Tuesday, January 6, 2009

Van Dyke on Adams' Theological Ditherings & the Founders' Affinity For Pagan Greco-Romanism

When I first encountered John Adams' heterodox unitarian sentiments I was quite surprised and amused. Many folks misconstrue Adams as a devout orthodox Christian. And I like to show these quotations to dispel that myth and I usually get various reactions. Most folks sympathetic to the idea that Adams was a "good Christian" as they understand the term try to defend his sentiments or otherwise explain them away. Tom Van Dyke, wisely enough, makes a clean break:

As for John Adams' post-presidential theological musings, they're not mainstream, they're sophomoric and asinine. I haven't even bothered to refute his clippings of a quote here and a paragraph there because of their lack of intellectual rigor.

When he writes [to Thomas Jefferson, October 4, 1813],

"θεμις was the goddess of honesty, justice, decency, and right; the wife of Jove, another name for Juno. She presided over all oracles, deliberations, and councils. She commanded all mortals to pray to Jupiter for all lawful benefits and blessings. Now, is not this (so far forth) the essence of Christian devotion?"

I think, no, it's not the "essence," rigidly biased ideological reductionism. For one, the Greco-Roman vision of the afterlife as the dull gray Hades has nothing to do with the Christian heaven or the beatific vision. I could go on, but Adams is irrelevant anyway, and often laughable. His theory about the religious wisdom of the ancients being destroyed by some churchly cabal is the stuff of cranks, not mainstream Founding religious thought.


I might agree that Adams' idiosyncratic theological musings were his own (especially the conspiracy theory stuff that sounds right out of The DaVinci Code as is Adams' denial of Jesus' divinity). However, the affinity for pagan-Greco-Romanism was quite mainstream among the Founding Fathers. The Ancients were, after all, the progenitors of democratic-republican government, and notable Stoic figures from republican Rome were their heroes.

Indeed, in 1787, in a publicly published book, Adams speaks of a set of laws [Zaleucus'] supposedly revealed by Athena 600 years before Christ as containing sound "religion" that was “rational, intelligible, and eternal, for the real happiness of man in society, and throughout his duration.” Later in his private letters Adams termed Zaleucus' laws to be "Christian."

Van Dyke mentions something about the Greco-Roman afterlife as a dull gray Hades. Well, as historian Peter Henriques shows, George Washington, who out of all the key Founders was most imbibed in this noble pagan Greco-Romanism, often spoke as though he were going to that very gray Hades as opposed to the Christian Heaven. As Henriques writes:

While life goes on - in some fashion - the picture Washington paints of it is generally a gloomy one. “The world of spirits” may or may not be a happy place. When Washington speaks of Patsy going to a happier place, he specifically contrasts it with “the afflicted Path she hitherto has trod.” A relative had written Washington that his Mother was in fact in a happier place. Washington significantly adds his hope that this is true rather than simply agreeing with the statement. The passing reference to Elysium may well have been made tongue in cheek. While there are clear references to an afterlife and some of them are quite positive, Washington’s references to death and what follows afterwards are more often rather gloomy and pessimistic.

Death was “the grim King” whom Washington, not yet thirty and very near his “last gasp”, feared would master his “utmost efforts” and cause him to “sink in spite of a noble struggle.” Much later, to demonstrate how much he did not want to take on yet another new responsibility, Washington told Alexander Hamilton that he would leave his peaceful abode [Mount Vernon] with as much reluctance as he would go to the tomb of his ancestors. When people die, he speaks of them as “poor Greene” or “poor Laurens” or “poor Mr. Custis.” Referring to death, Washington wrote about his “approaching decay”, “hour of my dissolution”, of going “to the shades of darkness”, “to sleep with my fathers”, to “the shades below”, “to the tomb of my ancestors”, “to the dreary mansions of my fathers.” Death was “the country from whence no Traveller returns.” The overall image is not a bright one, certainly not a Christian one.


