tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post261926349637273867..comments2024-03-28T10:44:30.518-06:00Comments on American Creation: Revolutionary PrinciplesBrad Harthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17669677047039491864noreply@blogger.comBlogger65125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-61801304911567014632013-04-16T14:00:48.439-06:002013-04-16T14:00:48.439-06:00I'll have to take TVD to task for categorizing...I'll have to take TVD to task for categorizing Roger Wiliams as "overrated," or that it matters whether RI was "postage-stamp sized" some other time. <br /><br />RW was "the man" on liberty of conscience. He did not just theorize about it. Like the later Wiliam Penn and James Madison, he actually put it into practice. <br /><br />The Baptists who teamed up with Madison in VA, Isaac Backus and John Leland, both acknowledged and actually revived Williams' forgotten influence.<br /><br />The best book on Baptist influences is "Revolution within the Revolution by William Estep (easily available as a used paperback). JMSnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-30751367573601783582013-04-16T13:50:41.620-06:002013-04-16T13:50:41.620-06:00wsforten - sorry for the delayed reply - As to Cas...wsforten - sorry for the delayed reply - As to Castellio's book online, here's what my library says:<br /><br />Concerning heretics, whether they are to be persecuted and how they are to be treated; a collection of the opinions of learned men, both ancient and modern;<br />Author: Sébastien Castellion; David Joris; Roland Herbert Bainton<br /><br />Publisher: New York, Octagon Books, 1965 [©1935]<br />Additional Physical Format: Online version:<br />Castellion, Sébastien, 1515-1563.<br />Concerning heretics, whether they are to be persecuted and how they are to be treated.<br />New York, Octagon Books, 1965 [c1935]<br />(OCoLC)608512762<br />an anonymous work attributed to Sebastian Castellio, now first done into English, together with excerpts from other works of Sebastian Castellio and David Joris on religious liberty, by Roland H. Bainton.<br />JMSnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-87337991971281901852013-04-11T17:30:45.008-06:002013-04-11T17:30:45.008-06:00It doesn't look like the book is online, not e...It doesn't look like the book is online, not even Google Books.<br /><br />JRB hit the motherlode here, though I think it's a bit overdone--Castellio's condemnation of burning up Servetus came after the fact in 1554, and wasn't the only such objection.<br /><br />The Peace of Augsberg came in 1556 and Protestantism was a fact on the ground, and Melanchthon, the "co-founder" of Lutheranism, opined that heresies like Servetus' questioning the Trinity were inevitable once they'd let the genie out of the bottle in rejecting Rome's magisterial authority to interpret scripture. Still, a theological justification for needed to be found vs. say Calvin's successor Theodore Beza*.<br /><br />http://www.socinian.org/castellio.html<br /><br />"The views of Castellio gradually spread. In 1557 or 1558, an Italian scholar, Acontius (Aconzio, Contio), no longer safe in Italy crossed the Alps and appeared in Basel where he published his first work. He was acquainted with Castellio's writings and upon returning to Basel from England in 1564, published a fresh manifesto, Satanae stratagemata, in favor of liberty of conscience and tolerance in the spirit of Castellio's work. The French translation appeared in 1565 and an English translation in 1940 by Charles D. O'Malley. The struggle for freedom of conscience reached a culmination in the Grisons at Chur in 1571 in the form of a debate between Egli and Gantner, two ministers. The issue involved the question of punishing "heretics." They drew their materials from the works of Castellio and de Bèze's De Haereticis.<br /><br /> The figure of Servetus stands out at the beginning of the movement for freedom of conscience. In the later phase Castellio deserves more ample recognition than he received. He is entitled even more than Servetus to be considered the real founder of liberal Christianity. He was unequaled in his thought and the first and the most important is the principle of absolute tolerance of differing views. This is an outgrowth of an entirely new concept of religion as centered not in dogma but in life and character. It is the very essence of this kind of religion to regard freedom and reason not as incidental but as fundamental conditions of a thoroughly wholesome existence of religion. At a time of extreme dogmatism, Castellio was the first to emphasize and lay down a firm and enduring foundation for the principle of tolerance."