments the secular left and religious right give, we see a lot of "cherry picking" of quotations from both sides (and unfortunately, spreading "unconfirmed quotations" as well).

For instance, in his private letters, Thomas Jefferson often bitterly rails against the Trinitarian priestcraft. James Madison is more tame here. However, his Memorial and Remonstrance has some fierce quotations bitterly criticizing institutionally established religion (that document also has parts that "talk up" Christianity; hence the cherry picking).

Tucker, though, has some interesting quotations that we don't tend to see repeated nearly as much (if at all). The one on Moloch and Jehovah seems like it could have gone viral. Below I'm going to reproduce more from the Tucker on Blackstone document. Richard Price's name comes up (at times it's hard to tell where Price's words end and Tucker's begin). (Because I've edited the passages, please read the whole thing for context and make your minds up for yourselves.)

What that, here is Tucker:

1. ... The infallibility of the rulers of nations, in matters of religion, hath been a doctrine practically enforced from the earliest periods of history to the present moment among jews, pagans, mahometans, and christians, alike. The altars of Moloch and of Jehovah have been equally stained with the blood of victims, whose conscience did not receive conviction from the polluted doctrines of blood thirsty priests and tyrants. ... 

In liberty of conscience says the elegant Dr. Price, I include much more than toleration. Jesus Christ has established a perfect equality among his followers. His command is, that they shall assume no jurisdiction over one another, and acknowledge no master besides himself. It is, therefore, presumption in any of them to claim a right to any superiority or pre-eminence over their bretheren. Such a claim is implied, whenever any of them pretend to tolerate the rest. Not only all christians, but all men of all religions, ought to be considered by a state as equally entitled to it's protection, as far as they demean themselves honestly and peaceably. ...

America's Founders, Christianity and the Common Law

The English jurist William Blackstone is properly regarded as the preeminent authority behind English common law. After successfully separating from Great Britain, America retained the common law. There was one problem however: it needed revision to suit America's newfound circumstances. The main problem with Blackstone was that he was a Tory who supported Great Britain over America in the conflict; to the extent that those sentiments existed in the common law, they had to be scrubbed.

But who would do it? Well, a number of founding era figures participated in the project; and ultimately American courts would wade their way through the waters on a case-by-case basis. There were two Founders in particular of whom I am aware who did comprehensive restatements, with proper revisions, of the English common law: James Wilson of Pennsylvania, and St. George Tucker of Virginia.

On the matter of Christianity and its status in "the common law," Blackstone did indeed claim that Christianity was part of the common law. Thomas Jefferson denied this was true and thought Blackstone was in error. The point of this post is not to settle who was right, but rather note some complex dynamics relating to how the common law functioned in America, specifically as it pertains to this particular issue.

Also, the point of this post is not to "deconstruct" the common law; it did and to some extent still does exist in America today at a coherent level. Blackstone, Wilson and Tucker were by in large agreed on the matter. Still, there were complex issues on the margins where they disagreed and over time disagreements in American courts over the content of the common law led to the Supreme Court of the United States to declare that the substance of the common law is simply a matter of state law and they are free to disagree with one another here.

The status of Christianity and its relationship to the common law is one of those "issues," as we have seen above, that engenders disagreement. As noted above, Jefferson disagreed with Blackstone's notion that Christianity was part of the common law. James Wilson stated that Christianity was part of the common law -- though what kind of Christianity Wilson was referring to isn't settled. 

The American founding took place in the backdrop of extreme sectarian squabbles among the different sects. Indeed, such was the driver behind America's concepts of religious liberty, disestablishment and some kind of "separation of church and state." Removing Christianity's status from the civil law -- what Jefferson and James Madison desired -- was one solution to the problem. Though America's founders themselves disagreed on where the lines properly draw here. 

Here is where Tucker's understanding might be of interest. Politically, he seemed more aligned with Jefferson and Madison, so one might expect that Tucker would reject the notion that Christianity is part of the common law and otherwise support principles that separate Christianity's status from civil government. Perhaps he did. But I did uncover him seeming to support integrating a type of "Christianity" into American law. 

It was Richard Price's Enlightenment theology. Tucker quoted from Price verbatim in his notes on Blackstone and the common law. Price's "Christianity" was Arian in its Christology. I put "Christianity" in quotes, by the way, simply to illustrate the fact that certain institutional forces in the 18th Century -- and indeed, long before that, and to some extent today -- don't consider Arianism to be part of "Christianity." 

Here is a taste of Tucker quoting Price in his commentaries on Blackstone and the common law:

It is indeed only a rational and liberal religion; a religion founded on just notions of the Deity, as a Being who regards equally every sincere worshipper, and by whom all are alike favoured as far as they act up to the light they enjoy: a religion which consists in the imitation of the moral perfections of an Almighty but Benevolent Governor of Nature, who directs for the best, all events, in confidence in the care of his providence, in resignation to his will, and in the faithful discharge of every duty of piety and morality from a regard to his authority, and the apprehension of a future righteous retribution. ... This is the religion that every enlightened friend to mankind will be zealous to support. But it is a religion that the powers of the world know little of, and which will always be best promoted by being left free and open.