Washington did sometimes speak of the afterlife in cheerier terms. But, again, his notions are decidedly Greco-Roman more than they are Christian:

Washington at least twice makes reference to going “to the world of spirits.” He writes Lafayette about searching for “Elysium.” [Elysium or the Elysian fields refers to the happy otherworld for heroes favored by the gods.] When Patsy dies of epilepsy, he writes she has gone “to a happier place.” Following his Mother’s death, he reflects the hope that she is in a “happier place.” Washington can hope that God blesses a group of ministers “here and hereafter.” He makes reference to nurturing the plant of friendship “before they are transplanted to a happier clime.” In a draft written by Timothy Pickering to two Philadelphia churches, Washington looks forward to retirement “which can only be exceeded by the hope of future happiness.” While he is dying, he declares several times, “I am going… I die hard but am not afraid to go.” According to Lear’s letter to his mother on Dec. 16th ,Washington told Lear, “I am just going to change my scene.” The image of “going” implies some kind of continuation of existing. It is apparent that Washington had difficulty accepting or conceiving of the idea of nothingness. He does not believe that a person will simply cease to exist upon his or her death.


Washington also appeals to pagan-Greco-Roman authority for the afterlife in his letter to ANNIS BOUDINOT STOCKTON, August 31, 1788 where he wrote:

But, with Cicero in speaking respecting his belief of the immortality of the Soul, I will say, if I am in a grateful delusion, it is an innocent one, and I am willing to remain under its influence....

The felicitations you offer on the present prospect of our public affairs are highly acceptable to me, and I entreat you to receive a reciprocation from my part. I can never trace the concatenation of causes, which led to these events, without acknowledging the mystery and admiring the goodness of Providence.


To be fair, Washington's noble paganism was more influenced by figures like the Stoic philosopher Seneca than Zeus worship. I am no expert in "Seneca," but from what I have read, his view on death (about which he wrote quite a bit) almost perfectly parallels George Washington's. The question of how compatible this noble-paganism is with Christianity is highly debatable. Wiki -- I know not the most reliable source, but a good place to go for "surface" knowledge, later to be confirmed by real sources -- notes the following which seems telling of this entire inquiry about America's key Founders and just how authentically "Christian" they were:

The early Christian Church was very favorably disposed towards Seneca and his writings, and the church leader Tertullian called him "our Seneca".[12]

Medieval writers and works (such as the Golden Legend, which erroneously has Nero as a witness to his suicide) believed that Seneca had been converted to the Christian faith by Saint Paul, and early humanists regarded his fatal bath as a kind of disguised baptism. However, this seems unlikely as Seneca always professed to be Stoic.

Dante placed Seneca in the First Circle of Hell, or Limbo, a place of perfect natural happiness where good non-Christians like the ancient philosophers had to stay for eternity, due to their lack of the justifying grace (given only by Christ) required to go to heaven.

22 comments:

Tom Van Dyke said...

Well, I dunno if our method should be to shop for something and find it in a single Founder and declare it "mainstream."

I don't disagree George Washington seems to have had an affinity for Stoicism, but that hardly justifies proclaiming "the Founders' Affinity For Pagan Greco-Romanism." Since I don't find his sentiments in any other Founder, it's fair to call his sentiments idiosyncratic, a drop in an empty bucket, surely not "mainstream."

Neither does Pluto, the judge of the dead, bear any more than a functional resemblance to the Supreme Judge of the World, who was the God of the Declaration of Independence.

s.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions...



Unless you want to argue that the D of I is appealing to Pluto here.


Even the outliers Jefferson and Franklin had a rosier view of the afterlife, and I daresay even Tom Paine's hope for an afterlife [gasp! strange but true] seems on balance not as dark as Washington's.

But I'm glad you allow [if sincere] that John Adams' private Da Vinci Code musings, [well put, Jon] haven't much to do with the Founding. He was gone from public life, and 1813, a particularly fertile period for his imagination, was 25 years after the Constitution.

Even if he or Jefferson could be proved to be "mainstream," it would be a good exercise and would strengthen your case if you used other Founders to populate this "mainstream"---preferably before they retired from public life, and in their public utterances that contributed to the public understanding of the "publick religion."

Jonathan Rowe said...

"the Founders' Affinity For Pagan Greco-Romanism."

This is definitely something that I haven't yet explored its proper detail. From what I have seen, it's beyond dispute that a great deal of notable FFs had an affinity for Greco-Romanism. The word "pagan" puts off a lot of people. I often qualify it with the term "noble." And I'm referring to such figures as Aristotle, Cicero, Seneca, Cato the Younger, Cincinnatus, Brutus, Novanglus (John Adams' surname) and of course Publius.

Now, if not "noble pagan," then what term describes that bunch?

The problem is many orthodox Christians (certainly Patrick Henry) seemed to share this affinity; so how much this might prove a non-Christian worldview is entirely debatable. The noble pagan Greco-Roman sense of virtue certainly has its parallels with a Judeo-Christian sense of virtue. But I certainly see some tension there. And I see the arguable [and I recognize it's arguable from both sides] interjecting of non-authentically Christian notions into Christendom.

