"Divine Son Of God" v. "God the Son, Second Person in the Trinity"

The title of my post demonstrates the importance of clarity in language, specifically as it relates to spiritual discernment issues. As I argue below, Jesus as "divine Son of God," is a more vague, less discerned doctrine than Jesus as "God the Son, Second Person in the Trinity."

As my estimable co-blogger Rev. Brian Tubbs defines what it means to be a "Christian":

For my own part, when it comes to assessing whether a Founder was "Christian," I believe in the KISS principle. :-) I keep it simple.

Did the person believe in Jesus Christ as his or her divine and risen Savior? (Romans 10:9-10).

That's certainly a fair biblical understanding of "Christianity." One question I have is what does "divine" mean? This isn't a stupid question. On its face, referring to Jesus as merely "divine," as opposed to "God the Son, Second Person in the Trinity" can mask differences among 1) Trinitarians, 2) Arians, 3) Mormons, 4) Jehovah's Witnesses, 5) Swedenborgs, 6) promoters of the "Oneness" Pentecostal theory, and 7) God knows how many others.

For those who don't know, Arianism, named after Arius (ca. AD 250–336), and the eradication of which was the reason for the Nicene Creed, taught Jesus a divinely created Son of God, Savior of Mankind, subordinate to the Father. Jesus was "divine" but not fully God. More like a demi-God, the first born of all creation, second in charge, below the Father, but above every Angel.

Notable Arians who influenced the American Founding include Isaac Newtown, Samuel Clarke, Richard Price, Jonathan Mayhew and probably Johns Milton and Locke and many others. Arians likewise could answer the question "do you believe Jesus the divine Son of God" affirmatively, without having to assent to Trinitarian logic of 1+1+1 = 1, not 3, with which "rational" minded men might have a hard time.

John Jay, as I noted in my last post, at the very least flirted with Arianism/Trinity doubt.

Who knows what other great "Christian minds" struggle with Trinity issues?

Does that make them not "Christian"? Personally, I can't answer. Historically, though, non-Trinitarianism is labeled "heresy."

As noted above, Trinitarianism distinguishes itself from the more amorphous categorization of Jesus as the divine, risen Son of God. Trinitarians believe in that plus something else. It's that something else that distinguishes them.

That is if one asks the question: Do you believe Jesus Christ the divine, risen Son of God, 1) Trinitarians, 2) Arians, 3) Mormons, 4) Jehovah's Witnesses, 5) Swedenborgs, 6) promoters of the "Oneness" Pentecostal theory, and 7) God knows how many others can honestly answer affirmatively.

Yet, only Trinitarians can answer the question "do you believe in a Triune God, that Jesus is Second Person in the Trinity" affirmatively.

And that's to say nothing of the other "Christians" that John Adams named -- "Universalists,...Priestlyans, Socinians,...Deists and Atheists, and Protestants ‘qui ne croyent rien [Protestants who believe nothing]" -- who were united along with the various sects of Arians and Trinitarians in a lowest common denominator of "general Christianity" that founded American politics.

John M. Murrin ON on the Founders, Original Sin, Reason & Revelation

NOTE: A correction and retraction is in order. I wrote a post entitled "Mark Noll on the Founders, Original Sin, Reason & Revelation," found here, here and here.

A commenter noted "[a] closer inspection of the book reveals that John M. Murrin is actually the writer, not Noll. Noll edited this book."

It was an interesting post. A taste (QUOTING MYSELF):

Pages 31-32 in his 1990 book "Religion and American Politics" contain some interesting analysis. First he notes the Constitution was the 18th century equivalent of a "secular humanist text." Next he notes the delegates were not an orthodox group of men in any doctrinal sense. Noll states perhaps only ONE, Richard Bassett of Delaware, was a "born again Christian." Though Sherman "may" have been. Further, Noll notes Washington, Franklin, Hamilton, Madison, Wilson, and G. Morris gave no sign of belief in "original sin" at this phase in their life.

Noll then describes, using Jerry Falwell and Jimmy Swaggart as examples, how the Founders were actually closer to secular humanists than modern evangelicals (on a personal note, I'd say they were somewhere in between; they were "theistic humanists").

Private Religious Tests

The Founding Fathers agreed that government -- at least at the federal level -- shouldn't be able to impose formal religious tests. See Art. VI, Cl. 3 of the US Constitution. But what of private religious tests? (I.e. I want to vote for the "Christian" candidate.) They are permitted in the sense that the voter is allowed to vote for whomever s/he wants, for whatever reason.

John Jay has an oft-repeated quotation that encourages private religious test in favor of "Christians."

“Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation, to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.”

Yet, what turned out to be minimal "Christian" standards required for public vetting -- for instance, the "Christianity" of the first half dozen Presidents, perhaps the majority of American Presidents -- was a formal or nominal affiliation with a Christian Church and identification with the Christian label. That's it.

Since Washington's Presidency, there has been no successful "precedent" for privately vetting a Presidential candidate's "Christianity," with a strict confession of orthodox faith (i.e., "Do you George Washington believe in a Triune God? Do you believe the Bible the inerrant, infallible Word of God?), even though many orthodox (Timothy Dwight, William Linn, Jedidiah Morse) wished there were.

The republican form of federal elections that the Founding Fathers established almost landed someone as bad as Aaron Burr in the Presidency.

Washington started many informal Presidential precedents, one of them was religious aloofness, or trying to be all things to all people when pinned down, religiously.

So the "Christianity" of the first four or five Presidents turned out to be, in principle, not much different than the Roman Catholicism of Jack Kennedy, the Quakerism of Richard Nixon, the Southern Baptistism of Bill Clinton, and the unorthodox Christianity of Barack Obama. Jimmy Carter and GWBush stand as the most "orthodox" of Christian Presidents in the modern era, hence the most "Christian" of modern Presidents.

(Reagan? He certainly believed in Providence and thought himself a "Christian." However, it's not clear where he stood on the Trinity, Atonement, Jesus as personal savior. Perhaps someone can enlighten me.)

Perhaps it's better that American Presidents and politicians aren't subject to effective private religious tests like John Jay suggested. It would likely burn too many of them. Orthodox theologians don't necessarily make for the most effective American politicians (see Carter and Bush). By avoiding specific confessions of faith, American federal politicians are effectively shielded from "heresy hunters."

Even the great "John Jay" has given rope with which the heresy hunters could hang him. Though Jay is conceded as one of the "authentic" orthodox Christian notable Founders, one could argue Jay may not have been a "Christian." Or at least that he doubted his Christianity and flirted with Arianism.

As Jay noted in a private letter:

"It appeared to me that the Trinity was a Fact fully revealed and substantiated, but that the quo modo was incomprehensible by human Ingenuity. According to sundry Creeds, the divine Being whom we denominate the second Person in the Trinity had before all worlds been so generated or begotten by the first Person in the Trinity, as to be his coeval, coequal and coeternal Son. For proof of this I searched the Scriptures diligently -- but without Success. I therefore consider the Position of being at least of questionable Orthodoxy."

-- John Jay to Samuel Miller, February 18, 1822. Jay Papers, Columbia University Library.

Do you think he would feel comfortable with a Trinitarian confession of faith for public office?

Is Equal Opportunity an American Tradition?

by guest blogger: Mathew Goldstein

Brian Tubbs, in his New Year's Day article, Dependence on God: An American Tradition, advocates for voters imposing their own religious test on government officials by voting exclusively for theists. In making this argument he depicts himself as a defender of the "desires" and "prerogatives" of the American people, saying "If they want only a President who is left-handed, that is also their right. An individual voter has the unqualified right to vote for whomever he or she pleases, based on whatever criteria he or she sets. That's the heart of democracy. Lose that, and you're in serious trouble!". He comments that "At this point in the discussion, those frustrated by these realities point to the First Amendment's establishment clause or the constitutional prohibition against religious tests." He counters this with the observation that "Challenging the reality of this theme is an exercise in futility." This is a misrepresentation of the goals of advocates for non-establishment of monotheism. While it is true that we are frustrated with widespread prejudice against atheists, we are seeking only equality of opportunities, not equality of results.

Advocates for non-establishment of monotheism want to make the opportunities for participation in our democracy more inclusive by ensuring that governments avoid assuming the role of advising citizens that majority right-handedness is preferred over minority left-handedness or that majority monotheism is preferred over minority atheism. This does not entail requiring anyone to vote for people they don't want or limiting the criteria anyone employs to make their decisions. People can vote for only right-handed candidates without the government declaring "in right-handedness we trust" and that we are "one nation, right-handed, indivisible". Defenders of the establishment of monotheism want government that favors their own monotheistic beliefs while defenders of non-establishment of monotheism want government that doesn't tilt the playing field for or against any one's religious beliefs. To see this lets look at the current EC lawsuits of the Freedom from Religion Foundation.

