Theistic Rationalism From the Pulpit:

That's the title to one of the chapters in Dr. Gregg Frazer's Ph.D. thesis. It refers to the not too well understood fact that many of the most notable pro-Revolutionary preachers didn't preach "Christian" principles from the pulpit in support of the Revolution, but rather theistic rationalist principles. Indeed, with the exception of John Witherspoon, the most notable and influential pro-Revolutionary preachers arguably weren't even Christians but Unitarians (or, they were what John Adams described himself -- "liberal Unitarian Christians"). They were, moreover, explicit theological adversaries of John Edwards and his "Great Awakening."

Of late, I've been reading a number of Thomas West's pieces on Locke, theology, and the Founding (see here, here and here). In order to show that Locke and the principles of the American Revolution were, at the very least consistent with and complementary towards Christianity, at best, authentic "Christian principles" themselves, he cites some of the key pro-Revolutionary preachers, and his favorite seems to be Samuel West. Thomas West writes:

In colonial America, we see the success of Locke's teaching, in religion no less than in politics. The transformation of public opinion in the years leading up to 1776 was not the result of a secular political theory divorced from Christian theology. Above all, the clergy of America, especially in New England, adopted Locke's theology and taught it relentlessly. My personal favorite is the Reverend Samuel West, whose fiery 1776 sermon on liberty is a classic of the Massachusetts pulpit of the American Revolution.[21] Men like Jefferson who considered themselves Enlightenment rationalists probably had far less influence on the general public than the multitude of now-forgotten preachers who taught that the Bible teaches the same truth--that all men are created equal, that they have duties as well as rights--that reason discovers on its own.

The most influential of that multitude from New England included not only Samuel West, but also Jonathan Mayhew, Charles Chauncy, Ebenezer Gay, and Simeon Howard. They were all theological unitarians and universalists who had already broken from Puritanism and, as mentioned, were theological enemies of John Edwards and his Great Awakening. What they preached was, for the most part, consistent with Jefferson's "enlightenment rationalism"; and as theological unitarians, it was not consistent with orthodox Christianity.

These preachers were not "strict deists." Their unitarian rationalism incorporated enough of the Bible that they looked to scripture to support their beliefs more so than a deist would. Though their terming themselves "Christian" and use of scripture, should not, I would argue, lead one to conclude that they were Christians or, as Thomas West asserts, that they spoke for "most Christians of the founding generation." He writes:

The idea of an autonomous conscience, unbound by reason, was rejected by the American Founders. It was rejected also by most Christians of the founding generation, who believed that "A revelation, pretending to be from God, that contradicts any part of natural law, ought immediately to be rejected as an imposture" (Samuel West, A Sermon, 1776). For founding-era Christians, not only revelation but "reason . . . is the voice of God" (Samuel West). That was their foundation for natural law, natural rights, and therefore for constitutional and statute law.

Let's explore just how "Christian" these sermons were. According to viable religious thought during the Founding era, there were four ways to view the relationship between reason and revelation. The first two are consistent with orthodox Christianity, the second two are not:

1) The first is traditional orthodox Christian/Protestant view ala Luther and Calvin: Scripture is infallible, man's reason, while perhaps useful in support of revelation, is clearly subservient to it; indeed Luther once called man's reason, "the Devil's whore."

2) The second is Aquinas': Scripture is still infallible; yet, man, by the use of his reason can discover truths that are equal to scripture; this is the natural law. Such discoveries, however, will never contradict revelation because reason and revelation always perfectly agree.

3) The third is the theistic rationalists': Scripture is not infallible; yet some scripture was legitimately revealed by God. As Dr. Frazer puts it, "revelation was designed to complement reason (not vice versa). Reason was the ultimate standard for learning and evaluating truth and for determining legitimate revelation from God." This is the view of our key Founders including Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, and I would argue Washington as well.

4) The fourth is the strict deists': Revelation is useless. Truth is only to be found from man's reason/nature.

In analyzing the sermons of those patriotic preachers, they seem to fall between two and three. And this is important because while two is consistent with orthodox Christianity, three isn't. Yet, all those I mentioned were unitarians, which puts them outside the bounds of orthodox Christianity anyway. And indeed, some of those who fell in category number two (Charles Chauncy, for instance) fervently argued that the Bible as the infallible source of authority vets theological unitarianism and universalism.

Thomas West linked to his favorite sermon by Samuel West, found here. The relationship that Samuel West views reason and revelation is either two or three. In the following West makes it clear that discoveries of reason are at least as viable as scripture:

Now, whatever right reason requires as necessary to be done is as much the will and law of God as though it were enjoined us by an immediate revelation from heaven, or commanded in the sacred Scriptures.

And here, his sentiments tread dangerously on denying the infallibility of the Bible and elevating reason over revelation:

A revelation, pretending to be from God, that contradicts any part of natural law, ought immediately to be rejected as an imposture; for the Deity cannot make a law contrary to the law of nature without acting contrary to himself,--a thing in the strictest sense impossible, for that which implies contradiction is not an object of the divine power.

What does he mean by this? What "revelation[s], pretending to be from God?" Things written in the Bible? Or perhaps a-biblical theories, doctrines, or interpretations added by priests and rulers.

The context of the sermon is quite interesting and may shed light: The question is whether subjects must obey civil magistrates (indeed, it's about whether the Christian citizens may engage in political rebellion against Great Britain). West first establishes that truth may be found from reason/nature alone and seeks to answer such question using that mechanism. He then imports wholly a-biblical Lockean "state of nature" teachings as decisive on the matter:

That we may understand the nature and design of civil government, and discover the foundation of the magistrate's authority to command, and the duty of subjects to obey, it is necessary to derive civil government from its original, in order to which we must consider what “state all men are naturally in, and that is (as Mr. Locke observes) a state of perfect freedom to order all 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 man.” It is a state wherein all are equal,--no one having a right to control another, or oppose him in what he does, unless it be in his own defence, or in the defence of those that, being injured, stand in need of his assistance.

Had men persevered in a state of moral rectitude, every one would have been disposed to follow the law of nature, and pursue the general good. In such a state, the wisest and most experienced would undoubtedly be chosen to guide and direct those of less wisdom and experience than themselves,--there being nothing else that could afford the least show or appearance of any one's having the superiority or precedency over another; for the dictates of conscience and the precepts of natural law being uniformly and regularly obeyed, men would only need to be informed what things were most fit and prudent to be done in those cases where their inexperience or want of acquaintance left their minds in doubt what was the wisest and most regular method for them to pursue. In such cases it would be necessary for them to advise with those who were wiser and more experienced than themselves. But these advisers could claim no authority to compel or to use any forcible measures to oblige any one to comply with their direction or advice. There could be no occasion for the exertion of such a power; for every man, being under the government of right reason, would immediately feel himself constrained to comply with everything that appeared reasonable or fit to be done, or that would any way tend to promote the general good. This would have been the happy state of mankind had they closely adhered to the law of nature, and persevered in their primitive state.

Thus we see that a state of nature, though it be a state of perfect freedom, yet is very far from a state of licentiousness....

After establishing the state of nature/man's reason as the decisive standard to which any truth must conform, West concludes:

The doctrine of nonresistance and unlimited passive obedience to the worst of tyrants could never have found credit among mankind had the voice of reason been hearkened to for a guide, because such a doctrine would immediately have been discerned to be contrary to natural law.

After answering the question using reason and Lockean theories, Samuel West then looks to the scriptures for support, already having his mind made up as to what the final outcome must be. The proof texts are Romans 13 and Titus iii which tell believers, in no uncertain terms, to obey the civil magistrates:

This account of the nature and design of civil government, which is so clearly suggested to us by the plain principles of common sense and reason, is abundantly confirmed by the sacred Scriptures....in Rom. xiii., the first six verses: “Let every soul be subject to the higher powers; for there is no power but of God. The powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God; and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation; for rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? Do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: for he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil. Wherefore ye must needs be subject not only for wrath, but also for conscience' sake. For, for this cause pay you tribute also; for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.” A very little attention, I apprehend, will be sufficient to show that this text is so far from favoring arbitrary government, that, on the contrary, it strongly holds forth the principles of true liberty. Subjection to the higher powers is enjoined by the apostle because there is no power but of God; the powers that be are ordained of God; consequently, to resist the power is to resist the ordinance of God: and he repeatedly declares that the ruler is the minister of God. Now, before we can say whether this text makes for or against the doctrine of unlimited passive obedience, we must find out in what sense the apostle affirms that magistracy is the ordinance of God, and what he intends when he calls the ruler the minister of God.

We see West using "context," and his a-biblical presumptions to explain away these proof texts. He ends up concluding "that the apostle Paul, instead of being a friend to tyranny and arbitrary government, turns out to be a strong advocate for the just rights of mankind...." Or in other words, Paul really meant we do have a right to revolt against the magistrate, the opposite of what he said. Do keep in mind that the ruler to whom Paul told believers to obey was not some "godly" ruler, but the pagan psychopath Nero. West addresses that point:

I know it is said that the magistrates were, at the time when the apostle wrote, heathens, and that Nero, that monster of tyranny, was then Emperor of Rome; that therefore the apostle, by enjoining submission to the powers that then were, does require unlimited obedience to be yielded to the worst of tyrants. Now, not to insist upon what has been often observed, viz., that this epistle was written most probably about the beginning of Nero's reign, at which time he was a very humane and merciful prince, did everything that was generous and benevolent to the public, and showed every act of mercy and tenderness to particulars, and therefore might at that time justly deserve the character of the minister of God for good to the people,-- I say, waiving this, we will suppose that this epistle was written after that Nero was become a monster of tyranny and wickedness; it will by no means follow from thence that the apostle meant to enjoin unlimited subjection to such an authority, or that he intended to affirm that such a cruel, despotic authority was the ordinance of God. The plain, obvious sense of his words, as we have already seen, forbids such a construction to be put upon them, for they plainly imply a strong abhorrence and disapprobation of such a character, and clearly prove that Nero, so far forth as he was a tyrant, could not be the minister of God, nor have a right to claim submission from the people; so that this ought, perhaps, rather to be viewed as a severe satire upon Nero, than as enjoining any submission to him.

