A Celebration of Infidels


Contra Mundum
No. 1 Fall 1991
A Celebration of Infidels
The American Enlightenment in the Revolutionary Era
by Roger Schultz
(c) 1991 Contra Mundum
 Christian America' historians see the Revolution as an
expression of an apostate culture dominated by Enlightenment ideology. A closer
look reveals pervasive Christian influence.



A Christian America
Theories of Christian Resistance
Classical Influence
The Enlightenment
Deism
Benjamin Franklin
Thomas Paine
Thomas Jefferson
John Witherspoon
Franklin On Paine
Neo-Evangelical Historians on Witherspoon
The Dominion of Providence Over the Passions of Men

One of my graduate school professors, in an attempt to prove the
anti-Christian sentiment of the patriots in the American Revolution, quoted
Jefferson as saying that orthodox Christian doctrines were the "delirium
of crazed imaginations". Pressed on the nature of this quotation, he
eventually admitted that it appeared in a private letter in 1822 (forty-six
years after Independence!). I was amazed that anyone, much less a specialist in
the period, would claim that American colonists had repudiated their Christian
heritage on the basis of an obscure quote a half century after the fact.
Unfortunately, this is frequently done by historians, embarrassed by the
Christian influence on early American history, who in their own
"delirium" minimize the nation's religious heritage and become
cheerleaders for the Enlightenment.
	This bias against America's Christian roots is evident in current
histories and textbooks. Henry May admits that most historians are
"partisans of the Enlightenment; of liberalism, progress, and
rationality". Invariably they stress the influence of the Enlightenment
and make Jefferson, Paine, and Franklin, the least orthodox of the
revolutionary generation, representative of the era's thought. They either
ignore Christianity and Christian leaders or cast truly Christian leaders as
Enlightenment thinkers. Attempts to correct this bias are met with the sharpest
censure. That liberal, establishment historians would do this is not
surprising. But also following the herd are Christian scholars, from
neo-evangelical writers desperately seeking acceptance in academia, to
Christian Reconstructionists, who should know better.[1]

A Christian America
	In reality, the American revolutionaries were part of a culture that was
predominantly Christian and largely Reformed and Calvinistic. Though not all
American leaders would be considered true believers, they were all rooted in a
Christian tradition and steeped in a theistic world-view. The few
representatives of the period who abandoned the Biblical faith were not openly
hostile to the faith at the time. Either they disguised and muted their
theological peculiarities to avoid alarming their constituencies, or became
famous for heterodox positions embraced later in life. Accusations that
Christian leaders, such as John Witherspoon, were deeply influenced and
essentially compromised by the Enlightenment are false.
	The United States in the revolutionary period was the beneficiary of a century
and a half of Christian development. Historians often overlook the political
contributions of the Puritans, whose intense Biblical faith produced uniquely
American conceptions of liberty and covenant. The Puritans were champions of
jury trials, broad suffrage, a written bill of rights, and the notions of
"no taxation without representation" and "due process of
law"  -  political ideals associated with the American
Revolution.[2]
	In March, 1991 I attended a Symposium on the Bill of Rights, which was
sponsored by the U.S. Congress and held in the Senate Office Building, just
down the hall from Ted Kennedy's office. Former Chief Justice Warren
Burger delivered the opening address. (It doesn't get any more
establishment than this.) Donald Lutz, a Constitutional historian at the
University of Houston, argued that "The Pedigree of the Bill of
Rights" could be found in the bills of rights in colonial charters,
primarily authored by ministers. Three-fourths of the provisions from the U.S.