An Old Jared Sparks Post is Still Relevant

I wrote this in 2008 (yeah, I've been doing this for a while). I'm hoping to shed light on some of the "issues" relating to how we understand and categorize America's founders religious creeds with the terms that are used. Many "Deists" and almost all "Unitarians" of the period in which we study -- mainly the 18th century, but also the antecedent late 17th and subsequent early 19th centuries -- considered themselves to be "Christians." 

Rather, it was the orthodox Trinitarians -- perhaps not all, but the "theologian" types -- who would deny them that label.

With that, this is Jared Sparks, a very notable early 19th Century scholar of the American founding and a Unitarian, defending the notion that Unitarians like himself are entitled to the "Christian" label against one Rev. Samuel Miller of Princeton who himself was quite prominent, back in the day:

And Locke must still be considered a Unitarian, till he can be proved a Trinitarian ; a task, which it is not likely you will soon undertake. At all events, he had no faith in the assemblage of articles, which you denominate the essence of christianity, and without believing which, you say, no one can be called a Christian. His whole treatise on the Reasonableness of Christianity bears witness to this truth. For the leading object of that work is to show, that "the Gospel was written to induce men into a belief of this proposition, 'that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah,' which if they believed, they should have life."* He says nothing about total depravity, the atonement, the "sanctifying spirit of an Almighty Surety," nor any of your peculiar doctrines. Yet who has done more to elucidate the sacred Scriptures, or to prove the consistency and reasonableness of the religion of Jesus? Your rule, however, will take from him the Christian name.

Yes, I agree, John Locke was almost certainly a theological unitarian. We are dealing with different baselines for the term "Christian." Theological unitarianism, by definition, rejects the articulation of the Trinity found in the Nicene Creed and like places. Most of such unitarians rejected the Trinity, Incarnation and Atonement*, all the while believing Jesus is Messiah/Son of God. 

*The majority of such unitarians were Arians and Socinians, with Arianism predominating. The theology of both rejects the Trinity and Incarnation. Some of these unitarians posit a doctrine that sounds like the Atonement, but it's an unorthodox version. Others outright reject the Atonement by name. Some scholars lump in Modalists/Sabellians with "unitarianism." Though, such believes God is Father, Son and Holy Spirit -- which sounds like a Trinity; though, such also denies F, S & HS are eternally distinct, but rather different titles/forms that God as One Person holds.  

Does this Quotation Reveal John Adams as a "Conspiracy Theorist"?

I will let the readers decide. It's also not the only one Adams has given like this (he actually has many). But this one well captures his sentiment. To Thomas Jefferson, July 9th 1813:

... No sooner has one Party discovered or invented an Amelioration of the Condition of Man or the order of Society, than the opposite Party, belies it, misconstrues it, misrepresents it, ridicules it, insults it, and persecutes it. Records are destroyed. Histories are annihilated or interpolated, or prohibited Sometimes by Popes, Sometimes by Emperors, Sometimes by Aristocratical and Sometimes by democratical Assemblies and Sometimes by Mobs.

Aristotle wrote the History and description of Eighteen hundred Republicks, which existed before his time. Cicero wrote two Volumes of discoures on Government, which perhaps were worth all the rest of his Works. The Works of Livy and Tacitus & that are lost, would be more interesting than all that remain. Fifty Gospells have been destroyed, and where are St. Lukes World of Books that had been written? If you ask my Opinion, who has committed all the havoc? I will answer you candidly; Ecclesiastical and Imperial Despotism has done it, to conceal their Frauds.

Why are the Histories of all Nations, more ancient than the Chrtian Æra, lost? Who destroyed the Alexandrian Library? I believe that Christian Priests, Jewish Rabbis Grecian Sages and Roman Emperors had as great a hand in it as Turks and Mahomitans.

Madeleine Pennington reflects on Biden's Presidential Oath

There's an interesting article that appears on the U.K. based 'Theos' website with the title, So Help Me God: Faith, Politics, Integrity and an Inauguration. 

A taste:

After all, this [the 'so help me God' tagline] is an explicitly religious exhortation which is markedly absent from the version of the Oath prescribed by the Constitution itself, but which has traditionally been included in practice – in the first instance, as a nod to George Washington, who (legend has it) spontaneously included it as he swore his own Oath to become the first American President in 1789. This would have been all the more notable given Washington’s role in presiding over the Constitutional Convention.

In this sense, ‘the faith bit’ is at once constitutionally excluded and culturally obliged – which is, of course, how much of the relationship between faith and politics in America has proceeded since the nation was born. 

Potential reasons for leaving it out to start with only serve to bolster this image. Obviously, its exclusion enables the non–religious to swear the full Oath in good faith – and so to take the highest public office in the nation. This fulfils Article Six of the Constitution against religious tests for public office. Yet, unsurprisingly for America, some have also suggested a religious motivation for the omission: that it was intended to appease the significant Quaker population of nascent America, given that Quakers refuse oath–taking on principle (taking Matthew 5.33–37 in its literal sense). In the words of the Quaker William Penn: “It is vain and insolent, to think that a man, when he pleaseth, can make the great God of heaven a witness or judge in any matter … to help or forsake him, as the truth or falseness of his oath requires, when he saith ‘So help me God.’”

Simply let your yes be yes, and your no be no.

To be clear, this is speculation – just as the tales of Washington’s impromptu show of piety are themselves historically dubious. But the cultural layering associated with the phrase remains either way – and serves to remind us just how far America’s theoretical secularism has been entangled with religious principle from the start.