The first point -- the epistle was written during the beginning of Nero's reign when he was "nicer," not towards the end when he was a tyrant -- strikes me as invoking hair splitting context to reach a desired result, not unlike the way some gay Christians and Jews, who claim the Bible really isn't against homosexuality, conclude things like the Bible permits gay men to have oral sex because that is not "lying with a man," or that even if they did "lie with mankind," and commit an "abomination," that term means "ritual impurity," and is more like eating shellfish or the mixing of fabrics.

The second point -- if Paul said this when Nero was indeed acting tyrannical, he must not have meant it! -- shows West's willingness disregard scripture which disagrees with reason.

In sum, these "Christian" sermons seem "cafeteria" in their approach in that they used "reason" to explain away scripture which conflicts with their a-biblical notions. "The natural law," contrary to supporting scripture as Luther, Calvin, and Aquinas would have it, was used to import such a-biblical concepts as Locke's "state of nature." These were not Christian principles, but theistic rationalist principles.

Theistic Rationalism From the Pulpit, Redux:

Because Samuel West's 1776 Election Sermon featured so prominently in a number of recent American Creation posts (and in Jeff Morrison's paper on the political theology of the Declaration of Independence, also discussed in said posts), I thought I'd refer back to a post I did where I noted Dr. Gregg Frazer discusses West and his sermon in detail in his PhD thesis and sees it not as "Christian" principles preached from the Founding era pulpit, but theistic rationalist principles.

Samuel West was also a unitarian, not a Calvinistic Christian. That's one of the deficiencies of Morrison's paper. He seems to view Rev. West as orthodox. But it's understandable. West doesn't talk about his unitarianism in that sermon. And the Congregational Church where he preached had, or likely had, numerous Calvinists. Indeed, few understand that unitarian ministers in Founding era New England Congregational Churches placated the Calvinists by refusing to preach on the Trinity and other orthodox doctrines.

This was a Lockean solution, indeed a Lockean lowest-common-denominator of what it means to be a "Christian." Jesus is some kind of divinely special Messiah and Savior of Mankind. That was Locke's test for what it means to be a "Christian." "Divinely special" could mean fully divine Himself (2nd Person in the Trinity), some type of created and subordinate divine being (this is Arianism where Jesus is the first created being, more divinely powerful than the top archangel but inferior to his creator God the Father) or 100% man but on a uniquely divine mission, sent by the Father (this is Socinianism).

Indeed, Locke likely was a unitarian (his orthodox critics so accused him of being for positing an LCD understanding of Christianity that refused to distinguish between Trinitarianism and unitarianism) and West's sermon preaches Locke, heavily.

Samuel West's sermon is also heavy on the natural law/reason as trumping truth discovery. While he doesn't come out and say the Bible is fallible and man's reason trumps, he does say that revelation, in order to be true, MUST meet the test of reason. That was "right revelation." That is, TRUTH, like that men have an unalienable right to revolt against tyrants, is ascertainable from reason/nature alone. Indeed that's the first place men SHOULD look for metaphysical truth. Once found, go back to the Bible and MAKE the Bible fit with what man already discovered from reason, even if we have to conclude that the Apostles when they spoke were joking and didn't really mean what they said. That was West's hermeneutic, how he approached scripture, and especially Romans 13.

(Ready my original post; this is no shit. West claims that St. Paul may have been joking in Romans 13.)

Samuel West, Reason & Revelation:

Probably one of the most contentious assertions of Dr. Gregg Frazer' PhD thesis on "theistic rationalism" as the prevailing political theology of the American Founding is the tenet of "theistic rationalism" that holds while some of the Bible is divinely inspired and while reason and revelation by in large agree, all apparent contradictions between the two must be resolved in favor of "reason." Hence, "reason trumps revelation." Thomas Jefferson and John Adams in their private letters say this in no uncertain terms. I think we could probably add Ben Franklin to the list. He promoted "rational Christianity," doubted the Trinity, admired the "unitarian dissenters" in England like Joseph Priestley (considered unitarians "honest" and "rational") and in one letter stated certain things in the Bible are IMPOSSIBLE to have been given by divine inspiration. Likewise the Rev. Joseph Priestley, a key influence on the American Founders, held the "plenary inspiration of the Bible" to be one of the "corruptions of Christianity."

But there was something more subtle going on as well. American unitarian patriotic preachers like Revs. Jonathan Mayhew, Charles Chauncy, and Samuel West, while they purported to hold both reason and revelation in high regard, didn't go around explicitly claiming "reason trumps revelation" (as far as I have read). However, I think one could argue this is what they DID in their hermeneutic approach to the Bible. In their political sermons, they would first assert things like the law of nature as determined by reason is God given and consequently immutable. When posed with theological issues, in particular submission to tyrants, they would look first NOT to the Bible, but rather to nature/reason for the answer. Once nature/reason determined the TRUTH on the matter, they "found" confirmation in the Bible, even if they had to adopt an odd hermeneutic in order to make "reason and revelation" agree. Thus, they may not have said: "The Bible is partially inspired and fallible; reason trumps revelation." But I think one could argued they PROCEEDED as though this were the case.

With that, let's examine one of Rev. Samuel West's sermons on revolution. West, along with fellow unitarians Mayhew, Cooper, Chauncy and others, promoted the revolutionary cause and they were key in securing its success.

From West's Election Day Sermon. First, West makes it clear that discoveries of reason are at least as viable as scripture:

Now, whatever right reason requires as necessary to be done is as much the will and law of God as though it were enjoined us by an immediate revelation from heaven, or commanded in the sacred Scriptures.

Next West asserts scripture or "right revelation" cannot contract "reason" or the "natural law."

A revelation, pretending to be from God, that contradicts any part of natural law, ought immediately to be rejected as an imposture; for the Deity cannot make a law contrary to the law of nature without acting contrary to himself,–a thing in the strictest sense impossible, for that which implies contradiction is not an object of the divine power.

He then imports wholly a-biblical Lockean “state of nature” teachings -- discoveries "found" in "nature" -- as decisive on the matter:

That we may understand the nature and design of civil government, and discover the foundation of the magistrate’s authority to command, and the duty of subjects to obey, it is necessary to derive civil government from its original, in order to which we must consider what “state all men are naturally in, and that is (as Mr. Locke observes) a state of perfect freedom to order all 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 man.” It is a state wherein all are equal,–no one having a right to control another, or oppose him in what he does, unless it be in his own defence, or in the defence of those that, being injured, stand in need of his assistance.

Had men persevered in a state of moral rectitude, every one would have been disposed to follow the law of nature, and pursue the general good. In such a state, the wisest and most experienced would undoubtedly be chosen to guide and direct those of less wisdom and experience than themselves,–there being nothing else that could afford the least show or appearance of any one’s having the superiority or precedency over another; for the dictates of conscience and the precepts of natural law being uniformly and regularly obeyed, men would only need to be informed what things were most fit and prudent to be done in those cases where their inexperience or want of acquaintance left their minds in doubt what was the wisest and most regular method for them to pursue. In such cases it would be necessary for them to advise with those who were wiser and more experienced than themselves. But these advisers could claim no authority to compel or to use any forcible measures to oblige any one to comply with their direction or advice. There could be no occasion for the exertion of such a power; for every man, being under the government of right reason, would immediately feel himself constrained to comply with everything that appeared reasonable or fit to be done, or that would any way tend to promote the general good. This would have been the happy state of mankind had they closely adhered to the law of nature, and persevered in their primitive state.

Thus we see that a state of nature, though it be a state of perfect freedom, yet is very far from a state of licentiousness….

After establishing the state of nature/man’s reason as the decisive standard to which any truth must conform, West concludes:

The doctrine of nonresistance and unlimited passive obedience to the worst of tyrants could never have found credit among mankind had the voice of reason been hearkened to for a guide, because such a doctrine would immediately have been discerned to be contrary to natural law.

After answering the question using reason and Lockean theories, Samuel West then looks to the scriptures for support, already having his mind made up as to what the final outcome must be. The proof texts are Romans 13 and Titus iii which seem to instruct believers to submit to and obey the civil magistrate even if tyrants:

This account of the nature and design of civil government, which is so clearly suggested to us by the plain principles of common sense and reason, is abundantly confirmed by the sacred Scriptures….in Rom. xiii., the first six verses: “Let every soul be subject to the higher powers; for there is no power but of God. The powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God; and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation; for rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? Do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: for he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil. Wherefore ye must needs be subject not only for wrath, but also for conscience’ sake. For, for this cause pay you tribute also; for they are God’s ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.” A very little attention, I apprehend, will be sufficient to show that this text is so far from favoring arbitrary government, that, on the contrary, it strongly holds forth the principles of true liberty. Subjection to the higher powers is enjoined by the apostle because there is no power but of God; the powers that be are ordained of God; consequently, to resist the power is to resist the ordinance of God: and he repeatedly declares that the ruler is the minister of God. Now, before we can say whether this text makes for or against the doctrine of unlimited passive obedience, we must find out in what sense the apostle affirms that magistracy is the ordinance of God, and what he intends when he calls the ruler the minister of God.