That's the main problem I see with Barton et al. He ignores the non-Christian pagan Greco-Roman nuance. He claims it's all Christian, done from a Christian worldview. And he preaches his theory to many evangelicals who want nothing to do with a "Christianity" that is open to the truth of philosophers like Aristotle or Seneca.

Eric Alan Isaacson said...

You may insult it as much as you wish Tom, but John Adams's Unitarian theology was smack dab in the "mainstream" for educated New Englanders of his time.

This is demonstrated, I think, by the "Unitarian Controversy" and schism among New England's Congregationalist churches in the first quarter of the nineteenth century, when "orthodox" Calvinists sought to disfellowship the unorthodox "liberals" whom they disparaged as "Unitarians" -- only to find that the oldest urban churches wound up overwhelmingly in the unorthodox Unitarian camp.

Jonathan Rowe said...

Eric

If I follow Tom's argument properly, it is not that Adams' denial of the Trinity that was so out of the mainstream and wrongheaded. But it's Adams' equating Christianity with pagan Zeus worship and Hinduism. I think it's safe to say that not all (perhaps not even most) unitarians did this.

However, as per Franklin's sentiment that I quoted in my original post about religion, means and ends, Unitarians did believe that the purpose of religion was virtue. And as such if those religions did produce good like Christianity did, I would see Unitarians sympathetic to the idea that Greek mythos, Hinduism, Islam, etc. are valid like Christianity. But they still had to meet the test of "doing good" or virtue.

Tom Van Dyke said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Tom Van Dyke said...

Yes, I will continue to insult John Adams' late-in-life theological musings, Eric, happily and giddily whenever he's brought up in a serious discussion. He's such easy pickins.

However, I'm very sympathetic to a view of, say, Benjamin Rush as "mainstream." Surely he's in the mainstream---perhaps he's closest of all of them to being the archetype!

Let's look at the Unitarian Universalist website for a bio, shall we?

http://www25.uua.org/uuhs/duub/articles/benjaminrush.html

As for Plato or Aristotle's influence on Christianity [and more accurately, the Christianization of their thought], it could be that those who rejected it were out of the "mainstream."

It's an idea worth exploring, and will make those who claim the Founding for "orthodoxy" and "orthodoxy" as sola scriptura and "faith alone saves" very uncomfortable.

Jonathan Rowe said...

It's an idea worth exploring, and will make those who claim the Founding for "orthodoxy" and "orthodoxy" as sola scriptura and "faith alone saves" very uncomfortable.

Well if I have a book in me that probably wouldn't be finished before 5 years (I know how long it takes to publish a book from a respectable publisher and get it into bookstores) that theme will certainly play prominent.

Eric Alan Isaacson said...

I'll just note the tremendous impact that Rev. Elhanan Winchester's theology and friendship had on Dr. Rush - - and that Rev. Winchester, a Trinitarian Universalist, opened his pulpit to the Rev. Dr. Joseph Priestley, permitting Priestley to defend Unitarian viewpoints to which Rev. Winchester did not ascribe.

That, I think, is the real essence of a religious liberalism whose sense of fellowship dispenses with narrow orthodoxies and tests of faith.

Tom Van Dyke said...

Well, I meself am not even ready to venture a POV: I just wanted to maintain my custom of being an equal-opportunity offender.

Eric rightly points out that hardheaded Calvinism was making way for a Christian [Christian-y?] unitarianism among the New England establishment. [And had been, for at least 100 years.]

However, a powerful crosscurrent, the Second Great Awakening, begins around 1790, and more closely resembles today's evangelicalism than anything that had ever come before.

1790 is on the next page from the Founding in 1787, and although I've peeked ahead, I've not read it carefully enough to venture an opinion. What we can say for sure is that although we might be able to take a snapshot of 1776-1787, history seldom sits still long enough for a definitive portrait.

Eric Alan Isaacson said...

You are quite right, Tom, about the Second Great Awakening being a powerful cross-current.

It likely provided a motivating force behind efforts by Jedidiah Morse and others to "out" liberals and disfellowship them as unorthodox. The leading urban churches, and particularly those with Harvard-educated clergy, wound up in the liberal camp, while the rural churches remained predominantly orthodox.