Bill of Rights, in fact, were outlined in the 1641 Massachusetts Body of
Liberties, a Puritan document that came complete with Bible verses attached to
each of the rights. (Conference participants gasped in horror when they
realized that for their cherished liberties they were indebted to the hated
Puritans, folks they considered repressive, religious zealots.) Note that this
Biblically-oriented Puritan document was adopted a half century before  the
English Glorious Revolution and John Locke's Second Treatise , the supposed
primary influences on the Revolution. Keep this as a handy fact to shock
liberals with: the roots to our Bill of Rights are in New England
Puritanism.[3]
	Of course, the Revolutionary generation was not as shocked by public religion
as are people today. Nearly half of the British colonies had been founded by
religious sectarians with explicitly Christian visions for society. Two thirds
of the original thirteen colonies had established state churches at the time of
the Constitutional Convention. Colonies mandated religious test oaths,
requiring that officeholders be theists, Christians, or Trinitarians. After
independence, virtually all the new state charters had references to Almighty
God as the source of power, authority, and legitimacy.[4]
	Even in colonies not noted for Reformed convictions Christian influences were
evident. Maryland is an excellent example. Originally founded as a haven for
Roman Catholics by George Calvert, Puritan settlers poured in and launched a
civil war in retaliation for the persecution they received as Protestants. The
matter was settled by the Act of Toleration (1649), the first colonial act to
guarantee religious freedom. To soothe aroused combatants and ensure religious
tranquility, the Act forbade the use of inflammatory terms: "heretick,
Scismatick, Idolator, puritan, Jesuite, papist, ... or any other name or
terme in a reproachfull manner." But the Act left no doubt that the colony
was a "Christian Common Wealth", mandating the forfeiture of property
and death for anyone who would "blaspheme God", "deny our
Saviour Jesus Christ to bee the sonne of God", "deny the holy
Trinity", or challenge the "Godhood of any of the Three persons of
the Trinity or the Unity of the Godhead". Strong stuff; especially for a
Toleration Act, especially in a colony not noted for its religious
fervor.[5]
	Or consider the case of Virginia. Though perhaps the most secular of the
colonies, the Dominion's laws were still very "puritanical".
Virginia had statutes against gaming with cards and dice, bastardy, adultery
(including requiring offenders to wear the scarlet 'A'), witchcraft,
and sodomy (a capital crime). Blasphemy was also illegal; a 17th century
crusade against "wicked oaths" in Henrico County netted 122
indictments, including one against a spry-tongued woman for sixty-five separate
offenses, and one against a man eventually imprisoned for "oaths
innumerable". Skipping church could bring serious consequences: fines,
corporal punishment, and death. Yes, in the "secular" colony of
Virginia, under Governor Dale, the third offense of Sabbath-breaking brought
the death penalty. A 1705 law, in force for over eighty years  -  through
the Revolution  -  enacted stiff penalties, including disqualification from
office, loss of civil liberties, and three years imprisonment, for denying the
existence of God, the Trinity, the Christian faith, or the divine inspiration
of the scriptures.[6]
	Nor was the disestablishment of the church in Virginia a purely secular
movement. For Jefferson, it might have been. But the real challenge to the
state church came from evangelical dissenters, who opposed the use of their
taxes to support the aristocracy's stuffy Anglicanism. Patrick Henry, for
example, established a reputation in Virginia in the "Parson's
Cause" (1763), by defending the colony from a preacher suing for
additional money. For Henry, the greedy preacher was not only a
"rapascious harpie", but also "unpatriotic" for appealing
to England to overturn the laws of his "country", Virginia. Recent
historians have underscored the evangelical contribution to disestablish-ment,
noting that persistent Baptists "transformed" the Virginia through
their unceasing assault on the state church and the established order. In
short, it was the pressure of committed, if iconoclastic evangelicals that
prompted the celebrated collapse of Virginia's religious establishment,
not the machinations of a few infidels.[7]
	Of course, the most visible symbol of America's Christian heritage in the
pre-Revolutionary period was the Great Awakening of the 1740s. The Awakening
revitalized American religion, touching all the colonies and uniting Christians
from diverse denominations. Jonathan Edwards, George Whitefield, and Gilbert
Tennent, representing Congregational, Anglican, and Presbyterian communions,
reveal the ecumenical vigor of the movement. For Edwards the movement had
eschatological significance; he believed that the new world, providentially
discovered on the eve of the Reformation, would be the catalyst of a world-wide
revival initiating a millennial age, of which the Great Awakening was a
harbinger.[8]
	The Awakening also challenged the liberalism of its day, as revivalists
opposed lukewarm and proto-Unitarian colonial ministers. Gilbert Tennent's
most famous sermon was against the "Unconverted Clergy". Nineteenth
century Presbyterian theologian Charles Hodge, incidentally, argued that the
Awakening had a negative impact on colonial Christianity by encouraging
emotionalism, challenging the church's authority, and undermining its
ability to exact discipline. (Following Hodge, some modern Reconstructionists
have criticized the Awakening for its antinomian and anti-ecclesiastical
tendencies. Their squeals about schism might be taken more seriously if the
congregations they are associated with had not split from their parent church,
the pca., and started little maverick denominations of their own.) In short,
while some Awakening leaders were stubborn and divisive, and perhaps
contributed to the erosion of ecclesiastical authority, they faithfully and
vigorously fought the apostasy of their time.[9]
	The Great Awakening also paved the way for the American Revolution through its
emphasis on individualism and democratization. Concerned about established
churches, England's desire to establish an American bishopric, and the
resulting loss of religious liberty, revivalists and their progeny tended to be
deeply suspicious of the mother country. One historian described the
Awakening's socio-political impact on Connecticut as a movement "from
Puritan to Yankee". Leaders of the Awakening were prominent supporters of
the Revolution. It is significant that when American patriots began their
invasion of Canada in 1775, they stopped for prayers at the tomb of George
Whitefield, the great evangelist of the Awakening. It should be stressed that
on the eve of the War for Independence, the American colonies experienced a
profound pan-colonial revival.[10]
	The concern for the Bible and Christianity in the Revolutionary era was not
restricted to preachers. Most Americans were firmly grounded in the scriptures.
