Rothbard on Bailyn on Trenchard and Gordon

Very interesting:

Bailyn's Crucial Breakthrough

The crucial breakout from the miasma of American historiography of the Revolution came from one man. He was able by sheer force of scholarship to overthrow the Consensus and Progressive views and to establish a new interpretation of the causes of the American Revolution. This was Harvard Professor Bernard Bailyn, who, breaking through the hermetic separation of European and American historians, found his inspiration in the great work of Caroline Robbins, The Eighteenth Century Commonwealthman. For Bailyn realized that Professor Robbins had discovered the "missing link" in the transmission of radical libertarian thought after John Locke. She had found it in a group of dedicated writers, inspired by the English Revolution of the seventeenth century, who continued to reject the centrist Whig settlement of the eighteenth century. These writers carried forward the ideals of natural rights and individual liberty. In the course of editing a volume of Revolutionary pamphlets, Bailyn discovered that Americans were indeed influenced, on a massive scale, by these libertarian articles and pamphlets. Many of these publications were reprinted widely in the American colonies, and clearly influenced the revolutionary leaders. The most important shaper of this libertarian viewpoint was Cato's Letters, a series of newspaper articles in England in the early 1720s written by John Trenchard and his young disciple Thomas Gordon. The collected Cato's Letters were republished many times in eighteenth century England and America.

Trenchard and Gordon, and the other libertarian writers, transmuted John Locke's abstract and often guarded political philosophy into a trenchant, hard-hitting, and radical libertarian creed. Not only did men have natural rights of life, liberty, and property, which governments must not invade, but "Cato" and the other writers declared that government – power – was always and ever the great enemy of liberty, and stood ready to aggress against it. Hence, power must always be diminished as far as possible. Men must watch it continually with utmost hostility and vigilance, lest it break its bonds, and destroy the rights of the individual. "Cato" particularly denounced the propensity for tyranny of the British government of the day. This message found an eager reception in the American colonies.

Thus, Bernard Bailyn established the American Revolution as at one and the same time genuinely radical and revolutionary. He showed that it was motivated largely by firmly and passionately held libertarian ideology, summed up in the phrase "the transforming libertarian radicalism" of the American Revolution. Bailyn's findings were first presented in the "General Introduction" to his edition of Pamphlets of the American Revolution, 1750–1776, Vol. 1, 1750–1765. The only volume of pamphlets yet published in the series, it included the works of such revolutionary leaders as the Rev. Jonathan Mayhew, Thomas Fitch, James Otis, Oxenbridge Thacher, Daniel Dulany, and John Dickinson.

An expanded version was published as Bailyn, The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution. Also see the companion volume by Bailyn, The Origins of American Politics, which offered an excellent explanation for the British royal governors being weak in the eighteenth century at the same time that the King was dominant at home. A useful summary of the Bailyn thesis is provided by Bailyn's "The Central Themes of the American Revolution: An Interpretation" in S. Kurtz and J. Hutson, eds., Essays on the American Revolution. The scintillating writings of "Cato" have been collected in an excellently edited volume by David L. Jacobson, The English Libertarian Heritage.

One problem with the generally correct Bailyn thesis is its exclusive emphasis on ideology, as it affected the minds and hearts of the Americans. Historians find it easy to slip into the view that the deep ideologically motivated hostility to Britain, while genuinely felt, was merely an expression of "paranoia." Indeed, Bailyn himself almost fell into this trap in his recent overly sympathetic biography of the leading Massachusetts Tory, Thomas Hutchinson. One of the best historians of this period, Edmund Morgan, in the New York Review of Books duly noted and warned against the trap in his review of this work.

An excellent corrective to this exclusive concentration on the subjective is the work of the most important political (as contrasted to ideological) historians of the pre-Revolutionary period. In the definitive history of the Stamp Act crisis of 1765–1766, Edmund and Helen Morgan demonstrated the majority nature of the revolutionary movement. They attacked, as well, the actual depredations of Great Britain on American political and economic rights. Edmund and Helen Morgan, The Stamp Act Crisis: Prologue to Revolution. Also see the companion source book of documents, Edmund S. Morgan, ed., Prologue to Revolution: Sources and Documents on the Stamp Act Crisis, 1764–1766. Particularly important is the monumental and definitive, though densely written, two-volume political history of the coming of the American Revolution by Bernhard Knollenberg, Origins of the American Revolution: 1759–1765; and Growth of the American Revolution, 1766–1775. By examining British archives, Knollenberg shows that the supposed paranoia and "conspiracy theories" of the American colonists were all too accurate. The British officials were indeed conspiring to invade the liberties of the American colonies after the "salutary neglect" of the pre-1763 period.

For the rest, see here.

Locke, Ponet, and the Universal Law

Over the last months, Jon Rowe and I have been involved in a conversation about key influences on the American Founding. While we both agree that many varied and diverse ideas were foundational to the founding, I think he errors when he exaggerates the impact of Enlightenment ideas in this process. His line of reasoning can be seen in the following comment to one of my last posts:

"Well I think we can point by point show the differences between Ponet and Locke. However, the burden still remains on the other side to show a connection between Locke and Ponet et al. AND to show that the American Presbyterians and Congregationalists who argued pro-revolt relied on *those* Calvinists like Rutherford more so than on Locke."

For those who have not been following this discussion Ponet is refering to John Ponet the reformed theologian that was a contemporary of John Calvin. Locke refers to John Locke. This response is connected to a discussion about interpostion/resistance theory and its intellectual roots. Jon contends that the founding generation looked to Enlightenment sources to get around a supposed ban on resistance to tyrants as taught by John Calvin and others. My view is that the reasoning/theology they used was part of a the long tradition of Protestant and Catholic teachings on this subject that by far pre-dated the Enlightenment.

Furthermore, I have challenged Jon's notion that Locke's writings on this topic are much different than Ponet and others. I contend that perhaps the "Harvard Narrative's" poster boy for the Enlightenment is in fact more correctly understood as part of the continuation of the long tradition of political theology alluded to above. In other words, Locke had more in common with Ponet than one might think. Below is the beginning lines of both Ponet's A Short Treatise on Political Power and Locke's Second Treatise. I will allow both men to speak unmolested other than to say that the foundation of both of their arguments seems to be a case for inalienable rights grounded in the imago dei and the "universal law."

John Ponet:

"As oxen, sheep, goats, and other such unreasonable creatures cannot for lack of reason rule themselves, but must be ruled by a more excellent creature, that is man: so man, although he has reason, yet because through the fall of the first man, his reason is radically corrupt, and sensuality has gotten the upper hand, he is not able by himself to rule himself, but must have a more excellent governor. Those of this world thought that this governor was their own reason. They thought that they by their own reason might do the things they lusted for, not only in private matters, but also in public. They thought reason to be the only cause that men first assembled themselves together in companies, that commonwealths were designed, that policies were well governed and long continued: but those of that mind were utterly blinded and deceived in their imaginations, their works and inventions (though they never seemed so wise) were so easily and so soon (contrary to their expectations) overthrown.

Where is the wisdom of the Greeks? Where is the fortitude of the Iberians? Where is both the wisdom and the force of the Romans gone? All have vanished away, nothing almost left to testify that they were, but that which declares well, that their reason was not able to govern them. Therefore, such were desirous to know the perfect and the only governor of all, constrained to seek further than themselves, and so at length to confess, that it was one God that ruled all. By Him we live, we move, and we have our being. He made us, and not we ourselves. We are His people, and the sheep of His pasture. He made all things for man: and man He made for Himself, to serve and Glorify Him. He has taken upon Himself the order and government of man, His chief creature, and prescribed a rule to him, how he should behave himself, what he should do, and what he may not do.

This rule is the law of nature, first planted and grafted only in the mind of man, then after that his mind was defiled by sin, filled with darkness, and encumbered with many doubts. God set this rule forth in writing in the Decalogue, or the Ten Commandments: and after that, reduced by Christ our Savior to just two commands: You will love the Lord your God above all things, and your neighbor as yourself. The latter part He also expounded on: Whatever you would want done unto yourself, do that unto others."

John Locke:

"TO understand political power right, and derive it from its original, we must consider, what state all men are naturally in, and that is, a state of perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions and persons, as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of nature, without asking leave, or depending upon the will of any other man. A state also of equality, wherein all the power and jurisdiction is reciprocal, no one having more than another; there being nothing more evident, than that creatures of the same species and rank, promiscuously born to all the same advantages of nature, and the use of the same faculties, should also be equal one amongst another without subordination or subjection, unless the lord and master of them all should, by any manifest declaration of his will, set one above another, and confer on him, by an evident and clear appointment, an undoubted right to dominion and sovereignty.