We see West using “context,” and his a-biblical presumptions to explain away these proof texts. He ends up concluding “that the apostle Paul, instead of being a friend to tyranny and arbitrary government, turns out to be a strong advocate for the just rights of mankind….” Or in other words, Paul really meant we do have a right to revolt against the magistrate, the seemingly opposite of what he said. Do keep in mind that the ruler to whom Paul told believers to obey was not some “godly” ruler, but the pagan psychopath Nero. West addresses that point:

I know it is said that the magistrates were, at the time when the apostle wrote, heathens, and that Nero, that monster of tyranny, was then Emperor of Rome; that therefore the apostle, by enjoining submission to the powers that then were, does require unlimited obedience to be yielded to the worst of tyrants. Now, not to insist upon what has been often observed, viz., that this epistle was written most probably about the beginning of Nero’s reign, at which time he was a very humane and merciful prince, did everything that was generous and benevolent to the public, and showed every act of mercy and tenderness to particulars, and therefore might at that time justly deserve the character of the minister of God for good to the people,– I say, waiving this, we will suppose that this epistle was written after that Nero was become a monster of tyranny and wickedness; it will by no means follow from thence that the apostle meant to enjoin unlimited subjection to such an authority, or that he intended to affirm that such a cruel, despotic authority was the ordinance of God. The plain, obvious sense of his words, as we have already seen, forbids such a construction to be put upon them, for they plainly imply a strong abhorrence and disapprobation of such a character, and clearly prove that Nero, so far forth as he was a tyrant, could not be the minister of God, nor have a right to claim submission from the people; so that this ought, perhaps, rather to be viewed as a severe satire upon Nero, than as enjoining any submission to him.

The first point — the epistle was written during the beginning of Nero’s reign when he was “nicer,” not towards the end when he was a tyrant — strikes me as invoking hair splitting context to reach a desired result.

The second point — if Paul said this when Nero was indeed acting tyrannical, he must not have meant it! — shows West’s willingness disregard scripture which disagrees with reason.

But in any event, the question that I ask is what is Rev. West actually DOING in his interpretation of scripture. Is he substituting his "own" judgment derived from "reason" for what's actually written in scripture. Or is his "reasoned" interpretation of scripture consistent with the idea that the whole of the Bible is inspired (I suppose with parts that the Holy Spirit meant not to be taken seriously, but as satire, where the text of the Bible could mean the opposite of what it apparently on the surface teaches).

Exodus Does Not Support Political Liberty:

Commenter Charles instructed me to "re-read the Book of Exodus, and then tell me there was no 'political' liberty for the NATION of Israel." Since I'm discussing Dr. Robert Kraynak's work, I've already noted his answer for this, filtered through Dr. Gregg Frazer's Ph.D. thesis:

First, as Kraynak pointed out, “the biblical covenant is undemocratic: God is not bound by the covenant and keeps His promises solely out of His own divine self-limitation.” Second, “(t)he element of voluntary consent is missing from the covenant with Israel….There is nothing voluntary or consensual about the biblical covenant; and the most severe punishments are threatened by God for disobedience.” Third, “insofar as the covenant with Israel sanctions specific forms of government, the main ones are illiberal and undemocratic;” including patriarchy, theocracy, and kingships established by divine right. Fourth, “the Bible shows that God delivers the people from slavery in Egypt and supports national liberation, not for the purpose of enjoying their political and economic rights, but for the purpose of putting on the yoke of the law in the polity of Moses.” Fifth, “the content of the divine law revealed to Moses consists, in the first place, of the Ten Commandments rather than the Ten Bill of Rights, commanding duties to God, family, and neighbors rather than establishing protections for personal freedom.” Finally, the combination of judicial, civil, ceremonial, and dietary laws imposed on the people “regulate all aspects of religious, personal, and social life.” The history of Israel, therefore, had to be radically rewritten to provide support for the demands of political liberty and for republican self-government.

– Kraynak, 46-49 quoted in Frazer, “The Political Theology of the American Founding,” Ph.D. dissertation, 18-19.

Speaking of such radical rewriting, the same folks, mainly minsters, who argued Israel's history supports political liberty and republican self government also "creatively" intrepreted Romans 13 to justify revolution. Two recent articles, in fact, from WorldNutDaily, one by Farah, and the other by Bob Unruh, deal with this theological problem for folks who think it's okay to arm against a tyrannical government on the one hand, and be a good Christian on the other.

Farah appeals to the Founding and wrongly assumes that the Revolution's key principles were put forth by good Christians like himself.

I hardly know where to begin in addressing such a fundamental issue. But let me start by asking all Americans who subscribe to this principle as an absolute how our founding fathers, many of them devout Christians, justified breaking the bonds with their rulers in Great Britain. Were they not under a scriptural obligation to render unto King George? Have you read the Declaration of Independence?

I strongly suggest that my dear misguided Christian friends spend a little time reading the great debates that precipitated the War for Independence – all of which took place among men far more learned in the scriptures than the average modern Christian. The revolution that created America has often been called a war that began in the pulpits of the colonies.

And, more importantly than earthly examples, such as John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and George Washington, are the words of Jesus in context.

Farah needs to consider seriously that 1) the principal leaders of the American Revolution -- the "key Founders," whom he invoked -- were not particularly orthodox Christians (arguably not Christians at all) and 2) perhaps the Tory ministers who argued America's revolt violated Romans 13 were theologically in the right. I'd argue that devout Christians like George Washington's friend Reverend Brian Fairfax, one of the many American Tories who stayed loyal to Great Britain, and thought the American Revolution was a sin because it violated Romans 13 stood on at least as strong, if not stronger theological grounds as the patriotic Whig ministers.

For the sake of conciliation to my Christian friends who want to think of themselves as both good Christians and good Americans, I'll concede that whether the American Revolution violated Romans 13 is a debatable proposition over which traditionally minded Christian can reasonably disagree.

Some of those patriotic ministers, like John Witherspoon, were indeed devout orthodox Christians. Most other notable ones, however, like Jonathan Mayhew, Charles Chauncy, and Samuel West, as unitarians, arguably weren't Christians but theistic rationalists who elevated man's reason over revelation as the ultimate arbiter of truth. Some sermons from the Founding era that attempted to justify revolution by explaining away Romans 13 read like pro-gay ministers attempting to explain away the scriptural injunctions against homosexuality.

The ministers would typically look first to nature or reason to find the right to revolt. And indeed, they had to look outside the Bible because there is no right to rebel against tyrannical government contained therein. It's like looking for a right to engage in homosexual sex; it's not in the Bible. But those verses which forbid revolt can be "explained away" in context as not applying to present day or founding era circumstances (which is again, exactly what pro-gay Christians do with the parts of the Bible which forbid homosexuality).

I've blogged about this before where I examine a popular pro-revolt sermon from unitarian minister Samuel West. West finds right to revolt from "reason," and then proceeds to explain away "revelation" which forbids revolt -- Romans 13. When you consider that the leader Paul told believers to obey was not some "godly" ruler, but an unelected tyrant and a pagan psychopath to boot -- Nero -- we should see the difficulty in explaining such text away.

Samuel West made two points. The first was the epistle was supposedly written during the beginning of Nero's reign when he was "nicer," not towards the end when he was a tyrant. Even if true (I don't think history confirms West's assertion), this strikes me as invoking hair splitting context to reach a desired result, like concluding things like the Bible permits gay men to have oral sex because that is not "lying with a man," or that even if they did "lie with mankind," and commit an "abomination," that term means "ritual impurity," and is more like eating shellfish or the mixing of fabrics. The second point West made was if Paul said this when Nero was indeed acting tyrannical, he must not have meant it! This shows West's willingness disregard scripture which disagrees with what his reason concludes. (Maybe Paul didn't mean it either when he condemned homosexuality.) Again, this is "cafeteria" not orthodox Christianity, if it's fair to call West's theology Christianity at all.

And West's arguments were typical of a great deal of the patriotic sermons which attempted to justify America's revolt against Great Britain on theological grounds.

WorldNetDaily Article on Pastors & Politics:

One Dave Welch wrote an article for WorldNetDaily defending Dominionism and attacking John MacArthur's anti-Dominionist position. The article fires and misses. I'm not going to dissect it in detail. I've alerted Dr. Gregg Frazer about the article and he's planning a response which we'll feature here. Here is the introduction to Welch's article:

"I'm not concerned about that (2008 presidential election) for five seconds. It has nothing to do with the kingdom of God. … His kingdom has nothing to do with this world." Those words spoken by renowned pastor, author and speaker Dr. John MacArthur recently as part of a radio interview, combined with his belief that our Declaration of Independence was an unscriptural act of rebellion, cry out for a biblically and historically accurate response.

The breathtakingly unscriptural nature of his position is tragically held by many evangelicals who have bought into the "sacred vs. secular" dichotomy....

Perhaps there is a case to be made for Dominionism, but Welch sure doesn't make it in this article. A few points. This passage is particularly telling:

We are blessed beyond measure that great preachers of the past such as Jonathan Edwards, John Wesley, Jonathan Mayhew, Samuel West and legions of others adhered to that mandate rather than the "Abandonment Theology" position Dr. MacArthur is espousing.

LOL. John Wesley supported the British in the American Revolution. And West and Mayhew weren't even "Christians" as Welch understands and defines the term. They were unitarians who denied Jesus full Godhood or second place in the Trinity. Further, they were enlightenment rationalists who thought man should be ruled, not chiefly by the Bible, but "nature" and "reason." I discussed Samuel West's sermon in a detailed post about theistic rationalist principles being preached from the pulpit. In essence you have a theological unitarian, Rev. Samuel West, preaching that biblical texts must meet the test of "reason," such that "[a] revelation, pretending to be from God, that contradicts any part of natural law, ought immediately to be rejected as an imposture;..." Revs. Mayhew and West as enlightened unitarians hardly support Welch's "Domionist" position.

Samuel West Arminian Unitarian:

Key patriotic preacher Samuel West was, according to those who knew him best, an Arminian-Unitarian. As this source notes:

With reference to Dr. West's position on the doctrine of the Trinity, his granddaughter, Mary C. West, of Tiverton, (recently deceased,) wrote in a communication printed in the Evening Standard of this city in March, 1883, as follows: "If his children were competent witnesses (my father and aunt) I can say that they have often told me that their father was an Arminian Unitarian. * * * I have heard my aunt many times tell this story. When she was a little girl her teacher set her to learning a catechism, — I think it was the Westminster, but at any rate it had the Trinitarian formula in it: 'The Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one.' She was at home studying her lesson in a loud voice, and her father heard her repeating the above formula and called her to him and held up three of his fingers (as she always did when she told the story), and asked her how three could be one, took the book from her and put it in his pocket, and told her to tell her teacher that he would get her another catechism, which he did. I think the one he got her was called 'The Franklin Catechism,' or 'The Franklin Primer."