They filed suit in U.S. District Court, Spartanburg Division, Greenville, S.C., on June 17, 2009, challenging the awarding of academic credits for evangelical release-time instruction by a public school district. On December 30, 2008 they filed a lawsuit seeking to enjoin the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court from adding the religious phrase, "So help me God," to the Presidential oath of office. The Foundation took the County of Manitowoc, Wis., to court in mid-December 2008 over its prominent display every December since 1946 of a nativity scene bearing the words "Glory to God in the Highest" on its courthouse lawn. The Foundation and various regional media were unable to uncover any permit for the display, or approval by the Manitowoc Public Works Committee, or even written guidelines about public displays. They filed suit on Nov. 26, 2008, in federal court against the City of Rancho Cucamonga, Calif., for taking actions which led to the censorship of its "Imagine No Religion" billboard. The Foundation filed a federal lawsuit on Oct. 3, 2008, broadly challenging the federal law designating a National Day of Prayer and requiring a National Day of Prayer Proclamation by the President. They launched a challenge to the religious phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance on Oct. 31, 2007.

As can be seen, the goal of advocates of non-establishment of monotheism is to limit the scope of government actions to the issues of governing in accordance with the rule of law principle. We want to eliminate obstacles to equal participation by non-theistic minorities that are unfairly erected by our government with our government's imprimatur on behalf of monotheists. Government bias for monotheism over atheism interferes with the opportunities for the atheist minority to participate as equals in the civic affairs of the nation. The democratic process itself needs to be uncontaminated by bias between monotheistic and atheistic perspectives to be truly democratic and therefore government, as the sole administrator of that process and, more generally, as the sole administrator of our laws, has a responsibility to exhibit neutrality.

Washington Delivers First State of the Union

Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution states that the President of the United States is required to:

"...from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient;..."

On January 8, 1790 (220 years ago) President George Washington delivered the first ever State of the Union address. His address was highly anticipated by virtually everyone in Congress, since nobody was quite sure how the Executive Branch was to work or what a State of the Union address would look like. In his speech, Washington outlined his administration's expected course of action, which was primarily dedicated to strengthening the new federal government. With a tremendous amount of help from Alexander Hamilton (who wrote the majority of the speech), Washington gave the following address to Congress:

State of the Union
George Washington
January 8, 1790
Federal Hall, New York City

Fellow Citizens of the Senate and House of Representatives:

I embrace with great satisfaction the opportunity which now presents itself of congratulating you on the present favorable prospects of our public affairs. The recent accession of the important state of north Carolina to the Constitution of the United States (of which official information has been received), the rising credit and respectability of our country, the general and increasing good will toward the government of the Union, and the concord, peace, and plenty with which we are blessed are circumstances auspicious in an eminent degree to our national prosperity.

In resuming your consultations for the general good you can not but derive encouragement from the reflection that the measures of the last session have been as satisfactory to your constituents as the novelty and difficulty of the work allowed you to hope. Still further to realize their expectations and to secure the blessings which a gracious Providence has placed within our reach will in the course of the present important session call for the cool and deliberate exertion of your patriotism, firmness, and wisdom.

Among the many interesting objects which will engage your attention that of providing for the common defense will merit particular regard. To be prepared for war is on e of the most effectual means of preserving peace.

A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite; and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent of others for essential, particularly military, supplies.

The proper establishment of the troops which may be deemed indispensable will be entitled to mature consideration. In the arrangements which may be made respecting it it will be of importance to conciliate the comfortable support of the officers and soldiers with a due regard to economy.

There was reason to hope that the pacific measures adopted with regard to certain hostile tribes of Indians would have relieved the inhabitants of our southern and western frontiers from their depredations, but you will perceive from the information contained in the papers which I shall direct to be laid before you (comprehending a communication from the Commonwealth of Virginia) that we ought to be prepared to afford protection to those parts of the Union, and, if necessary, to punish aggressors.

The interests of the United States require that our intercourse with other nations should be facilitated by such provisions as will enable me to fulfill my duty in that respect in the manner which circumstances may render most conducive to the public good, and to this end that the compensation to be made to the persons who may be employed should, according to the nature of their appointments, be defined by law, and a competent fund designated for defraying the expenses incident to the conduct of foreign affairs.

Various considerations also render it expedient that the terms on which foreigners may be admitted to the rights of citizens should be speedily ascertained by a uniform rule of naturalization.

Uniformity in the currency, weights, and measures of the United States is an object of great importance, and will, I am persuaded, be duly attended to.

The advancement of agriculture, commerce, and manufactures by all proper means will not, I trust, need recommendation; but I can not forbear intimating to you the expediency of giving effectual encouragement as well to the introduction of new and useful inventions from abroad as to the exertions of skill and genius in producing them at home, and of facilitating the intercourse between the distant parts of our country by a due attention to the post-office and post-roads.

Nor am I less persuaded that you will agree with me in opinion that there is nothing which can better deserve your patronage than the promotion of science and literature. Knowledge is in every country the surest basis of public happiness. In one in which the measures of government receive their impressions so immediately from the sense of the community as in ours it is proportionably essential.

To the security of a free constitution it contributes in various ways - by convincing those who are intrusted with the public administration that every valuable end of government is best answered by the enlightened confidence of the people, and by teaching the people themselves to know and to value their own rights; to discern and provide against invasions of them; to distinguish between oppression and the necessary exercise of lawful authority; between burthens proceeding from a disregard to their convenience and those resulting from the inevitable exigencies of society; to discriminate the spirit of liberty from that of licentiousness - cherishing the first, avoiding the last - and uniting a speedy but temperate vigilance against encroachments, with an inviolable respect to the laws.

Whether this desirable object will be best promoted by affording aids to seminaries of learning already established, by the institution of a national university, or by any other expedients will be well worthy of a place in the deliberations of the legislature.

Gentlemen of the House of Representatives:

I saw with peculiar pleasure at the close of the last session the resolution entered into by you expressive of your opinion that an adequate provision for the support of the public credit is a matter of high importance to the national honor and prosperity. In this sentiment I entirely concur; and to a perfect confidence in your best endeavors to devise such a provision as will be truly with the end I add an equal reliance on the cheerful cooperation of the other branch of the legislature.

It would be superfluous to specify inducements to a measure in which the character and interests of the United States are so obviously so deeply concerned, and which has received so explicit a sanction from your declaration.

Gentlemen of the Senate and House of Representatives:

I have directed the proper officers to lay before you, respectively, such papers and estimates as regard the affairs particularly recommended to your consideration, and necessary to convey to you that information of the state of the Union which it is my duty to afford.

The welfare of our country is the great object to which our cares and efforts ought to be directed, and I shall derive great satisfaction from a cooperation with you in the pleasing though arduous task of insuring to our fellow citizens the blessings which they have a right to expect from a free, efficient, and equal government.

Political Theology and the Establishment of the Episcopate in Founding Era America

Rev. Brian Tubbs' post at American Creation on Samuel Seabury raises vitally important points, not well enough understood by students of religion & the American Founding.

Seabury was the first Episcopal Bishop consecrated in America ("On March 25, 1783, ten Connecticut clergy elected Samuel Seabury as their bishop.") Seabury was also a devout loyalist whose political-theology informed his defense of Toryism.

Also, Seabury was, as Rev. Tubbs noted, the "farmer" to whom Alexander Hamilton referred in his classic "The Farmer Refuted." There Hamilton, arguing the cause of revolution, invoked, not the Bible or orthodox Christian doctrine, but the natural law of "Grotius, Puffendorf, Locke, Montesquieu, and Burlemaqui" that may (or not) be compatible with the Bible/orthodox Christianity.

The good Bishop's idea of "unlimited submission" to government that Hamilton et al. opposed dominated the historic Christian understanding -- of the Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant variety -- for over 1600 years, until the era of "revolution." Yet, the "Whig" understanding of a right to revolt (or "resist") as per Romans 13, as with other "Christian heresies" like theological unitarianism and universalism, perhaps could trace many years before "Enlightenment." The theological-philosophical roots of such understanding certainly can.

Yes, some dissident/heretical doctrines within Christendom trace hundreds, some over a thousand years before Enlightement. After all, refuting Arianism (a form of unitarianism) motivated the Nicene Creed in 325 AD. Yet, "Enlightenment theology" -- especially the American and British variety -- disproportionately embraced heresies like unitarianism, universalism, and the right to revolt in the face of Romans 13.

Rev. Tubbs, in his post, notes Peter Lillback's book "George Washington's Sacred Fire," which recites important facts on the late 18th Century American Anglican/Episcopal dynamic. Yet, Lillback's account is woefully inadequate (ironic in that Lillback took 1200 pages to make his case!).

The biggest problem with Lillback's tome is his construction of false dichotomies. Either GW was "Deist" or "Christian" (which Lillback reads as "orthodox Christian"). Since Lillback demonstrates GW wasn't a "Deist," then he must have been an "orthodox Christian." Arguably the book demolishes a strawman GW "Deist" and props up a false "orthodox Trinitarian" Washington.

