Because We Always Need a Little Controversy...

Glenn Beck and David Barton
on the "Bible of the Revolution"

(My Attempt at "Stirring the Pot")

I know that some of you hate posts like this but hear me out. First off, a little controversy never hurt anyone. Second, it's posts like these that are usually our most popular and attract the most new readers (I've done my homework on this matter and it's true).

So last night, David Barton made his triumphant first appearance on Glenn Beck's show. Among the many items they discussed was one that we have tossed around before: the "Bible of the Revolution." In this clip, Barton wows Beck with his old and torn copy of what he calls, "the American Bible." He goes on to mention that it was congress itself that authorized and printed these bibles, which were then distributed to the American citizenry, with specific emphasis in the nation's schools. The portion that I am referencing in this clip only lasts about 2 minutes. Unfortunately I couldn't get a separate clip, so you will see that the panel goes into other issues that don't concern this blog (so DON'T BRING THEM UP!!!). Just focus on the bible/Thomas Jefferson parts:



Well, as many of our readers are familiar, Chris Rodda made the following clip in an effort to debunk Barton's claim:



I hope Ms. Rodda will pay us a visit and explain in person some of the details surrounding this issue. I'm fairly unfamiliar with the details but would love to hear what you all think!

John Calvin Taught Rebellion to Tyrants is DISOBEDIENCE to God

At least he did in Book IV, Chapter 20 of Calvin's "Institutes of the Christian Religion." I am aware of one passage from other commentaries of Calvin's on Romans 13 which teaches something slightly different. I'll deal with that later. I'm basing this claim entirely on Calvin's teachings in Institutes.

His teachings there could not have been clearer. Based on them, the Declaration of Independence is a 100% anti-Calvinist document; that is, if "Calvinism" stopped with Calvin.

Arguably it didn't. Later "Calvinists" like Samuel Rutherford and Philippe de Mornay, apparently (and for obvious reasons) not satisfied having to live out Calvin's teachings on submitting to political tyranny, made the most out of Calvin's idea of "interposition," and expanded it in the "living" philosophical sense (i.e., "living Calvinism," "living Constitutionalism," etc.), such that results could be achieved of which Calvin himself would not have approved.

Though I'm less familiar with their works than I am Calvin's, they still, like Calvin, stopped short of approving of "revolt." Rather, if the King violated the law, since "law was King," we could follow the law not the unlawful actions of a King. That's what Rutherford taught in Lex Rex. That's NOT what Calvin taught. And even Rutherford's more generous (than Calvin's) teachings do not countenance revolt.

[Again, since I'm less familiar with Rutherford, I'll try to be cautious with claims of later "Calvinists" who expanded "interposition" beyond what Calvin taught and would have approved.]

Whatever else the Founders said they did -- i.e., "we are resisting the unlawful actions of King George and Parliament" -- something that does square with Rutherfordian rhetoric -- they said they were revolting. They used the term "revolution" over and over again to describe what they did.

So while you may be able to, as some have, analyze the events of the American Revolution as intermediate magistrates fighting a war of self defense and resisting the unlawful actions of the British, you cannot square what the Founders said they did or the rhetoric they appealed to in the DOI with such a sentiment.

And orthodox Christian critics of the pro-revolutionary sentiments contained in the DOI might note that's EXACTLY why so many "Christians" -- some orthodox some heterodox -- initially approved of the French Revolution and thought its principles an extension of the American. Once you pollute Christianity with foreign principles (like rebellion is okay) it acts as a cancer. Hence, the French Revolution as the logical extension of the anti-biblical principles of the American Revolution.

That's what, among others, Gregg Frazer, Russell Kirk, Lino Graglia, and Roberts Bork and Kraynak might note.

Now, on a personal note, to satisfy my friend Jim Babka, I am not saying the American Revolution was anti-biblical or that there aren't understandings -- even traditional orthodox understandings -- of the Bible that are compatible with revolutionary thought.

Rather, my narrow claim is 1) Calvin didn't approve this. And 2) The Founders, though some of their actions and rhetoric was consistent with more generous notions of interposition (i.e., they oft-talked about how the the British violated British law in dealing with America), went beyond that and said they revolted.

Let's look at Book IV, Chapter 20 of Calvin's "Institutes of the Christian Religion" and settle the issue. He wrote:

For while in this unworthy conduct, and among atrocities so alien, not only from the duty of the magistrate, but also of the man, they behold no appearance of the image of God, which ought to be conspicuous in the magistrate, while they see not a vestige of that minister of God, who was appointed to be a praise to the good and a terror to the bad, they cannot recognise the ruler whose dignity and authority Scripture recommends to us. And, undoubtedly, the natural feeling of the human mind has always been not less to assail tyrants with hatred and execration, than to look up to just kings with love and veneration.

25. But if we have respect to the word of God, it will lead us farther, and make us subject not only to the authority of those princes who honestly and faithfully perform their duty toward us, but all princes, by whatever means they have so become, although there is nothing they less perform than the duty of princes. For though the Lord declares that a ruler to maintain our safety is the highest gift of his beneficence, and prescribes to rulers themselves their proper sphere, he at the same time declares, that of whatever description they may be, they derive their power from none but him. Those, indeed, who rule for the public good, are true examples and specimens of his beneficence, while those who domineer unjustly and tyrannically are raised up by him to punish the people for their iniquity. Still all alike possess that sacred majesty with which he has invested lawful power. I will not proceed further without subjoining some distinct passages to this effect. 657 We need not labour to prove that an impious king is a mark of the Lord's anger, since I presume no one will deny it, and that this is not less true of a king than of a robber who plunders your goods, an adulterer who defiles your bed, and an assassin who aims at your life, since all such calamities are classed by Scripture among the curses of God. But let us insist at greater length in proving what does not so easily fall in with the views of men, that even an individual of the worst character, one most unworthy of all honour, if invested with public authority, receives that illustrious divine power which the Lord has by his word devolved on the ministers of his justice and judgment, and that, accordingly, in so far as public obedience is concerned, he is to be held in the same honour and reverence as the best of kings. [Bold mine.]

Calvin could not have been clearer: Tyrannical Kings -- even the worst that you can imagine [i.e., Hitler or Stalin] -- don't lose their Romans 13 divinely ordained status.

But there's more (the bold, again, is mine):

... When we hear that the king was appointed by God, let us, at the same time, call to mind those heavenly edicts as to honouring and fearing the king, and we shall have no doubt that we are to view the most iniquitous tyrant as occupying the place with which the Lord has honoured him. When Samuel declared to the people of Israel what they would suffer from their kings, he said, "This will be the manner of the king that shall reign over you: He will take your sons, and appoint them for himself, for his chariots, and to be his horsemen; and some shall run before his chariots. And he will appoint him captains over thousands, and captains over fifties; and will set them to ear his ground, and to reap his harvest, and to make his instruments of war, and instruments of his chariots. And he will take your daughters to be confectioneries, and to be cooks, and to be bakers. And he will take your fields, and your vineyards, and your oliveyards, even the best of them, and give them to his servants. And he will take the tenth of your seed, and of your vineyards, and give to his officers, and to his servants. And he will take your men-servants, and your maid-servants, and your goodliest young men, and your asses, and put them to his work. He will take the tenth of your sheep: and ye shall be his servants" (1 Sam. 8:11-l7). Certainly these things could not be done legally by kings, whom the law trained most admirably to all kinds of restraint; but it was called justice in regard to the people, because they were bound to obey, and could not lawfully resist: as if Samuel had said, To such a degree will kings indulge in tyranny, which it will not be for you to restrain. The only thing remaining for you will be to receive their commands, and be obedient to their words.