I've heard it noted that because Rev. West believed Christ as redeemer who made an atonement, that means he was orthodox. Wrong. That's a logical error called a "non-sequitur" -- a conclusion that does not follow from the facts presented. Some unitarians did believe in the resurrected Christ who made an atonement for man. Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses believe this. They just hold an unconventional view of these doctrines. This fits perfectly with West's Arianism.

As the same above linked to source notes:

In theology, Dr. West was progressive and liberal. His sympathies with humanity were too quick to make him a good Calvinist. Judged by to-day's standards, much of his writing would seem antiquated. His sermons were largely of the old Biblical and textual type. But judged by his own time he was an Arminian, which was the transition passage to Unitarianism. That is, he asserted free will for man in opposition to Calvin's doctrine of fore-ordination and irreparable election, and man's ability of moral choice in opposition to the doctrine of "total depravity." With regard to Christ his views were more Arian than Athanasian....

Anti-Calvinistic Preachers in Revolutionary New England:

As I have noted before, George Willis Cooke's classic "Unitarianism in America" is available free online.

I was looking for more conclusive evidence to connect Rev. Samuel Cooper to unitarianism. While the following isn't conclusive I did find it very interesting:

Alden Bradford, in his Memoir of the Life and Writings of Rev. Jonathan Mayhew, D.D., gives a list of "the clergymen who openly opposed or did not teach and advocate the Calvinistic doctrines" at the time of Mayhew's ordination, in 1747. These were: Dr. Appleton, Cambridge; Dr. Gay, Hingham; Dr. Chauncy, Boston; William Rand, Kingston; Nathaniel Eelles, Scituate; Edward Barnard, Haverhill; Samuel Cooke, West Cambridge (now Arlington); Jeremiah Fogg, Kensington, N.H.; Dr. A. Eliot, Boston; Dr. Samuel Webster, Salisbury; Lemuel Briant, Braintree; Dr. Stevens, Kittery, Me.; Dr. Tucker, Newbury; Timothy Harrington, Lancaster; Dr. Gad Hitchcock, Pembroke; Josiah Smith, Pembroke; William Smith, Weymouth; Dr. Daniel Shute, Hingham; Dr. Samuel Cooper, Boston; Dr. Mayhew, Boston; Abraham Williams, Sandwich; Anthony Wibird, Braintree (now Quincy); Dr. Cushing, Waltham; Professor Wigglesworth, Harvard College; Dr. Symmes, Andover; Dr. John Willard, Connecticut; Amos Adams, Roxbury; Dr. Barnes, Scituate; Charles Turner, Duxbury; Dr. Dana Wallingford, Conn.; Ebenezer Thayer, Hampton, N.H.; Dr. Fiske, Brookfield; Dr. Samuel West, Dartmouth (now New Bedford); Dr. Hemenway, Wells. Among those who took part in the ordination of Jonathan Mayhew, and therefore presumably of the same theological opinions, were Hancock, Lexington; Cotton, Newton; Cooke, Sudbury; Prescott, Danvers (now Salem). To these may be added, says Bradford, though of a somewhat later date: Dr. Coffin, Buxton; Drs. Howard, West, Lathrop, and Belknap, Boston; Dr. Henry Cummings, Billerica; Dr. Deane, Portland; Thomas Cary, Newburyport; Dr. Fobes, Raynham; Timothy Hilliard, Cambridge; Thomas Haven, Reading; Dr. Willard, Beverly. Dr. Ezra Ripley added the names of Hedge, of Warwick, and Foster, of Stafford. This makes fifty-two in all, but probably as many more could be added by careful search.

There's lots of other great stuff in Cooke's book. Check it out.

George Willis Cooke on Charles Chauncy (and Samuel West):

Two more "key" patriotic preachers of the Founding era. Read it here.

A Pronounced Universalist.

Another preacher on the liberal side was Dr. Charles Chauncy of the First Church in Boston, whose ministry lasted from 1727 to 1787. He was the most vigorous of the opponents of the great awakening, both in his pulpit and through the press. He wrote a book on certain French fanatics, with the purpose of showing what would be the natural results of the excesses of the revival; he preached a powerful sermon on enthusiasm, to indicate the dangers of religious excitement, when not controlled by common sense and reason; and he travelled throughout New England to gain all the information possible about the revival, its methods and results, and published his Seasonable Thoughts on the State of Religion in New England in 1743. He had been influenced by the reading of Taylor, Tillotson, Clarke, and the other latitudinarian and rationalistic writers of England; and he found the revival in its excesses repugnant to his every thought of what was true and devout in religion.

Dr. Chauncy was not an eloquent preacher; but he was clear, earnest, and honest. Many of his sermons were published, and his books numbered nearly a dozen. As early as 1739 he preached a sermon in favor of religious toleration. At a later period he said, "It is with me past all doubt that the religion of Jesus will never be restored to its primitive purity, simplicity, and glory, until religious establishments are so brought down as to be no more."[24] It was this conviction which made him oppose in his pulpit and in two or three books the effort that was made just before the Revolution to establish the English Church as the state form of religion in the colonies. He said, in 1767, that the American people would hazard everything dear to them--their estates, their lives--rather than suffer their necks to be put under the yoke of bondage to any foreign power in state or church.[25]

In his early life Dr. Chauncy was an Arminian, but slowly he grew to the acceptance of distinctly Unitarian and Universalist doctrines. Near the end of his life he Published four or five books in which he advanced very liberal opinions. One of these, published in Boston in 1784, was on The Benevolence of the Deity fairly and impartially Considered. This book followed the same method and purpose as Butler's Analogy, and aimed to show that God has manifested his goodness in creation and in the life of man. He said that our moral self-determination, or free will, is our one great gift from God. He discussed the moral problems of life in order to prove the benevolence of God, maintaining that the goodness we see in him is of the same nature with goodness in ourselves. The year following he published a book on the Scriptural account of the Fall and its Consequences, in which he rejected the doctrine of total depravity, and interpreted the new birth as a result of education rather than of supernatural change. Thus he brought to full statement the logical result of the half-way covenant and the teachings of Solomon Stoddard, as well as of the connection of church and state in New England. He saw that the method of education is the only one that can justly be followed in the preparation of the young for admission to a church that is sustained in any direct way by the state.

Dr. Chauncy's great work as a preacher and author[26] was brought to its close by his books in favor of universal salvation. In 1783-84 he published in Boston two anonymous pamphlets advocating the salvation of all men, and these pamphlets made no little stir. In 1784 he published in London a work which he called The Mystery hid from Ages and Generations, made manifest by the Gospel Revelation; or, The Salvation of All Men the Grand Thing aimed at in the Scheme of God: By One who wishes well to the whole Human Race. In this book Dr. Chauncy made an elaborate study of the New Testament, in order to prove that salvation is to be universal. Christ died for all, therefore all will be saved; because all have sinned in Adam, therefore all will be made alive in Christ. He looked to a future probation, to a long period after death, when the opportunity of salvation will be open to all. He maintained that the misery threatened against the wicked in Scripture is that of this intermediate state between the earthly life and the time when God shall be all in all. He held that sin will be punished hereafter in proportion to depravity, and that none will be saved until they come into willing harmony with Christ, who will finally be able to win all men to himself, otherwise the power of God will be set at naught and his good will towards men frustrated of its purpose. In the future state of discipline, punishment will be inflicted with salutary effect, and thus the moral recovery of mankind will be accomplished.

Other Men of Mark.

Another leader was Dr. Samuel West, of Dartmouth, now New Bedford, where he was settled in 1760, and where he preached for more than forty years.[27] He rejected the doctrines of fore-ordination, election, total depravity, and the Trinity. In preaching the election sermon of 1776, he took the ground of an undisguised rationalism. "A revelation," he said, "pretending to be from God, that contradicts any part of natural laws ought immediately to be rejected as imposture; for the deity cannot make a law contrary to the law of nature without acting contrary to himself,--a thing in the strictest sense impossible, for that which implies contradiction is not an object of Divine Power." The cardinal idea of West's; position, as of that of most of the liberal men of his time, was stated by him in one sentence, when he said, "To preach Christ is to preach the whole system of divinity, as it consists of both natural and revealed religion."[28]

Resist, Revolt, Reason & Authority in the American Founding

I confess a fault in my friendship duties towards Mark David Hall. He wrote a book about Roger Sherman that goes into meticulous detail about reformation sources that influenced the American Founding. He even thanked me in that book (we featured some of the research at American Creation) but I haven't yet read the book.

But I will, one day. I promise.

I am familiar with the argument about Calvinist reformation sources as the inspiration behind the American resistance during the Founding era, in the face of Romans 13. (This article by David Kopel makes similar points.)

Among others, Daniel Dreisbach and Jeffry Morrison, who have collaborated with Dr. Hall are on the same page regarding the influence of Calvinist thought on America's Founding resistance movement.

Arguments contained in America's Declaration of Independence do seem to strongly parallel those of the reformation resisters, but there is more to the story.

This is the controversy: A plain textual reading of Romans 13 (a fundamentalist reading, if you will) seems to categorically forbid revolt. Yet, other parts of the Bible -- Acts 5:29 -- teach disobedience to man (Earthly government) when necessary to obey God. Other parts of scripture -- I Peter 2 (“honor the king”) -- also play in.

What follows is the doctrine among others orthodox biblicists Drs. Gregg Frazer and Mark Noll have taken from such: Submission to government is absolute; revolt is categorically forbidden; obedience to government is a general rule conditioned on the (obvious) fact that if to obey government means to disobey God, obey God and not man. Yet, submit to the civil legitimacy of the tyranny whose civil law demands disobedience to God. Work within the confines of such system for individual justice and systematic change. But ultimately submit, even if it means being a martyr.