Lillback's Chapter 15 on "George Washington, the Low Churchman" exemplifies this logically fallacious paradigm. Accordingly, "high church Anglicanism" -- by its nature "Toryish" -- was characterized by adherence to traditional "Church of England" customs and apostolic authority. "Low church Anglicanism" -- "Whiggish" -- was characterized by a more decentralized local church autonomy that adhered to Calvinistic "biblical" authority. Of course, according to Lillback, low church Anglicanism, even of the "latitudinarian" variety Washington embraced didn't stray from orthodox Christian, biblically infallible grounds.

And therein lies the fatal error in Lillback's model: 1) Low church, 2) latitudinarian, 3) Whiggish 4) Anglican-Episcopalian, ESPECIALLY IN 5) VIRGINIA, oft-slipped into deistic, unitarian, Enlightenment, infidel "theology," despite Lillback's failure to show the movement strictly adhered to "orthodoxy."

This FIVE POINT theology forms a lowest common denominator between Thomas Jefferson (heterodox) and Patrick Henry (orthodox). That is, demonstrating GW fit these five points (which he, Henry, Jefferson, George Mason, James Madison, John Marshall, George Wythe, and other notables did) no more demonstrates GW "orthodox" than "heterodox."

Briefly, consider proven deistic-unitarian minded Anglicans, Jefferson & Wythe, as Vestrymen for said church in VA, and Marshall's daughter's testimony that he refused communion because he was a unitarian (disbelieved in Christ's Atonement, what the Act symbolized). The same can be said of Washington (though GW never disclosed his reasons for avoiding communion).

Lillback's discussion of the original American Episcopal Bishops likewise demonstrates a false dichotomy that attempts to constrain "high" and "low" church Episcopalianism within the bounds of "orthodoxy." Lillback notes Bishop Seabury of New England the quintessential "high church" Episcopalian. He then notes "Virginia" ("lower" in America geographically, a metaphor for high v. low church Anglicanism) typified the "low Church" and invokes and Bishops William White (of Philadelphia) and Samuel Provoost (of New York) as "low churchers." Accordingly, Provoost was the quintessential low churcherer, with White, though a Whig/committed revolutionary, somewhere in between because he more sympathized with the Tory-Anglican hierarchy. (See Lillback, "Sacred Fire," Chapter 15.)

That enables Lillback to fabricate a narrative -- as badly speculative as anything Paul F. Boller posited in "George Washington & Religion" (the scholarly standard bearer work that Lillback fails to rebut, insofar as Boller casts doubt on GW's status as an orthodox Christian) -- of GW not wanting to commune in Philadelphia under the leadership of the Bishop William White and Rev. James Abercrombie because they were too "Tory" sympathetic (even though White was a Whig).

But Lillback's most serious error in his discussion on original American Episcopal Bishops is that by omission. As noted, Lillback names the "three" original bishops -- Seabury (N.E.), White (Phila.) and Provoost (NY). Yet, Lillback, rightly invokes Virginia as typifying the "low church" Anglicanism to which GW adheres but fails to discuss the actual FOURTH original American Episcopal Bishop: James Madison, first cousin of his namesake.

If VA -- where GW and a slew of notable Anglican-Episcopal Founding Fathers (Jefferson, Madison, Henry, Mason, Marshall and many others) hailed -- why avoid Madison, the FOURTH Episcopal bishop consecrated in America? The timeline of Madison's appointment is congruent with the rest. As this official source notes:

On March 25, 1783, ten Connecticut clergy elected Samuel Seabury as their bishop. Seabury traveled to England, but English canon law prevented the consecration of any clergyman who would not take the Oath of Allegiance to the English Crown. Seabury then sought consecration in the Scottish Episcopal Church, where he was ordained on Nov. 14, 1784 in Aberdeen. Thus, Seabury became the first bishop of the American Episcopal Church.

By 1786, English churchmen had helped change the law so the Church of England could offer episcopal consecration to those churches outside England.

On Feb. 4, 1787, the Archbishop of Canterbury and three other English bishops consecrated William White as Bishop of Pennsylvania and Samuel Provoost as Bishop of New York. Soon after, James Madison was consecrated in England as the Bishop of Virginia and President of The College of William and Mary in Williamsburg.

And the following from Colonial Williamsburg notes: "On 19 September 1790 in Lambeth Chapel, Canterbury, England, Madison was consecrated bishop by the Archbishop of Canterbury and the bishops of London and Rochester."

BJM garnered praise from America's "Virginian" Founders, at least from Jefferson who loved him. I don't know if BJM were unitarian like Jefferson. David Holmes in his seminal book, categorizes BJM as "orthodox." I know the harder orthodox types suspected BJM of being an "infidel." And that's because BJM peddled Enlightenment, revolutionary, indeed pro-French revolutionary, natural theology. He was the quintessential, not only American Whig, but Jacobin.

That is, Madison typified the kind of "rational Christian" who thought the French Revolution extended the American, that the Bible taught a "Republic," not a "Kingdom" of Heaven, and that "revolutionary republican" principles would continue "until the complete restoration of the human race to their inherent rights be accomplished, throughout the globe." A "republic" of "liberty, equality, and fraternity," that America initialized and France would perfect.

Again, all this presenting itself under the auspices of "Christianity" not "Deism." This what it meant to be a "low Church Anglican" in late 18th Century America as much as anything "orthodox" or "Calvinistic."

Ultimately, the historical truth Lillback avoids because he doesn't like the results is, "low church Episcopalianism" of late 18th Century America, by its decentralized, Protestant nature, unmoored from hierarchical authority, "slipped" into rationalistic, enlightement, deistic-unitarian theology as easily as it did biblical Calvinism.

Indeed, even in "high church" New England, the "Whig" Anglican-Episcopalian "King's Chapel" became "Unitarian" in 1786 (arguably the first "official" Unitarian Church in America) resulting from a conflict with, you got it, Bishop Samuel Seabury.

Samuel Seabury: Anglican Minister and 'Westchester Farmer'

In the midst of rising tensions between the colonies and the Mother Country, England could count on her clergy in America to be among her staunchest supporters. In Samuel Seabury, they would not be disappointed.

Samuel Seabury Rises to England's Defense

In 1774, a youthful and exceedingly energetic Alexander Hamilton published his "Full Vindication of the Measures of Congress", a piece aimed at drumming up support for the First Continental Congress.

Alarmed at the compelling nature of Hamilton's pen and the growing disenchantment many Americans were feeling towards Britain, Anglican minister Samuel Seabury took up the Crown's cause.

In the first of his "Letters from A Westchester Farmer," Seabury expressed dismay that the colonies were "involved in a scene of confusion and discord." Lamenting the persecution of Loyalists, Seabury wrote:

The bands of civil society are broken; the authority of government weakened, and in some instances taken away: Individuals are deprived of their liberty; their property is frequently invaded by violence, and not a single Magistrate has had courage or virtue enough to interpose.

As for the First Continental Congress, Seabury charged that, rather than helping ease tensions and mend relations, they "have either ignorantly misunderstood, carelessly neglected, or basely betrayed the interests of all the Colonies."

Seabury went on to criticize the specific decisions made by the Congress, namely the Non-Importation Agreement, Non-Exportation Agreement, and Non-Consumption Agreement. Seabury claimed that these measures would hurt people who had done the colonies "no harm" and would only excaberate tensions between America and Britain.

Seabury's letters, taken together, were a comprehensive, thorough, and spirited defense of British policies and interests. In his letters, he unmistakably and fairly articulately aligned himself with the British Crown.

Seabury and the Church of England

Americans today are accustomed to the institutional separation of Church and State. So accustomed are we, in fact, that many have called for such a separation to go even further, arguing that religion itself (and all morals or values stemming from religion) should be separated from the public square.

What the founding era generation was dealing with, however, was not whether a certain person or group might be made to feel "uncomfortable" should they happen to hear a public prayer or hear a valedictorian utter the word "Jesus" in her graduation speech. No, for the founding generation, the issue was something much more serious and real.

Samuel Seabury wasn't simply a pamphleteer. He was an official in the Church of England, which was legally and politically intertwined with the British government. The Church of England was indeed under the sovereign authority of the Crown. As an Anglican minister, Seabury was advancing the interests of not simply the British government, but his boss, King George III.

It should be noted, though, that Seabury's letters were at first not tied to him by name, but rather to "A.W. Farmer." However, Seabury's identity as the author would eventually become known (based on his own claims).

The timing of Seabury's authorship being known aside, Seabury's advocacy for the Crown illustrated an important truth. Anglican ministers were personally, professionally, and spiritually vested in the British government.

This, of course, isn't to suggest that's inappropriate for ministers to address questions of public policy (though, I'm sure, there are some who would take that position). Ministers have as much right to speak out on issues as any citizen. The take-away from Seabury's activism is that his involvement was not incidental, nor was it driven solely by personal conviction. As an Anglican clergyman, he was expected to support the Crown.