Requirements for college entrance included the ability to read in Greek and
Hebrew. Quotations from the patriot leaders came more frequently from the Bible
than any other source. In the 1770s, for instance, 44% of all quotations used
by the founders came from Holy Writ, while 20% came from Whiggish authors, 18%
from Enlightenment writers, and 11% from the classics. M.E. Bradford's A
Worthy Company has shown the religious roots of the American founders. Though
expecting to find a large percentage of deists among the fifty-five members of
the Constitutional Constitution, Bradford discovered that the vast majority
were "orthodox members" of established Christian churches, who
sincerely believed they were perpetuating a Christian order. Most of the
churches of the time had Calvinistic roots and Reformed creeds. As the great
American historian George Bancroft put it, John Calvin was the "father of
America". As late as 1839, Alexis de Tocqueville noted that "America
is still the place where the Christian religion has the greatest real power
over men's souls", and that Christianity reigned by "universal
consent" (because people either believed its dogmas or were afraid to
appear not believe them).[11]
	Unfortunately, neo-evangelicals recently have attacked the idea of a
'Christian America'. While the country contained many professing
Christians and had a religious flavor, these 'un Christian America'
historians argue, it was not truly Christian because it did not consistently
meet Biblical standards. Certainly, early Americans were not perfect; they
surely fell short of God's standards in their personal lives, religious
duties, and civil observances. But no people has been perfect, nor should
absolute perfection be the standard by which to judge a nation as
'Christian'. Furthermore, these historians have unfairly created a
extra-Biblical, perfectionistic standard to judge the nation's heritage.
They charge that American Christians were "indifferent to the oppressed
and the unrepresented", too concerned about property rights, and, bringing
their accusations up to the present, too dependent on "strategic nuclear
arms". Notice how their 'biblical' standards sound like the
trendy nostrums of liberal academia. According to these standards, any believer
who did not endorse Walter Mondale and Michael Dukakis, embrace statist
socialism, or rail against the 'structural injustices' of society,
was not consistently Christian. Neo-evangelical historians still
'search' for a Christian America because they are judging the past by
today's Enlightenment ideals, rather than God's
law.[12] 
	In the late 18th century America was a Christian nation. It had a Christian
heritage; many colonies had been established specifically to create a Christian
civil order. Its citizens were self consciously Christian. The nation's
leaders universally sought to establish a Christian code of morality and civic
virtue. And finally, the Awakening had left a legacy of revival, evangelism,
and evangelical fervor. 