<br /><br />_______________<br /><br />*In this work, Whether the Civil Magistrate Ought to Punish Heretics, "Beza argued... [m]agistrates in Christian states are representatives of God and are bound by the Word of God in spiritual matters" (cited in Greaves, Theology and Revolution in the Scottish Reformation [Christian University Press, 1980, p. 153]). <br /><br />Beza is completely in accord with Reformation thinking on this point. For "of all errors, toleration is the most dangerous and damnable, in so far as other errors do only overturn those particular truths of Scripture to which they are contrary; but by this one error (this monster of toleration) way is made to overturn all the truths contained in Scripture, and to the setting up [of] all errors contrary to every jot of truth; and in the mean time there shall be no power on earth to hinder it, or take order with it" (Fergusson, 1652, cited in DiLella, Ye That Love the Lord, Hate Evil). <br /><br />http://www.puritandownloads.com/de-haereticis-a-ciuili-magistratu-puniendis-libellus-latin-text-1554-whether-the-civil-magistrate-ought-to-punish-heretics-by-theodore-beza/Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-32107171455826274832013-04-11T16:50:01.196-06:002013-04-11T16:50:01.196-06:00BillF & JRB, this may be helpful:
http://vlib...BillF & JRB, this may be helpful:<br /><br />http://vlib.iue.it/carrie/texts/carrie_books/gilbert/14.html<br /><br /><br />In 1554, at Basel, there was published a work entitled Concerning Heretics, Whether They Are to Be Persecuted. The author's name was given as Martin Bellius. His real name was Sebastian Castellio, and his book makes him one of the most illustrious defenders of the idea of religious toleration. Castellio, a native of Savoy, was an accomplished scholar who had been a follower of Calvin and for a time the head of the school at Geneva. His desire to become a minister in the city was thwarted, however, because of his disagreement with Calvin on points of Biblical and doctrinal interpretation. From Geneva he went to Basel, where, among other things, he published his own Latin and French translations of the Bible, each with a dedication containing a plea for religious liberty. He pointed out that in religion it is so difficult to be certain of knowing the truth that, in persecuting religious dissenters, there is a danger of destroying the innocent with the guilty. Many prophets and apostles, thousands of martyrs, and even the Son of God have been put to death under color of religion, and the world today is no better or wiser or more clear-seeing than it has been in the past. To use earthly weapons for the sake of religion is far from the teaching of Christ who commanded us to turn the other cheek and return good for evil.<br /><br />In 1553 he was appointed professor of Greek at the University of Basel. In the same year Servetus was burned at the stake, and Castellio published his work on the persecuting of heretics, in both Latin and French versions. It consisted of a number of passages from the works of the church fathers and modern writers including Calvin against persecution. There were also passages by Martin Bellius, George Kleinberg, and Basil Montfort, all of whom were no doubt Castellio himself. He brings out vividly the idea that purity of life is more important than the doctrinal orthodoxy for a Christian, and that it is a horrible thing for men to kill each other over doctrinal points in the name of Christ, who commanded them to love each other. Meanwhile, he finds that no attention is being paid to the charity and holiness enjoined on Christians, but that instead of this men are fighting over such matters as the Trinity, predestination, free will, "and other similar things, which it is not greatly necessary to know to acquire salvation by faith." If anybody takes the commands of Christ seriously and tries to lead a pure Christian life, all the others rise against him with one consent and destroy him. And, worst of all, they cover all this with the robe of Christ and claim to be serving His will by these cruelties.<br /><br />Theodore Beza, Calvin's friend and later successor, wrote an answer to Castellio which attempted to prove that the magistrates have the duty of punishing heretics, and may put them to death. To this Castellio paid no particular attention, though he wrote a book against Calvin's defense of the execution of Servetus. Castellio's freedom of expression was somewhat curtailed thereafter, but he lived on in Basel until his death in 1563.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-40690341440085863382013-04-11T16:19:14.063-06:002013-04-11T16:19:14.063-06:00JMS,
Do you know where I can get an electronic ve...JMS,<br /><br />Do you know where I can get an electronic version of Castellio's book?Bill Fortenberryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14205053444988720146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-16992932430417906752013-04-11T16:04:53.042-06:002013-04-11T16:04:53.042-06:00Hutson credits the Baptists, not secularism or Mad...Hutson credits the Baptists, not secularism or Madison's Memorial and Remonstrance, for the defeat of Virginia's religious assessments bill.<br /><br />http://americancreation.blogspot.com/2008/09/scholarly-malpractice-and-founding.html<br /><br />The Baptists found themselves between a rock and a hard place, the Episcopalians [Anglicans] and the Presbyterians [Calvinist]--holding a majority in no state. It stands to reason that they carved out a place for themselves for practical power reasons alone.<br /><br />As for Roger Williams and his postage-stamp sized colony, overrated.