27. But the most remarkable and memorable passage is in Jeremiah. Though it is rather long, I am not indisposed to quote it, because it most clearly settles this whole question. "I have made the earth, the man and the beast that are upon the ground, by my great power, and by my outstretched arm, and have given it unto whom it seemed meet unto me. And now have I given all these lands into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon, my servant: and the beasts of the field have I given him also to serve him. And all nations shall serve him, and his son, and his son's son, until the very time of his land come: and then many nations and great kings shall serve themselves of him. And it shall come to pass, that the nation and kingdom which will not serve the same Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon, and that will not put their neck under the yoke of the king of Babylon, that nation will I punish, saith the Lord, with the sword, and with famine, and with pestilence, until I have consumed them by his hand" (Jer. 27:5-8). Therefore "bring your necks under the yoke of the king of Babylon, and serve him and his people, and live" (v. 12). We see how great obedience the Lord was pleased to demand for this dire and ferocious tyrant, for no other reason than just that he held the kingdom. In other words, the divine decree had placed him on the throne of the kingdom, and admitted him to regal majesty, which could not be lawfully violated. If we constantly keep before our eyes and minds the fact, that even the most iniquitous kings are appointed by the same decree which establishes all regal authority, we will never entertain the seditious thought, that a king is to be treated according to his deserts, and that we are not bound to act the part of good subjects to him who does not in his turn act the part of a king to us.

In short, Christians are to be obedient to tyrant Kings simply because they are Kings. Obedience to tyrannical Kings is obedience to God. This is Calvin 101.

But there's even more:

But rulers, you will say, owe mutual duties to those under them. This I have already confessed. But if from this you conclude that obedience is to be returned to none but just governors, you reason absurdly. Husbands are bound by mutual duties to their wives, and parents to their children. Should husbands and parents neglect their duty; should the latter be harsh and severe to the children whom they are enjoined not to provoke to anger, and by their severity harass them beyond measure; should the former treat with the greatest contumely the wives whom they are enjoined to love and to spare as the weaker vessels; would children be less bound in duty to their parents, and wives to their husbands? They are made subject to the froward and undutiful. Nay, since the duty of all is not to look behind them, that is, not to inquire into the duties of one another, but to submit each to his own duty, this ought especially to be exemplified in the case of those who are placed under the power of others. Wherefore, if we are cruelly tormented by a savage, if we are rapaciously pillaged by an avaricious or luxurious, if we are neglected by a sluggish, if, in short, we are persecuted for righteousness' sake by an impious and sacrilegious prince, let us first call up the remembrance of our faults, which doubtless the Lord is chastising by such scourges. In this way humility will curb our impatience. And let us reflect that it belongs not to us to cure these evils, that all that remains for us is to implore the help of the Lord, in whose hands are the hearts of kings, and inclinations of kingdoms. 658 "God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods." Before his face shall fall and be crushed all kings and judges of the earth, who have not kissed his anointed, who have enacted unjust laws to oppress the poor in judgment, and do violence to the cause of the humble, to make widows a prey, and plunder the fatherless.

In other words, you submit to the tyrant, King, parent or whomever God placed in power over you. If they treat you unfairly, God will get them for it. On Earth, the buck stops with them.

After writing this, Calvin notes examples where Kings were removed.

Herein is the goodness, power, and providence of God wondrously displayed. At one time he raises up manifest avengers from among his own servants, and gives them his command to punish accursed tyranny, and deliver his people from calamity when they are unjustly oppressed; at another time he employs, for this purpose, the fury of men who have other thoughts and other aims. Thus he rescued his people Israel from the tyranny of Pharaoh by Moses; from the violence of Chusa, king of Syria, by Othniel; and from other bondage by other kings or judges. Thus he tamed the pride of Tyre by the Egyptians; the insolence of the Egyptians by the Assyrians; the ferocity of the Assyrians by the Chaldeans; the confidence of Babylon by the Medes and Persians, -- Cyrus having previously subdued the Medes, while the ingratitude of the kings of Judah and Israel, and their impious contumacy after all his kindness, he subdued and punished, -- at one time by the Assyrians, at another by the Babylonians. All these things, however, were not done in the same way. The former class of deliverers being brought forward by the lawful call of God to perform such deeds, when they took up arms against kings, did not at all violate that majesty with which kings are invested by divine appointment, but armed from heaven, they, by a greater power, curbed a less, just as kings may lawfully punish their own satraps. The latter class, though they were directed by the hand of God, as seemed to him good, and did his work without knowing it, had nought but evil in their thoughts.

This passage is consistent with Calvin's notion that God is in charge and if a King is unfairly tyrannical, God always has the power to control events and remove the King. Calvin draws two classes of people God uses as "instruments" of His will, here. One, people who delivered from tyranny using non-sinful means, and others, who delivered from tyranny using sinful means. As Gregg Frazer has pointed out, God in His Providence, sometimes uses the sinful actions of human beings (i.e., George Washington leading an armed revolt in violating of Romans 13 and other parts of the Bible) to accomplish His will. Other times, as with Moses, no sinful means are employed. Moses led no revolt. God brought on the plagues and Moses simply took his people and left just as Pharaoh instructed.

Now, there is probably more than one way to interpret these biblical passages and if others want to make a case for righteous biblical rebellion based on these stories, I'm all ears.

Just understand: Nowhere does Calvin in Institutes use these examples to justify what he just spent lots of words telling believers was forbidden. If you see that in the above reproduced passage, you see something I don't.

Immediately after mentioning that God can take revenge on unfair tyrants, Calvin discusses what has been termed "interposition." And again, to be clear, Calvin stresses private resistance of tyrannical authority is forbidden.

... Although the Lord takes vengeance on unbridled domination, let us not therefore suppose that that vengeance is committed to us, to whom no command has been given but to obey and suffer. I speak only of private men. For when popular magistrates have been appointed to curb the tyranny of kings (as the Ephori, who were opposed to kings among the Spartans, or Tribunes of the people to consuls among the Romans, or Demarchs to the senate among the Athenians; and perhaps there is something similar to this in the power exercised in each kingdom by the three orders, when they hold their primary diets). So far am I from forbidding these officially to check the undue license of kings, that if they connive at kings when they tyrannise and insult over the humbler of the people, I affirm that their dissimulation is not free from nefarious perfidy, because they fraudulently betray the liberty of the people, while knowing that, by the ordinance of God, they are its appointed guardians.

That's the passage that later "Calvinists" like Rutherford would try to make the most of. But he gives examples of "popular magistrates" (not private men -- who as individuals have NO right to resist political tyranny) "appointed." Lower magistrates must act pursuant to recognized law, like Congress impeaching and removing the President. If there is no legally recognized mechanism for removing the tyrannical King, then tough luck.

In America in 1776, British Law was the recognized, existing law. And Blackstone -- the recognized expert on British law -- was clear that the King and Parliament (the particular way in which THEY split power) were the final EARTHLY arbiters of British law and rule.

Again, if one wants to argue, contra Blackstone, that America (the Continental Congress) was justified, as lower intermediate magistrates, in resisting the British on British legal grounds, fine. But America said it did more.

America said it revolted. And that's not consistent with Calvin, and arguable not with what the later, more generous "Calvinists" taught.

Now Accepting Applications

American Creation is pleased to announce that we are now accepting "applications" from anyone interested in joining our blog as a contributor.