This equality of men by nature, the judicious Hooker looks upon as so evident in itself, and beyond all question, that he makes it the foundation of that obligation to mutual love amongst men, on which he builds the duties they owe one another, and from whence he derives the great maxims of justice and charity. His words are, 'The like natural inducement hath brought men to know that it is no less their duty, to love others than themselves; for seeing those things which are equal, must needs all have one measure; if I cannot but wish to receive good, even as much at every man's hands, as any man can wish unto his own soul, how should I look to have any part of my desire herein satisfied, unless myself be careful to satisfy the like desire, which is undoubtedly in other men, being of one and the same nature? To have any thing offered them repugnant to this desire, must needs in all respects grieve them as much as me; so that if I do harm, I must look to suffer, there being no reason that others should shew greater measure of love to me, than they have by me shewed unto them: my desire therefore to be loved of my equals in nature as much as possible may be, imposeth upon me a natural duty of bearing to them-ward fully the like affection; from which relation of equality between ourselves and them that are as ourselves, what several rules and canons natural reason hath drawn, for direction of life, no man is ignorant'

But though this be a state of liberty, yet it is not a state of licence: though man in that state have an uncontroulable liberty to dispose of his person or possessions, yet he has not liberty to destroy himself, or so much as any creature in his possession, but where some nobler use than its bare preservation calls for it. The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges every one: and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions: for men being all the workmanship of one omnipotent, and infinitely wise maker; all the servants of one sovereign master, sent into the world by his order, and about his business; they are his property, whose workmanship they are, made to last during his, not one another's pleasure: and being furnished with like faculties, sharing all in one community of nature, there cannot be supposed any such subordination among us, that may authorize us to destroy one another, as if we were made for one another's uses, as the inferior ranks of creatures are for our's." (Bold print was added by me for effect)

Joseph J. Ellis: When Historians Attack

...and misuse their scholarly authority
by Tom Van Dyke

Historians have their partisan points of view, just like normal people. You gotta vote for somebody. But Joseph J. Ellis beclowns his reputation bigtime in a recent WaPo op-ed, taking a Jefferson quote out of context for nefarious purposes, and even worse, completely misreading Madison and "originalism" in a predictable attack on Supreme Court justices he predictably doesn't like.

Now, it's not like normal people on both sides of the Great Partisan Divide don't bend history toward their druthers and try to enlist the Founders for their cause---it's de rigeur these days, and that's fine. But Ellis is largely known as an accredited historian when dealing with other than current issues.

And sure, as a gentleman of the left, he was entitled to stretch a thin point in making his preferred candidate Barack Obama into a sort of Founding Father. His transformation of the Tea Party movement into the Whiskey Rebellion was even more banal and baseless. But now Dr. Ellis has simply committed scholarly malpractice.

Ellis quote-mines Jefferson, who not incidentally, was not a framer of the Constitution:

"Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the arc of the covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did beyond amendment. . . . Let us follow no such examples, nor weakly believe that one generation is not as capable of taking care of itself, and of ordering its own affairs . . . Each generation is as independent of the one preceding, as that was of all which had gone before."

He was telling us, in his own lyrical way, that we are on our own. Jefferson would vote against any nominee who claimed merely to be an umpire calling balls and strikes in a strike zone already determined by the Founders.

The scholarly problem here is that Jefferson was writing about Virginia meeting to discuss amending its 1776 state constitution, whose flaws Jefferson had opposed for decades. [Letter to Kercheval, 1816.]

The context has zip, nada, zero to do with "judicial review." The subject, as the reader can see for himself, is the legislative and amendment processes. [The US Constitution itself is amendable via Article V.] Invoking Jefferson here against the Supreme Court is simply a non sequitur.

Ellis goes on to invoke Madison's apparent evolution from his centralist Virginia Plan to a lover of states' rights and federalism. If it's Madison's credibility Ellis wishes to attack, I leave the rebuttal on that point to the equally accredited and far more judicious historian Gordon S. Wood.

Regardless, Ellis gets completely out of his depth in a patent and blatant misunderstanding of contemporary jurisprudence. Ellis attacks the judicial philosophy of those SC justices as "original intent," but that's a complete misnomer. Their philosophy is "textualism" and/or "original meaning," exactly as Madison himself wrote:

"As a guide in expounding and applying the provisions of the Constitution, the debates and incidental decisions of the Convention can have no authoritative character. However desirable it be that they should be preserved as a gratification to the laudable curiosity felt by every people to trace the origin and progress of their political Institutions, & as a source perhaps of some lights on the Science of Govt. the legitimate meaning of the Instrument must be derived from the text itself; or if a key is to be sought elsewhere, it must be not in the opinions or intentions of the Body which planned & proposed the Constitution, but in the sense attached to it by the people in their respective State Conventions where it recd. all the authority which it possesses."

and to that, let's add Jefferson himself, since although he's not as an authoritative witness as Madison, Ellis seems to prefer him:

“On every question of construction [of the Constitution] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or intended against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.”

There's more I could write contra Prof. Ellis, but it's the custom here at the American Creation blog to keep the partisanship at arm's length [partisanship fouls up historical inquiry, as we've seen here]. The predictable partisan battle can be found in the WaPo comments section itself. I'll restrict myself to Prof. Ellis' formal errors and the rebuttals from the Founders themselves.

But yes, this one made me angry. Ellis builds his case on heated partisan rhetoric and a single out-of-context Jefferson quote. As he is a Jefferson biographer himself, there's no excuse for this.

What would Jefferson have said about the other side of today's Supreme Court, which Ellis clearly favors? Oh wait, Jefferson his ownself already did did:

"Time and changes in the condition and constitution of society may require occasional and corresponding modifications. One single object, if your provision attains it, will entitle you to the endless gratitude of society; that of restraining judges from usurping legislation.

And with no body of men is this restraint more wanting than with the judges of what is commonly called our General Government, but what I call our foreign department. They are practising on the Constitution by inferences, analogies, and sophisms, as they would on an ordinary law. They do not seem aware that it is not even a constitution, formed by a single authority, and subject to a single superintendence and control; but that it is a compact of many independent powers, every single one of which claims an equal right to understand it, and to require its observance.

...

This member of the government was at first considered as the most harmless and helpless of all its organs. But it has proved that the power of declaring what the law is, ad libitum, by sapping and mining, slyly, and without alarm, the foundations of the Constitution, can do what open force would not dare to attempt."---Letter to Livingston, 1825.

If Prof. Ellis wasn't aware of this letter, he's a bad scholar. If he is, he's a dishonest man.

[HTs and acknowledgement of some arguments borrowed from NRO. Source quotes verified by this author.]

Rev. Jeremiah Leaming to Bishop William White II: You're not a Unitarian, Are You?

I won't reproduce the whole thing. Just the offending passage from Leaming's letter, June 9, 1789:

I am not able to see why there may not be a general union, although we did not agree in every little circumstance. I suppose you agree with, as in all Articles of Faith. Although you have cast out two of our creeds, I imagine you do not mean to deny the Divinity of our blessed Lord : for if we are ever justified, it must be by the merits of Christ, and no created being can do any thine by merit for another. All he can do is only to act up to the dignity of his nature; and God has a right to all this, because he gave all the ability.

On the futility of persecution in politics

"In politics, as in religion, it is equally absurd to aim at making proselytes by fire and sword. Heresies in either can rarely be cured by persecution." -- Alexander Hamilton.

Dr. Priestley is at the Bottom of the Plan

A Unitarian Founding Era Conspiracy? Yeah, there sorta was.

This letter is from Rev. Jeremiah Leaming to Bishop William White, one of the first Episcopal Bishops in America and the first Bishop of Pennsylvania.

Stratford, June 16th, 1788.

My Rev. and dear Sir :

I have received your kind and obliging letter, dated the 10th of last February, and I should have answered it before this time, but have waited to hear how the affair turned out, after the Convention in Virginia, with Dr. Griffith.

—— As to the affair upon which our correspondence commenced, it appears to me, that the union of the Churches is, at present, a matter that cannot be effected. I was in hopes to see it accomplished soon after your return from England. But you inform me some object, and will have nothing to do with the Scotch Succession. Dr. P-------y is at the bottom of the plan. He has contrived it to make this country all Unitarians; for, to accomplish that, he must demolish the Church in these States. However, if we do not lend him a helping hand, he cannot do it. The Church will never fall, unless it is pulled down by her own members.