<br /><br />http://usreligion.blogspot.com/2012/07/roger-williams-first-american-some.htmlTom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-40434216498842351782013-04-11T15:49:07.966-06:002013-04-11T15:49:07.966-06:00wsforten - I can't comment directly on Bancrof...wsforten - I can't comment directly on Bancroft. But it sounds like he may have been on to something. There are so many strands or threads to untangle.<br /><br />I just started reading a brilliant new book all of us at AC should read: "The Religious Roots of the First Amendment: Dissenting protestants and the Separation of Church and Stste" by Nicholas P. Miller. On pp. 32-39, sib-titled "The British Connection: English Baptist Beginnings," he mentions the influence of the Anabaptists and Mennonites in the Netherlands (Holland) on English dissenters in exile there, and the beginnings of English "General Will" Baptists (as opposed to the Calvinistic "Particular Baptists" (yes you need a scorecard to keep track). <br /><br />He mentions John Smyth, and points out his abrupt shift in thinking about church-state relations between 1608 - 1612. Miller deploys this quote about Smyth's turnabout: "one of the most complete statements of religious liberty of that generation." He then goes on to discuss the Mennonite, Peter Twisck his influence on the English Baptists Thomas Helwys and Leonard Busher. <br /><br />I only read this after I had posted to TVD about Castellio, but Miller quotes a 19th C historian (no Bancroft) stating that "Busher's work remains to us as the earliest treatise known to be extant on this great theme" (i.e., liberty of conscince). But Miller rejoins that, "this claim overlook's Castellio's works."<br /><br />If you want a good, but flawed full-court press that the Baptists were solely responsible for our religious liberty (without ever mentioning the Enlightenment), take a look at Michael Farris' (Patrick Henry College, and a man I mostly disagree with, especially on contemporary issues)book, "From Tyndale to Madison." JMSnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-6057141738382545612013-04-10T19:56:23.554-06:002013-04-10T19:56:23.554-06:00What do the two of you think of George Bancroft...What do the two of you think of George Bancroft's statement regarding the freedom of religion in America that: “Freedom of conscience, unlimited freedom of mind, was, from the first, the trophy of the Baptists”?<br /><br />books.google.com/books?id=1rUTAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA67Bill Fortenberryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14205053444988720146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-52190904346111231442013-04-10T18:34:42.370-06:002013-04-10T18:34:42.370-06:00TVD - I did address Stokes' argument in my sec...<i>TVD - I did address Stokes' argument in my second comment to Brian's original post.</i><br /><br />Yes, JMS, you did a much better job on the second one. I just didn't find it compelling enough to respond to. But since you insist: The deaths under Cromwell are not exactly relevant, and still there is nothing on the scale of the 120,000-250,000 in the Vendee, or of the obscenity of the <i>noyades</i>, the binding together of naked men, women and children put in boats and sunk in the river. <br /><br />That's off the scale perverted.<br /><br />But if Stokes were simply talking about God--rather than God-given rights--I wouldn't be as apt to say he was onto something. Principled politics are possible without overweening religion [although I submit it takes atheism to kill on the scale of the Vendee or Stalin or Mao]. <br /><br />But the part I find appalling about the French Revolution is the "general will" and the privileging of the collective over the individual.<br /><br />THAT'S what went wrong, mob rule.<br /><br />http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/040913-651296-msnbc-host-says-children-belong-to-state.htm<br />___________<br /><br />As for crediting Sebastian Castellio, I have no problem with that. Servetus was burned in 1553; Westphalia references the Peace of Augsberg of 1556. It's all in the zone. Basically, Protestantism proliferated sects by the sackful: as a practical matter, before long persecuting heresy became the war of all against all.<br /><br /><i>"The Anglican clergy has retained many of the Catholic ceremonies, particularly that of gathering in tithes with the most scrupulous attention. They also have the pious ambition of being the Masters.<br /><br />Moreover, they work up in their flocks as much hold zeal against nonconformists as possible. This zeal was lively enough under the government of the Tories in the last years of Queen Anne, but it went no further than sometimes breaking the windows of heretical chapels; for the fury of the sects was over, in England, with the civil wars, and under Queen Anne nothing was left but the restless noises of a sea still heaving a long time after the storm. </i>"<br /><br />...<br /><br />"<i>Although the Episcopalian and the Presbyterian are the two main sects in Great Britain, all others are welcome there and live pretty comfortably together, though most of their preachers detest one another almost as cordially as a Jansenist damns a Jesuit.