John Calvin in his Institutes of the Christian Religion teaches basically this with one important caveat: To the extent that the positive governing law permits lower magistrates to resist and suppress the lawless tyranny of higher powers, believers who constitute such lower magistrates can and should take advantage of this option.

The examples that Calvin gives are analogous to Congress by virtue of the constitutional process, impeaching and removing a President.

As dissidents, a great many of Calvin's followers had bad experiences with "higher powers" that persecuted them. Hence, they had incentive to, and did in fact flesh out and play up Calvin's teachings on interposition, on resistance through law. Hence Samuel Rutherford's "Lex Rex" (the King is not Law, rather "Law is King.")

And, as noted, a great deal of what America's Founders, in their conflict with Great Britain, said and did resonates with such. According to the doctrine, the extant positive law must be appealed to as the source of remedies. America's Founders did a great deal of remonstrating with the British authorities appealing to their rights as Englishmen. A great deal of the Declaration of Independence details how Great Britain failed to live up to its own standards of guarantee contained in existing British law.

But Great Britain -- King and Parliament ("Parliament" shorthand for the then existing power sharing arrangement) -- disagreed with the colonists' understanding of British law. So when there is disagreement, how is it resolved? Under extant British positive law, Parliament had the final say.

Of Parliament's power, Blackstone famously noted:

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 acutely observed: "Blackstone was wrong: beginning eleven years later, the American colonies undid a lot of what Parliament had done."

It's above my pay grade to say whether the American Revolution violated Romans 13. That biblical text was discussed quite a bit in Founding era sermons because it obviously had the potential among a nation whose demographic religion was "Christianity" to stand in the way of the revolutionary cause.

What I don't see however, from the Founding era sermons is a strong explicit reliance on Samuel Rutherford, et al. I'm sure the influence was there. But John Locke and his ideas were more often cited in the revolutionary pulpit. And Locke is not Rutherford; no evidence we have seen connects Rutherford to Locke and Locke made arguments that were more revolutionary in tone. Locke was also less concerned with answering the Romans 13 challenge and more interested in asserting a right to revolt found in nature discoverable by reason.

Later sermons would then apply Lockean principles to the Romans 13 challenge in more detail. Jefferson and company did not invent the theological arguments contained in the Declaration of Independence. The ideas had been brewing in the pulpit the years prior to the revolution and this 1776 sermon by the unitarian Samuel West best encapsulates theology of the Declaration of Independence and the American Cause. Romans 13 is explicitly dealt with there. Locke is cited; Rutherford and the Calvinist resisters are not. The basis for the right to revolt is found in essences in nature, discoverable by reason.

With that discovery in mind, then go and interpret and understand Romans 13 accordingly. This is how West deals with it:

The doctrine of nonresistance and unlimited passive obedience to the worst of tyrants could never have found credit among mankind had the voice of reason been hearkened to for a guide, because such a doctrine would immediately have been discerned to be contrary to natural law.

 On the explicit text of Romans 13, West asserts:

I know it is said that the magistrates were, at the time when the apostle wrote, heathens, and that Nero, that monster of tyranny, was then Emperor of Rome; that therefore the apostle, by enjoining submission to the powers that then were, does require unlimited obedience to be yielded to the worst of tyrants. Now, not to insist upon what has been often observed, viz., that this epistle was written most probably about the beginning of Nero's reign, at which time he was a very humane and merciful prince, did everything that was generous and benevolent to the public, and showed every act of mercy and tenderness to particulars, and therefore might at that time justly deserve the character of the minister of God for good to the people,-- I say, waiving this, we will suppose that this epistle was written after that Nero was become a monster of tyranny and wickedness; it will by no means follow from thence that the apostle meant to enjoin unlimited subjection to such an authority, or that he intended to affirm that such a cruel, despotic authority was the ordinance of God. The plain, obvious sense of his words, as we have already seen, forbids such a construction to be put upon them, for they plainly imply a strong abhorrence and disapprobation of such a character, and clearly prove that Nero, so far forth as he was a tyrant, could not be the minister of God, nor have a right to claim submission from the people; so that this ought, perhaps, rather to be viewed as a severe satire upon Nero, than as enjoining any submission to him.

Either Nero was "a very humane and merciful prince" when the epistle was written or perhaps the epistle should "be viewed as a severe satire upon Nero, than as enjoining any submission to him."  

Libertarian Christianity:

Jim Babka forwarded me this link to a book review and I promised to say something about it. The book which I have not yet read, The Choice Principle: The Biblical Case for Legal Toleration, written by a law professor, Andy G. Olree, argues the Bible is consistent with libertarianism. From the review:

In The Choice Principle: The Biblical Case for Legal Toleration, he attacks both the welfare state and morals laws, citing Augustine, Aquinas, and the New Testament for support. By his lights, Christians can legally tolerate many activities they regard as sinful, including prostitution, assisted suicide, homosexuality, and drug use. He says that whether abortion should be outlawed depends on when human life begins, a question he does not answer—and contends that the Bible does not answer either. He also opposes redistributive taxation. For Olree, governments should exist only to punish acts that victimize others through force or fraud.

I think a larger point we could glean is that the Bible is consistent with classical liberalism. And modern conservatism, liberalism, and libertarianism all in some way originate from and conform to the tenets of liberal democracy. As Francis Fukuyama once put it, we are all liberal democrats now. With clever hermeneutics, the Bible can, in some way, read to comport with liberalism, conservatism, and libertarianism.

As someone who endorses libertarianism, I support all such biblical readings reconciling the Bible with libertarianism. But, let me, for a moment, analyze one of the book's serious arguments, which relies on a key biblical text explicating the proper relationship between church and state, Romans 13. From the review:

An important part of Olree’s thesis is that you can believe in moral absolutes without legislating morality. Indeed, he argues, God may prefer a legal order in which Christians tolerate sin rather than use the power of the state to stamp it out.

Olree quotes Paul’s description of civil government as “God’s servant for your good. But if you do what is wrong, you should be afraid; for the authority does not bear the sword in vain. It is the servant of God to execute wrath on the wrongdoer” (Romans 13:4). At first blush, this sounds like it would be more compatible with “big government Christianism” than with Olree’s more permissive prescriptions. Except that the specific government Paul described as “God’s servant” was a pagan one that permitted abortion and prostitution while funding forms of idolatry. And if, as Paul says earlier in Romans, “There is no one righteous, not even one,” then what sense does it make to identify a separate class of “wrongdoers” who need to fear civil authority? If all have sinned and none are wholly good, then perhaps government’s purpose is only to punish a specific kind of wrongdoing.

This is important. In Romans 13 Paul tells believers to obey the civil magistrate and that governments are instituted by God to do justice. However, as noted in the review, the context is quite unusual. Paul was telling believers to obey, not some "Godly" ruler, but the pagan psychopath Nero, whose government "permitted abortion and prostitution while funding forms of idolatry." Romans 13 hardly supports the Christian Nation fraud or Dominionism, as some inaptly suggest. Indeed, given the threshold that Paul sets for obeying governments, arguably almost all revolts against civil magistrates would be forbidden. And this is exactly what the Tory ministers argued during the Revolutionary war.

Our Founders and the pro-Revolutionary ministers whom they followed had to struggle with this verse, and some of the sermons dismiss it in a very "cafeteria Christian" manner, much in the same way that pro-gay Christians dismiss the anti-homosexual proof texts in the Bible.

See, for instance, the unitarian Congregationalist minister Samuel West's sermon on the matter. First, West answers the question -- do citizens have a right to revolt against tyrannical governments? -- from "nature" or "reason" alone, which he, as a rationalist, views as penultimate. Already having his mind made up as to what the final outcome must be, West then looks to the Bible for support. Reason, according to West, dictates Romans 13 must be read in a way consistent with the right to revolt, even if it means concluding Paul must not have meant what he said.

I'm willing to concede that reasonable minds can differ on the proper interpretation of Romans 13. Indeed, there was a tradition, which predated the Founding and the unitarian ministers whom they followed, of more orthodox Calvinistic Protestants (but not Calvin himself) supporting the notion of a right to revolt against tyranny.

But I stand by my contention that the Tories' anti-revolt position was every bit as "biblical," if not more so than our Whig Founders' who, at times, clearly "played games" with biblical texts to justify revolt.

The context of Romans 13 (as well as "render unto Ceaser..." and "my kingdom is not of this earth,") supports the notion of believers living under secular government and that in turn helped make Christianity compatible with liberal democracy.

Now, the harder question is what are the texts of the Koran that support such?

Right Revelation:

Apropos to Kristo M.'s post on reason & revelation, I want to posit the notion that the Founding Fathers and ministers they followed believed in the notion of "right revelation" along with "right reason."

We oft-hear the phrase "right reason" bandied about to describe reason's proper function; some use the term to describe reason's limits or that it is subservient to the Bible's text.

I argue "the Founders" or at least a great deal of them and the influential philosophers and divines they followed, held a higher view of man's reason than this. While many viewed man's nature as crooked ("partially depraved" I think would be a fair standard) they didn't view the intellect as corrupt. The Founders certainly had no use for Luther's idea that "reason" is the Devil's Whore.

Some Founders like Jefferson, J. Adams and Franklin thought their reason so keen that it could "discern" which parts of the Bible were legitimately revealed which parts weren't. Some argue, like my friend Tom Van Dyke, that the prevailing "rationalism" of the Founding was probably more like Aquinas' -- that the Bible is infallible and if reason & revelation appear to conflict then fallen man's reason must be in error.