Perhaps you will say, you cannot think there is any such scheme on foot. It will not be long before you will find that what I have told you is fact. The Presbyterians are employed by, to fill all the Southern States with their sort of Ministers, before the Church is supplied with Episcopal Clergymen. Where people have no principles about the nature of a Christian Church, a man ordained by the Laity is as good as any. And a man who professes to believe no creed, but only this, that he believes not in any creed, is as good a Christian as any man can be. By this scheme the Unitarian doctrine is to take place. In order to preserve the Church, the members should be vigilant, lest the foundation should be undermined by clandestine enemies. If true Christianity is not preserved by the Episcopal Church, it will soon take its flight from these States, for Unitarians will be the whole.

In order that the common people, members of the Church in this state, might understand the mature of the Christian Church, and some of its leading doctrines, I have lately published a small treatise upon various subjects, a copy of which I now send you. This I should not have presumed to do, if you had not in a familiar manner expressed your desire that I would communicate to you any matters that might turn up with regard to our Church.

If you should, upon the reading of it, approve what I have advanced, I should be glad to know if reprinting of it would be of any advantage to the people of your State, who are under your care, If we desire to preserve the Church, we must acquaint the people for what end the Church was appointed, and what the doctrines of a Christian Church are, in order that they may understand them.

Thus I have expressed my sentiments freely, and perhaps have been too open. But this must be my apology: in love I have done it, and in love I hope it may be received.

I am, with every sentiment of esteem and regard, Right Rev. Sir,

our sincere friend and verv humble Servant,

JEREMIAH LEAMING.

Joseph Priestley to Theophilus Lindsey on Jefferson

Northumberland, April 23, 1803.

Dear Friend,

In my last I promised to send you a copy of Mr. Jefferson's letter on reading my pamphlet entitled "Socrates and Jesus compared." The above is that copy. He is generally considered as an unbeliever: if so, however, he cannot be far from us, and I hope in the way to be not only almost, but altogether what we are. He now attends public worship very regularly, and his moral conduct was never impeached. I should, on several accounts, be glad to make the visit he proposes, but my business will not admit of it. If I leave this place, either the printing of my works must be intermitted, or I must request the aid of Mr. C, which I am not fond of doing; and though lie does his best, I find he has not been sufficiently used to the work.

Adam Smith and the Founders

by Ben Abbott
Guest Blogger

On occasion, commenters have asked to what degree the Founders were influenced by the Scotsman Adam Smith, the moral philosopher and father of modern economics. In 2004, David Prindle authored an essay on Smith's influence on James Madison, colorfully titled The Invisible Hand of James Madison. From the abstract:

"Scholars have disagreed about how to interpret James Madison's Federalist essays 10 and 51, in which he explains and justifies the underlying principles of the new Constitution. Was Madison the architect of a structure of counterpoise, which would force individuals, interests, and institutions to obstruct one another so as to avoid tyranny, or was he a republican statesman, designing a system that would recruit virtuous citizens to public office."

Prindle dismisses the dichotomy "Was Madison arguing that the Constitutional system designed to thwart bad people, or to recruit good ones?," and asserts that Madison likely intended both. Prindle's Madison encompasses both republican virtue and restraint of tyranny. To substantiate his position, Prindle examines Adam Smith's mixed motives in writing The Wealth of Nations:

"[Smith] wanted to combat the prejudice, derived from the natural law tradition, that individual interests were necessarily anti-social, and therefore furnished an excuse for government economic regulation [...] Smith wanted to show that there was a way that economies could be designed so that nations could become richer [...] he wished to demonstrate that an economy was not necessarily a zero-sum game, but could be structured so as to grow at a rate considerably faster than population increase. Morally, he wanted to refute the notion that self-seeking must always be contrary to the public interest. To help him accomplish these twin goals, he invented modern economic reasoning."

Smith summarized his idea as

"As every individual [...] by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of greatest value, intends only his own gain, he is in this as in many other cases led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention...By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of society more effectively than when he really intends to promote it."

Above, Smith is not saying that the participants in free enterprise have virtuous intents, but that their actions become virtuous due to market forces. Similarly, in Federalist 51, Madison argues "Ambition must be made to counteract ambition," because when it does, government officials must compete in a contest of virtue. Even if their intentions are not virtuous, their actions become virtuous due to competition.

Thus, there are strong parallels in Smith's approach to commerce and that of Madison's approach to politics. Given Madison's familiarity with Smith's work, it is likely that Madison's perspective was influenced by the Scotsman.

Prindle's essay is reasonably short, but more thorough than what has been posted above. It is a worthy read.

Finals Week

I've just emerged from somewhat of a media-blackout, surrounding the flurry of academic activity that surrounds the end of a university semester. It is always around this time that I start to reflect on the nature of the American College or University. What would the founders of our great academic institutions think of how things go today? Surely, the founders of Harvard, Yale, Princeton, William & Mary, et al could not have foreseen the changing nature of education. When designing the curriculum of the University of Virginia, Jefferson didn't know that what he knew as "philosophy" or "natural philosophy," at least, would end up splintering into dozens of different fields. Perhaps they could see the day where Latin and Greek would less useful than the modern languages; there is evidence of that.

But in general, I truly wonder what our founders would think about the modern university, where most students don't know who Tully is, let alone can they parse him. And most students would politely decline to decline the Greek paradigms.

Aside from that, how has the purpose of the university changed? I suspect Jefferson or Adams would feel the same way I do when I hear students discussing the mad rush to sell their textbooks after the semester is over: why would you want to sell back a textbook? If the information contained therein is of no interest to you, why did you take the class?

We know the answer to that, of course, but the larger question is still: what is the purpose of the university? I doubt many of our founders went to university simply to go through the motions to get a degree so they could get a job. But perhaps I'm mistaken about this, maybe the university has always been that place you go to make yourself more hire-able--and if you learn something or better yourself in the process, fine.

Perhaps I'm rambling, which is not to be unexpected after a busy time, but I would be interested if anybody has any insight into this. Did any of the founders discuss all-night cram-sessions before an exam? Did any of them complain in their diaries about getting a pittance for their used textbooks? Somebody should write a book about the founders as students.

Do you think students have always been, for the most part, short sighted, not concerned so much about their long term enlightenment and the pleasure of learning, but only concerned about getting the best grade for minimal effort?

America's National Day of (Fighting Over) Prayer

If you've followed my posts over the past couple of years it should come as no surprise that I absolutely, 100% reject the "America is a Christian Nation" nonsense. My reasons for such a stance are many (and I won't dive into them today) but sufficeth me to say that I believe such as stance is actually quite anti-Christian in nature. With that said, I don't want to be misunderstood here. This does not mean that I believe religion played no role in the founding of America. Quite the contrary. I believe it was (and still is) a fundamental component of American republicanism; one that we cannot and should not do without. Religious freedom and diversity is as important to us as are our separation of powers.

And I don't believe I am alone in my beliefs. The role of religion has always been a difficult juggling act throughout American history. The question of when and how religion can be taken too far (or not far enough) in relation to government was a question even our Founding Fathers wrestled with. And in our modern era the story is no different.

Which bring us to May 6, 2010. Today is, by presidential proclamation, the National Day of Prayer. And as can be expected, the typical pro and con voices of "reason" have emerged to support/lament this time-honored practice of fighting over prayer, more specifically prayer being sanctioned by government officials. And though I tend to oppose the "Christian Nation" crowd on a regular basis, I am choosing to stand with them today. The National Day of Prayer is a good thing and the secularists need to back off. Here's why:

First off, let's travel back a ways to the era of our Founders. Yes, many of them were "Theistic Rationalists," "Unitarians," "Deists," "atheists" or any other "ist" you can think of. However, these same heathens LOVED to pray (it's true). Take, for example, the First Continental Congress. You all know the story. It was suggested that the first official act of business should be to begin with a prayer but when deadlocked over who should give that prayer, Samuel Adams (a pious man to say the least) arose and stated that he was "no bigot, and could hear a Prayer from any gentleman of Piety and virtue, who was at the same time a friend to his Country." Shortly thereafter, Jacob Duché, an Anglican minister, was selected to lead the group in prayer.

Fast forward to the war for independence. One of the first General Orders issued by General Washington required soldiers to adhere to a moral code that included prayer:

The General most earnestly requires, and expects, a due observance of those articles of war, established for the Government of the army, which forbid profane cursing, swearing and drunkeness; And in like manner requires and expects, of all Officers, and Soldiers, not engaged on actual duty, a punctual attendance on divine Service, to implore the blessings of heaven upon the means used for our safety and defense.

And then there is the case of John Hanson, president of the United States under the Articles of Confederation, who, in 1782, issued a proclamation calling for a national day of thanksgiving in which the nation was to "give thanks to God" for their good fortune during the war.