Social class may come into the picture here. One could argue that the educated elite, who had read the pagan classics, approached things differently than did farmers and artisans and their preachers. The folks we are most inclined to identify as "The Founders" were, of course, part of the educated elite who had been exposed to the classics as well as to Christian scripture.

But strict Calvinist orthodoxy was by no means the only current among the less affluent. Consider the Methodists and the Free Will Baptists, for example, with their Arminianism. And recall that the Universalists came overwhelmingly from the ranks of less-educated working people, farmers, and artisans. To tell the truth, I wonder if issues of social class had something to do with the fact that Dr. Rush never joined Rev. Elhanan Winchester's Universalist congregation.

Our Founding Truth said...

Unless you want to argue that the D of I is appealing to Pluto here.>

Nice.


That's the main problem I see with Barton et al. He ignores the non-Christian pagan Greco-Roman nuance. He claims it's all Christian, done from a Christian worldview. And he preaches his theory to many evangelicals who want nothing to do with a "Christianity" that is open to the truth of philosophers like Aristotle or Seneca.>

I go along with Aquinas on this one. Where the ideas are consistent with Christianity is fine with me; where it departs from Christianity is where it ends.

As for Plato or Aristotle's influence on Christianity [and more accurately, the Christianization of their thought], it could be that those who rejected it were out of the "mainstream."

It's an idea worth exploring, and will make those who claim the Founding for "orthodoxy" and "orthodoxy" as sola scriptura and "faith alone saves" very uncomfortable.>

I think the framers only used works of Cicero, etc. that backed up Christianity, after all, Luther and Calvin studied the same classics.

Anything from the pagans that departed from scripture, I think was discarded:

"Sparta, Rome, and Carthage...These examples, though as unfit for the imitation, as they are repugnant to the genius, of America, are, notwithstanding, when compared with the fugitive and turbulent existence of other ancient republics, very instructive proofs of the necessity of some institution that will blend stability with liberty. I am not unaware of the circumstances which distinguish the American from other popular governments, as well ancient as modern; and which render extreme circumspection necessary, in reasoning from the one case to the other." [bold face mine]

James Madison, Federalist #63
http://www.llpoh.org/federalist/63.html

So the ideas that were aligned with Biblical Christianity were studied and used, much the same way I read Cicero, the works of Julius Caesar, or Marcus Aurelius.

Our Founding Truth said...

What I mean to say is once this pagan thinking departed from thoughts and went into practical application, the framers discarded it, as Madison's quote in the Federalist shows.

Tom Van Dyke said...

OFT makes a [mostly] rehabilitating appearance here. I was going to mention Aquinas in particular: if the philosophical work of the Greeks was sound reasoning, it was truth. Aquinas grabbed Aristotle for Christianity [away from the Muslims and the Jewish Maimonides, BTW---a fascinating story], "corrected" him, and Christianized him.

[The Second Great Awakening] likely provided a motivating force behind efforts by Jedidiah Morse and others to "out" liberals and disfellowship them as unorthodox.

Eric, I think you're on to something here with unitarianism-as-class-divide [if not warfare!]. And we've ignored the Great Awakening [c. 1730] and the Second Great Awakening [c. 1790] around here, meself included. We desperately want our "snapshot," but the photos keep coming back blurred.

Jon, the problem with injecting the word "pagan" here is that it touches on religious, or divine, truth. The best of the Greco-Roman philosophers didn't get too close to truth claims for their gods. Neither would a child of the Enlightenment believe the pagan oracles actually spoke truth or a Christian either, which leaves us not much in the middle at the Founding.

Roman Stoicism, Seneca and Cicero, etc., deserves a closer look in a unitarian way, but George Washington is the only Founder I've run across who seemed truly fascinated by it.

Eric, you might want to reconsider your use of words like "narrow," which are pejorative and might be taken as insulting by other sects.

OFT, you ran that quote from Madison through here before. I took the time to look it up in its original context, and reported to you that the way you used it then [and now] was out of context, and not probative.

Now, you can allow me to help you clean up your act, or ignore my attempts at helpfulness, but next time you ignore something I took the time to research and reply, I'll lower the boom. If you cannot remember what you wrote, and what I wrote in well-considered reply, you don't belong here.

This blog is an ongoing [and extraordinary] discussion, not an exchange of fire. Jon is my friend and I his, and we give each other hell. But we never forget a word we've written to each other.

That's not friendly, or courteous, or even civil. Word up, OK? We do not give speeches here, we discuss.

Jonathan Rowe said...