"Application" Requirements:
Really there aren't any specific requirements to join AC. In reality we are simply looking for people who have a strong knowledge and interest in this topic. We sincerely want people who want to see this blog grow, so being able to post on a fairly regular basis is essential. One doesn't need a Ph.D. in history to apply (though we aren't shunning such credentials either). Again, we want people who share our passion for early American religion and blogging and want to join us in making AC a continued success. We are committed to assembling as vast an assortment of contributors as possible (for us, the clash of ideas is much more important than the simple "go with the crowd" attitude of many blogs), so don't let your personal opinion on this all-important topic dissuade you from joining us!

"Applicants" will be selected by the governing body of American Creation (the moderators). No favoritism will be given to long-time followers/readers of American Creation (but they are encouraged to "apply"). Our selection will be based on a number of factors, the most important being whether or not we feel you are an appropriate fit for AC's future goals. In other words, the selection process is intentionally vague. If we're being 100% honest, we'd like the freedom to consider ALL possibilities.

So, if you are interested in joining our team, please let us know via email. I won't divulge the emails of other moderators at this time (they are free to do so in the comments section if they feel so inclined) but you can contact me at: bradhart78@hotmail.com Please provide any and all information that you feel is appropriate and could assist us in our selection process.

We hope to hear from you soon!

A Low But Solid Common Denominator

They could teach K-12 kids this much about the American Founding: In what he called his "first official act," George Washington thanked God. They could even make a video of Michael Newdow in his funny hat and call it, "He Said It!"

"Such being the impressions under which I have, in obedience to the public summons, repaired to the present station, it would be peculiarly improper to omit in this first official act my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over the universe, who presides in the councils of nations, and whose providential aids can supply every human defect, that His benediction may consecrate to the liberties and happiness of the people of the United States a Government instituted by themselves for these essential purposes, and may enable every instrument employed in its administration to execute with success the functions allotted to his charge."

And Washington felt that he was speaking not just for himself, but for the new American nation:

"In tendering this homage to the Great Author of every public and private good, I assure myself that it expresses your sentiments not less than my own, nor those of my fellow-citizens at large less than either".

And Washington continues, crediting the Almighty not only with the success of the American Revolution, but with the peaceful agreement among men how to govern themselves and each other---the U.S. Constitution:

"No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the Invisible Hand which conducts the affairs of men more than those of the United States. Every step by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation seems to have been distinguished by some token of providential agency; and in the important revolution just accomplished in the system of their united government the tranquil deliberations and voluntary consent of so many distinct communities from which the event has resulted can not be compared with the means by which most governments have been established without some return of pious gratitude, along with an humble anticipation of the future blessings which the past seem to presage. These reflections, arising out of the present crisis, have forced themselves too strongly on my mind to be suppressed. You will join with me, I trust, in thinking that there are none under the influence of which the proceedings of a new and free government can more auspiciously commence."

Not so controversial.

Lowest Common Denominators

This Texas Controversy compounded with the years of meticulous study I've done on religion & the American Founding got me thinking about what K-12 students should be taught.

The problem is history is complex and there are great complex nuances to the religion & the American Founding issue. Given rational fear of K-12 historical ignorance I conclude we should be concerned they learn 1) raw facts, and 2) narratives both sides should be able to agree on, narratives "experts" like me might find too simple, but K-12 students might not.

Issues such as "was George Washington a Christian?" compounded with "what is the proper definition of Christian and does orthodox Trinitarian doctrine have anything to do with it?" are WAY beyond the call of what K-12 students should be expected to understand. Rather, we should expect them to be able to accurately recite who were the first X Presidents, what dates did they take office, where were they born and so on.

On three issues of contention -- Thomas Aquinas, John Calvin, and the American v. French Revolution -- the real story is too complex for K-12 students and teaching it the way the conservatives in Texas want distorts the record and will lead to misunderstanding.

First Aquinas: After years of intense study, I understand a case can be made for Thomas' silent influence on the Founding. Thomas Jefferson listed Aristotle, Cicero, Locke and Sidney as the four chief influences on the Declaration of Independence.

Jefferson probably would never have heard of Aristotle but for Aquinas who incorporated his teachings into Christendom. And Locke positively affirmed Richard Hooker, the Anglican heir to Aquinas' Roman Catholic natural law. Still, the FFs were, for the most part, anti-Roman Catholic bigots and thus, rarely if ever cited Aquinas as positive authority.

Second Calvin: Reading his Institutes, Calvin seemed to endorse an almost absolute duty of believers to submit to even un-godly pagan tyrannical rulers. He did leave one exception where lower magistrates, pursuant to a legally established and recognized mechanism, could work within the system to veto the rule of higher magistrates (similar to when Congress impeaches and removes the President).

Calvin did not recognize revolution. And whatever else the Founders said they were doing (i.e., resisting the unlawful actions of the British King), they said they were revolting. They used that specific term over and over again.

Yet, Calvin's exception, in the hands and minds of later Calvinists, evolved to a point where the concept of "revolt" could be sold to Presbyterians (with a little help from the natural law teachings of Locke).

Finally, the French Revolution. Texas wants to teach that this was a "different" event than the American. Of course, all individual events are different from all other individual events. The problem is, the two events had striking parallels along with meaningful differences.

The French Revolution, like the American, was theistic; both appealed to "God's" imprimatur. The two events seemed so similar at first that a great deal, probably a strong majority of, "Christian" American Founders supported the FR and THOUGHT it a continuation of the American.

Notable biblicists -- some orthodox and some heterodox (most sympathetic to the Democratic-Republican Party) -- thought Jesus would return in France at the success of their revolution to triumphantly usher in a global millennial republic of liberty, equality and fraternity. This was the first "End of History" thesis.

The French Revolution was similar to Iraq II. Both events had initial bipartisan support, with one party leading the way. Jefferson's Democratic-Republicans more enthusiastically supported the FR than the Federalist Party. And the Federalists, as a whole, jumped ship, before the DRs.

Historical hindsight being 20/20, the meaningful differences between the French and American Revolutions, why one worked and the other didn't, became more apparent after the FR's failure.

I think I've accurately detailed three complex historical dynamics. The problem, as I see it, is all three exist at a level of complexity that is appropriate for college and graduate level study.

K-12 students won't properly understand Thomistic or Calvinistic nuances during the American Founding anymore than they would Leo Strauss' theory of the esoteric, hedonistic, Hobbsean John Locke.

Rather, teach them, just the facts, ma'am.

Update: Don't take my "teach just the facts" too literally as some of the commenters at Positive Liberty have. Of course, good history teaching at whatever level involves telling compelling stories and making them come alive.

It's about what we expect students to learn. This is the kind of thing I would want K-12 students to master. And this I would save for college or graduate level history.

On the political brilliance of Samuel Adams

Sam Adams is one of the key founders who hasn't gotten nearly the attention he deserves given his importance in the movement for American independence.  Unlike his cousin John Adams, there hasn't been a major popular biography of Sam to break into current consciousness.  Conservative writer and biographer of many of the founders Richard Brookhiser has a short post over at National Review's blog The Corner that points out some of Sam Adams' brilliance in working in the cause of ordered liberty.  Well worth a read.

Brayton In HuffPo on Texas BOE

Check it out here. Money quote:

Brayton called that interpretation "profoundly contrary to the historical record."

"John Jay, Alexander Hamilton and James Madison wrote the Federalist Papers to explain each and every provision of the Constitution to a population that was overwhelmingly Christian and convince them to vote for it. If they could have pointed to biblical sources for those provisions, that would have been a very powerful argument in favor of ratification. Yet not once is the Bible mentioned anywhere in those 85 essays. And not once, according to the notes of those in attendance, was the Bible ever referenced at the constitutional convention in Philadelphia to justify a concept or provision," according to Brayton.