And let us not forget, despite the controversy over whether or not he said "So Help Me God", President George Washington stated in his first inaugural address:

No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the invisible hand which conducts the affairs of men more than the people 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 then there are the numerous Thanksgiving proclamations made by several early presidents, each of which implored the American populace to give thanks to God through prayer. Bottom line: prayer, in whatever form, is as American as apple pie.

Of course not everyone liked the idea of prayer being sanctioned by government. In 1812, John Adams actually lamented his call for a national day of prayer and thanksgiving:

The National Fast, recommended by me turned me out of office. It was connected with the general assembly of the Presbyterian Church, which I had no concern in. That assembly has alarmed and alienated Quakers, Anabaptists, Mennonists, Moravians, Swedenborgians, Methodists, Catholicks, protestant Episcopalians, Arians, Socinians, Armenians, & & &, Atheists and Deists might be added. A general Suspicion prevailed that the Presbyterian Church was ambitious and aimed at an Establishment of a National Church. I was represented as a Presbyterian and at the head of this political and ecclesiastical Project. The secret whisper ran through them “Let us have Jefferson, Madison, Burr, any body, whether they be Philosophers, Deists, or even Atheists, rather than a Presbyterian President.” This principle is at the bottom of the unpopularity of national Fasts and Thanksgivings. Nothing is more dreaded than the National Government meddling with Religion."

-- John Adams to Benjamin Rush, June 12, 1812

And Thomas Jefferson:

Fasting and prayer are religious exercises; the enjoining them an act of discipline. Every religious society has a right to determine for itself the time for these exercises, and the objects proper for them, according to their own particular tenets; and right can never be safer than in their hands, where the Constitution has deposited it. ...civil powers alone have been given to the President of the United States and no authority to direct the religious exercises of his constituents.

~Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Miller, January 23, 1808.

And James Madison:

There has been another deviation from the strict principle in the Executive Proclamations of fasts & festivals, so far, at least, as they have spoken the language of injunction, or have lost sight of the equality of all religious sects in the eye of the Constitution. Whilst I was honored with the Executive Trust I found it necessary on more than one occasion to follow the example of predecessors. But I was always careful to make the Proclamations absolutely indiscriminate, and merely recommendatory; or rather mere designations of a day, on which all who thought proper might unite in consecrating it to religious purposes, according to their own faith & forms. In this sense, I presume you reserve to the Govt. a right to appoint particular days for religious worship throughout the State, without any penal sanction enforcing the worship.

~James Madison to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822.

And while most modern presidents have followed suit by declaring national days of prayer (Harry Truman even signed a bill requiring presidents to do just that), some presidents sided with Jefferson. Presidents Ulysses S. Grant and Theodore Roosevelt spoke up for what Roosevelt called "absolutely nonsectarian public schools." Roosevelt added that it is "not our business to have the Protestant Bible or the Catholic Vulgate or the Talmud read in schools."

Yes, truly the debate over prayer has a long and tedious history. As Diana Butler, author of the controversial book, A People's History of Christianity points out:

When it comes to prayer, Americans love to fight -- and our prayers have driven us apart. Arguing over prayer is an American tradition.

In the 1600s, Puritans rejected the formalized prayer of the Anglican Book of Common Prayer and founded their own churches as a way of protesting state-supported prayer. For their trouble, the Anglicans put them in jail. When they got out, they left England and settled in the New World. But the Anglicans were already there with their own colonies and outlawed Puritan prayers again. So the Puritans outlawed Anglican prayer in their own colonies. Quakers, disgusted with the Puritan-Anglican quarrel, rejected verbal prayers altogether, choosing to pray silently instead.

In the 1740s, during the Great Awakening, the new evangelical preachers practiced extemporaneous prayer. They rejected all written prayers in favor of being "moved by the Spirit" and making up public prayers on the spot. Many in traditional churches -- Presbyterians, Anglicans, Lutherans, and Congregationalists -- found extemporaneous prayer to be theologically shallow and "unlearned" and forbade its exercise in their churches. These groups didn't imprison each other over prayer. Instead, they consigned each other to hell and set up rival denominations to insure their own salvation. American churches split over prayer, leaving some to free-form prayer and others to written and ritualized prayers.

After the Revolutionary War, a puzzling question arose: Whose prayer would undergird the new nation? How might prayer be practiced in the commons? What words should bless state functions?

The political leaders (perhaps recognizing that prayer was above their pay grade) came up with a unique and practical answer: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." In other words, "We won't touch that prayer-thing with a twenty-foot pole. You are on your own, people."

Of course, the Establishment and Free Exercise clauses of the Constitution didn't solve anything. Congress, despite trying to avoid the issue, had chaplains -- most typically of the formal type -- who prayed for their work. And Americans -- even in the early period when most of them were Protestants -- kept arguing over whose prayer was theologically accurate and most spiritually effective. Entire denominations were formed on the basis of devotional style. And as Americans argued and denominations split over prayer, religious leaders and politicians continued to proclaim days of prayer for national unity.

And though it's likely that the debate over prayer's role in the halls of government is sure to remain for as long as the stars and stripes continue to fly, I believe it is important for us all to recognize one important fact: whether you favor prayer being intertwined with government or not we must acknowledge its role in American history. Americans are, for the most part, a prayer-loving people. I am reminded of the very first post ever done here at American Creation entitled, "Did Washington Pray at Valley Forge?" In that post, I pointed out that the story of Washington kneeling in prayer (and made famous by Arnold Frieberg's now infamous painting) is surely a farce. Despite its obvious mythology, fellow blogger Brian Tubbs made an excellent point. He stated, in this blog's first ever comment:

Whether GW knelt in prayer at Valley Forge as depicted by the paintings is like asking whether he stood in the boat when he crossed the Delaware. GW probably didn't kneel in the snow at Valley Forge. But I'm sure he prayed at Valley Forge. That GW prayed in the exact manner depicted in the famous painting may be called into question. That he was a man of prayer cannot be challenged.

And so it is with prayer on a national level. Perhaps we are not a Christian Nation and that a separation of church and state does keep the men of the cloth from dictating policy. This truth, however, does not mean that we need to throw the baby out with the bath water. We have been, and probably always will be, a nation of praying people.

And maybe both the pro and anti-prayer advocates can appeal to Jesus for a resolution on this matter:

"Thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men...

"But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret." ~ Matt. 6:5-6

Book review: The Intellectual Origins of Jeffersonian Democracy

Oftentimes incredibly influential books are relatively short.  Thomas Paine's Common Sense, for example, was originally published as a pamphlet.  The Communist Manifesto, one of the most perniciously influential books of the last 200 years, isn't much larger.  So, when it comes to influence, the bigger treatise isn't always the one that people turn to.  In an academic culture that often values heft over insight, one book that demonstrates that less can be more when it comes to historical analysis is the late Douglass Adair's 185 page landmark study, The Roots of Jeffersonian Democracy.  Written in 1943, the work was Adair's doctoral dissertation at Yale.  It is now back in print, republished in 2000 by Lexington Books.  As the introduction to the Lexington Books edition puts it, the checkout list for Adair's dissertation reads like  "a who's who of early American history."  The number of scholars across ideological and methodological camps who have been influenced by Adair is astounding.

And there is good reason that Adair's dissertation is so influential:  it is that rarity among books that start as dissertations -- a clear, concisely worded, focused study of its topic.  And Adair's topic is ambitious, no less than understanding the roots of the political theories of the formative period of the American Republic.

While the title of Adair's dissertation centers on Jeffersonianism, most of the study is devoted not to Jefferson but to those around him.  Madison figures prominently, but so does Hamilton.  Adair's presentation of Hamilton is generous, and Adair goes out of his way to discuss Hamilton's contributions to the emerging constitutionalism of the early American nation.   And not just Hamilton's influence on the constitutional convention and the ratifying debates afterward, but Hamilton's deeper political convictions regarding the need for a "balanced government," one that was limited not only in scope but also in its ability to concentrate power in the hands of any one group, interest or person.  Part of this idea of balance included the notion of an aristocracy of ability and position that would be able to temper the passions of the mass of the people.  It was this emphasis on balanced government that, in Adair's view, motivated the Federalist Party, and bound together such different personalities as Hamilton and John Adams in common political endeavor. 

Adair's study also details the powerful influence that classical Greco-Roman political theory had on the discussions regarding American government during the founding period.  Aristotle and his disciples as well as Plato's student Xenophon figured prominently not only in Federalist political theory, but in the rising political ideology of the Jeffersonian Republicans.  Adair notes that Hamilton's concerns for balanced government were bolstered by appeals to classical theorists.  In Adair's telling, Hamiliton was widely although not deeply read in the classics, and he was so enamored of classical political theory that he "could not turn his reading of ancient history at all toward the clarification and ordering of the American world in which he lived."