<br /><br />Go into the Exchange in London, that place more venerable than many a court, and you will see representatives of all the nations assembled there for the profit of mankind. There the Jew, the Mahometan, and the Christian deal with one another as if they were of the same religion and reserve the name of infidel for those who go bankrupt. There the Presbyterian trusts the Anabaptist, and the Church of England man accepts the promise of the Quaker. On leaving these peaceable and free assemblies, some go to the synagogue, others in search of a drink; this man is on the way to be baptized in a great tub in the name of the Father, by the Son, to the Holy Ghost; that man is having the foreskin of his son cut off, and a Hebraic formula mumbled over the child that he himself can make nothing of; these others are going to their church to await the inspiration of God with their hats on; and all are satisfied.<br /><br />If there were only one religion in England, there would be danger of tyranny; if there were two, they would cut each other's throats; but there are thirty, and they live happily together in peace.</i><br /><br />Voltaire in London, 1733Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-16104140025852302432013-04-10T17:02:21.528-06:002013-04-10T17:02:21.528-06:00To follow-up on JRB's last comment, and unfort...To follow-up on JRB's last comment, and unfortunately butt heads with TVD again (Locke, Puffendorf and Sam Adams are way too late), here's my nomination for the first person in Western history most responsible for liberty of conscience and religious toleration (which as you pointed out, are not the same).<br /><br />“Of all the men who took the side of Servetus, not with his doctrine but with the concept of freedom of religion and conscience and with the idea that it was not right to kill people because they err in doctrinal interpretation, nobody was more influential and effective than Sebastian Castellio. He was the first one who developed a concept of freedom of conscience and thus deserves a place with Servetus in the annals of Western history. Perhaps some of Castellio's opposition was due to his personal experience with Calvin's autocratic methods. Nevertheless Castellio's influence continued even after he himself was forgotten.” - Marian Hillar @ http://www.socinian.org/castellio.html JMSnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-39812889601326350792013-04-10T16:51:03.189-06:002013-04-10T16:51:03.189-06:00TVD - I did address Stokes' argument in my sec...TVD - I did address Stokes' argument in my second comment to Brian's original post.<br /><br />French Revolution republicanism is ungodly, therefore bloody and tyrannical. That is Stokes' argument.<br /><br />So, I posited that English Civil War republicanism was godly (like the American Revolution), so following Stokes' argument, it has to be moderate, unbloody and untryannical. But that's not how it turned out, is it? <br /><br />Stokes' has no defensible thesis. It's just unhistorical wishful thinking, i.e. "pulpit" history "cherry-picking."<br /><br />JRB - no problem citing Cromwell again. I wasn't going to "play the Irish card," but I'm glad you deployed it. Ironically, most of those killed at Drogheda were Protestants! But, in the context of that blood thirsty era, Cromwell's wrongheaded Irish policy was no different than those of Queen Eliabeth I, KIng James I, Strafford and Pym.JMSnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-14209654191097454912013-04-10T14:39:39.087-06:002013-04-10T14:39:39.087-06:00"In regard to religion, mutual toleration in ..."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. "---Samuel Adams, Rights of the Colonists, 1771<br /><br />See also natural law theorist Samuel Puffendorf.<br /><br />http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?Itemid=288&id=715&option=com_content&task=view<br /><br />In a practical, historical sense, <br /><br />https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_of_Westphalia<br /><br />1648.<br /><br /><i>The main tenets of the Peace of Westphalia were:<br /><br />All parties would recognize the Peace of Augsburg of 1555, in which each prince would have the right to determine the religion of his own state, the options being Catholicism, Lutheranism, and now Calvinism (the principle of cuius regio, eius religio).<br /><br />Christians living in principalities where their denomination was not the established church were guaranteed the right to practice their faith in public during allotted hours and in private at their will.<br /><br />General recognition of the exclusive sovereignty of each party over its lands, people, and agents abroad, and each and several responsibility for the warlike acts of any of its citizens or agents. Issuance of unrestricted letters of marque and reprisal to privateers was forbidden.</i>Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-49935822379051152922013-04-10T06:56:41.818-06:002013-04-10T06:56:41.818-06:00wsforten - "As for the right of conscience, l...wsforten - <i>"As for the right of conscience, let me simply ask you, Do you know where idea of the freedom of religion came from?"</i><br /><br />Did you ever get back to us with an answer? And I'd add that a universal right of conscience not only applies to freedom of religion but a right to choose not to subscribe to a religion. Otherwise, with caveats, the universality of a principle becomes road kill.jimmiraybobnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-5063798659792976602013-04-09T16:48:05.215-06:002013-04-09T16:48:05.215-06:00Quote correction:
"...even though God did no...Quote correction:<br /><br />"...even though God did not exist, or did not make use of His reason, or did not judge rightly of things, if there is in man such a dictate of right reason to guide him, it would have had the same nature of law as it now has."<br /><br />is the Jesuit Francisco Suarez.<br /><br />Dutch Protestant jurist Hugo Grotius, in his De Iure Belli ac Pacis (1625):<br /><br />"What we have been saying would have a degree of validity even if we should concede that which cannot be conceded without the utmost wickedness, that there is no God."Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-69525485204499154112013-04-09T16:46:05.631-06:002013-04-09T16:46:05.631-06:00So out of a list of fifteen people who have used t...<i>So out of a list of fifteen people who have used this phrase in reference to the Bible</i><br /><br />Sorry, Bill, none of them do, except perhaps the last few from the post-1800, post-Founding period.<br /><br />Going back to Aquinas [or Romans 2, if you prefer*], "General" revelation is divine revelation, God revealing himself through nature. But it's not synonymous with "special" revelation, the scriptures. None of the above quotes are saying that the laws of nature as promulgated by the Creator are synonymous with the Bible.<br /><br />We used to have the same problem with Brother OFT, they he could never get the idea of natural law. Wherever he saw God revealing himself in the law of nature, he read "the Bible."<br /><br />[In fact what's weird is that earlier natural law theorists argued that <br /><br /><br /><i>"...even though God did not exist, or did not make use of His reason, or did not judge rightly of things, if there is in man such a dictate of right reason to guide him, it would have had the same nature of law as it now has."</i>---Grotius<br /><br />http://americancreation.blogspot.com/2009/04/primer-on-natural-law.html<br /><br />The irony is that "Enlightenment" figures such as Locke put God back in as the "lawgiver."<br />_________________<br />*14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:<br /><br />15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another...<br /><br /><br /><br />Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-36002010038573771182013-04-09T08:23:49.960-06:002013-04-09T08:23:49.960-06:00So out of a list of fifteen people who have used t...So out of a list of fifteen people who have used this phrase in reference to the Bible you have identified two that might be Deists. How exactly does that equate to me " trying to 'find' Christian principles in deism"?Bill Fortenberryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14205053444988720146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-6414264022327798512013-04-09T07:43:18.509-06:002013-04-09T07:43:18.509-06:00As to your other question Pope and Bolingbroke are...As to your other question Pope and Bolingbroke are arguably "deists." You would respond, since they believe in the truth of *some* revelation they aren't really deists. To which someone else would respond, since they didn't believe in the Trinity or the ENTIRE canon of the Bible as inspired they weren't really "Christian."<br /><br />So fine, they were "Christian-Deists" or "theistic rationalists." <br /><br />I disagree with Tom here; but I think Jefferson probably did believe in the truth of the revelation of those books that made it into his Bible. Since his Bible was derived from "the Bible," I guess Jefferson was a "Bible believing Christian" even though he cut out entire books (in fact most of the Bible) from the canon.Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-21231219587420527162013-04-09T07:34:30.779-06:002013-04-09T07:34:30.779-06:00"Well, that's certainly not something tha..."Well, that's certainly not something that I want to be found guilty of."<br /><br />Really? The John Adams of 1813 found "Christian principles" in Hinduism and Zeus worship and you seemed to agree with his reasoning. If you can find Christian principles there, I don't understand why you wouldn't want to find Christian principles in Thomas Paine style deism. <br /><br />Here's the way you would do it: Paine says he believes in one God. You then quote verses and chapter of scripture speaking of the truth the existence of one God and viola, Christian principles found in deism.Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-10734038346581167652013-04-09T07:03:29.178-06:002013-04-09T07:03:29.178-06:00Well, that's certainly not something that I wa...Well, that's certainly not something that I want to be found guilty of. Would you mind pointing out to me which of the individuals in the list of quotes that I provided were Deists?Bill Fortenberryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14205053444988720146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-32305131873481984212013-04-09T06:45:41.496-06:002013-04-09T06:45:41.496-06:00Bill,