Seabury (and England) Refuted

Alexander Hamilton would take up his pen once again to defend the American cause and refute Seabury. In his famous "The Farmer Refuted," Hamilton encouraged the "Westchester Farmer" (aka Seabury) to study the "law of nature" by reading "Grotius, Puffendorf, Locke, Montesquieu, and Burlemaqui."

Considerable writing, discussion, and debate has been offered on this site concerning the Divine Right of Kings, the Enlightenment, and the theological beliefs of the religiously affiliated Founders. I will not re-hash all that, except to say that the exchanges between Hamilton and Seabury illustrate part of that divide.

While traditional England-oriented Christians (especially those within the Anglican Church) leaned toward (or, in some cases, embraced) the Divine Right of Kings, a growing consensus in America was that the people were accountable to God directly and not through the government.

To put it in layman's terms, one who embraced the Divine Right of Kings would claim the authority ran from God to the Government and then to the People. Americans increasingly saw it as God to the People and then to the Government.

The Fate of Samuel Seabury

Seabury's Loyalist sympathies would land him in prison for several weeks. Eventually, he escaped to Long Island, once it was safely in British hands. Granted a chaplaincy in the British military, Seabury spent the war as a dutiful minister in the service of King George III.

By 1783, it was clear that Britain would not reclaim her thirteen American colonies. In March of that year, Seabury was elected by ten of his New England Episcopal peers to serve as bishop over the Episcopal Church in America.

That Seabury would choose to remain in the United States was an interesting choice. After all, to say that he was not fully embraced or trusted by the Americans would be something of an understatement.

The Episcopal Church in America, however, needed structure and organization. It had been created as a result of the American Revolution. Anglicans supportive of the American Revolution could, after all, no longer comfortably worship and take Communion (a practice they saw as sacramental) in a church officially tied with King George III, the man they were waging war against. So, the Episcopal Church came into existence.

Seabury sailed for England for his consecration. Even though the Episcopal Church was formally separate from the Church of England, it was still spiritually and theologically aligned. An awkward situation, to say the least. So awkward, in fact, that the London-based Anglican Church refused to consecrate Seabury.

Seabury then turned to the Scottish Church, which granted his request. Seabury then returned to America to bolster and expand the Episcopal Church in the newly recognized United States of America.

Seabury's challenge was a tall one, as he did not enjoy a great deal of support from the new American government and, frankly, not even from all Episcopalians. Perhaps the most famous Episcopalian (former Anglican) in America was George Washington, who refused to even send a letter to Seabury, when asked by a young Episcopal minister for a note of recommendation.

High Church vs. Low Church Anglicanism

Not only was Seabury persona non grata in many quarters for his Loyalist politics, he was also not popular in "Low Church" circles of the American Episcopal Church.

High Church Anglicanism (Seabury's school of thought) was more liturgical and more philosophically aligned with the doctrine of apostolic succession, as originally embraced by the Roman Catholic Church. The difference, of course, was that (according to Anglicans) the King of England and the Archbishop of Canterbury spoke with apostolic authority for the day -- as opposed to the Vatican in Rome.

The influence of the Protestant Reformation in England, however, had divided the Anglican Communion into two groups over this doctrine. High Church Anglicans favored strict apostolic succession, whereas Low Church Anglicans adhered more toward scriptural authority and local church autonomy.

Not surprisingly, High Church Anglicans like Seabury sided with King George III during the American Revolution, whereas Low Church Anglicans like George Washington were more open to the Patriot cause.

Washington's Low Church Anglicanism also made him more open to other denominations, as seen in a letter to the Marquis de Lafayette, in which he wrote: "Being no bigot myself to any mode of worship, I am disposed to indulge the professors of Christianity in the church, that road to Heaven, which to them shall seem the most direct plainest easiest and least liable to exception."

Seabury's consecration as the American Episcopal Bishop was seen as an affront to many Low Church Anglicans, like Washington. In his impressive work George Washington's Sacred Fire, Peter Lillback explains:

[Seabury] had sought ordination independent of the concerns of Anglicans in the Low Church tradition, and he did so from the hands of Scottish bishops, who were more sympathetic to the Catholic side of the royal family, not the normal bishop of London, who had Protestant sympathies. This ecclesiastical maneuvering left the Low Church patriotic laymen in America feeling uncomfortable with Bishop Seabury and with little incentive or enthusiasm to embrace his leadership.

Samuel Seabury is not only one of the more interesting and unknown figures of the American Revolution, but his life and legacy provide an important view of the cultural and religious backdrop of the conflict.

Peter Lillback on GW & SHMG

Our own Ray Soller has done yeoman's work demonstrating the lack of evidence in the historical record that Washington added the words "So Help Me God" to his oath of office. He's also shared that work with Peter Lillback. Yet, Lillback persists in positing the notion that GW said SHMG.

Mr. Rammell is Wrong...at Least His Church Says So

In an article from a couple days ago, fellow blogger Jon Rowe posted a video from one Rex Rammell, a self-proclaimed "Christian Nation" advocate whose Mormon faith has convinced him that the "Constitution will be hanging by a thread" and that the Mormon faithful will one day restore it to its true glory:



As a devout Mormon myself I have heard this "Constitution hanging by a thread" story since I was a little boy. For obvious reasons it is quite popular amongst those who support the uber-"Christian Nation" stance that some Mormons (and other Christians) embrace.

Known unofficially as the "White Horse Prophesy," generations of Mormons have quoted this alleged revelation from Joseph Smith in which he supposedly prophecies that America will be teetering on the brink of destruction and that the "Constitution will hang by a thread." Supposedly, it is at that time (obviously a time when the world is almost at its end) that the Mormon elders will triumphantly restore the Constitution to its former and intended glory.

Well, in light of Mr. Rammell's recent comments (Rammel is also running for Gov. of Idaho in case you didn't know) the LDS Church released the following:

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is politically neutral and does not endorse or promote any candidate, party or platform. Accordingly, we hope that the campaign practices of political candidates would not suggest that their candidacy is supported by or connected to the church.

The so-called 'White Horse Prophecy' is based on accounts that have not been substantiated by historical research and is not embraced as Church doctrine.

That's right! The Mormon Church does NOT support this alleged (and historically unsubstantiated) story. And as a Mormon myself I am glad to hear it!

Mark Noll reviews Empire of Liberty

Noll's review of Gordon Wood's magnum opus on the early republic is available here.  Noll is sharply critical of Wood's interpretation of the role of religion in the post-Revolutionary War period.  Noll's treatment of the importance of Methodism during the early republic is particularly worth pondering...

The Christian Nation Debate: Circa 1788

By KOI, With Editorial Suggestions by J. Rowe

I carefully followed the recent posts about federalism, religious tests, and the "Godless Constitution." So what follows hits on this general theme, and also fits with the "Big Tent" theme of my previous posts.

John Fea noted a story on a religious test oath in North Carolina:

This morning I was reading an old news story about a newly elected councilman in Asheville, North Carolina who refused to say "so help me God" or place his hand on the Bible during his swearing in ceremony. The man in question--Cecil Bothwell--is an atheist. Unfortunately for him, the North Carolina constitution (written in 1868) disqualifies from public office "any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God." As you might imagine, conservative Christians are invoking this clause to remove Bothwell from office.

This seems the perfect showdown for the latest "Christian Nationalists" v. "Secular Nationalists" culture war battle. What might help is to examine the dialogue at the North Carolina ratifying convention. The following is an excerpt of an exchange over Article VI, Cl. 3 of the US Constitution:

"Mr. Henry Abbot, after a short exordium, which was not distinctly heard, proceeded thus: Some are afraid, Mr. Chairman, that, should the Constitution be received, they would be deprived of the privilege of worshipping God according to their consciences, which would be taking from them a benefit they enjoy under the present constitution. They wish to know if their religious and civil liberties be secured under this system, or whether the general government may not make laws infringing their religious liberties. The worthy member from Edenton mentioned sundry political reasons why treaties should be the supreme law of the land. It is feared, by some people, that, by the power of making treaties, they might make a treaty engaging with foreign powers to adopt the Roman Catholic religion in the United States, which would prevent the people from worshipping God according to their own consciences. The worthy member from Halifax has in some measure satisfied my mind on this subject. But others may be dissatisfied. Many wish to know what religion shall be established. I believe a majority of the community are Presbyterians. I am, for my part, against any exclusive establishment; but if there were any, I would prefer the Episcopal. The exclusion of religious tests is by many thought dangerous and impolitic. They suppose that if there be no religious test required, pagans, deists, and Mahometans might obtain offices among us, and that the senators and representatives might all be pagans. Every person employed by the general and state governments is to take an oath to support the former. Some are desirous to know how and by whom they are to swear, since no religious tests are required--whether they are to swear by Jupiter, Juno, Minerva, Proserpine, or Pluto. We ought to be suspicious of our liberties. We have felt the effects of oppressive measures, and know the happy consequences of being jealous of our rights. I would be glad some gentleman would endeavor to obviate these objections, in order to satisfy the religious part of the society. Could I be convinced that the objections were well founded, I would then declare my opinion against the Constitution. [Mr. Abbot added several other observations, but spoke too low to be heard.]