Indeed, Adair's study of this component of Hamilton's intellectual formation serves as a cautionary tale about the risks of imbibing too much of the classics at the expense of understanding one's present surroundings.  As Adair puts it, "his [Hamilton's] classical learning operated to distort and becloud so many political phenomena lying under his very eyes that he could never deal with them realistically, except in minor matters of technique." 

The real star of Adair's book is James Madison, the one-time disciple of Washington and ally of Hamilton who eventually became the scholar- and politician-apprentice to Thomas Jefferson.  Madison, in Adair's view, had a far more nuanced and realistic understanding of both of classical patrimony and the political reality of the early American Republic.  Madison's understanding of the necessary constitutional order included limitations on both federal and state power, a recognition of the rights of the majority along with a commitment to the protection of the rights of the minority.

According to Adair, Madison's defense of the Virginia Plan in the constitutional convention flowed out of these concerns, and reflected a prudential approach to ensuring both minority rights and majority governance.  In line with Republican political ideas, Madison did not see history, as Adair puts it, "just the struggle of the rich and the poor trying to devour each other.  The problem of faction did not pivot entirely upon the conflict of haves and have-nots."  With this insight, Madison escaped the trap of classical political theory, eluding the chains of the Greek and Roman philosophers who saw such struggle at the heart of every system of government.  And for this escape Madison was indebted in no small part to writers of the Scottish Enlightenment, notably David Hume, as Adair details.

This isn't to say that Madison and the Jeffersonian Republicans were able to maintain a completely clear-headed view of early American politics.  If Hamilton and the Federalists got lost in classical political theory, Madison and the other Jeffersonians fell into the myth of the "virtuous farmer."  The "ideal commonwealth," as Adair summarizes Madison's views, "would operate among a nation of husbandmen[.]"  And it is in this regard that Adair's study loses much of its energy.  Adair fails to see that just as the Federalists were too committed to classical political theory, the Jeffersonians were too committed to an agrarian polity that was rapidly losing ground to the rising industrial economy of the West.  Adair didn't see that it was precisely in this way that the Jeffersonians made a critical misstep, completely overlooking the economic trends that were then a-building.

One of the things that is so fascinating about early American Republic is that both the Federalists and the Republicans had such critical and (in hindsight) obvious conceptual errors.  A fully modern blogger might say that each side suffered from epistemic closure!  If the Federalists were lost in Greek philosophy, they were at least clear-headed when it came to understanding the way the winds were blowing when it came to economics.  If the Republicans were able to see their immediate political world with clear vision, their agrarian dogmatism left them vulnerable to being blindsided by the emerging world of banks, trade and industrial production.

This weakness on the part of the Jeffersonians explains, at least in part, the inability of the Republicans to dismantle much of the Federalist architecture of government and the economy after the revolutionary election of 1800.  Adair did not address this aspect of the respective weaknesses and strengths of the Federalists and Republicans, nor did Adair extend his study to deal with Jefferson's tenure as president.  No study, of course, is perfect, but the lack of such discussion is a noted lack in a book that otherwise excels in a deep reading of the intellectual trends of the early republic.

And such a discussion would have provided a better glimpse at something that Adair did note well, namely the pessimism that Jefferson and Madison had at the prospects for the American nation.  Indeed, the Republican inability to understand the new economic realities that were then on the rise led both Madison and Jefferson to hold a pronouncedly negative view of the long-term viability of the new republic.  Eventually they thought, as Adair points out, that the republic would become too crowded and too corrupt for constitutional government to remain; "commerce and manufactures" would eventually overwhelm the nation.  The best that Madison hoped for was "at least a generation" of constitutional government among the American people.

Its flaws aside, though, it is difficult to heap too much praise on this book.  Adair's study is a insightful look into what he describes as "the alien intellectual territory" of Jefferson and Madison.  It is notable for its depth, for its insight, and for its examination of the sources for much of the political thought of the early republic.  It is a book well worth reading.

What Was Enlightenment About America's Founding

My co-blogger at American Creation, King of Ireland, is exploring some of the reformed roots of America's Founding. There's no doubt there was a powerful Christian influence, both reformed and natural law (arguably implicitly Catholic).

However there were lots of other things as well. "Christian" is just one of five of Bernard Bailyn's ideological sources of the American Founding, the others being British Common law, Whig, Greco-Roman, and Enlightenment. And keep in mind these sources bled into one other and many of ideas and thinkers behind them, John Locke, for instance, "fit" into more than one category.

What I see as Enlightenment about the American Founding -- why I think it dominated aside from the fact that they were living in the age of Enlightenment -- is that the Founders used their reason to pick and choose from what they wanted (i.e., the Bible, the Greco-Roman tradition, Calvin, Blackstone, traditional natural law teachings) and discard the rest.

With Calvin for instance, whatever it is they might have taken from him, they didn't agree with his teaching that even the worst of tyrants properly command divine submission from subjects.

Now, there are some later Calvinists who seemed more generous than Calvin on resistance theory, Rutherford, Ponet, et al. However even they are little cited by the Founders and ministers and philosophers they followed. I do recall John Adams reciting some of those names in classic Enlightenment fashion, making nominal reference to them as he vomited up names from various ideological sources.

Samuel Rutherford was cited by America's Founders little if at all. But if he did influence them, again, it was in a qualified Enlightenment sense where they took from him what they wanted and rejected what they didn't like. For instance, Rutherford (like most of the other "Calvinists") was horrific on religious liberty issues. Here is Rutherford on Servetus' execution:

It was justice, not cruelty, yea mercy to the Church of God, to take away the life of Servetus, who used such spiritual and diabolic cruelty to many thousand souls, whom he did pervert, and by his book, does yet lead into perdition.

This is anti-American Founding 101.

Likewise with Blackstone, supposedly the origin of the concept of "Nature's God." Ironic in that the Declaration of Independence is an anti-Blackstonian document. Blackstone taught, in no uncertain terms, when the King and Parliament (i.e., British Rule or the particular way in which they split power) take action, no power on Earth can undo it.

Here are Blackstone's exact words on Parliament's power:

It can, in short, do every thing that is not naturally impossible; and therefore some have not scrupled to call it’s power, by a figure rather too bold, the omnipotence of parliament. True it is, that what they do, no authority upon earth can undo.

As Gary North put it: “Blackstone was wrong: beginning eleven years later, the American colonies undid a lot of what Parliament had done.” North also properly observed: "They [America's Founders] took what they liked from his [Blackstone's] system and ignored the rest." [See the following, pgs. 20, 102.]

Likewise with Locke, the most important philosopher who influenced America. He didn't believe in extending religious liberty to atheists or Roman Catholics. But Jefferson explicitly noted, where Locke stopped short, they would go further.

And they did.

Good Article on Calvinist Resistance Theory

Check out this good article I found on Calvinist Resistance Theory from the Action Institute.  It cites many of the leading works, gives the highlights, and seeks to chronicle the progression of thought.  This is a good preparation for what will probably be a long discussion on resistance theory/interpostion.  My first post on this was about 5 months ago and it has taken that long to hash through many of the initial questions. With that accomplished, I think it is time to look into much that is alluded to in this article. Here is a taste:

"Contrary to much secular thought, the historic emergence of a social contract that guarantees human liberty stems from the seedbed of Geneva’s Reformation. To be sure, a different social contract, the humanist one, had its cradle in the secular thinking of the Enlightenment. The one I refer to as the social covenant (to distinguish) has resisted tyranny, totalitarianism, and authoritarianism with consistent and irrepressible force; the other has led to oppression, large-scale loss of life, and the general diminution of liberty, both economic and personal. Following is a brief review of five leading tracts from the Reformation period that had wide and enduring political impact in support of liberty: The Right of Magistrates (1574) by Theodore Beza, The Rights of the Crown of Scotland (1579) by George Buchanan, Vindiciae Contra Tyrannos (1579) by Phillipe du Plessis Mornay, Politica (1603) by Johannes Althusius, and Lex Rex (1644) by Samuel Rutherford"

Believe it not, after 5 months of hashing this out we have not even begun to scratch the surface. Was American really a creation of the Enlightenment or is there another narrative that needs to be explored? Perhaps Mr. Barton's overall point about distorted history is not so far off. I think it may be time to get out of the trees and look at the forest.

What was the Declaration of Independence?