No doubt some held to this view. However, the Founders adhered to some widely held premises that exalted reason to a higher level. One of them was reason was God's first revelation to man. Accordingly scripture was God's second revelation to man. I've seen John Adams, James Wilson, and Ben Franklin endorse this theory. If reason is the first revelation, that automatically seems to relegate scripture's role to secondary. Revelation's role is to "support" or "corroborate" the findings of man's reason. As James Wilson put it, describing scripture's "secondary" role in "Works":

But whoever expects to find, in [Scripture], particular directions for every moral doubt which arises, expects more than he will find. They generally presuppose a knowledge of the principles of morality; and are employed not so much in teaching new rules on this subject, as in enforcing the practice of those already known, by a greater certainty, and by new sanctions. They present the warmest recommendations and the strongest inducements in favour of virtue: they exhibit the most powerful dissuasives from vice. But the origin, the nature, and the extent of the several rights and duties they do not explain; nor do they specify in what instances one right or duty is entitled to preference over another. They are addressed to rational and moral agents, capable of previously knowing the rights of men, and the tendencies of actions; of approving what is good, and of disapproving what is evil. [Bold mine.]

Did you get that? The Scriptures were designed not really to teach man new moral rules, but to clarify and support that which "rational" and "moral" man already knew without the Bible. This entirely contrasts with the evangelical idea that men are lost without scripture.

In 1735 Ben Franklin defended a Presbyterian preacher named Hemphill from a heresy charged and echoing Hemphill noted something similar:

Now that natural Religion, or that the Laws of our Nature oblige us to the highest Degrees of Love to God, and in consequence of this Love to our almighty Maker, to pay him all the Homage, Worship and Adoration we are capable of, and to do every thing we know he requires; and that the same Laws oblige us to the Love of Mankind, and in consequence of this Love, as well as of our Love to God, (because he requires these things of us) to do good Offices to, and promote the general Welfare and Happiness of our Fellow-creatures…What Hemphill means by the first Revelation which God made to us by the Light of Nature, is the Knowledge, and our Obligations to the Practice of the Laws of Morality, which are discoverable by the Light of Nature; or by reflecting upon the human Frame, and considering it’s natural Propensities, Instincts, and Principles of Action, and the genuine Tendencies of them.

Franklin goes on to describe the proper relationship between reason and revelation and positions scripture as secondary revelation, with “reason” or “the light of nature” as primary:

Now, that to promote the Practice of the great Laws of Morality and Virtue both with Respect to God and Man, is the main End and Design of the christian Revelation has been already prov’d from the Revelation itself. And indeed as just now hinted at, it is obvious to the Reason of every thinking Person, that, if God almighty gives a Revelation at all, it must be for this End; nor is the Truth of the christian Revelation, or of any other that ever was made, to be defended upon any other Footing. But quitting these things; if the above Observations be true, then where lies the Absurdity of Hemphill’s asserting,

Article I.

That Christianity, [as to it’s most essential and necessary Parts,] is plainly Nothing else, but a second Revelation of God’s Will founded upon the first Revelation, which God made to us by the Light of Nature.

The notion of a God given natural law discovered by reason is itself controversial in orthodox circles precisely because of the "un-biblical" results that could be "snuck in." Still some parts of orthodox Christendom, through Aquinas, believe in the "natural law," (which has its antecedents in Aristotle). But, the "Christian" natural law has its way of putting "right reason" in its place.

As above mentioned, my friend Tom Van Dyke noted the "Christian" view of natural law teaches what's discovered by reason must accord with the Bible; if reason and revelation appear to conflict, it must be reason that erred. However, the idea that reason is God's first revelation to man can easily lead to resolving the seeming contradiction the other way. At least that was the case with John Adams' approach.

As Adams wrote to Jefferson December 25, 1813:

Philosophy, which is the result of reason, is the first, the original revelation of the Creator to his creature, man. When this revelation is clear and certain, by intuition or necessary inductions, no subsequent revelation, supported by prophecies or miracles, can supersede it.

I've found evidence of Adams twice denying the Trinity on the basis that it violates this "first" revelation of God to man. As Adams reacted to John Disney's thoughts:

D[isney]: The union of all Christians is anticipated, as it has been demonstrated to be the doctrine of Christ, his apostles and evangelists, as also of Moses and the prophets. Nor is it less the language of the religion of nature than of revelation . . .

A[dams]: The human understanding is the first revelation from its maker. From God; from Heaven. Can prophecies, can miracles repeal, annul or contradict that original revelation? Can God himself prove that three are one and one three? The supposition is destructive of the foundation of all human knowledge, and of all distinction between truth and falsehood. ["Prophets of Progress," p. 297-98.]

And Adams to Jefferson on Sept. 14, 1813:

We can never be so certain of any prophecy, or the fulfillment of any prophecy, or of any miracle, or the design of any miracle, as we are from the revelation of nature, that is, nature’s God, that two and two are equal to four….This revelation had made it certain that two and one make three, and that one is not three nor can three be one….Had you and I been forty days with Moses on Mount Sinai, and admitted to behold the divine glory, and there been told that one was three and three one, we might not have had the courage to deny it, but we could not have believed it.

Adams intimates even if the Trinity were revealed to him by God Himself with Moses on Mt. Sinai he wouldn't believe it. This is what we mean when we say "reason" trumps "revelation."

Another controversial issue at the time of the Founding is that God Himself is "rational." Now, perhaps the scriptures can be perfectly reconciled with reason. But what if they don't appear to be? Some might note it's reason that's the problem; others like Jefferson might counter it's the Bible that's the problem -- someone snuck a "corruption" into the text that made God look less than rational. Since God is perfectly rational, the Bible must be wrong. Under this impression, Jefferson felt free to take his razor to the Bible editing large parts out.

Again, my friend TVD asks, since Jefferson kept his cut up Bible private, what could the FFs get away with saying publicly. I would turn to the minister Rev. Samuel West. Like the key Founders, he was a secret unitarian. And like them, he believed in a "rational" God. Such God was incapable of giving irrational revelation. Thus if something in the Bible appeared to be irrational, it could not have been from God. This is what West noted in a PUBLIC sermon.

First the discoveries of "right reason" are as binding scripture:

Now, whatever right reason requires as necessary to be done is as much the will and law of God as though it were enjoined us by an immediate revelation from heaven, or commanded in the sacred Scriptures.

And second that God is perfectly rational:

A revelation, pretending to be from God, that contradicts any part of natural law, ought immediately to be rejected as an imposture; for the Deity cannot make a law contrary to the law of nature without acting contrary to himself,--a thing in the strictest sense impossible, for that which implies contradiction is not an object of the divine power.

The thrust of West's sermon is to find a right to revolt against tyrants. Where does he look for this right, the Bible? NO. In nature.

The doctrine of nonresistance and unlimited passive obedience to the worst of tyrants could never have found credit among mankind had the voice of reason been hearkened to for a guide, because such a doctrine would immediately have been discerned to be contrary to natural law.

Now, Jefferson was someone who disregarded everything the Apostle Paul wrote as "corruption," so he didn't have Romans 13 on his conscience. West wasn't, or couldn't have been so overtly heterodox; but Rev. West in his own subtle way elevated reason over revelation. Note that West already determined by looking to natural reason whether men had a right to revolt. With that question already answered he looked to the Bible for "secondary support." As James Wilson would put it, "corroboration."

West is confronted with Romans 13 which on its face seems to forbid revolt and demand submission to the worst of tyrants. But that CAN'T be "right revelation" because reason already determined that men had a right to revolt against tyrants. Here is how Rev. West deals with Romans 13:

I know it is said that the magistrates were, at the time when the apostle wrote, heathens, and that Nero, that monster of tyranny, was then Emperor of Rome; that therefore the apostle, by enjoining submission to the powers that then were, does require unlimited obedience to be yielded to the worst of tyrants. Now, not to insist upon what has been often observed, viz., that this epistle was written most probably about the beginning of Nero's reign, at which time he was a very humane and merciful prince, did everything that was generous and benevolent to the public, and showed every act of mercy and tenderness to particulars, and therefore might at that time justly deserve the character of the minister of God for good to the people,-- I say, waiving this, we will suppose that this epistle was written after that Nero was become a monster of tyranny and wickedness; it will by no means follow from thence that the apostle meant to enjoin unlimited subjection to such an authority, or that he intended to affirm that such a cruel, despotic authority was the ordinance of God. The plain, obvious sense of his words, as we have already seen, forbids such a construction to be put upon them, for they plainly imply a strong abhorrence and disapprobation of such a character, and clearly prove that Nero, so far forth as he was a tyrant, could not be the minister of God, nor have a right to claim submission from the people; so that this ought, perhaps, rather to be viewed as a severe satire upon Nero, than as enjoining any submission to him.

The first point -- the epistle was written during the beginning of Nero's reign when he was "nicer," not towards the end when he was a tyrant -- strikes me as invoking hair splitting context to reach a desired result.

The second point -- if Paul said this when Nero was indeed acting tyrannical, he must not have meant it! -- shows West's willingness disregard scripture which disagrees with reason. Maybe Paul didn't mean it when he preached against homosexuality either.

West's sermon seems a clear example of public Founding era preaching on how "right revelation" was that which submitted to "reason." This wasn't as overt as Jefferson cutting up his Bible, but perhaps West's subtle method made his heterodoxy more dangerously subversive to the existing Christian order.

Knapton Responds to Frazer:

Richard Knapton responds to Gregg Frazer's response to him. Knapton's response seems confused. I won't tackle all of it, just one misunderstanding that he is trying to posit.

I've highlighted the relevant parts of his post to which I respond:

Ah yes, deism and natural religion. At the turn of the 18th-century a small group of thinkers, including the Earl of Shaftsbury, began writing about how natural philosophy (science) could be used to investigate the nature and workings of God. This was coined natural religion. Their approach was to replace Christianity with natural religion. It pretty much petered out around the middle of the 18th-century. It’s demise was helped out in no small measure by the writings of Joseph Butler and David Hume. Hume attacked the idea of using rational or empirical methods (science) to investigate religion.

[...]