Thoughts on Adams' "Thoughts on Government"

John Adams published a wonderfully short and readable guide to constitution-making entitled "Thoughts on Government" in 1776, coinciding with a recommendation from Congress that the colonies should establish new governments. This essay of Adams' is a window into his thinking on why government should have the forms he was advocating. It is a short read, and well worth the effort.

Before getting into the details of government, Adams lays out an important point, perhaps easily overlooked today: the purpose of good government is to foster good society, defined as virtuous society, and this is clearly distinguished from a society of virtuous people. Adams puts it as follows:

"We ought to consider what is the end of government, before we determine which is the best form. Upon this point all speculative politicians will agree, that the happiness of society is the end of government, as all divines and moral philosophers will agree that the happiness of the individual is the end of man... [and] All sober inquirers after truth, ancient and modern, pagan and Christian, have declared that the happiness of man, as well as his dignity, consists in virtue. Confucius, Zoroaster, Socrates, Mahomet, not to mention authorities really sacred, have agreed in this."

Two points to take from this are: [1] Adams is reifying society, and specifically anthropomorphizing it (society is a real thing distinct from its members, and it has the same sorts of qualities that people have); and [2] happiness as a goal of people (and societies) is not what a casual reader might think is happiness (the philosophers' technical term for the casual sort of happiness is "contentment"), but rather happiness is virtue, or moral goodness.

Government does not exist to make individual people happy/virtuous; that is what mankind in general exists for ("the happiness of the individual is the end of man"). Instead, government exists for the complementary purpose of making society happy/virtuous ("the happiness of society is the end of government").

This matters because it addresses some of the foundation-level questions of the Christian-Nation hypothesis, such as "what on earth can it mean for a nation to be Christian?". An answer would be that if a nation (society) is an anthropomorphic entity, then it is a person capable of being Christian, or at least capable of acting as a Christian. In other words a nation is capable of humility, charity, forgiveness, contrition, and all the rest.

This also matters, of course, because of Jefferson's easily misunderstood phrase "pursuit of happiness" in the DoI, which readers in the founder's era would have understood as pursuit of virtue (self-development, moral improvement) rather than pursuit of entertainment or diversions. God didn’t give us a fundamental right to seek entertainment; or at least few in the founder’s era would have thought so. This is not to say that Jefferson agreed with Adams on everything, only that he used terms like “happiness” in the same way as Adams did, so that Jefferson and Adams could converse on these subjects without talking past one another.

Anyway, what has this to do with a Christian nation, rather than a merely anthropomorphic nation? Only this, that the founders would have taken the same approach to coercion of the conscience of a nation as they took to coercion of the conscience of individuals. As I have argued before, the Christianity of the founding era placed heavy emphasis and expended great theological energy on things we don’t think too deeply about anymore, and one of those things was non-coercion in conversion.

For a nation to be truly Christian it must first be truly free, and then in freedom choose to be Christian. If the constitution of the government of the nation is in any way an embodiment of the conscience of the nation, then it must not be hard-wired in any Christian sense, for to do so would preclude the conversion experience necessary for true Christianity. For the nation to be free it is also necessary, but not sufficient, that the government be well administered, and persistent good administration (generation after generation) was Adams’ pragmatic goal for the rest of the essay (“Nothing is more certain, from the history of nations and nature of man, than that some forms of government are better fitted for being well administered than others.”)

Anyway, there are all sorts of other gems in the essay, such as this swipe at English political philosophy: “A man must be indifferent to the sneers of modern Englishmen, to mention in their company the names of Sidney, Harrington, Locke, Milton, Nedham, Neville, Burnet, and Hoadly. No small fortitude is necessary to confess that one has read them. The wretched condition of this country, however, for ten or fifteen years past, has frequently reminded me of their principles and reasonings. They will convince any candid mind, that there is no good government but what is republican. That the only valuable part of the British constitution is so; …”

Another is this radical thought on what we now call second-amendment issues: “A militia law, requiring all men, or with very few exceptions besides cases of conscience, to be provided with arms and ammunition…”. This goes beyond a right to keep and bear arms, it recommends an entitlement to arms and ammunition.

Adams’ ending sums up his anticipated effects paternalistically: “A constitution founded on these principles introduces knowledge among the people, and inspires them with a conscious dignity becoming freemen; a general emulation takes place, which causes good humor, sociability, good manners, and good morals to be general. That elevation of sentiment inspired by such a government, makes the common people brave and enterprising. That ambition which is inspired by it makes them sober, industrious, and frugal.” The point, quite clearly, is not freedom for freedom’s sake, but rather freedom to make people morally better. So, as an end, the purpose of good government is happiness/virtue of society, and in pursuing that end a fortuitous effect will also be happiness/virtue of individuals.

Priestley on the Trinity, Reason & Revelation

Joseph Priestley writes:

Let those then who are attached to the doctrine of the Trinity, try whether they cannot hit upon some method or other of reconciling a few particular texts, not only with common sense, but also with the general and the obvious tenour of the Scriptures themselves. In this they will, no doubt, find some difficulty at first, from the effect of early impressions, and association of ideas; but an attention to the true idiom of the scripture language, with such helps as they may easily find for the purpose, will satisfy them that the doctrine of the Trinity furnishes no proper clue to the right understanding of these texts, but will only serve to mislead them.

In the mean time, this doctrine of the Trinity wears so disagreeable an aspect, that I think every reasonable man must say with the excellent Archbishop Tillotson,* with respect to the Athanasian Creed, "I wish we were well rid of it." This is not setting up reason against the Scriptures, but reconciling reason with the Scriptures, and the Scriptures with themselves. On any other scheme, they are irreconcileably at variance.

Can of Worms

If you want to read the whole thing, see this link to Positive Liberty. I'm only going to reproduce the last paragraph which is on point with this blog's purpose.

What caused the prime mover? I don't know. Perhaps the prime mover is self existent. Or perhaps a self existent unknowable deistic cause created lesser active personal gods, one of whom is our Jehovah who created us. That's what Ben Franklin believed at one point in his life and is (as far as I understand) what the Mormons believe.

The Massachusetts State Constitution: Juxtaposing America's PLANTING and America's FOUNDING

In his newest book Empire of Liberty, historian Gordon Wood dissects the origins and evolution of the early republic by referencing the famous story of Rip Van Winkle. Wood states in the introduction to his book:

During the second decade of the nineteenth century, writer Washington Irving developed an acute sense that his native land was no longer the same place it had been just a generation earlier. Irving had conservative and nostalgic sensibilities, and he sought to express some of his amazement at the transformation that had taken place in America by writing his story "Rip Van Winkle." Irving had his character Rip awaken from a sleep that had begun before the Revolution and had lasted twenty years. When Rip entered the village, he immediately felt lost. The buildings, the faces, the names were all strange and incomprehensible. "The very character of the people seemed changed. There was a busy, bustling disputatious tone about it, instead of the accustomed phlegm and drowsy tranquility."

[...]

"Rip Van Winkle" became the most popular if Irving's many stories, for early nineteenth-century Americans could appreciate Rip's bewilderment. Although superficially the political leadership seemed much the same...beneath the surface Rip, like most Americans, knew that "every thing's changed." In a few short decades Americans had experienced a remarkable transformation in their society and culture, and, like Rip and his creator, many wondered what happened and who they really were.

Yes, the convoluted world of early America was a swirling, evolving clash of ideas and beliefs that made the future seem different and uncertain. And among these changes to America's landscape, religion was a front and center issue for a people whose faith and devotion were changing as much as the rest of society.