In response to the ongoing back and forth here at American Creation regarding the nature of the Declaration of Independence, I can only recommend that folks read Pauline Meier's majestic book on the making of the Declaration, American Scripture.  I am about half-way through it, and am blown away by the depth of her scholarship.  The normal story about the Declaration isn't the full story...

Lets Stay On Topic

I appreciate all the Jon Rowe wrote in response to my last post but I think much of it is getting us off topic. The topic is whether the Declaration of Independence was a document of interpositon or not. Jon Rowe stated his case that it was not and called his main witness, John Calvin. My last post clearly shows that Calvin is not a reliable witness in this case because his own words contradict themselves.


Jon's response to this was:

"KOI claims the Othniel example a contradiction in Calvin's writings. Personally, I don't see it. Calvin teaches God sometimes raises up individuals to deliver from tyranny. AND that sometimes the means those individuals use is righteous, sometimes sinful. Likewise, this accords with Gregg Frazer's understanding that, yes, it was God's will that the American Revolution resulted as it did. But that George Washington et al. used SINFUL MEANS to accomplish that end. Indeed, Frazer and Calvin both teach God sometimes uses the sinful means of man to accomplish his will. I can't tell from Calvin's context whether he thought Othniel was one righteously raised up or rather God using "the fury of [a man] who ha[d] other thoughts and other aims," to accomplish His ends. But in any event, there is no apparent contradiction."

First things first. It is abudantly clear in Calvin's text that Othniel was "righteously" raised up.  Here is Calvin again:

"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"

Jon does a great job with studying the history associated with the founding and religion. But I have cautioned him more than once to make sure he reads and understands the biblical stories that are mentioned for himself and not just read what other's write about it. If you know the stories that Calvin cites here it is clear that Othniel is paired up with Moses as those who were "commanded to punish tyranny." The other stories below were of one pagan power against another and illustrate the ill intent of a group or individual being used of God to bring about His will that Frazer talks about.  This is clear and undisputable if one understands these stories from the bible.

With that stated, if Calvin acknowledges that Othniel's actions "to punish tyranny" were valid he thus endorses the taking up of arms against a standing king in one breath and in the next limits one's actions against a tyrant king to what Frazer states is something akin to our modern impeachment. His biblical example does not mesh with his historical examples. It is that simple. All the rest of the talk about hermeneutics and revelation is just smoke and mirrors.  The simple fact is that Mr. Rowe's chief witness has been discredited and thus his case against the Declaration of Independence being a document of interposition should be dismissed.  That is unless he has other witnesses.

As for me, I call John Ponet to the stand...

Why John Adams is important

A little while ago I posted some thoughts on the men I thought were the top 4 American Founders.  One of those men was John Adams, and my choice of Adams resulted in some puzzlement.  Why Adams?  Well, I was going to write up a big blog post on my own summarizing why I think that Adams is probably the second most important American founder, but I found a very concise and complete statement by historian John Patrick Diggins, and I thought that it would be a bit more decisive coming from him rather than me:

America's second president, John Adams, was the first political leader who had to face democratic politics as we know it today, whereas his predecessor, George Washington, enjoyed an unchallenged charismatic authority as the glorious hero of the Revolution.  But what Washington won on the battlefield as a general, Adams won at the conference table as a diplomat:  a vital loan that helped finance the Revolution and the favorable peace terms of the Treaty of Paris in 1783.  As president, Adams dealt with international relations, civil liberties, and domestic rebellion with a keen sense of power, fairness, and justice.  He had a better grasp of where America was heading than did Thomas Jefferson, and had it not been for the political institutions Adams defended -- a strong executive, the Supreme Court, the Senate, the military -- America's democratic ideals would have had no means of realization.  This is Adam's legacy.

John Patrick Diggins, John Adams (American Presidents Series, vol. 2, Times Books:  2003).

I would also add my original observation that Adams was the first president in American history to lose a re-election bid and retire peacefully to his home.  And being first matters.

Some Footnotes on Frazer v. KOI on the Absoluteness of Submission to Rulers

In my last post, I pointed to this post (and the thread below it) where I think Dr. Frazer properly answered all of KOI's claims about the Bible and its absolute command on submission to government, no matter how potentially tyrannical. Again that post and the comments section are especially informative.

I note two claims of KOI's in that thread and question their logical soundness and the assumptions that he and more orthodox biblicists might have when discussing them.

In the first, KOI writes:

If God uses special deliverers to rebel against the authorities as Othniel did then is God not endorsing rebellion? Your original position was that this was a sinful action that God used. ...

It seems that you are stating that all "rebellion" is wrong except when God tells someone to do it. That is inconsistent.

Except according to orthodox biblical hermeneutics, it isn't inconsistent. By way of analogy, incest. Orthodox biblicists believe that brother sister incest is, in the present era, absolutely prohibited. Yet, many of these same biblicists believe in a literal Adam/Eve creation story. As it were, by logicality necessity Cain and Abel either procreated with their mother Eve or their sisters (or some other close relatives, who by logical necessity, would have had to have engaged in incest that the Bible, as a current rule, categorically prohibits).

Now, orthodox biblicists can rationally explain why incest was okay in Genesis, but not shortly thereafter, having to do with the more degenerated genetic nature of Adam and Eve's offspring, the damage to our genes the Fall took on said subsequent generations (i.e., by the time of Moses). And if B/S incest marriages were permitted shortly thereafter the Fall, it would greatly damage the gene pool in a way that Cain and Abel's procreation with their close relatives did not.

But it remains a categorical moral prohibition -- brother/sister incest marriages -- could get a special exception by God for God's own particular reasons and then subsequently be absolutely prohibited.

Secondly, KOI wrote:

I disagree over how you use revelation. ... I believe we can receive specific revelation from God now. I think Washington probably did. ...

This is also very important. Orthodox biblicists believe that revelation stopped with the final book of the biblical canon. Therefore, accordingly, George Washington could NOT, as a matter of TRUTH, have received revelation from God excepting him as Othniel may have (or, accordingly, Othniel may have sinned like Lot when he had sex with his daughters, again to use a biblical example of God using man's sin to validate His will).

Yet, if God continues to reveal, leading to all sorts of potential possible books or additions to the biblical canon (like Mormonism), KOI has a point.

The premise matters tremendously; it is key.

King Of Ireland, The Problem of Othniel, and Biblical Hermeneutics

At American Creation, my co-blogger King of Ireland has a good post that responds to me and Dr. Gregg Frazer and puts much on the table.

Let me sort some of this out. First there are differences among the personal religious convictions of Jon Rowe, Gregg Frazer, Joe Winpisinger (aka KOI) and John Calvin. Further, the Bible says what it says regardless.

We need to keep that in mind because I see KOI sometimes improperly conflating these things.

Gregg Frazer's notion that submission to government is absolute (even if it's Hitler or Stalin), obedience is conditioned on not sinning against God while doing your best to obey the civil magistrate, is NOT derived from John Calvin's authority, but from the Bible's alone (or, if you will, how Dr. Frazer understands the Bible as the inerrant infallible Word of God).

Likewise, Calvin asserted his teachings were derived from the Bible alone. And indeed, what Calvin believes and what Frazer believes sometimes strikingly parallel. But to (supposedly) find a flaw or contradiction in Calvin's understanding of the Bible is not to find a flaw in Frazer's. Indeed, Dr. Frazer believes in only four of five of Calvin's points. And, surprise, it's because Frazer says the Bible disagrees with Calvin's notion of limited atonement (the L in Calvin's TULIP) that Frazer rejects it.

On a personal note, I am an open minded, hopeful agnostic with deistic, theistic and universalistic tendencies. My rational mind says I don't know if there is a God. My heart says everyone gets into Heaven eventually. Who knows, maybe that temporary punishment for the sins that we do on Earth requires subsequent reincarnation where bad shit happens to you (the question, "what did I do in a past life...?").

My mind is only so open, however. It's not open to Zeus, it's not open to the idea that those 19 highjackers did God's will and were rewarded with virgins and it's not open to the idea that human beings, as a result of the barest or original sin, (eating an apple when God said not to, or coveting, stealing a candy bar) deserve either the horrors that many humans experience on earth (i.e., the holocaust, childhood cancer) or eternal misery.

The first idea (Zeus) is ridiculous -- something in which virtually no one currently believes -- though the last two notions have more than a nominal number of believers. But they are just wrong. They are wrong because I know they are wrong. I don't care what you think the Bible or Koran says. I can and have formed logical arguments as to why they are wrong and sharp minded apologists for either notion (eternal miserable damnation as a default desert for the original or barest sin or Allah sending 19 highjackers into the WTC and rewarding them with virgins) have rationalized why those notions are just and true.