Theistic rationalism is a term for which there is no conceptual correspondence in the time period Dr Fraser is writing. Along with the demise of deistic rationalism was rationalism itself. The empiricist (Locke, Berkely, Hume) had shown that truth cannot be discovered on the basis of reason alone. Information must first be established based on experiment and observation prior to the use of reason. The concept of theistic rationalism, which is supposed to have risen out of the ashes of deistic rationalism, has simply no foundation. Rationalism had lost out to empiricism.

[...]

This use of the term ‘reason’ is a bit sloppy. Let’s bring some rigor to the subject. I obtained my definition of reason from “A Dictionary of Philosophical Terms and Names” Reason: The intellectual ability to apprehend [understand] the truth cognitively, either immediately in intuition, or by means of a process of inference. Inference: The relationship that holds between the premises and the conclusion of a logical argument, or the process of drawing a conclusion from premises that support it deductively or inductively.

Thus reason is a process by which truth is revealed. Revelation is an event by which truth is revealed. You can oppose an event to another event. Or, you can oppose a process by another process. But you cannot oppose a processes to an event. They are not the same type of thing. Not can a process determine what is legitimate. Reasoning requires a first principle which can only be accepted as true. It cannot be rationally determined. Since reasoning is a dialectical process, one begins with a first principle and a comparison happens between it and opposing ideas with a view to resolving the opposition. What is critical here is first principles. With any process the quality of what goes in determines the quality of what comes out (garbage in – garbage out). Dr Fraser, on the other hand, seems to want to use the term as a magic wand by which whatever you touch truth is revealed.

[...]

1 Deism and natural religion died out around the middle of 18th century. Natural religion was a spent force.

[...]

3. “Theistic rationalism”, as a concept, doesn’t seem to exist in the second half of the 18th century. Also, it is not likely that “theistic rationalism” rose from the ashes of “deistic rationalism.”

4. Reason is not a magic wand that whatever it touches turns to the truth.

Knapton's major factual premises are, as an historical matter, wrong. Hume, an atheist, may well have "attacked the idea of using rational or empirical methods (science) to investigate religion." But the fact is Adams, Jefferson, Franklin and many other notable founders as well as many divines and philosophers of the age believed that man's reason discovers substantive truth including, and importantly religious truths. [Hume, in fact, attacked other ideas which America's founders held central, for instance Locke's notion of the state of nature, which was one of the most central tenets of America's founding thought].

Reason may well be a "process" and indeed, our modern minds may believe, after Hume, that reason needs first facts from which to proceed and can discover no substantive moral, religious or philosophical truths of its own. But America's key founders believed Nature (with a capital "N"), not the Bible, was the substance from which man's reason discovers moral, philosophical, and religious truth. Indeed, by looking to Nature, man's reason could discover substantive truth wholly UNAIDED by scripture. The Deists argued that the none of the Bible was inspired and man, using reason, could look to nature ONLY. Orthodox Christians believed that God primarily revealed Himself through scripture, and that whatever truths reason discovers on its own, revelation trumps reason. The theistic rationalists like Adams, Franklin, Jefferson and others believed God primarily revealed Himself through Nature, only partially inspired the Bible and as such reason was the ultimate arbiter for discovering substantive truth, including what is legitimate revelation from God.

There may well be epistemological "problems" with this theology. And indeed, I know that Dr. Frazer, as an orthodox evangelical Christian, doesn't personally agree with it. Let's not forget that first and foremost we are trying to determine what Jefferson, Franklin, and Adams believed, not whether they were right. Indeed, if one proceeds with a religious belief that, for instance, because America's founding was divinely inspired, the key founders had to have been real Christians and right on theological matters, one's understanding of the matter is likely to be clouded, especially if the facts don't neatly line up with one's preexisting beliefs.

Anyway, here is some of the evidence that at the very least Adams, Jefferson and Franklin believed God revealed Himself primarily through Nature, only partially inspired the Bible and thus man's reason supersedes revelation as the ultimate determiner of Truth.

To him who believes in the Existence and Attributes physical and moral of a God, there can be no obscurity or perplexity in defining the Law of Nature to be his wise benign and all powerful Will, discovered by Reason.

-- John Adams to Thomas Boylston Adams, March 19, 1794. Adams Papers (microfilm), reel 377, Library of Congress. Seen in James H. Hutson's, "The Founders on Religion," p. 132.

Writing in 1735, Ben Franklin made clear that "natural religion" -- what man discovers through reason -- was in fact the first revelation of God to man. And that revealed religion -- what's written in the Bible -- is secondary and functions to support the findings of reason.

Now that natural Religion, or that the Laws of our Nature oblige us to the highest Degrees of Love to God, and in consequence of this Love to our almighty Maker, to pay him all the Homage, Worship and Adoration we are capable of, and to do every thing we know he requires; and that the same Laws oblige us to the Love of Mankind, and in consequence of this Love, as well as of our Love to God, (because he requires these things of us) to do good Offices to, and promote the general Welfare and Happiness of our Fellow-creatures...What Hemphill means by the first Revelation which God made to us by the Light of Nature, is the Knowledge, and our Obligations to the Practice of the Laws of Morality, which are discoverable by the Light of Nature; or by reflecting upon the human Frame, and considering it's natural Propensities, Instincts, and Principles of Action, and the genuine Tendencies of them.

Notice how Franklin positions scripture as secondary revelation, with "reason" or "the light of nature" as the primary revelation God gave man:

Now, that to promote the Practice of the great Laws of Morality and Virtue both with Respect to God and Man, is the main End and Design of the christian Revelation has been already prov'd from the Revelation itself. And indeed as just now hinted at, it is obvious to the Reason of every thinking Person, that, if God almighty gives a Revelation at all, it must be for this End; nor is the Truth of the christian Revelation, or of any other that ever was made, to be defended upon any other Footing. But quitting these things; if the above Observations be true, then where lies the Absurdity of Hemphill's asserting,

Article I.

That Christianity, [as to it’s most essential and necessary Parts,] is plainly Nothing else, but a second Revelation of God’s Will founded upon the first Revelation, which God made to us by the Light of Nature.

Also note how Franklin terms his beliefs, "Christianity." As Dr. Frazer has noted, what he terms "theistic rationalism" often presented itself under the auspices of "Christianity." But key tenets of such belief system -- that Jesus wasn't God, that God primarily revealed Himself through Nature (discovered by man's reason) and secondarily through a partially inspired Bible, and that other non-Christian religions are valid -- arguably disqualifies it from the label "Christian."

As to the Bible being only partially inspired, Franklin made clear this is what he believed when he said,

that the[re are] several Things in the old Testament impossible to be given by divine Inspiration, such as the Approbation ascrib’d to the Angel of the Lord, of that abominably wicked and detestable Action of Jael the Wife of Heber the Kenite. If the rest of the Book were like that, I should rather suppose it given by Inspiration from another Quarter, and renounce the whole.

Many notable divines preached these principles from the pulpit during the founding era including Jonathan Mayhew, Samuel West, and Ebenezer Gay. I blogged about one of West's sermons, preached in 1776. West notes, by looking solely at Nature, reason discovers substantive God given rules and elevates those discoveries to the same level as the Bible.

Now, whatever right reason requires as necessary to be done is as much the will and law of God as though it were enjoined us by an immediate revelation from heaven, or commanded in the sacred Scriptures.

He then treads dangerously on denying the infallibility of the Bible and elevating reason over revelation:

A revelation, pretending to be from God, that contradicts any part of natural law, ought immediately to be rejected as an imposture; for the Deity cannot make a law contrary to the law of nature without acting contrary to himself,--a thing in the strictest sense impossible, for that which implies contradiction is not an object of the divine power.

Here we actually see West setting up one substantive system of rules -- those discovered from reason -- against another -- those contained in Bible. And he states, in the event of a conflict, reason trumps. This is important because West "discovers" a substantive right to revolt, not from the Bible (because one isn't contained therein) but, following Locke, from "reason" or the natural law.

West actually has to deal with those parts of scripture which seem to forbid a right to revolt, and he does so like a true cafeteria Christian, explaining away parts of the Bible he finds "inconvenient." On Romans 13, West ends up concluding "that the apostle Paul, instead of being a friend to tyranny and arbitrary government, turns out to be a strong advocate for the just rights of mankind...." Or in other words, Paul really meant we do have a right to revolt against the magistrate, the opposite of what he said. Do keep in mind that the ruler to whom Paul told believers to obey was not some "godly" ruler, but the pagan psychopath Nero. West addresses that point:

I know it is said that the magistrates were, at the time when the apostle wrote, heathens, and that Nero, that monster of tyranny, was then Emperor of Rome; that therefore the apostle, by enjoining submission to the powers that then were, does require unlimited obedience to be yielded to the worst of tyrants. Now, not to insist upon what has been often observed, viz., that this epistle was written most probably about the beginning of Nero's reign, at which time he was a very humane and merciful prince, did everything that was generous and benevolent to the public, and showed every act of mercy and tenderness to particulars, and therefore might at that time justly deserve the character of the minister of God for good to the people,-- I say, waiving this, we will suppose that this epistle was written after that Nero was become a monster of tyranny and wickedness; it will by no means follow from thence that the apostle meant to enjoin unlimited subjection to such an authority, or that he intended to affirm that such a cruel, despotic authority was the ordinance of God. The plain, obvious sense of his words, as we have already seen, forbids such a construction to be put upon them, for they plainly imply a strong abhorrence and disapprobation of such a character, and clearly prove that Nero, so far forth as he was a tyrant, could not be the minister of God, nor have a right to claim submission from the people; so that this ought, perhaps, rather to be viewed as a severe satire upon Nero, than as enjoining any submission to him.

The first point -- the epistle was written during the beginning of Nero's reign when he was "nicer," not towards the end when he was a tyrant -- strikes me as invoking hair splitting context to reach a desired result, not unlike the way some gay Christians and Jews, who claim the Bible really isn't against homosexuality, conclude things like the Bible permits gay men to have oral sex because that is not "lying with a man," or that even if they did "lie with mankind," and commit an "abomination," that term means "ritual impurity," and is more like eating shellfish or the mixing of fabrics.