Mr. Iredell. Mr. Chairman, nothing is more desirable than to remove the scruples of any gentleman on this interesting subject. Those concerning religion are entitled to particular respect. I did not expect any objection to this particular regulation, which, in my opinion, is calculated to prevent evils of the most pernicious consequences to society. Every person in the least conversant in the history of mankind, knows what dreadful mischiefs have been committed by religious persecutions. Under the color of religious tests, the utmost cruelties have been exercised. Those in power have generally considered all wisdom centred in themselves; that they alone had a right to dictate to the rest of mankind; and that all opposition to their tenets was profane and impious. The consequence of this intolerant spirit had been, that each church has in turn set itself up against every other; and persecutions and wars of the most implacable and bloody nature have taken place in every part of the world. America has set an example to mankind to think more modestly and reasonably--that a man may be of different religious sentiments from our own, without being a bad member of society. The principles of toleration, to the honor of this age, are doing away those errors and prejudices which have so long prevailed, even in the most intolerant countries. In the Roman Catholic countries, principles of moderation are adopted which would have been spurned at a century or two ago. I should be sorry to find, when examples of toleration are set even by arbitrary governments, that this country, so impressed with the highest sense of liberty, should adopt principles on this subject that were narrow and illiberal.

I consider the clause under consideration as one of the strongest proofs that could be adduced, that it was the intention of those who formed this system to establish a general religious liberty in America. Were we to judge from the examples of religious tests in other countries, we should be persuaded that they do not answer the purpose for which they are intended. What is the consequence of such in England? In that country no man can be a member in the House of Commons, or hold any office under the crown, without taking the sacrament according to the rites of the Church. This, in the first instance, must degrade and profane a rite which never ought to be taken but from a sincere principle of devotion. To a man of base principles, it is made a mere instrument of civil policy. The intention was, to exclude all persons from offices but the members of the Church of England. Yet it is notorious that dissenters qualify themselves for offices in this manner, though they never conform to the Church on any other occasion; and men of no religion at all have no scruple to make use of this qualification. It never was known that a man who had no principles of religion hesitated to perform any rite when it was convenient for his private interest. No test can bind such a one. I am therefore clearly of opinion that such a discrimination would neither be effectual for its own purposes, nor, if it could, ought it by any means to be made. Upon the principles I have stated, I confess the restriction on the power of Congress, in this particular, has my hearty approbation. They certainly have no authority to interfere in the establishment of any religion whatsoever; and I am astonished that any gentleman should conceive they have. Is there any power given to Congress in matters of religion? Can they pass a single act to impair our religious liberties? If they could, it would be a just cause of alarm. If they could, sir, no man would have more horror against it than myself. Happily, no sect here is superior to another. As long as this is the case, we shall be free from those persecutions and distractions with which other countries have been torn. If any future Congress should pass an act concerning the religion of the country, it would be an act which they are not authorized to pass, by the Constitution, and which the people would not obey. Every one would ask, "Who authorized the government to pass such an act? It is not warranted by the Constitution, and is barefaced usurpation." The power to make treaties can never be supposed to include a right to establish a foreign religion among ourselves, though it might authorize a toleration of others.

But it is objected that the people of America may, perhaps, choose representatives who have no religion at all, and that pagans and Mahometans may be admitted into offices. But how is it possible to exclude any set of men, without taking away that principle of religious freedom which we ourselves so warmly contend for? This is the foundation on which persecution has been raised in every part of the world. The people in power were always right, and every body else wrong. If you admit the least difference, the door to persecution is opened. Nor would it answer the purpose, for the worst part of the excluded sects would comply with the test, and the best men only be kept out of our counsels. But it is never to be supposed that the people of America will trust their dearest rights to persons who have no religion at all, or a religion materially different from their own. It would be happy for mankind if religion was permitted to take its own course, and maintain itself by the excellence of its own doctrines. The divine Author of our religion never wished for its support by worldly authority. Has he not said that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it? It made much greater progress for itself, than when supported by the greatest authority upon earth."

Does this sound like a "Christian Nationalist" and a "Secular Nationalist" debating throwing God out of all government or more like two Christians discussing how big to make the tent? So much for the "Godless Constitution" ploy to prove the "Secular Nation" narrative. Perhaps more will embrace Dr. Fea's conclusion: "[I]t would seem to me that the early republic was closer to being a Christian 'nation' than some might be willing to admit."

But Andrew, Don't You Know Mormons Aren't Christian

Andrew Sullivan linked to this under his "Christianist Watch" with the following quote:

"To think that we can save the Constitution without God's help when the government of the United States is corrupt is absurdity. We are in America's second Revolutionary War to save our freedom, which we paid for with blood. We need God's help and I'm not ashamed to ask for it," - Rex Rammel, Idaho gubernatorial candidate.

This could have come from the mouths of David Barton, Peter Marshall, etc. But when I clicked on the link I saw Mr. Rammel, a Mormon, appealing to the prophesies of Joseph Smith for authority that God Founded America.



I hope those sympathetic to the "Christian Nation" movement listen to his speech and react to the invocation of Joseph Smiths' prophesies to "take back America" for the God who founded her. See how they feel.

Now yes, Mormonism didn't exist during America's Founding; so unless you believe in the tenet of Mormonism that teaches the Mormon God founded America and inspired the Founding Fathers, reclaiming America on the basis of Joseph Smith's prophesies probably won't motivate you.

Likewise, those who share neither the theology nor the political agenda of the Christian Nationalists aren't motivated by their appeals to history, which are just as "imaginative." (At least it's an authentic tenet of Mormonism to believe God founded America; it is not of Christianity.)

The Founders did not appeal to a Triune God who inspired an inerrant, infallible biblical canon. The "Providence" to whom they appealed was more ecumenical, and inclusive. Their God was one who perhaps Mormons of today (or the Swedenborgs of yesteryear, the closest Founding era counterpart to Mormons), Jews, orthodox Christians, Unitarians, Universalists, Providential Deists (if that's not a contradiction in terms) even uncoverted Native Americans who worshipped "the Great Spirit" could equally embrace.

However, ecumenicism in political-theology comes with a price: It means stressing common ground, like belief in Providence and avoiding altogether divisive doctrinal issues -- such as the Trinity, whether the biblical canon is infallible, whether God will continue to reveal more Holy Books in the future, whether Swedenborgianism (or Mormonism for that matter) qualifies as "Christianity."

That's not what Rex Rammel does when he appeals to the specific authority of Joseph Smith's prophecies as a political motivator. And that's not what Christian Nationalists do when they engage in their divine command theory prooftexting.

In that sense, neither the Christian Nationalists nor Mormon Nationalists like Mr. Rammel emulate the Founding Fathers. It's actually recent American Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama who sound more like the Founders in their God talk. Indeed, they walk in the shoes of a Presidency that the key Founders, who were the first four Presidents, established.

That is, Bush & Obama maintain formal attachments to Christian sects (Bush was, to be fair, a moderate evangelical). But then they intimate that all good men of all religions worship the same God. That, for instance, Jews, Christians and Muslims worship the same God (as GWBush claimed). That's American Founding political theology 101.

As John Adams put it:

“It has pleased the Providence of the first Cause, the Universal Cause, that Abraham should give religion not only to Hebrews but to Christians and Mahomitans, the greatest part of the modern civilized world.”

– John Adams to M.M. Noah, July 31, 1818.

Kraminck and Moore on Utah's State Constitution

If one conducts a firsthand examination of Isaac Kramnick and R. Laurance Moore's book, The Godless Constitution: A Moral Defense of the Secular State, Chapter Nine, and turns to page 199 the following paragraph will come to light:

Only one state in the fifty United States provides specifically [see Utah State Constitution, Article 1 - Declaration of Rights, Section 4] that no discrimination may flow on account of religious belief "or the absence thereof," and it is not any of the blue states from coast to coast thought to harbor large populations of "secular humanists." It is Utah, once denied membership in the federal union because of an alleged failure to separate its politics from the control of the Mormon Church. Historically the most persecuted of all religious groups in the United States, Mormons in Utah recognize that religious conviction or the lack thereof are not per se evidence of ability to handle state affairs wisely. They are, of course, echoing Roger Williams who is still way ahead of most Americans in taking religion seriously, too seriously to confuse it with affairs of state.

Kramnick and Moore are right to single Utah out from among the fifty United States as having a unique State Constitution. But there is another part of the Utah State Constitution that is also worth noting where the actual oath for state officeholders is spelled out. [See Article IV, Section 10 - Oath of Office.]