But in the end, they are just plain wrong and I am going to either 1) reject the authenticity of "revelation" that teaches otherwise, or 2) explain why such revelation, properly understood, doesn't teach these things. [Keep 1) and 2) as rationals in mind because they relate to the overarching theme of this post.]

And indeed, some/many Muslims who believe the Koran God's holy and revealed word rationally and vociferously reject such interpretations of the Koran. Just like "Bible believing Christians," some unitarian like Charles Chauncy and John Adams, some Trinitarian like John Murray and Benjamin Rush argue, God's Word in the Bible, properly understood, does not teach eternal damnation, rather temporary punishment, universal salvation. [Interestingly, many early church fathers believed this as well.]

Though, I can't say that I've found evidence that Rush, Murray and Chauncy simply wrote off parts of the biblical canon as "interpolations." John Adams (and Franklin, and of course, we know Jefferson) however did. To Jefferson, most of the Bible was "interpolation," hence fit for his cutting room floor.

One beef some readers -- American Creation's Tom Van Dyke notably -- have with Dr. Frazer's interpretation of America's Founding political theology, is it stands for "reason trumps revelation" -- or man's reason judging what parts of scripture are not true and jettisoning them. Clearly, J. Adams, Jefferson and Franklin did this and said they did.

But did Rush, Chauncy, Mayhew, and others? Well, I can't tell if they said they did like Jefferson, J. Adams and Franklin. But what they did, among other things, was reject the Trinity and eternal damnation. And, the logic goes, since the Bible clearly teaches both those doctrines, anyone who rejects them subjects the Bible to man's razor of reason and edits from it like what Jefferson knew he did (regardless of whether Mayhew, Chauncy, et al. consciously did this).

I don't have personal issues with Romans 13, because like Jefferson, I don't believe St. Paul's words were God's (the Holy Spirit writing inerrant, infallible scripture through Paul's hand) but rather were Paul's and Paul's alone.

However, when I do approach this issue -- biblical hermeneutics -- as a thought experiment, I act as though the Bible were inerrant and infallible. As such, all of the competing texts have to be harmonized so as to not contradict one another (if that is indeed possible).

One argument against the Bible as Truth is that it contradicts itself more than hundreds, but thousands, if not tens or hundreds of thousands of times. I used to argue this. But I discovered it a half truth. It is indisputable that the Bible appears, on the surface, to contradict itself many times over. But a good, smart biblicist can "smooth out" the apparent contradictions.

We are left with what the Bible says, plus a hermeneutical explanation of why it doesn't contradict itself. And that results in Sola Scriptura Protestantism, with thousands of [the Bible + why it doesn't contradict itself], from smart theologians, that contradict one another.

For instance, orthodox Trinitarian evangelicals who believe the Bible inerrant, infallible, argue over, among other things, every single letter of Calvin's TULIP. Outside of historic orthodoxy, biblicists argue the Trinity, Incarnation, Atonement on biblical grounds alone.

Knowing this, I better understood the Roman Catholic case for Papal Infallibility. It's not that the Pope is in fact infallible, but rather that someone has to have the final say on what the Bible means or else the Church is subject to Sola Scriptura Schizophrenia, which in my opinion, accurately describes how Protestantism was destined to be from Luther onwards.

Likewise, the Supreme Court says "we are not final because we are infallible, rather we are infallible because we are final." That is, someone has to have the final say or else we get thousands of schizophrenic, contradictory results of what an inerrant, infallible Bible (or constitution) really says. Such is Protestantism.

I outlined all this because it relates to this specific discussion on Romans 13 and revolt, as well as the broader discussion I've engaged in over the past few years on America's Founding political theology.

But back to the specifics on Calvin, Romans 13 and resisting the civil magistrates. Calvin's teachings seem quite clear that lower magistrates have the privilege of removing a tyrannical king only pursuant to some legally recognized mechanism. The examples he gave were akin to Congress impeaching a President, not revolt against tyrants.

Elsewhere in the same passage in Book IV, Chapter 20 of Calvin's "Institutes of the Christian Religion" Calvin notes:

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.

KOI claims the Othniel example a contradiction in Calvin's writings. Personally, I don't see it. Calvin teaches God sometimes raises up individuals to deliver from tyranny. AND that sometimes the means those individuals use is righteous, sometimes sinful. Likewise, this accords with Gregg Frazer's understanding that, yes, it was God's will that the American Revolution resulted as it did. But that George Washington et al. used SINFUL MEANS to accomplish that end. Indeed, Frazer and Calvin both teach God sometimes uses the sinful means of man to accomplish his will. I can't tell from Calvin's context whether he thought Othniel was one righteously raised up or rather God using "the fury of [a man] who ha[d] other thoughts and other aims," to accomplish His ends. But in any event, there is no apparent contradiction.

And, contrary to KOI's assertion that Dr. Frazer refuses to answer his Othniel claim, Gregg has done so repeatedly. For instance here when Dr. Frazer wrote:

... [T]here are plenty of tyrants in the history of Israel after Saul who are not removed despite pleas from the people. If it’s as “simple” as you’ve made it, God should have interceded on behalf of all of the others. Also, God does not only recognize kings of Israel (His people) who’ve gone through a special anointing ceremony to be His “anointed.” Romans 13 says that all rulers are “ministers of God” and “servants of God.” And God refers to pagan civil rulers as His “servants,” His “shepherds,” and His “anointed” (see e.g. Jeremiah 25:9; 27:6; 43:10; Isaiah 44:28; 45:1). So, what applied to David re Saul applies to all civil rulers AS FAR AS TAKING OUR OWN INITIATIVE IS CONCERNED. GOD may remove a ruler or even raise up a deliverer to remove a ruler or use the sinful rebellion of people to remove a ruler – but we have no authority or permission to do so on our own initiative. It isn’t up to us to decide, but rather God. You talk of having “a time to have the Spirit come upon you” -- as if that were up to you to generate. As if you were in control of the Spirit of God!!! God can send His Spirit; God can raise up a deliverer; God can determine that it’s time for a tyrant to fall – but that doesn’t mean we can or that we can simply decide that we are such deliverers!

You say that “’appointed’ authority can come under judgment themselves and their former slaves can even be the ones to take them out.” True. What is NOT true is the notion that WE get to decide when that time has arrived or that, contrary to clear command from God, we can do it our own way on our own timetable. You ask why the Declaration of Independence can’t be an example of this – BECAUSE THERE WAS NO REVELATION TO THE AMERICAN REVOLUTIONARIES TO TRUMP THE BIBLICAL COMMAND NOT TO REBEL. God did not reveal to them that this was an Othniel situation and He did not reveal to them that He had appointed an Othniel to deliver them! Othniel didn’t decide on his own – He received revelation from God.

Likewise Frazer's orthodox understanding of the Bible teaches God's actual revelation stopped with St. John's Book of Revelation. Therefore, whereas Othniel received revelation, George Washington, did not because, accordingly, he could not have. Unless that is you are a Mormon and you believe revelation continues after the end of the biblical canon.

Finally, let me said a word on what I think motivates KOI and many other Christians who refuse to accept Dr. Frazer's understanding of the Bible. It parallels my 1-2 explanation for why I reject eternal damnation (especially if eternal damnation is as bad as some claim). I wrote it's wrong because I know it's wrong. And therefore, I either 1) reject the authenticity of "revelation" that teaches otherwise, or 2) explain why such revelation, properly understood, doesn't teach these things.

In other words, it's an a-priori. On this Romans 13 issue, the reaction in the mind of the Bible believer is NOT "what does the Bible really teach, putting all of the competing texts together so they don't contradict one another?" but rather, "that interpretation CAN'T be true, because it would mean I couldn't rebel against Stalin or Hitler."

And the believer is therefore left with two options: Either disregard as authentic revelation those texts of the Bible that contradict your a-priori as false revelation (hence Adams' notion of interpolations in the Bible or Jefferson's cutting room floor where everything St. Paul said ended up) OR try to explain why the Bible, properly understood, cannot possibly teach this, with the outcome already determined.

King of Ireland in this sense, operates entirely in the tradition of America's Founders who argued rebellion against tyrants is obedience to God, regardless of what you think the Bible says. Regardless of what verses and chapters of the Bible you could throw at them, the Whigs' minds were already made up on the matter.

Whether this constitutes "reason trumping revelation" I'll let the readers judge.