The second point -- if Paul said this when Nero was indeed acting tyrannical, he must not have meant it! -- shows West's willingness to disregard scripture that disagrees with reason.

Finally, as noted, West, like America's founders and many other pro-revolutionary preachers followed Locke. And Mr. Knapton misunderstands Locke's teachings. Locke did indeed conclude that "reason" discovers substantive truth, including substantive religious truth. Indeed Locke based his entire substantive theory of "the state of nature" (which theory was both wholly extra-biblical, and key to American founding philosophy) on "the law of nature" which Locke equated with reason. In his Two Treatises, Locke informs “The State of Nature has a law of Nature to govern it, which obliges every one, and reason...is that law....”

Was the American Revolution Consistent with Calvinism?

In a word, no. This is one of the points made in Gregg Frazer's Ph.D. thesis on The Political Theology of the American Founding. Calvinism actually better fits with the doctrine of Divine Right of Kings. Frazer cites George Willis Cooke, who, in 1902, wrote:

The doctrine of degrees, as taught by the Calvinists, was the spiritual side of the assertion of the divine right of kings. On the other hand, when the people claim the right to rule, they modify their theology into Arminianism. From an age of the absolute rule of the king comes the doctrine of human depravity; and with the establishment of democracy appears the doctrine of man's moral capacity.

Frazer goes so far as to assert that "Each of the so-called five points of Calvinism offended liberal democratic sensibilities." Calvin himself, in his Institutes of the Christian Religion, apparently addressed the question of Revolution and, according to Frazer, "made it abundantly clear that rebellion was never justified. He declared 'whatever they are and however they govern,' magistrates derive their authority 'from [God] alone.' And:

If we keep firmly in mind that even the very worst kings are appointed by this same decree which establishes the authority of kings [in general], then we will never permit ourselves the seditious idea that a king is to be treated according to his deserts, or that we need not obey a king who does not conduct himself towards us like a king."

Also, "we must honour [even] the worst tyrant in the office in which the Lord has seen fit to set him." And "if you go on to infer that only just governments are to be repaid by obedience, your reasoning is stupid." Finally, "make no mistake: it is impossible to resist the magistrate without also resisting God."

All of these are direct quotations taken from John Calvin, "On Civil Government," Book IV, Chapter 20 of Institutes of the Christian Religion in Luther and Calvin on Secular Authority, trans. & ed. Harro Hopfl (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991).

No wonder Jefferson and Adams ridiculed, often viciously, the doctrines of Calvinism. Clearly Calvin could not be used to justify revolt or rebellion. So the Founders had to turn to Locke. Indeed, John Witherspoon, an orthodox Christian and a Presbyterian minister, explicitly spoke in Lockean, not Calvinist terms when arguing for the Revolution.

Locke and the Enlightenment had to be where the Founders -- whether they were orthodox Christians, Deists, or Theistic Rationalists -- turned to justify the Revolution because the Bible itself is insufficient for establishing the principles upon which we declared independence and constructed the Constitution.

Here is where we get to an interesting and under-appreciated nuance of Founding theory. Churches, very important social institutions during the Founding era, played an important role supporting the Revolution. Because Unitarianism swept through Massachusetts Congregational Churches during the Revolutionary era, such Churches could effectively integrate pro-revolutionary messages into their sermons, and were thus particularly influential. Like the Unitarians of today, the Founding era Unitarians had a penchant for novel and unorthodox readings of the Bible.

Indeed, this blog has noted how theological unitarianism dominated the minds of the key Founders, many of them Virginia Anglicans. But let me now stress that the Unitarian ministers of the Unitarian Congregational Church in Massachusetts played a vital role in making theological arguments from the pulpit in favor of the Revolution. And they did so by integrating anti-Calvinist Enlightenment principles, which justified revolt, into their interpretation of the Bible.

There is a myth circulating that very few Unitarians existed among the Massachusetts Congregational Churches until sometime in the 1800s, well after the Founding. Apparently, this misconception existed in John Adams's time as well, and Adams himself addressed the matter:

I thank you for your favour of the 10th and the pamphlet enclosed, "American Unitarianism." I have turned over its leaves and have found nothing that was not familiarly known to me.

In the preface Unitarianism is represented as only thirty years old in New England. I can testify as a Witness to its old age. Sixty five years ago my own minister the Reverend Samuel Bryant, Dr. Johnathan Mayhew of the west Church in Boston, the Reverend Mr. Shute of Hingham, the Reverend John Brown of Cohasset & perhaps equal to all if not above all the Reverend Mr. Gay of Hingham were Unitarians. Among the Laity how many could I name, Lawyers, Physicians, Tradesman, farmers!

John Adams to Jedidiah Morse, May 15, 1815. Adams Papers (microfilm), reel 122, Library of Congress.

Calvin's anti-Revolutionary theology arguably was far more Biblical than the Unitarians' pro-Revolutionary theology. As Frazer comments on the Unitarian ministers:

When reading these sermons carefully, one is struck by the frequency with which passages of Scripture are interpreted in a manner convenient to the argument being made, but unrelated or opposed to their clear sense. Whether expounding upon a historical example or a statement of doctrine, the ministers were little concerned with standard rules of interpretation; such as adherence to context, comparison with similar passages, and fidelity to the clear sense of a passage when the terms are not ambiguous.

The controlling Biblical text on the right to revolt is Romans 13. Frazer notes Founding-era preacher Samuel West in one such sermon, "had to conclude that the apostle Paul meant the opposite of what he said." Frazer quotes Harry Jaffa's analysis, in A New Birth of Freedom, where Jaffa notes: "for more than a millennium and a half of the history of the Christian West, the prevailing opinion was that political authority descended from the top down, from God to kings and rulers, and that the obligation of the ruled was simply to obey." Another scholar noted:

Basing a revolutionary teaching on the scriptural authority of chapter 13 of St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans must rank as one of the greatest ironies in the history of political thought. This passage...served as the touchstone for passive obedience and unconditional submission from Augustine and Gregory to Luther and Calvin....The medieval church fathers as well as the reformers and counter-reformers of the sixteenth century all invoked this doctrine in denouncing disobedience and resistance to civil authorities.

And of course, the ministers who remained loyal to Great Britain argued their case from a literal reading of Romans 13 and Peter 2.

The Lockean notion of a right to revolt was discovered by "man's reason." This is one reason why our Theistic Rationalists Founders, though they believed some revelation was legitimate, had to elevate man's reason over Biblical revelation, because if revelation were supreme, then the philosophical case for the American Revolution would be greatly weakened.

Finally, a word on civil liberty and the Bible. As Frazer notes, "the Bible never discusses political freedom. Tory minister Jonathan Boucher correctly noted: 'The word liberty, as meaning civil liberty, does not, I believe, occur in all the Scriptures.'" What the Founding era preachers did was use the passages in the Bible which extol spiritual liberty meaning "freedom from sin" and substitute that with the notion of political liberty. Frazer writes, "God's purposes were to free His people to worship Him (e.g. Exodus 4:23; 5:1 & 3; 7:16) and to force Egypt to recognize Him as the true God (Exodus 5:2; 7:5 & 17; 10:2)." Indeed, as Robert Kraynak observed, "the Bible shows that God delivers the people from slavery in Egypt and supports national liberation, not for the purpose of enjoying their political and economic rights, but for the purpose of putting on the yoke of the law in the polity of Moses...the content of the divine law revealed to Moses consists, in the first place, of the Ten Commandments rather that the Ten Bill of Rights, commanding duties to God, family, and neighbors, rather than establishing protections for personal freedom" and such laws "regulate all aspects of religious, personal and social life."

In order to find "political liberty" in the story of the Israelites, their history had to be "radically rewritten." Frazer's point, drawing from various scholars, was that the Unitarian ministers, who were more likely to throw out orthodoxy and adopt a more cafeteria like approach to Biblical interpretation, were better suited to argue that the Bible supports political liberty than the orthodox preachers.

But whether the interpretations were sound, the Bible was used to support the Revolution. Thus, Frazer's analysis might shed light on the "study" put forth by Donald Lutz, which I often see bandied about by the "Christian Nation" crowd. Here is a description of Lutz study:

Dr. Donald S. Lutz, a professor of political philosophy at the University of Houston, conducted a massive groundbreaking study in which he examined some 15,000 documents written during America's founding era. He and his research associate, Dr. Charles Hyneman, found that a third of the quotations in these documents were from the Bible. 'Deuteronomy is cited more than John Locke or anyone else,'

From this, the "Christian Nation" crowd concludes that we were founded on Biblical principles and the Declaration and the Constitution are "Christian" documents. Now, the odd thing is neither the Declaration nor the Constitution cite the Bible, Scripture, or Jesus (except in the Constitution as the customary way of stating the date, In the Year of Our Lord). Indeed, the Constitution doesn't even mention God, and the Declaration speaks of a generic "Nature's God" and doesn't otherwise cite Scripture. One might argue, though, because of the brevity of those documents, there wasn't room to explain the connection between the ideas contained therein and Scripture. But the Federalist Papers, which explicate in detail the principles behind our Founding, would seem the perfect place to explain the connection between the Bible and Founding ideas. But the Federalist Papers similarly ignore the God of the Bible and Scripture.

So, the context behind Lutz's study, which I believe argues that "sermons" comprise most Founding era documents, may be the attempt of ministers to take the Revolution and Founding principles, which came predominantly from Enlightenment thought, and argue in their sermons that such were consistent with the Bible and Christian principles. Indeed, this supports the theory I've posited, similar to Bernard Bailyn's, that our Founders drew from a variety of intellectual sources including 1) Christian/Biblical, 2) Pagan/Greco-Roman, 3) Traditional Rights of Englishmen/Common Law, and 4) Natural Rights/Enlightenment. But it was the last one, the Enlightenment, which dominated and was the lens through which all sources were to be viewed.