All officers made elective or appointive by this Constitution or by the laws made in pursuance thereof, before entering upon the duties of their respective offices, shall take and subscribe the following oath or affirmation: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support, obey and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of this State, and that I will discharge the duties of my office with fidelity.["]

From the very early days of the Mormon Church [officially known as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints] critics have pointed out that Mormons, despite avowals to the contrary, have many times failed "to separate its politics from the control of the Mormon Church." Nonetheless, when it comes to the current administration of the oath of office for the governor of the state actual protocol precisely adheres to both the godless United States Constitution and the Utah State Constitution. Check out the latest instance where on August 1, 2009 appointed governor Gary Richard Herbert was sworn in by Utah Supreme Court Chief Justice Christine Durham as the 17th Utah Governor. See Huntsman resigns governor's office; Herbert sworn in, and then view the YouTube video,  Gary Herbert Sworn in as Governor of Utah. Note, Governor Herbert does not add the non-constitutional phrase "So help me God."

James Hanley on the Natural Rights Framework of the American Founding

By James Hanley, PhD

[Note: What follows is taken from this comment at Positive Liberty---JR.]

Just how much of a natural rights framework did the Founding have? I’m not persuaded there was that much of it. Obviously the Declaration is firmly based in a natural rights framework, but that was Jefferson’s style. He only ended up writing it because the rest of his committee knew that a) he was an eloquent writer and b) he was the young kid on whom they could foist the work. For many, perhaps most, of the delegates to the Continental Congress, it may have just sounded good, without them thinking too deeply about how the ideas ought to be applied in their own states upon achieving independence.

The American “Founding,” was multiple events. It was the declaring of independence, via a document based on natural rights. It was the successful fighting of a war, itself not obviously based on natural law. It was later the drafting of a federal constitution, clearly not based on natural law. But in between it was also the drafting of constitutions for the 13 brand new countries–and, yes, they were 13 countries united in a “league of friendship,” rather than a single new country–with varying levels of protection for rights, which is to say, varying levels of natural rights influence. And that federal constitution left as much of that diversity in place as was consonant with establishing tighter ties that bind, which is to say that it paid little, if any, attention to the natural rights of the citizens of the individual states.

Letter to a "Christian Americanist"

David Barton won't debate but sometimes folks involved in the "Christian America" movement engage in dialog. What follows is my latest email to an unnamed Christian Americanist, involved in the movement. I don't need to reproduce the series. I think you can get the gist of what we've discussed from the context of my email:

Here's a problem I have with your response: You are engaging in what's known as the genetic fallacy/poisoning the well. You intimate that if I am not "Christian" I can't properly view the American Founding & religion. Not being a Christian may send me to Hell, but it detracts nothing from the facts I uncover or arguments I make on this issue. But even accepting your logical fallacy, many Christians whose orthodox and evangelical bona fides are beyond reproach, view the American Founding the way I do (or vice versa). Indeed, they, not [David] Barton, are the cutting edge scholars on Christianity and the American Founding. These include men like Mark Noll, Gary Scott Smith, Gregg Frazer and many others. Of them, I've gotten to know Dr. Frazer and believe me, you don't have to warn me about Hellfire because he has on our American Creation threads.

In addition to him, whose work we feature regularly at AC (he's been invited as a frontpage blogger but declined) Rev. Brian Tubbs (a front page poster) is an evangelical minister and, Dr. John Fea, our regular reader and friend, is an evangelical and historian at Messiah College.

Gregg Frazer (who, as I've told you, is John MacArthur's key historian/political scientists on these issues at his church and college) would, as a fellow evangelical WARN YOU about corrupting the purity of the Bible's message by incorporating non-Christian, Americanist theology into the pulpit! You are the one, from the perspective of evangelical biblical Christianity, bringing down the Bible's message with impurity.

I don't know who the Deist big three or four are. The Deists, as I recognize them, are Thomas Paine, Ethan Allen and Elihu Palmer. And though they did important work, in part because of their outspoken Deism, they were not "key Founders." The key Founders are the first 4 Presidents, Ben Franklin and a few others. And although, if your religion is true, as mere men, they had no real power to TOUCH God's Word, they indeed ATTEMPTED to turn Christianity into a generic moralizing creed and succeeded in establishing THEIR man made creed -- which was neither Deism nor orthodox Christianity -- as the political-theological foundation of America.

The problem with trying to get a hold of the beliefs of the 200 or so FFs, taken as a collective, all we have are minimalistic connections to Christian churches for virtually all of them. On the surface both Jefferson and Patrick Henry were Anglicans/Episcopalians. The other supposed "Deist" (which he was not) Franklin likewise has a minimalistic connection to Presbyterianism and Episcopalianism. We need carefully examine their writings. And unfortunately there are question marks with most of them. That's why we focus carefully on the writings of the first and second tier Founders [the first 4 Presidents, Ben Franklin, Hamilton, G. Morris, Wilson, Sherman, Mason, Witherspoon, Jay, Henry.] But we also welcome religious explications from more forgotten Founders as well. Ultimately they were a mixed bag and Barton's formulation that 4 or 5 were deists, the rest "Christians" is false.

Re Henry (and yes I know he "smelt a rat" at the Constitutional Convention) what I said about him is fact: Though an orthodox Christian, his "give me liberty or give me death" line was taken, not from the Bible or a "Christian" source, but from Addison's Cato.

On Witherspoon, terming his writings in Lectures On Moral Philosophy, "Catholic" is probably the most charitable "Christian" reading you can given them. His "Lectures" are important because THAT and not Calvinism is what he taught his Princeton political students like James Madison. Witherspoon PURPOSEFULLY ignores the Bible in Lectures and the entire work is a defense of arguing metaphysical truths from reason/rationalism, not the Bible. It's Scottish Enlightenment 101. But my conservative Roman Catholic friends tell me Scottish Enlightement looks a lot like Aristotelian-Thomism.

Now, Witherspoon's Lectures are available online for free [hyperlink not in my original email]. Do you want me to direct you to them?

Regards,

Jon Rowe

Alexander Hamilton's Clumsy Christian Death

The scholars who have most meticulously studied Hamilton's religion conclude that though he probably had a conventional religious youth, during the time in which he acted as a "Founder" (from 1776-after 1800) he was not conventionally religious. In other words, he was not an orthodox Trinitarian Christian. (For more see here.)

After his son Philip died in a duel in 1801, Hamilton, understandably grief stricken, converted to a less generic/more concrete religion -- orthodox Christianity.

What follows are some primary sources on Hamilton's death. Interestingly though he had accepted the truth of the orthodox Christian religion by his death in 1804, he had never gotten around to joining a church, which suggests the "newness" of Hamilton's orthodox faith.

Also of note, Hamilton converted to a form of orthodox Christianity that, understandably, held communion to be a central sacrament. Yet, when he begged for the Lord's Supper on his deathbed, Hamilton appeared naively unaware of the rituals surrounding administering the sacrament in the two churches from which he sought communion: The Episcopalian and the Presbyterian. As we will see, Hamilton was TWICE refused communion on his deathbed before, finally, having it administered.

On his deathbed Hamilton first asked Bishop Benjamin Moore of the Protestant Episcopal Church and was initially refused. As Moore recounts:

Yesterday morning, immediately after he was brought from Hoboken to the house of Mr. B yard, at Grenwich, a message was sent informing me of the sad event, accompanied by a request from General Hamilton, that I would come to him for the purpose of administering the holy communion. I went, but being desirous to afford time for serious reflection, and conceiving that under existing circumstances, it would be right and proper to avoid every appearance of precipitancy in performing one of the most solemn offices of our religion, I did not then comply with his desire. ...

Hamilton then sent for the Presbyterian Dr. John Mason and was again refused. Here is how Mason recounts the incident:

... The exchange of melancholy salutation, on entering the General’s apartment, was succeeded by a silence which he broke by saying, that he “had been anxious to see me, and have the sacrament administered to him; and that this was still his wish.” I replied, that “it gave me unutterable pain to receive from him any request to which I could not accede: that, in the present instance, a compliance was incompatible with all my obligations; as it is a principle in our churches never to administer the Lord’s supper privately to any person under any circumstances.” He urged me no further. I then remarked to him, that “the holy communion is an exhibition and pledge of the mercies which the Son of God has purchased; that the absence of the sign does not exclude from the mercies signified; which were accessible to him by faith in their gracious Author.” “I am aware,” said he, “of that. It is only as a sign that I wanted it.”...

Bishop Moore was then called back and finally administered the Lord's Supper. As he noted:

... At one o'clock I was again called on to visit him. Upon my entering the room and approaching his bed, with the utmost calmness and composure he said, "My dear sir, you perceive my unfortunate situation, and no doubt have been made acquainted with the circumstances which led to it. It is my desire to receive communion at your hands. I hope you will not conceive there is any impropriety in my request."