One of the central components to this evolution of American religion has been the role of state constitutions in the establishment and execution of religious devotion. For many who argue in favor of America's Christian heritage, these state charters serve as a barometer of sorts, which, in their opinion, lean clearly in favor of the "Christian Nation" thesis. On the flip side of that coin, others see these state constitutions as an irrelevant blip on the radar, a mere side show to more important issues concerning the nation's true heritage.

And while I agree that these state constitutions provide substantial evidence that religion has played a dramatic role on the grand stage of American history, I think we would be mistaken to conclude that these various state charters serve as conclusive proof that America is a "Christian Nation." These constitutions do not close the door on this ongoing debate but in fact complicate the issue. Yes, they do help to color in many of the details, affording us a clearer picture of America's true heritage but they are no Rosetta Stone. With that said, if we keep Rip Van Winkle in mind, we can see that these state charters clearly demonstrate the fact that American religion was (and still is) an evolving specie; that America's PLANTING and its FOUNDING are both exclusive and joined at the hip. So let us travel back in time a ways and see what Mr. Van Winkle may have seen. How would different American generations, which all existed within relatively the same time and place, differ on the role that religion should play in the "New World?"

Our guide on this journey will be the Massachusetts State Constitution. From its creation in 1780 and extending all the way into the third decade of the 19th century, the Massachusetts State Constitution became an important experimental rat in the laboratory of religion and government. Initially we would see that many of the first proposals that incorporated both religion and government were based on earlier Puritan roots. After all, codifying religion as a part of government was nothing new. Before and after the Protestant Reformation, religion had been a component of government that would seem only natural and necessary to the earliest (and even later generations) of American settlers. As historian Patricia Bonomi points out in her book, Under the Cope of Heaven:

According to traditional history, colonial leaders were above all with creating stable New World communities, and it was an axiom of early seventeenth-century political thought that a strong church was the handmaiden and bulwark of a stable state. The church's guardianship of morality and public behavior made it an ally of orderly government, an interdependence that statesmen acknowledged by granting official status to one church only. Every colony founded in the western hemisphere before the mid-seventeenth century, except Maryland, reproduced the Old World model of a single, established church...the privileged position of these churches was protected by laws restricting the religious and political rights of dissenters from the official establishment. Only through such an arrangement, so the leaders believed, might the colonists ward off the evils of religious strife and achieve the civic harmony essential to the survival of those imperial outposts situated so precariously on the rim of the civilized world.

In consequence, it would seem appropriate for the founders of state constitutions to include religion as a component of good government. Or as those Right Guard commercials from the 90s would put it, "Anything less would be uncivilized."

So, in the wake of the newly declared independence from the home world, Massachusetts was forced to create a new government. In early 1777, delegates from the various counties gathered to draft the state constitution of Massachusetts. And in the process, religion became an issue of paramount importance. The question that plagued everyone was how should religion be represented. Should taxpayers be required to pay for the support of religion or should such a practice be done away with?

Well, to make a long story short, this first attempt to establish a state constitution failed miserably. Most counties outright rejected the new constitution because of disagreements over religious issues and the lack of a bill of rights. With that said, it is important that we recognize the fact that nobody was wanting to toss religion aside completely. When secularist historians of this era suggest that the earliest Americans tried to set up a secular government they do so by misrepresenting the fact that these debates came down to HOW should religion be represented, not WHY should religion be represented. Nobody in their right mind was willing to do without religion entirely. Instead, the question was how should religion be made manifest in a new government.

As mentioned before, religion had always been a component of government in the "Old World." The traditional understanding of the unity between church and state was often linked with the biblical admonition found in Isaiah 49, which states that "kings shall be thy nursing fathers, and their queens thy nursing mothers." In other words, the government (and the people it was supposed to represent) had the duty to be the "nursing father" of the church. The Library of Congress' website explains this relationship appropriately with the following commentary:

Congregationalists and Anglicans who, before 1776, had received public financial support, called their state benefactors "nursing fathers" (Isaiah 49:23). After independence they urged the state governments, as "nursing fathers," to continue succoring them. Knowing that in the egalitarian, post-independence era, the public would no longer permit single denominations to monopolize state support, legislators devised "general assessment schemes." Religious taxes were laid on all citizens, each of whom was given the option of designating his share to the church of his choice. Such laws took effect in Massachusetts, Connecticut, and New Hampshire and were passed but not implemented in Maryland and Georgia.

But not everyone was pleased with the obligatory taxation. Isaac Backus, a Baptist preacher in Massachusetts, equated the obligatory "taxation without representation" of British Parliament to that of the Massachusetts government collecting taxes for a religion that many did not embrace. In addressing the pro-taxation crowd of Mass., Backus wrote:

Suffer us a little to expostulate with our fathers and brethren, who inhabit the land to which our ancestors fled for religious liberty. You have lately been accused with being disorderly and rebellious, by men in power, who profess a great regard for order and the public good; and why don't you believe them and rest easy under their administrations? You tell us you cannot because you are taxed where you are not represented; and is it not really so with us? You do not deny the right of the British to impose taxes within her own realm; only complain that she extends her taxing power beyond her proper limits; and have we not as good right to say you do the same thing? And so that wherein you judge others you condemn yourselves? Can three thousand miles possibly fix such limits to taxing power, as the difference between civil and sacred matters has already done? One is only a distance of space, the other is so great a difference in the nature of things, as there is between sacrifices to God, and the ordinances of men. This we trust has been fully proved.

Such was the dilemma that plagued the authors of the Mass. Constitution. The heritage of America's PLANTING, which was deeply rooted in a church/state combination, was, for the first time, coming into question. The coup on government was spilling over to a coup of religious dominion. Again, this isn't to say that people were discarding religion entirely. Instead they were beginning to see that a singular faith was not needing the guarantee of protection that the civil power could afford.

But as we all know, the eventual ratification of the Mass. Constitution of 1780 DID provide for public taxes to fund religion. Despite all of the protests and petitions for change, the "old school" view of church and state won the day. It seemed that the "Nursing fathers" doctrine of America's PLANTING had survived another violent storm...at least for the time being

But not everything was the same. The Constitution of 1780 did have a few important concessions that broke from some of the traditional concepts of the Old World. First, no one single religion was promoted over another. Or as the writers of the document (James Bowdoin, John Adams and Samuel Adams) put it, "Religion was a matter between God and individuals."

But the consensus was that religion WAS a matter. As Article II and III of the 1780 Constitution state:

Art. II. It is the right as well as the duty of all men in society, publicly and at stated seasons, to worship the Supreme Being, the great Creator and Preserver of the universe. And no subject shall be hurt, molested or restrained in his person, liberty, or estate, for worshipping God in the manner and season most agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience, or for his religious profession or sentiments, provided he doth not disturb the public peace or obstruct others in their religious worship.

Art. III. As the happiness of a people and the good order and preservation of civil government essentially depend upon piety, religion, and morality, and as these cannot be generally diffused through a community but by the institution of the public worship of God and of the public instructions in piety, religion, and morality: Therefore, To promote their happiness and to secure the good order and preservation of their government, the people of this commonwealth have a right to invest their legislature with power to authorize and require, and the legislature shall, from time to time, authorize and require, the several towns, parishes, precincts, and other bodies-politic or religious societies to make suitable provision, at their own expense, for the institution of the public worship of God and for the support and maintenance of public Protestant teachers of piety, religion, and morality in all cases where such provision shall not be made voluntarily.

[...]