It seems to me that you are trying to "...Bill,<br /><br />It seems to me that you are trying to "find" Christian principles in deism. Indeed you can. You can find an intersection between Christianity and strict deism: Both religions believe in one God (though some deists would say you really believe in three).Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-62640489541459431652013-04-09T06:11:05.228-06:002013-04-09T06:11:05.228-06:00Blackwood's Magazine - 1830
"'Let th...Blackwood's Magazine - 1830<br /><br />"'Let the whole earth praise thee, oh Lord! from the rising up of the sun, to the going down of the same; for glorious and bountiful are thy works, my God and my Saviour, and may my soul ever declare the greatness and goodness of thy name!' said old Michael Raeburn, as he closed the door of his humble cottage, and stept forth and met the face the rejoicing and happy face of creation, on a lovely morning in August, when nature appeared in all the freshness and calm beauty that must have delighted our first parents on their awakening each blest morning in Paradise, save the last fatal morning. Michael was a man of piety, and of poetry too; indeed, I almost think that the purity and aspiring thoughts, yet humble contentment, of the first, imply the possession of the other. None can look from nature up to nature's God, as he was wont to do, without having a living fountain in their hearts ever springing, upon which the Iris, the beauteous beams of light from heaven, will often delight to set; and in its enchanting minglings, sparkle into a starry poetry, which shines for them alone perhaps, but still is the true essence of poetry."<br /><br />http://books.google.com/books?id=s-kXAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA290<br /><br />The Schoolmaster, and Edinburgh Weekly Magazine - 1832<br /><br />"Children may gently, gradually, and pleasingly, be led 'through nature, up to nature's God' ... the moral attributes of the Eternal may be unfolded to their view; His justice, His holiness, His mercy, His unfailing loving-kindness, as being all exercised in His Government of the world, and the providential care which He extends to all creatures. The pleasing association supposed to be previously formed in the youthful mind, will facilitate the admission of these ideas, and render them more acceptable. Hence we may proceed to conduct our children to the sublime truths of revealed religion."<br /><br />http://books.google.com/books?id=PWIAAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA288<br />Bill Fortenberryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14205053444988720146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-63599918478114476522013-04-09T06:10:39.478-06:002013-04-09T06:10:39.478-06:00Francis Spilsbury - 1766
"Study carefully, S...Francis Spilsbury - 1766<br /><br />"Study carefully, Sir, the works of God in creation and providence; for they speak in part the same language as his written word. Their's is, indeed, the divine word that has gone out through all the earth. A close study of nature, especially of human nature, will lead to nature's God; will enlarge and exalt the mind, and prepare it for judging of the evidences, and discovering the beauty, of the grand scheme of the redemption and recovery of this lost world, which God made. The study of the mathematics, logic, oratory, poetry, and the Latin and Greek classics in general, is necessary to improve the judgment and reasoning powers to enrich the imagination, to form the taste, and help you to acquire a good method of composition, and a proper, yet animated and flowing style. There are other branches of learning and knowledge, with which it is proper a minister should cultivate some general acquaintance, in order to attain an extensive and accurate understanding of the Scriptures; since there are references in them to almost all the subjects of the arts and sciences. While therefore you remember that the Scriptures are to be your daily and constant study, you will regard other studies chiefly as means to facilitate your knowledge of the scriptures."<br /><br />http://books.google.com/books?id=Zq8IAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA86<br /><br />S. Whitchurch - 1802<br /><br />"I'll seek the path by Heaven's true pilgrims trod;<br />I'll wait with Cumberland on Nature's God"<br /><br />- Reference to the 8 volume poem "Calvary" by Richard Cumberland who when speaking of Christ wrote: "For Nature felt her God." <br /><br />http://books.google.com/books?id=O1EoAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA134<br /><br />Elijah Robinson Sabin - 1816<br /><br />"There may be also found, the real philosopher, who 'looks through nature up to nature's God.' His philosophy does not consist in an empty sound of words or unintelligible jargon. Willing to acknowledge the Creator and Governor of the universe, he does not bewilder himself and all his readers by metaphysical reasonings, to find out second causes for all events, so as to supercede the necessity of the First Cause. It is no part of his favourite system, to dignify nature into a fancied god. His writings and conversation are nto interspersed with sceptical doubts, atheistical or deistical cants against divine revelation; in order to conduct his readers or associates the back way into infidelity. Nay, his knowledge of nature serves to exalt his ideas of God; in the variety and greatness of his works."