He added, "It has for some time past been the wish of my heart, and it was my intention to take an early opportunity of uniting myself to the church, by the reception of that holy ordinance." I observed to him, that he must be very sensible of the delicate and trying situation in which I was then placed: that however desirous I might be to afford consolation to a fellow mortal in distress; still, it was my duty, as a minister of the Gospel, to hold up the law of God as paramount to all other law: and that, therefore, under the influence of such sentiments, I must unequivocally condemn which had brought him to his present unhappy condition. He acknowledged the propriety of these sentiments, and declared that he viewed the late transaction with sorrow and contrition. I then asked him, "Should it please God to restore you to health, sir, will you never be again engaged in a similar transaction? And will you employ all your influence in society to discountenance this barbarous custom?" His answer was "That, sir, is my deliberate intention."

I proceeded to converse with him on the subject of receiving the communion; and told him that with respect to the qualifications of those who wished to become partakers of that holy ordinance, my enquiries could not be made in language more expressive than that which was used by our church. "Do you sincerely repent of your sins past? Have you a lively faith in God's mercy thro' Christ, with a thankful remembrance of the death of Christ? And are you disposed to live in love and charity with all men?" He lifted up his hands and said, "With the utmost sincerity of heart I can answer those questions in the affirmative. I have no ill will against Col. Burr. I met him with a fixed resolution to do him no harm. - I forgive all that happened." I then observed to him, that the terrors of the divine law were to be announced to the obdurate and impenitent, but that the consolations of the Gospel were to be offered to the humble and contrite heart; that I had no reason to doubt his sincerity and would proceed immediately to gratify his wishes. The Communion was then administered, which he received with great devotion, and his heart afterwards appeared to be perfectly at rest. I saw him again this morning, when with his last faltering words he expressed a strong confidence in the mercy of God through the intersession of the Redeemer. I remained with him until two o'clock this afternoon, when death closed the awful scene. - he expired without a struggle, and almost without a groan.

Ray Soller on New York's Religious Test in the Founding Era

An American Creation Exclusive
by Ray Soller
and Tom Van Dyke



Ray Soller is a contributor here at the American Creation blog, although we don't hear from him nearly often enough. He's one of the most thorough forensic historians on the internet, and once again, he's scored a coup. More on that in a minute.

Mr. Soller has done definitive work on whether George Washington actually ever uttered "So Help Me God" at his first inauguration. [Washington most probably didn't, and even official government historians have been forced to take notice.]

And Soller took on famous John Adams biographer David McCullough over details of Washington's first inaugural. No myth or assertion about the Founding is safe from our forensic pit bull.

We recently posted an excellent guest essay which repeated what is fast becoming a "truism" about the Founding [and one I've repeated myself], that New York and Virginia were the two states that prohibited religious tests for statewide office at the time the US Constitution was ratified.

Not so, sayeth Ray, and he has the floor:

A minor point: Fea wrote, "[Post-colonial] New York did not place any religious restrictions on officeholders." I'd like to know the particular source for this statement. My source, Laws of the state of New York, Passed in the First Session of the Senate and Assembly of the Said State, Beginning in the Tenth Day of September, 1777, and continued by Adjournments, and ending with the Last Day of June, 1778, Chapter 6, pages 13 and 14, indicates otherwise.

After further research Mr. Soller added:

I found the source for the claim that "New York did not place any religious restrictions on officeholders." It comes from, as you might guess, Kramnick and Moore in their book "The Godless Constitution," page 31. Here is the claim:

The two exceptions among the state constitutions were those of Virginia and New York. In the former, (with Madison's help) Jefferson's "Statute for Religious Freedom," passed in 1786, specified that no religious test could be applied to the holding of public office. Even more interesting was New York's constitution, which in 1777 self-consciously repudiated tests that sought to maintain "any particular denomination of Christians." The absence of religious tests would, the New York constitution claimed, "guard against that spiritual oppression and intolerance wherewith the bigotry and ambition of weak and wicked priests and princes have scourged mankind."


The New York state Constitution did, indeed, endorse "the free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference," but the NYS statute required that a candidate for public office subscribe to a religious test oath in the form:

I, A. B. do solemnly swear and declare in the presence of Almighty God, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the State of New York as a free and independent State; and that I will in all things to the best of my knowledge and ability, do my duty, as a good subject of the said State ought to do; so help me God.

Consequently, contrary to what [Professors Isaac] Kramnick & [R. Laurence] Moore indicate in their next paragraph, it was only the "principles of Virginia and [not] New York [that] were written into the new federal Constitution, 'without much debate.'"

Since I've known Mr. Soller to be dogged on his facts, I meself pored through his source to look for exceptions to such an oath. All I could find was an exception for Quakers, who for religious reasons were not permitted to "swear," only "affirm."

Ray doesn't tolerate myth-making, no matter which "side" does it, that much I've learned about him. Perhaps the authors of The Godless Constitution: The Case Against Religious Correctness [later retitled: The Godless Constitution: A Moral Case for the Secular State] have other facts to present for their assertion. But if Ray's challenge is correct, it was only one state, Virginia, and not even two, that the others needed to accommodate in making the US Constitution "godless."

Hey, history's only dead if you let it die. Hats off to Ray Soller. This religion-and-the-Founding thing is quite a live wire, if we're willing to dig for ourselves and not take the scholars' word for everything. Scholars are wrong all the time.

George Washington, Art. VI, Cl. 3 and the Swedenborgs

John Fea's post (through Tom Van Dyke) on the persistence of religious tests during and after the American Founding certainly puts history into much needed context. America, at the state level, wasn't "secularized" when the US's mainly secular Constitution was ratified.

Below I offer something from George Washington for more context. For good or ill, this political-theological-historical (sometimes legal and philosophical) study in which we are involved gets invoked in modern day political-culture war battles. The "Christian America" side may read the history Dr. Fea uncovered (as I've seen them) as illustrating an "ideal" that Christian religious tests -- at the state level -- are an acceptable and/or desirable part of America's "Christian heritage." Religious tests were not implemented at the federal level, they note, because competition among the "Christian sects" made it impractical.

These same folks oft-hold President Washington out to be some kind of ideal "Christian statesman."

We've already seen Benjamin Rush, Ben Franklin and Richard Price criticize Pennsylvania's Christian religious test as "un-Declarational." And it should be noted that PA didn't abolish its Christian religious test but replaced it with one that was generically theistic (as I've noted before).

What follows -- and what hopefully complements my post on Rush, Franklin et al. -- is George Washington on Art. VI. Cl. 3., in a letter to the Swedenborgs on the matter.

What's notable about the SWEDENBORGS, as the recipients of Washington's letter:

"Christian Nationalists" like David Barton oft-argue America's political theology was "Christianity generally," not any kind of sectarian Christianity. Further, if they define it at all, "Christianity generally" means Sola-Scriptura or "the Bible says." Because evangelicals, as it were, disproportionately argue the "Christian Nation" thesis, they either 1) equate such "Christianity generally" with orthodox doctrines (with responses like "the Bible clearly teaches the Trinity, etc."; or 2) duck the question. (For instance, if one believes Mormonism meets the minimal definition of "Christianity," one gets a radically different understanding of "Christianity generally.") Likewise, they see Art. VI, Cl. 3 as reinforcing the "Christianity generally" thesis.

Note, there is Founding era rhetoric that supports the "Christianity generally" contention. However -- it's beyond the scope of this blogpost to argue the point sufficiently (perhaps I will in a published article or book) -- "Christianity generally," as Founding era political theology, by logical necessity transcends orthodox Trinitarian/Sola-Scriptura doctrine -- and morphs into something the orthodox deem "unitarian" or "theistic rationalist."

Case in point, as noted Christian Nationalists attempt to make Art. VI. Cl. 3 "fit" with their "general Christianity" thesis. Yet, as we will see below Washington held the Swedenborgs to be EQUALLY PROTECTED under Art. VI. Cl. 3. And the Swedenborgs 1) were not orthodox Trinitarians (they weren't unitarians either) and 2) weren't Sola-Scripturaists but added revelation to the Bible's text.

Also pay special attention to the way Washington discusses the no religious test clause. There is not a hint of "oh these things are just peachy, but at the state level," but rather sees banning religious tests, in principle, as laudably exemplifying the "enlightened Age...of equal liberty" that was the "boast" of the American Founding.

With that, here is the address:

To the members of the New Church at Baltimore.

Gentlemen,

It has ever been my pride to mind the approbation of my fellow citizens by a faithful and honest discharge of the duties annexed to those Stations to which they have pledged to place me; and the dearest rewards of my Services have been those testimonies of esteem and confidence with which they have honored me. But to the manifest interpretation of an over-ruling Providence, and to the patriotic exertions of United America, are to be ascribed those events which have given us a respectable rank among the nations of the earth.

We have abundant reason to rejoice that in this land the light of truth and reason has triumphed over the power of bigotry and superstition and that every person may here worship God according to the dictates of his own heart. In this enlightened Age & in this Land of equal liberty it is our boast, that a man's religious tenets, will not forfeit his protection of the Laws, nor deprive him of the right of attaining & holding the highest offices that are known in the United States.

Your Prayers for my present and future felicity were received with gratitude; and I sincerely wish, Gentlemen, that you may in your social and individual capacities, taste those blessings which a gracious God bestows upon the Righteous.