And all moneys paid by the subject to the support of public worship and of public teachers aforesaid shall, if he require it, be uniformly applied to the support of the public teacher or teachers of his own religious sect or denomination, provided there be any on whose instructions he attends; othewise it may be paid toward the support of the teacher or teachers of the parish or precinct in which the said moneys are raised.

And every denomination of Christians, demeaning themselves peaceably and as good subjects of the commonwealth, shall be equally under the protection of the law; and no subordination of any sect or denomination to another shall ever be established by law.

The third article was of particular importance. The delegates informed the people that the “third article of the declaration of rights...provided for the free exercise of the rights of conscience” as they understood that these rights were more valuable to the people than other rights. So in essence, the compromise to allow for a multiplicity of religions was, in fact, an important distinction between America's PLANTING and its FOUNDING.

But the FOUNDING wasn't quite finished. Over the course of the next 50 years, Massachusetts would further its devotion to a more complete separation of church and state. In 1831, after a tremendous outpouring of protests from Unitarian, Baptist and other church leaders, the Mass. house voted 272 to 78 to revise article three. Eventually, Article XI was adopted in 1833 to replace Article III, effectively eliminating the requirement of public taxes on religion. In so doing, Massachusetts became the last of the original 13 states to remove the government sanctioning of an established church, overthrowing 200 years of tradition. In essence, America's FOUNDING had taken root.

And though I do not personally see how these state charters support any "Christian Nation" argument, I see the fact that they do confirm a deeply religious heritage. In many ways, charters like the Mass. Constitution serve to bridge the gap between America's PLANTING, which was a deeply Christian experience, and America's FOUNDING, which, in part, brought about the greatest explosion of religious freedom in history. But the bottom line is this: religion was, for the PLANTERS and the FOUNDERS very much in view. It was a constant reality that never disappeared over time. So while the Rip Van Winkle's of American religion may have been shocked to see the dramatic changes that took place (i.e. elimination of tax dollars to support religion, no sanctioning of a specific religious faith, etc.) the spirit of pious devotion and ecclesiastical preservation remained as solid as the day that John Winthrop proudly declared Massachusetts Bay to be a "shining city upon a hill."

William Livingston, Hater of Creeds and Ecclesiastical Authority

I've been researching the religion of notable Founding Father William Livingston, a signer of the Constitution and former governor of New Jersey. In my last post on the matter, I noted Livingston slammed the Athanasian creed -- the quintessential Trinitarian creed which the unitarians of America's Founding era criticized.

Researching the matter further, I came across Livington's personal Thirty Nine Articles on religion which again slammed the Athanasian creed (and thereby the Trinity). Those and Livington's other writings found in the Independent Reflector can be found in this book.

Unfortunately, google books blocks important parts of Livingston's writings and the entire Thirty Nine Articles haven't yet been uploaded to the public domain provisions of the Internet.

So I went to the David Library in Washington's Crossing and researched them. Unfortunately, the microfilm copies I made don't read well enough for me to post them (for now). But, the good news is I read the entire articles and you will just have to trust my honesty and independent verification of the record.

The articles are a brilliant satire against the notion of "orthodoxy" or "religious correctness." Among other things, the articles chiefly target ecclesiastical authority, Roman Catholic doctrine, the Thirty Nine Articles of Faith of the Anglican Church, and the concept of orthodox Trinitarianism itself. Nowhere in the articles is the Trinity and cognate orthodox doctrines defended. The 39th Article of Livingston's Creed reads:

I Believe, that this Creed is more intelligible than that of St. Athanasius; and that there will be no Necessity for any Bishop to write an Exposition on the Thirty Nine Articles of my faith.

In Livingston's Thirty Nine Articles we see an important but not too well understood zeitgeist of America's founding era "Protestant Christianity." It's where Roman Catholicism and ecclesiastical authority are so suspect that doctrines like original sin, trinity, and even the "right" (that is the traditional) books and copy of the biblical canon become associated with such and, consequently, are written off as human corruptions.

The Quakers, as it were, who lack ecclesiastical authority and creeds become the most authentic expression of "Christianity," except for their theological refusal to take up arms against political tyranny.

And yes, that is expressed in Livingston's creed: See Article VI.

Texas BOE Decision

My co-blogger at Positive Liberty, D.A. Ridgely, was on top of this first.

Here is the New York Times story.

And here is Ed Brayton's post with links to the Texas Freedom Network's live blogging.

And here is John Fea's post.

From the New York Times:

Cynthia Dunbar, a lawyer from Richmond who is a strict constitutionalist and thinks the nation was founded on Christian beliefs, managed to cut Thomas Jefferson from a list of figures whose writings inspired revolutions in the late 18th century and 19th century, replacing him with St. Thomas Aquinas, John Calvin and William Blackstone. (Jefferson is not well liked among conservatives on the board because he coined the term “separation between church and state.”)

“The Enlightenment was not the only philosophy on which these revolutions were based,” Ms. Dunbar said.

I'd like to get more to the bottom of the Jefferson erasure. I understand that the American Founding was more than just Jefferson. But, at the same time, you can't erase his monumental influence from the Founding. He was the author of the Declaration of Independence and the third President of the United States.

Aquinas was virtually never cited by the Founders (though there a story to be told on his silent influence). Blackstone, though important as a "common law" authority, was a Tory and a supporter of British absolutism. And Calvin likewise, in no uncertain terms, taught Romans 13 means submission to tyrants is obedience to God.

Though there is a story in how Calvinists-Presbyterians came to support revolt, even though Calvin, were he alive and applying his principles, would have supported the British and termed the American Revolution a sinful violation of Romans 13.

That story, however, is too nuanced for K-12 students (you can, by the way, study that story with Mark Noll at the Witherspoon Institute this summer).

One of the problems with tracing the Founding to men who anticipated their ideas is we are left with literally hundreds from which to choose. The men they most often cited, however, were figures from the Enlightenment and the British Whigs. And those two categories overlap, with John Locke being the quintessential "Enlightenment" and "British Whig" figure. Others include Algernon Sidney, Montesquieu, John Milton, Samuel Clarke, Isaac Newton, Joseph Priestley, Richard Price, James Burgh, John Trenchard and Thomas Gordon and on and on.

By All Means, Let the Founders Speak For Themselves

A commenter named "Rap" -- who apparently has Christian Nationalist sympathies -- left the following comment at Positive Liberty:

Here’s a thought, why not let the founders speak for them selves? Why should one “expert” or another edit what they actually said? Oh, I know…because it doesn’t fit in the elitist progressive agenda. After all they know more about the founders than the founders did of themselves. For example George Washington said to his mother after a big battle at fort Necessity and a new appointment:”The God to whom you commended me, madam, when I set out upon a more perlious errand, defended me from harm, and I trust He will do so now. Do not you?” Oops! The ACLU is going to be all over him! Wait…he’s dead. So I guess they will just keep hiding what he and the other founders said from our children!

I responded, yes by all means, let the Founders speak for themselves. Not phony “experts” like David Barton or Peter Marshall. Or this commenter him or herself. The quotation s/he tried to pass is nowhere to be found in Washington's official writings.

I did a google search and found it in some 19th and early 20th Century sources like the notoriously shoddy, revionist book George Washington, The Christian.

On a related note, Clayton Cramer encounters a bogus GW quote:

Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.

As Cramer notes:

The problem is that when I search the George Washington Papers at the Library of Congress--it isn't there. Searching books.google.com, the earliest example is from Christian Science Journal in 1902--and there's no citation.

Unitarians: Yes, They Believed in a Divine Jesus Too!