Roman Stoicism, Seneca and Cicero, etc., deserves a closer look in a unitarian way, but George Washington is the only Founder I've run across who seemed truly fascinated by it.

Tom. As I noted, this is a dynamic to which I have so far given short shrift.

However, I think this fascination ran much deeper than Washington.

I'm no expert in "Stoicism." Rather, I'm referring to the pre-imperial, republican era of Rome chiefly (I'm not sure whether this era simply equates with Stoicism, or whether Stoicism was a species of the genus of republican Rome). It wasn't just Washington, but the Founders as a whole who seemed to express an affinity for this time period. Consider, Hamilton, Madison and Jay using "Publius" as a surname in writing the Federalist Papers.

Although one thing the East Coast Straussians note that I think is dead on right is the FF's affinity for this time period recreated that era into something different. The Straussians assert the FFs used classical analogy to posit something quite modern.

I would simply note that the Whigs used classical republicanism as a foil for their 18th Century ideas (as they often did with the Bible/the Christian religion), not unlike Nietzsche used Zoroastrianism as a foil for his distincly Nietzschean ideas.

Our Founding Truth said...

OFT, you ran that quote from Madison through here before. I took the time to look it up in its original context, and reported to you that the way you used it then [and now] was out of context, and not probative.>

That quote is completely in context. As a matter of fact, it's impossible to have any other context, as those three are the only examples Madison gives. There are no other examples, and it's the beginning of the paragraph, and he gives no other examples. You're probably testing me, that's cool, someone as smart as you couldn't miss something like that.

Here's the quote in context:

Sparta, Rome, and Carthage are, in fact, the only states to whom that character can be applied. In each of the two first there was a senate for life. The constitution of the senate in the last is less known. Circumstantial evidence makes it probable that it was not different in this particular from the two others. It is at least certain, that it had some quality or other which rendered it an anchor against popular fluctuations; and that a smaller council, drawn out of the senate, was appointed not only for life, but filled up vacancies itself.
These examples
, though as unfit for the imitation, as they are repugnant to the genius, of America, are, notwithstanding, when compared with the fugitive and turbulent existence of other ancient republics, very instructive proofs of the necessity of some institution that will blend stability with liberty. [bold face mine]

Federalist 63

Excluding correct interpretation on core principles, apart from learning some basics, mostly from you and Jon, the only rehab I need is from God.

Tom Van Dyke said...

Well, here's the thing, Jon---Stoicism's theology is something that far from Providentialism as well as that can-do American attitude.

God [or the gods] can do what they want; stoicism means grin and bear it.

Now I see this in George Washington in every word he writes, in the quotes you cite, and there's a quote somewhere where Washington speaks of the death of a young soldier in heroic, almost Homeric terms, that he'll be remembered for doing what honor and duty obliged. None of that "he's in a better place" stuff.

But I don't see the theology of stoicism or its weary worldview in the Founding era outside of GW.

Politically, did they look to the Romans? Hell, yeah. There was much talk of the founding of a new empire.

However, if I may drag in OFT's Madison quote, in context it's absolutely perfect right here:

Sparta, Rome, and Carthage...These examples, though as unfit for the imitation, as they are repugnant to the genius, of America...

What Madison's arguing for [in context] in Federalist 63 is for a senate to counterbalance the sentiments of a House of representives, but a democratically elected senate, not a senate-for-life.


"It adds no small weight to all these considerations, to recollect, that history informs us of no long lived republic which had not a senate. Sparta, Rome and Carthage are in fact the only states to whom that character can be applied. In each of the two first there was a senate for life...

It is at least certain that it had some quality or other which rendered it an anchor against popular fluctuations; and that a smaller council drawn out of the senate was appointed not only for life; but filled up vacancies itself.

These examples, though as unfit for the imitation, as they are repugnant to the genius of America, are notwithstanding, when compared with the fugitive and turbulent existence of other antient republics, very instructive proofs of the necessity of some institution that will blend stability with liberty."


So of course, they were fascinated with the republics that came before. There was much to learn, from their sucesses and most importantly, their insufficiencies and failures. But I find no reason to drag Greco-Roman theology in [such as it was], and we must also keep in mind that it was the Athenian democracy that made Socrates take the hemlock for his impiety towards the gods of the city.

The First Amendment was a damned good idea, all things considered.

Tom Van Dyke said...


Excluding correct interpretation on core principles, apart from learning some basics, mostly from you and Jon, the only rehab I need is from God.