<br /><br />http://books.google.com/books?id=qdURAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA150<br /><br />Bryant - 1824<br /><br />"We turn for an explanation of the mysteries which surround us, to that Book in which is revealed a purer and a more sublime knowledge than mere earthly wisdom could ever have offered to our understanding. We almost instinctively turn to it; we look from 'nature up to nature's God.'"<br /><br />http://books.google.com/books?id=tSfnAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA112<br /><br />John Bustard - 1827<br /><br />"Mrs. B. when taking her walks, found interesting objects incessantly presenting themselves, and soliciting investigation: but whilst contemplating them, in their variety, and beauty, and magnitude, she felt no disposition to deify matter, and regard chance, and fate, as its cabinet council; for she 'looked through nature, up to nature's God!' ... Humbled under a sense of sin, and 'sorry after a godly sort,' she rejoiced in the doctrine of the atonement of Jesus Christ, and earnestly sought that faith, by which, free justification unto life is obtained."<br /><br />http://books.google.com/books?id=jwtKNcMLBHkC&pg=PA17<br />Bill Fortenberryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14205053444988720146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-36884852462591850352013-04-09T06:09:56.137-06:002013-04-09T06:09:56.137-06:00Jon and Jim,
The two of you are missing the point...Jon and Jim,<br /><br />The two of you are missing the point. I am not arguing that Bolingbroke agrees with me in regards to which portions of Scripture actually constitute the Bible. I am arguing that when he spoke of following nature's God, he was referring to following the Bible. Whether or not he and I agree on exactly which Scriptures are included in the Bible is irrelevant. The point is that he used that phrase as a reference to the Bible just like so many others who used it throughout the course of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. <br /><br />Alexander Pope, to whom Bolingbroke had addressed that statement, later included it one of his poems when he wrote:<br /><br />"Slave to no sect, who takes no private road,<br />But looks thro' Nature, up to Nature's God;<br />Pursues that Chain which links the' immense design,<br />Joins heav'n and earth, and moral and divine;<br />Sees, that no Being any bliss can know,<br />But touches some above, and some below;<br />Learns from this union of the rising Whole,<br />The first, last purpose of the human soul;<br />And knows where Faith, Law, Morals, all began,<br />All end, in Love of God, and Love of Man."<br /><br />In the 1763 publication of Pope's works, these lines were followed by this note by the Bishop of Gloucester:<br /><br />"The benefit of gaining the knowledge of God's will, written in the mind, is not confined there; for standing on this sure foundation, he is now no longer in danger of chusing wrong, amidst such diversities of Religions; but by pursuing this grand scheme of Universal Benevolence in practice as well as theory, he arrives at length to the knowledge of the Revealed will of God."<br /><br />Here we see that the process of looking through nature to nature's God is defined as the process of proceeding through reason to arrive at "the knowledge of the Revealed will of God." Of course, you would argue that Pope does not mention the Bible directly in this poem, but to do so would be to ignore that the last two lines quoted here are a direct reference to the words of Christ as recorded in the Bible. In Mathew 22:36-40 we read:<br /><br />"Master, which is the great commandment in the law? Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets."<br /><br />Now, I would no more agree with everything in Pope's theology than I do with Bolingbroke, but I recognize that his reference to nature's God is a reference to the Bible. This is consistent with every other use of that phrase which I have found in the literature between 1700 and 1850. Here are a few additional examples:<br /><br />Isaac Watts - 1753<br /><br />"Sweet flocks, whose soft enamel'd wing<br />Swift and gently cleaves the sky;<br />Whose charming notes address the spring<br />With an artless harmony.<br />Lovely minstrels of the field,<br />Who in leafy shadows sit,<br />And you wondrous structures build,<br />Awake your tuneful voices with the dawning light;<br />To nature's God your first devotions pay,<br />Ere you salute the rising day,<br />'Tis he calls up the sun, and gives him every ray."<br /><br />http://books.google.com/books?id=UjMVAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA356<br /><br />Mr. Scott - 1763<br /><br />"Thy sons no more shall darkling grope their way,<br />Or blindly follow reason's glow-worm ray; <br />With healing wings the sun of truth shall rise,<br />And light celestial beam from eastern skies; <br />The glorious day-spring shall from high appear, <br />While error's ghastly phantoms shrink with fear.