O Holy Night! The stars are brightly shining,
It is the night of the dear Saviour's birth.
Long lay the world in sin and error pining.
Till He appeared and the Spirit felt its worth.
A thrill of hope the weary world rejoices,
For yonder breaks a new and glorious morn.
Fall on your knees! Oh, hear the angel voices!
O night divine, the night when Christ was born;
O night, O Holy Night , O night divine!
O night, O Holy Night , O night divine!

Ok, I know what you are thinking. What it the hell is Brad doing quoting a Christmas song in March, and what in the hell does it have to do with religion and America's founding?

Well, hold your breaths, I am about to tell you....

Every once in a while you hear people on this blog mention the "fact" that Unitarianism, a more "rational" form of worship that sometimes rejects those silly notions about Christ's virgin birth, divine mission, etc., was seen as a "heathen" form of worship by the more orthodox members of early American society. And though I agree that unitarianism was more "heathen" in its interpretation of scripture, its views on Christ, etc., I think sometimes we can be guilty of throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

Take for instance the famous Christmas song, "O Holy Night." Originally adapted from an 1847 French poem entitled "Minuit, chrétiens" (Midnight, Christians), "O Holy Night" has become a popular Christmas song throughout America. But it wasn't until one John Sullivan Dwight, a UNITARIAN preacher in the "heathen" Boston area, translated the song into a singing version in English that "O Holy Night" became so popular. Originally published in his extremely popular magazine, Dwight's Journal of Music "O Holy Night" became an overnight success that is now sung, without fail, during every Christmas, by every branch of Christianity (orthodox and "heathen") that exists.

Interesting that Dwight, a devout Unitarian, chose to use such "heathen" words for this song like, "Fall on your knees," "Oh night divine, the night when Christ was born," "Chains he shall break, for the slave is our brother. And in his name all oppression shall cease," and "Sweet hymns of joy in grateful chorus raise we, With all our hearts we praise His holy name."

"Heathen," anti-Jesus stuff if I ever saw it!

Now, I realize that Dwight wasn't around during the founding (he lived in the early to mid 1800s), nor does he represent a fair cross-section of all Unitarian beliefs, but I still think there is a small point here. Could it be that all of this stuff about Unitarianism being a "rational" break-off from orthodox Christianity isn't as true as we may think? Couldn't we argue that unitarians, at least in some degree, were quite devout in their devotion to a divine, orthodox Jesus?

Just something quick to chew on. Maybe I am making a mountain out of a mole hill here but I still thought it would be worth tossing out there.

And for your listening pleasure here is Josh Groban's version of "O Holy Night." Enjoy the "rational" prose of the song for yourself. After all, only 290 more shopping days until Christmas!

The Enlightenment? Sure, But Which One?

Alan Wolfe on Gertrude Himmelfarb


[Wolfe is known as a gentleman of the center-left; Himmelfarb (mother of William Kristol!) as a gentleperson of the right. An excerpt from Wolfe's review of Himmelfarb's The Roads to Modernity: The British, French, and American Enlightenments:]

European politicians these days frequently find themselves invoking the values of the Enlightenment, especially when simultaneously challenged at home by ever increasing numbers of Muslims immigrants. If they were to read Gertrude Himmelfarb, they would discover that there are different Enlightenments from which to choose--and that serious consequences follow once the choice is made.

An essay in the Encyclopedie, the Bible, so to speak, of the French Enlightenment, proclaimed that "Reason is to the philosopher what grace is to the Christian." A devotion to reason (even more than to the idea of liberty) guided the views of French intellectuals such as Voltaire and Diderot. Indeed, under the proper set of conditions, the pursuit of reason might mean the curtailment of liberty, which helps explain why so many of the thinkers of the French Enlightenment supported enlightened monarchs and expressed nothing but disdain for the rabble. The French Enlightenment, as Himmelfarb portrays it, has more room for principle than for people; without fully endorsing the view that there is a direct line from Rousseau to the French Revolution's Terror, Himmelfarb sees in French versions of the Enlightenment the dangerous idea that abstractions such as the "general will" can and should run roughshod over the desires of ordinary people to lead lives appropriate to their situation.

All of which makes Himmelfarb admire the British. Far more moderate in temperament than their French counterparts, thinkers like Adam Smith believed that "the public realm, governed by the principle of justice, was of secondary importance compared with the private realm, where the sentiment of sympathy and benevolence would prevail." The British Enlightenment was a common-sense sort of affair, Himmelfarb believes. It sought not the radical transformation of individuals so much as methods of unleashing the decent instincts that human beings already possessed. Eighteenth-century Scottish and British thinkers had no need to launch a frontal attack on religion; quite the contrary, they viewed religious motivation as part and parcel of the spirit of benevolence society should embody. Uninterested in waging a war to make human beings perfect, they were true democrats, for they generally admired real people with all their flaws and strengths.

The American colonists rebelled against Great Britain, but, from Himmelfarb's perspective, they wisely chose to condemn the British monarch, not the British Enlightenment. In, for instance, The Federalist Papers, one sees the same kind of cautious pragmatism and taste for experimentalism that Himmelfarb admires in British thought. Unlike the French Enlightenment, ours did not require a renunciation of religion. We made liberty, and not reason per se, central to our outlook on the world. Our quest, as Himmelfarb insightfully points out, was for "a more perfect union," not the one perfect society. No wonder, then, that the Enlightenment is more alive in the United States today than it is in France or even Great Britain; every time we invoke the Constitution or proclaim our commitment to freedom, we bring the best of the eighteenth century to bear on the realities of the twenty-first.

Himmelfarb the conservative enthusiast can be brittle and ideological. Himmelfarb the historian is nearly always thoughtful and engaging. Although a few needless polemics are thrown out in The Roads to Modernity, this is the Himmelfarb I love to read.

William Livingston, Unitarian

I finally made my way over to the David Library in Washington's Crossing (not too far from where I live). I think one reason why I haven't been spending more time there is so much of what I am looking for is available online.

If you are looking for newish stuff, then copyright law prevents complete free access. However, given the late 18th, early 19th Century is "public domain," the originals from that period are freely available.

For instance, at the library I found a letter from William Livingston, Governor of New Jersey (1776–1790) during the American Revolutionary War and a signer of the United States Constitution, where he seems to deny the Trinity to the very orthodox Jediah Morse.

And when I came home, I found it online via googlebooks:

"Rev. Sir: I received your letter of the 26th of October yesterday. Since I sent a description of three of our Counties to Mr. Whittlesey, (whose death I sincerely deplore,) I have received that of one or two others, which shall be at your service, when you do me the pleasure of what you have given me the agreeable expectation,—I mean a personal visit at my Hermitage, alias Liberty Hall, in the vicinity of Elizabethtown.

"That I have received the descriptions of so few of out Counties as you mention, I now find, or at least am told, is my own fault. Although I had a number of copies made of your queries, immediately after you delivered them to me last fall and, as I thought a sufficient number to give one to each of out Council, yet some members of that Body tell me they went home without one, and that I promised to send them after the rising of the Legislature; but that they never received them. If the case be really so, (of which, however, I have not the least recollection, nor greater faith than I have in St. Athanasius!) I can atone for my neglect only by delivering them at our present sitting, and pressing those members to transmit to me their answers as speedily as possible. The Legislature expecting to adjourn next week, it is probable that I may receive them seasonably enough before your intended publication. ..."

In short, Livingston was accused of making a gaffe. In the context of saying he didn't have "the least recollection" of the incident, he said had no greater faith the incident happened than he has in St. Athanasius. St. Athanasius, of course, was to the unitarians of the Founding era, the man chiefly responsible for fabricating the Trinity.