G. Washington

Maybe America Was Meant to be a Christian Nation After All

by John Fea
Guest Blogger

[John Fea of The Way of Improvement Leads Home blog has been following our recent series of posts on religion and federalism and has been working along similar lines himself. Used with permission.]



This morning I was reading an old news story about a newly elected councilman in Asheville, North Carolina who refused to say "so help me God" or place his hand on the Bible during his swearing in ceremony. The man in question--Cecil Bothwell--is an atheist. Unfortunately for him, the North Carolina constitution (written in 1868) disqualifies from public office "any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God." As you might imagine, conservative Christians are invoking this clause to remove Bothwell from office.

As it turns out, there are six other states that require officeholders to believe in God. They are Arkansas, Maryland, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas. My favorite is the Texas state constitution, which states:

No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being.

What?

Actually, these state constitutions are quite liberal when compared to the religious restrictions placed on officeholders in some of the original state constitutions. For example:

The 1776 Pennsylvania state constitution required officeholders to subscribe to the following declaration: "I do believe in one God, the creator and governor of the universe, the rewarder to the good and the punisher of the wicked. And I do acknowledge the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by Divine inspiration." When the constitution was revised in 1790, the language was toned down a bit to limit office holding to those who acknowledge "the being of God, and a future state of rewards and punishments."

Or consider Vermont. Today's Green Mountain State liberals might be surprised to learn that the original 1777 Vermont constitution declared that all citizens of the state "have a natural and unalienable right to worship ALMIGHTY GOD, according to the dictates of their own consciences and understanding, regulated by the word of GOD." It also secured basic civil rights to anyone who "professes the protestant religion." It further noted that "every sect or denomination of people ought to observe the Sabbath, or the Lord's day, and keep up, and support, some sort of religious worship, which to them shall seem most agreeable to the revealed will of GOD." Finally, officeholders in Vermont had to make the following affirmation: "I believe in one God, the Creator and Governor of the universe, the rewarder of the good and punisher of the wicked. And I do acknowledge the scriptures of the old and new testament to be given by divine inspiration, and own and profess the protestant religion." When the constitution was amended in 1786 and a new constitution was written in 1793 (following Vermont's entrance into the Union), all of these religious provisions remained in place.

Only Virginia and New York did not place any religious restrictions on officeholders.

It is clear that most of these original state constitutions privileged Christianity and, in many cases, Protestantism.

How do these state constitutions fit into the larger debate over whether or not the United States was founded as a Christian nation?

It would seem that those who argue for a "Christian America" based on the Christian nature of the state constitutions have a pretty good argument. While the United States Constitution says that there can be no religious tests for office-holding (Article 6) and the First Amendment forbids a religious establishment and secures religious freedom for all, it is quite obvious that none of these restrictions applied to the individual states. As a principle of federalism, the states were given the authority to handle the relationship between church and government in their own way. Massachusetts and Connecticut, for example, upheld religious establishments well into the nineteenth century.

Those who want to debate whether or not America was founded as a "Christian nation" have fought long and hard over what makes a nation "Christian," but they say very little about what constitutes a "nation." For example, is the "nation" called the "United States of America" defined by the United States Constitution? If so, then one would be hard pressed to say that the framers wanted to establish a uniquely "Christian" nation.

But to what extent did the Constitution really serve as a marker of national identity in the eighteenth century?

In one of my favorite historical articles, "A Roof Without Walls": The Dilemma of American National Identity," Princeton historian John Murrin argues that the Constitution provided a very weak form of nationalism because it could not overcome the individual identities, rooted in colonial history, of the states. "In a word," Murrin writes, "the Constitution became a substitute for any deeper kind of national identity. American nationalism is distinct because, for nearly its first century, it was narrowly and peculiarly constitutional. People knew that without the Constitution, there would be no America." In other words, "Americans had erected their constitutional roof before they put up the national walls."

If Murrin is right, and the Constitution failed to create a strong or "deep" sense of nationalism, then the people would continue, as they did under the Articles of Confederation, to find their most meaningful and important sense of political connection to the states in which they lived. And most of these states privileged Christianity in a way that many of today's conservative Christians would welcome.

So let's go back to the original question: Was American founded as a Christian nation? I would hesitate to say "yes" to this question because not all of the states had Christian establishments or forbade non-Protestant Christians from holding office (see Virginia and New York), but it would seem to me that the early republic was closer to being a Christian "nation" than some might be willing to admit.

Dr. Fea is Associate Professor of American History at Messiah College and author of THE WAY OF IMPROVEMENT LEADS HOME: Philip Vickers Fithian and the Rural Enlightenment in Early America (University of Pennsylvania Press).

Dependence on God: An American Tradition

In his First Inaugural Address, President George Washington offered his "fervent supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over the universe, who presides in the councils of nations, and whose providential aids can supply every human defect."

In virtually the same breath, Washington declared: "No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the Invisible Hand which conducts the affairs of men more than those of the United States."

Debates over the role of religion in America's founding often turn on the extremes, with some saying that the Founding Fathers were mostly "Deists" or "free thinkers" (code for non-believers) and others insisting that all the Founders were Bible-thumping, evangelical Christians!

The debate has become so contentious (and, at times, so comical) that obvious truths are overlooked in the battle over particulars. For example, Washington dedicates a large portion of his First Inaugural to his faith in God and his call on Americans to embrace God. Yet, many today would rather argue over whether he said "so help me God" after taking the oath of office on the Bible! This overlooks the fact that a huge chunk of Washington's speech eloquently and emphatically expressed his request for God's help!

It becomes very difficult to establish consensus in such a climate. Difficult, but not impossible. Because regardless of where one stands on the specific faith of the Founding Fathers or the role religion should play in society today, there is one consistent and unmistakable theme in American history: From the colonial period through today, the people of the United States have embraced belief in God and expressed their dependence on Him.

**Side Note: While it may offend some (particularly those given to "political correctness"), I will use the male pronoun to refer to God, since that is how God is revealed and described in the Judeo-Christian tradition.**

Challenging the reality of this theme is an exercise in futility. While a few Americans consider themselves atheist or agnostic, these schools of thought have never dominated nor defined the United States. They are, to put it mildly, in the minority. Most Americans believe in God and (according to several polls) prefer that their elected leaders do so as well.

At this point in the discussion, those frustrated by these realities point to the First Amendment's establishment clause or the constitutional prohibition against religious tests. This misses the point. It's true that the U.S. Constitution bars religious tests for elected officials (a provision initially applied only to the federal government and later extended to the states as well). It's also true that the U.S. Constitution forbids an "establishment" of religion.

This, however, says nothing about the desires of the American public. If the American people desire a war veteran for a President, that is their perogative. If they want only a President who is left-handed, that is also their right. An individual voter has the unqualified right to vote for whomever he or she pleases, based on whatever criteria he or she sets. That's the heart of democracy. Lose that, and you're in serious trouble!

It just so happens that a majority of American voters want their President to possess faith. They want a President who prays and who depends on a Power greater than himself or herself. Why? Because it cuts to the very fabric of America itself! The people of the United States, throughout their history, have held that kind of faith in and reliance on God.

Americans are gratified to read of Dwight D. Eisenhower, who once said: "Do you think I could have fought my way through [World War II], ordered thousands of fellows to their deaths, if I couldn't have got down on my knees and talked to God?" They like to hear that, because most of them would agree with Eisenhower's next words: "I couldn't live a day of my life without God."

Most Americans want to believe that General Washington knelt in the snow at Valley Forge and asked God for wisdom. That's why the painting of him kneeling in prayer next to his horse is so popular. The idea that one of our nation's greatest (if not THE greatest) heroes humbled himself before a Higher Power is, well, downright inspiring! At least it is for a majority of Americans - those who haven't given themselves over to atheism, agnosticism, or cynicism.

Predictably, there are those who challenge the authenticity of the painting. And they usually do so on the particulars - i.e., the fact that Washington rarely if ever prayed on his knees and the questionable nature of the eyewitness testimony that stands behind the Valley Forge prayer tradition. Once again, they lose sight of the forest for the trees! This is like debating the authenticity of the painting of Washington crossing the Delaware River, because he probably didn't stand in the boat! The real question is...Was George Washington a man of prayer? And if he was, is it not likely that he prayed at Valley Forge? Show me a respectable historian who would challenge Washington's belief in Providence or his recognition of the value of prayer! You can't! And, for that reason, that painting of Washington kneeling in prayer is as authentic as it needs to be, and it's staying on my wall!

Don't get me wrong. I have no problem with people analyzing paintings. I have no problem with discussing the particulars of American history, uncovering new insights, exposing myths and legends, and the like. That's all good. But I do have a problem with losing sight of the forest for the trees.

Not all Americans are "Christian" and not all the Founders were "Christian," but the tradition of our faith in God and dependence on Him is deeply American. It's a rich part of our nation's heritage and history, and if we ever lose that, we will lose something very precious.