<br />Ev'n now methinks thy painted chiefs despise<br />Their pagan rites, and brutal sorceries;<br />Nor prone on earth the thunder's voice adore, <br />Nor bow to Ketan's monstrous idol more:<br />By pure religion taught the sacred road,<br />That leads thro' nature's path to nature's God,<br />The One Supreme with holy love they fear, <br />And all the gospel's wondrous truths revere."<br /><br />http://books.google.com/books?id=UnxPAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA190<br />Bill Fortenberryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14205053444988720146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-11251930130224159742013-04-08T14:52:20.129-06:002013-04-08T14:52:20.129-06:00Bolingbroke certainly sounds like Jefferson, or vi...Bolingbroke certainly sounds like Jefferson, or vice versa, more orator than philosopher.<br /><br />http://www.bookrags.com/research/bolingbroke-henry-st-john-16781751-eoph/<br /><br /><br />I especially liked Dr Johnson:<br /><br />"...a scoundrel and a coward! A scoundrel who spent his life in charging a gun against Christianity; and a coward, who was afraid of hearing the report of his own gun ; but left half-a-crown to a hungry Scotchman to draw the trigger after his death!"---On Bolingbroke publishing his most controversial stuff posthumously, the "Scotchman" being a printer named Mallet<br /><br />But I'd like to see the origin of "laws of nature's God," Bill, if it's not Bollingbroke. My provisional opinion remains unchanged, that Jefferson slipped in "LONANG" as a intentional equivocation that could be taken as the Bible/revelation*, <i>or not</i>.<br /><br />What they all agreed on was the existence of some sort of natural law, promulgated at Creation by the Creator. This was enough common ground on which to proceed.<br />___<br />*"Upon these two foundations, the law of nature and the law of revelation, depend all human laws..."---William Blackstone<br /><br />But Jefferson disagreed mightily with Blackstone's contention that the Bible was part of the English common law.<br /><br />http://candst.tripod.com/joestor4.htm<br /><br />I can see Jefferson papering over the problem in his phrasing of the Declaration, but not surrendering. That's just not him.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-71859704845320015192013-04-08T13:33:25.223-06:002013-04-08T13:33:25.223-06:00On Reason and Natural Revelation (page 392)
“Th...<b>On Reason and Natural Revelation</b> (page 392) <br /> <br /><i>“Though we hold no rank among the intellectual creatures of God, yet he has been pleased to give us faculties by which we are able, in using them well, to demonstrate all that he has judged necessary for us to know in our national state, and without supernatural assistance, concerning his existence, his nature and attributes, his providence over his creatures, and their duties to him and to one another. We ought to acknowledge, with the utmost gratitude, the advantage of such a rank in the order of beings: and shall we dare to assume for true any facts, or any doctrines that are evidently inconsistent with this knowledge, however even good men may endeavor to reconcile in opinion, by frivolous discourse, things that are irreconcileable in nature, or whatever authority be employed to impose them? God forbid that we should. Right reason should never advise us to do so, and if any pretended revelation required that we should, it would prove itself to be false, for that very reason.<br />“Natural revelation, so I will call it, produces knowledge, a series of sensitive and intuitive knowledge from the first principles to the last conclusions. The system of things that are, that is, the phenomenon of nature, are the first principles; and reason, that is, a real divine illumination, leads us from one necessary truth to another through the whole course of these demonstrations. In all these cases we know; we do not believe. But in the case of supernatural revelation, when it is traditional, we can have nothing more than opinion, supported by human authority, and by decreasing probability afterwards. The divine authority, grows less and less apparent, whilst the obligation of submission is reputed still the same. But the certainty of natural revelation suffers no diminution. It is always original, and equaly capable of forcing our assent in all times and places. The missionary of supernatural religion appeals to the testimony of men he never knew, and of whom the infidel he labors to convert never heard, for the truth of those extraordinary events which prove the revelation he preaches: and it is said that this objection was made at first to Austin the monk by Ethelred the Saxon king. But the missionary of natural religion can appeal at all times, and every where, to present and immediate evidence, to the testimony of sense and intellect, for the truth of those miracles which he brings in proof: the constitution of the mundane system being in a very proper sense an aggregate of miracles.”(1)</i>jimmiraybobnoreply@blogger.com