The notion that I'd sooner believe in the Trinity than I would that, seemed to be a running joke among men involved in the Revolution. We've already seen evidence that Baron Von Steuben made the same joke to Timothy Pickering (causing Pickering to become a unitarian).

Franklin on Priestley and Vice-Versa

I just agreed to review Joseph Priestley and the Invention of Air for a national publication, available at most (though not all) Borders and Barnes & Nobles. I'll let you know more when the time of publication approaches.

In leafing through the book, I noted a great quotation of Franklin's on Priestley, one I had seen before but forgotten. It was to Benjamin Vaughan, October 24, 1788, the relevant part of which reads:

Remember me affectionately to good Dr. Price and to the honest heretic Dr. Priestly. I do not call him honest by way of distinction; for I think all the heretics I have known have been virtuous men. They have the virtue of fortitude or they would not venture to own their heresy; and they cannot afford to be deficient in any of the other virtues, as that would give advantage to their many enemies; and they have not like orthodox sinners, such a number of friends to excuse or justify them. Do not, however mistake me. It is not to my good friend's heresy that I impute his honesty. On the contrary, 'tis his honesty that has brought upon him the character of heretic. ...

Franklin admired men honest enough in theology to come to terms with their heresy.

Surprisingly, Priestley (probably mistakenly) concluded Franklin was a strict Deist or atheist (quotation forthcoming). Yet, in his letter to Ezra Stiles shortly before his death, Franklin expressed belief in a kind of "Christianity" that almost perfectly mirrored Priestley's:

Here is my Creed: I believe in one God, Creator of the Universe. That He governs it by his Providence. That he ought to be worshipped. That the most acceptable Service we can render to him, is doing Good to his other Children. That the Soul of Man is immortal, and will be treated with Justice in another Life respecting its Conduct in this. These I take to be the fundamental Principles of all sound Religion, and I regard them as you do, in whatever Sect I meet with them. As to Jesus of Nazareth, my Opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the System of Morals and his Religion as he left them to us, the best the World ever saw, or is likely to see; but I apprehend it has received various corrupting Changes, and I have with most of the present Dissenters in England, some Doubts as to his Divinity: ...

"Corrupting changes" of course, refers to a term Priestley coined -- "the corruptions of Christianity." And it had specific meaning: 1) original sin, 2) trinity, 3) incarnation, 4) atonement, and 5) infallibility of the Bible. "The present Dissenters in England," of whom Franklin, following Priestley, considered himself like minded, "[d]oubt[ed] Jesus' [d]ivinity," and accordingly, rejected those "corruptions of Christianity," those five points, which to the orthodox formed the heart of "Christianity."

In the end, I think Priestley would be satisfied with the kind of "Christianity" Franklin, at his death, embraced.

The American Political Theology in a Nutshell

The Great State of Tennessee's constitution of 1870, still technically in force, albeit unenforceable under current jurisprudence per the 14th Amendment [Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488 (1961)]:

TENNESSEE CONSTITUTION - ARTICLE IX. DISQUALIFICATIONS

§ 1. Clergy; eligibility to serve in legislature

Whereas Ministers of the Gospel are by their profession, dedicated to God and the care of souls, and ought not to be diverted from the great duties of their functions; therefore, no Minister of the Gospel, or priest of any denomination whatever, shall be eligible to a seat in either House of the Legislature.

§ 2. Atheists holding office

No person who denies the being of God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this State.

§ 3. Duelists holding office

Any person who shall, after the adoption of this Constitution, fight a duel, or knowingly be the bearer of a challenge to fight a duel, or send or accept a challenge for that purpose, or be an aider or abettor in fighting a duel, shall be deprived of the right to hold any office of honor or profit in this State, and shall be punished otherwise, in such manner as the Legislature may prescribe.

__________________

Holy rollers, moderns, and the generally quarrelsome need not apply. They're all threats to the polity. The Founding had no time for clergymen, always stirring up trouble about this dogma or that. Atheists, whatever. It's between you and your god or your no-God. Leave the rest of us out of it.

Duelists, well, they're a general pain in the ass, too, but fortunately most of them ended up dead before their time, law of averages. We get them once again on the internet these days, of course, except they're character assassins, mostly.
[Calling Brad DeLong.* Dr. J. Bradford DeLong.*]

Rather than pistols at dawn, for those folks, I favor Ben Franklin's "liberty of the cudgel":

"My proposal then is, to leave the liberty of the press untouched, to be exercised in its full extent, force, and vigor; but to permit the liberty of the cudgel to go with it pari passu. Thus, my fellow-citizens, if an impudent writer attacks your reputation, dearer to you perhaps than your life, and puts his name to the charge, you may go to him as openly and break his head. If he conceals himself behind the printer, and you can nevertheless discover who he is, you may in like manner way-lay him in the night, attack him behind, and give him a good drubbing."

[Italics are Franklin's.]
_______________

*This is a private joke between me & our blogchief Mr. Hart. I'll explain in a future post, but you can follow the link for the skinny. This post is about Tennessee's constitution, worthy to be discussed in its own right. They were on to something there. No time for the quarrelsome. Life's too short.

Religious Tolerance in a Christian Nation?

The Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom was one of Thomas Jefferson's proudest achievements, so much so that his tombstone reads

HERE WAS BURIED
THOMAS JEFFERSON
AUTHOR OF THE
DECLARATION
OF AMERICAN INDEPENDENCE
OF THE
STATUTE OF VIRGINIA
FOR
RELIGIOUS FREEDOM
AND FATHER OF THE
UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA
BORN APRIL 2, 1743 O.S.
DIED JULY 4. 1826

Of the statute, Jefferson wrote [and is often quoted]:

The bill for establishing religious freedom, the principles of which had, to a certain degree, been enacted before, I had drawn in all the latitude of reason & right. It still met with opposition; but, with some mutilations in the preamble, it was finally passed; and a singular proposition proved that it's protection of opinion was meant to be universal. Where the preamble declares that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed, by inserting the word "Jesus Christ," so that it should read "a departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion." The insertion was rejected by a great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of it's protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo, and infidel of every denomination.

It's indisputable that the Virginia scheme was more or less followed in the states, that all religions were protected. But let's look closely at where this freedom comes from.

"Jesus Christ" is explicitly not added, perhaps for the reason Jefferson gives, that all religions are protected. But that's the "plan" of "the Holy author of our religion," a phrase that remains in the text of the statute.

Where as Almighty God hath created the mind free; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burthens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the Holy author of our religion, who being Lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as it was in his Almighty power to do...

One might argue that Virginia's statute [the least explicitly religious of all the states] had some other "author" and "religion" in mind than Jesus or the God of the Bible. Jefferson is well-known for his personal skepticism about that stuff.

But Who is this Holy author, and of what religion?

For George Washington's Circular Letter to the States[1783] that announced his stepping down as the Continental Army's commander-in-chief [the revolution was won!], uses "divine author of our blessed religion" in the clear context of Jesus Christ.

"Charity, humility and pacific temper of mind, which were the Characteristics of the Divine Author of our blessed Religion..."

And although it's true that Washington probably didn't personally write it, this indicates what the common meaning of the phrase was, and Washington did sign it in his own hand.

And even in Massachusetts, which had an officially established church, we see the orthodox Calvinist Samuel Adams write as early as 1772 that religious tolerance, via John Locke himself, has become a feature of Christianity:

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.

And so, if it be argued that America's religious tolerance was the product of a rising secularism, it can also be argued that the prevailing sentiment of the day was that religious freedom was demanded and guaranteed by Christianity itself.

Regardless of Jefferson's personal theological beliefs, he couldn't avoid using Christian arguments, and that's what got Christians to sign on the dotted line.