Well, I was writing that last one as you were writing yours, OFT. The topic was the senate. I'm glad you went back and quoted it in proper context. Ellipses [those ... things] must be used conscientiously, and I appreciate you adding stuff like "bold face mine" lately.

The rehabilitation would be making up for past scholarly imprecisions, if you want to get a fair hearing around here. That you are interested in finding a common ground on the understanding of core principles [like natural law, I suppose] is a good thing as well as a new appreciation of the lingua franca of the basics, like the punctuation laws and customs of scholarly discourse.

I wouldn't have known about that passage in Federalist 63 except for you, so thank you. I hope you'll keep contributing around here, because you certainly do contribute.

As for you and your relationship with God, cheers.

Our Founding Truth said...

That you are interested in finding a common ground on the understanding of core principles [like natural law, I suppose] is a good thing as well as a new appreciation of the lingua franca of the basics, like the punctuation laws and customs of scholarly discourse.>

I understand everyone has a right to believe as they want, however, I tend to believe where the majority of the evidence lies. The majority viewpoint having once been the minority is true to a certain extent.

I'm too much in a hurry to be a good writer, maybe I'll slow down one day.

I tend to agree with you in a lot of areas, even the Laws of Nature and the Laws of Nature's God.

I just realized the other day, LONANG is two words with two meanings. Thanks to this dialogue, I wouldn't have found it. Until tomorrow,

Salute!

Tom Van Dyke said...

A very interesting thought, OFT, that they are two different things, both acknowledged as law [and therefore authority] by the Founders. I hadn't thought of it that way either.

But one would have to read through the Founding literature to see if the Founders understood them as two different yet compatible things. Still, when James Wilson writes the below it is hard to argue otherwise:

"[H]ow shall we, in particular instances, learn the dictates of our duty, and make, with accuracy, the proper distinction between right and wrong; in other words, how shall we, in particular cases, discover the will of God? We discover it by our conscience, by our reason, and by the Holy Scriptures. The law of nature and the law of revelation are both divine: they flow, though in different channels, from the same adorable source. It is, indeed, preposterous to separate them from each other. The object of both is ― to discover the will of God ― and both are necessary for the accomplishment of that end."

Is the "law of nature's God" Scripture? I think Wilson indicates here that there are only two laws, not three or more, and that leaves Scripture as the law of nature's God.

Jonathan Rowe said...

Tom,

I disagree. "Nature" defines as discoverable thru reason, not revealed in the Bible. The laws of nature and of nature's God is a double invocation of discoverable by reason, as I interpret it.

"The laws of nature and of nature's God" was the one part of the DOI that especially resonated with or was embraced by the strict Deists.

The idea that "they flow, though in different channels, from the same adorable source" demonstrates that many Christians of that era who believed in both the inspiration of the Bible and in natural law saw the two -- reason & revelation -- as complementary.

But I would stress "channels." Reason and revelation are both channels. And the DOI only invoked the "reason" channel, not the "revelation" channel.

Our Founding Truth said...

A very interesting thought, OFT, that they are two different things, both acknowledged as law [and therefore authority] by the Founders. I hadn't thought of it that way either.>

This is what I was thinking in the dialogue last week, but not until the end. The words of the philosophers don't need to be consulted, because english grammar proves what's in the pudding. Lonang in the Declaration definitely has two words, with two different meanings.

The DOI has the law[s] of nature [reason] and of nature's God, [revelation] or as Hooker said, "what the law and the Gospel do contain." It has to be a plural contraction because two words are missing from the expression, "The Law[s]."

I think this theory could be published with no hitches whatsoever. The laws of God must be his moral, divine laws, as the philosophers preached, not physical laws, for they are already apart of the first part of lonang; what can be discovered from reason.

I'm fairly certain of this, I may need to consult an english grammar expert.

[D]ivine providence . . . in compassion to the frailty, the imperfection, and the blindness of human reason, hath been pleased, at sundry times and in diverse manners, to discover and enforce its laws by an immediate and direct revelation. The doctrines thus delivered we call the revealed or divine law, and they are to be found only in the holy scriptures. [Blackstone, 1 Commentaries *42.]
http://www.lonang.com/foundation/01.htm

Tom Van Dyke said...

OFT, the dictionary simply won't do. It's the Founders' understanding of these concepts that is all-important. Is the phrase "LONANG" simply redundant, as Jon argues? Perhaps not, but we must read the Founders in context to argue it's two things [natural law and scripture] and not one.

Actually, Jon is arguing that too, but I don't think he realizes it yet.