Book review: The Americanization of Benjamin Franklin

"Of making many books," the Hebrew Bible warns us, "there is no end"  (Ecclesiastes 12.12b, Revised Standard Version).  In the last 10 or 15 years, that seems to be the case regarding biographies of Benjamin Franklin.  Top tier American historians like Brand and Morgan have solid overviews of Franklin's life and work, and popular writers like Walter Isaacson have written books on him as well.  Editions of Franklin's Autobiography are numerous.  One recent biography from the last 10 years stands out, though, both in its tone and its approach to Franklin: Gordon Wood's book The Americanization of Benjamin Franklin.  A comprehensive yet reasonably sized volume, Wood's book recounts Franklin's life through the lens of his shift from a dedicated proponent of the British Empire to one of the pivotal Founding Fathers of the American Republic.  Wood uses Franklin's intellectual and emotional journey from loyalist to revolutionary as a template for understanding Franklin's life and accomplishments.  It is a fascinating way for Wood to approach his subject.

Wood looks at Franklin's intellectual history through the prism of Franklin's various life experiences.  From his extremely humble origins as a workingman printer's apprentice to the heights he reached as a diplomat and founding father, Franklin's shifts of opinion, of conviction and of purpose are not only well-documented by Wood, but perhaps most importantly, well-explained.  Franklin is a remarkably difficult figure to understand, for the most part.  Part of this is due to his own practice of not revealing his own inner thoughts, part of it is due to the remarkable length of his career, a career that saw massive social, economic and political changes in Pennsylvania, the British Empire, and the American nation.  Wood's approach to Franklin helps to clarify and make sense of much of Franklin's work, both as a businessman, diplomat and politician.  While not every mystery about Franklin is resolved via Wood's approach, it does shed a great deal of light on the consistent aspects of Franklin's ideas, ideals and beliefs over time.

Some examples of the topics that Wood explores and brings light to are:  

• Franklin's early efforts -- prior to the French and Indian War -- to facilitate the creation of a Union of the English colonies in the New World;

• Franklin's devotion of the British Empire, grounded in a belief that the American colonists were full participants and members of that Empire;

• Franklin's loyalty to the King, and his happiness at the elevation of George III to the throne of the Empire;

• Franklin's growing disillusionment with the King and the Empire as it became increasingly clear that the British would never consent to the full equality of the colonists within the Empire;

• Franklin's diplomatic efforts in France as an outgrowth of his love of Europe.

In addressing all of these topics (and several more, it should be said), Wood examines the consistencies in Franklin's thought over time, as well as the events that caused Franklin to change his views as circumstances around him changed.  What Wood really makes clear is that most of Franklin's fundamental principles remained constant throughout his life.  While Franklin was fluid when it came to the means and methods that he employed to achieve the realization of those principles, the principles themselves remained remarkable stable over a long career. In fact, much of the value of Franklin's career as a teaching tool revolves around his willingness to be flexible in the methods he used to pursue his goals. 

In addition to exploring Franklin's life, Wood also devotes space to exploring Franklin's reputation, both during Franklin's own life but also after Franklin's death. 

This is one of the most insightful and helpful books about Franklin that I've read in quite some time -- it may in fact be the best single-volume book about Franklin available in English.  That is not to say that the book is perfect.  Wood spends relatively little time discussing Franklin's religious beliefs and his discussion of Franklin's troubled family life is uneven and lacks the kind of revelatory insight that Wood brings to bear on Franklin's professional history. 

That said, Wood's biography of Franklin is top notch and well worth a read.  As the lazy days of summer appear on the horizon, this would be a good book to have as one plans a July beach vacation or August bank holiday.

Calvin, Interposition, and "the Problem of Othniel"

With all the talk about the Arizona law and state protests against healthcare reform it is important to trace where many of the arguments for interposition originated:

A while back, Jon Rowe replied to my post that claimed that the Declaration of Independence was a document of interposition by stating: "The DOI is NOT a Document of Interposition." He lays out the heart of his and Dr. Gregg Frazer's case for Christianity "properly understood" with the following:

"To Calvin, the Bible categorically forbids revolt. No exceptions. Calvin did discuss the ability of intermediate magistrates to interpose and remove a tyrannical King; but he stressed it must be done pursuant to some positive legal mechanism, like the Congress impeaching the President pursuant to the provisions in the US Constitution. Again, revolt is still forbidden. Therefore if the Continental Congress could make the argument, which they seemingly did in parts of the DOI, that King George and Parliament were violating British law AND if there were some recognized legal method under British law for declaring independence, perhaps what the FFs did could "fit" with such a notion of "interposition."

The problem with this argument is the, "AND if there were some recognized legal method under British law for declaring independence, perhaps what the FF's did could fit with such a notion as interposition." This quote is grounded in John Calvin's narrow view of what qualifies as a valid form of interposition. The problem is that Calvin is not a reliable source on this topic because his own words on resistance to tyranny contradict themselves. With that said, I think it would be helpful to examine the writings of Calvin to see why his definition of what is a valid reponse to tyranny is not Christianity "properly understood." 

In Institutes on the Christian Religion Book Four Chapter 20, Calvin emphatically endorses the idea that government is instituted by God. Frazer and Rowe are also correct that Calvin exhorts people to submit to good and evil rulers alike. He then goes on to say that when one finds himself under the rule of a tyrant his first assumption should be that he is under God's curse. Here is Calvin:

"But it 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 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 big 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. 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."

Calvin then goes on to bring some balance to the discussion and acknowledges that oppression is not always the curse of God. He allows that oppression often occurs when kings violate the God given responsibillities that go along with their delegated authority.  He also cites examples of both lawful and unlawful exceptions that allow for resistance to tyrants. Here is Calvin again:

"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 (Prov. 21:1). "God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods." (Ps. 82:1). 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 judgement, and do violence to the cause of the humble, to make widows a prey, and plunder the fatherless 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."

 
Later, Calvin adds that one should not rebel against unjust tyranny but should look to God for his deliverance. He then goes on to the say that he is speaking only to private men and begins to expound on the impeachment-like exception given to lower magistrates: 
 

"But whatever may be thought of the acts of the men themselves, the Lord by their means equally executed his own work, when he broke the bloody sceptres of insolent kings, and overthrew their intolerable dominations. Let princes hear and be afraid; but let us at the same time guard most carefully against spurning or violating the venerable and majestic authority of rulers, an authority which God has sanctioned by the surest edicts, although those invested with it should be most unworthy of it, and, as far as in them lies, pollute it by their iniquity. 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."

 
So Calvin, Jon, Dr. Frazer, and I all agree that the bible states that government is something that God instituted among men, that tyrants do exist, that tyranny results from both the curse of God and kings that claim the God given authority of their station and yet deny the responsibilities, and that God desposes tyrant kings.  The controversy is what constitutes a proper response to tyranny.
 
Rowe and Frazer endorse Calvin's view that seems to limit these responses to an impeachment-like scenario. It seems that they believe that the bible teaches that private men should just "obey and suffer" under tyranny. My concern is in how they pronounce Calvin's teaching on this subject more sound than others. This concern is rooted in him placing Othniel among the "class of deliverers being brought forward by the lawful call of God to perform such deeds, when they took up arms against kings" in one breath and then limits responses to tryanny to impeachment in the next. I call this the "problem of Othniel."

Here is the story:
 

"The Israelites did evil in the eyes of the LORD;  they forgot the LORD their God and served the Baals and the Asherahs. The anger of the LORD burned against Israel so that he sold them into the hands of Cushan-Rishathaim king of Aram Naharaim, to whom the Israelites were subject for eight years.  But when they cried out to the LORD, he raised up for them a deliverer, Othniel son of Kenaz, Caleb's younger brother, who saved them. The Spirit of the LORD came upon him, so that he became Israel's judge and went to war. The LORD gave Cushan-Rishathaim king of Aram into the hands of Othniel, who overpowered him. So the land had peace for forty years, until Othniel son of Kenaz died."

Does this sound like an impeachment?  If not then the great John Calvin completely contradicts himself! What is going on here?

I think we see a conflict within Calvin himself here that sheds some light on the struggle that God fearing colonists had many years later when trying to decide the best possible remedy for dealing with the their own tyrant king.  It is the same struggle we see with Paul in Romans 13. The struggle is for balance between two competing concepts: 1. the sovereignty of God 2. free will of man. An over-emphasis on the former ends in a fatalistic outlook that tells people to just "obey and suffer" and let God take care of it. A over-emphasis on the latter can end in rebellious anarchy that leads to mob rule.

I think Calvin, Paul, and at least one key founder feared both extremes and allowed for ways to check tyranny while also guarding against anarchy. This is why we see use of the doctrine of interposition in its many forms repeatedly throughout the history of the Christian West all the way up to today. My question to Jon Rowe and Dr. Frazer is why they ignore "the problem of Othniel" and continue to elevate the contradictory teachings of John Calvin over others on the proper form that interposition should take?