	One can illustrate the "Christian America" problem by asking whether
America's Bible Belt is Christian. Locals and Yankees alike agree that the
South is a uniquely religious section of the country. My southern friends
invariably insist, with either pride or disgust, that they live in the very
"buckle" of the Bible Belt. The region has a high percentage of
professing Christians; believing in God, Christ, and the Bible seems
prerequisite to being Southern. My pastor lived in Tennessee for two years
before meeting someone who admitted he was not a Christian. The area's
culture, traditions, and civic observances are permeated with Christianity
 -  religion is certainly much more visible here than what I experienced
growing up in the North. Evangelical churches are ubiquitous in the South,
dominating virtually every street corner. Local parsons publicly petition
God's presence at high school football games. Folks out there in
"radio-land" find it nearly impossible to escape Christian
programming, loaded with incomprehensible preaching and loathsome music. This
does not mean that all southerners are Christians, nor that their faith is
consistently Biblical. Religion in the Bible Belt is often shallow and
hypocritical. For many, no doubt, Christianity is a cultural veneer, part of
one's southern heritage, like "Dixie", the Stars and Bars, and
'possum pie. Many southern Christians have only a superficial knowledge of
their faith and probably could not name the twelve disciples, define
traducianism, or recite the Nicene Creed. Nor is the faith of Bible Belt as
strong as it once was  -  it is slowly eroding as Yankees trickle down from
the secular North. So, is the Bible Belt Christian? Despite its limitations,
yes. Southerners are largely professing Christians, define themselves and their
culture as Christian, stress a personal, evangelical experience, and at least
try to apply their faith in personal and civic spheres. For the same reasons,
America in the Revolutionary period was Christian.[13]

Theories of Christian Resistance
	The 'un Christian historians' further charge that the War for
Independence was proof of the Enlightenment's influence. Since Christians
are commanded to be submissive to the civil government, the argument goes, the
impetus for the Revolution had to be unbiblical. If Christians did support the
patriotic movement, it was because they were children of the era's
rationalism. As one of these historians asks: "[D]o we praise American
patriots for their defense of 'natural law' and 'unalienable
rights', or condemn them for failing to heed Paul's injunction in
Romans 13 to honor their legitimate rulers?" The only consistent
Christians, according to this theory, were Quaker pacifists and Anglican
loyalists. But this approach ignores a long Christian tradition of legitimate
resistance, articulated well in advance of the Enlightenment. (It is surprising
and disappointing that advocates of the 'un Christian' America theory
have Reformed connections, such as at Calvin College, and should be better
versed in Reformed history.) Christian pietists, modern day Anabaptists, and
evangelical wimps might argue that these theories of resistance violate the
ethic of Christ, but in no way can claim that resistance to tyranny is an
intrinsically rationalistic ideal or was necessarily spawned by the political
philosophy of the Enlightenment.[14]
	The Bible records numerous examples of the elect resisting
civil government: Abraham, Moses, Ehud, Jael, David, Obadiah, Daniel, Jesus
Christ, Paul, etc. The idea is best expressed in Acts 5: 29  -  "We
must obey God, rather than men". Christian theologians traditionally
argued that believers were bound to submit to political leaders, unless they
were compelled into idolatry or immorality, which would require them to disobey
God to whom they owed their highest allegiance. Calvin said if kings
"command anything against Him, let us not pay the least regard to
it..." Calvin, in fact, concluded his Institutes  with the following
admonition: "we are redeemed by Christ at the great price which our
redemption cost him, in order that we might not yield a slavish obedience to
the depraved wishes of men, far less do homage to their impiety." In
short, then, the Bible and Protestant theology provided Christians ample
justification for participation in the American War of
Independence.[15]
	Another factor for Christian participation in the War was the historical
example of resistance. John Adams said that one of the most influential works
of the Revolutionary era was A Defense of Liberty Against Tyrants , by Junius
Brutus, a Protestant who experienced bloody religious persecution in 16th
century France. Thoroughly Biblical and Calvinistic in approach, Against
Tyrants  directly challenged the presumptions of royal absolutism and the divine
right of kings, arguing that one must not obey the king when his commands
violated God's law, ruined His church, or harmed the
nation.[16]
	The Scottish covenanting tradition was another religio-historical precedent
for the War of Independence. In 1633, the Scots formed the "Solemn League
and Covenant" to resist English tyranny and the imposition of the
Anglicanism in Scotland. (During the same period of English tyranny Puritans
fled to Massachusetts.) The best example of the covenanter's philosophy of
resistance was Samuel Rutherford's Lex, Rex , which challenged royal
power by arguing that the law was king. Though Rutherford was not often quoted
in the colonies, and the extent of his direct influence is unknown, the ideas
of the covenanters were familiar to colonists. In Common Sense , for instance,
in true Rutherfordian fashion, Thomas Paine insisted that "In America, THE
LAW IS KING". John Witherspoon, a native Scot and a signer of the
Declaration of Independence, frequently invoked the example of the Scottish
covenanters during the Revolution as people who bonded together to resist
British tyranny. For Witherspoon, the Covananter tradition was an horizon for
the American Revolution.[17] 
	By the time of the War for Independence there was ample Christian theory
justifying resistance to a corrupt and tyrannical king. Jonathan Mayhew's
1750 sermon, "A Discourse Concerning Unlimited Submission",
foreshadowed preaching on the topic. During the war New England preachers were
called the "Black Regiment" because of the color of their clerical
robes and their fervent support of the Revolutionary cause. Though some have
charged them with politicizing the gospel and preaching up "the sacred
cause of liberty", these ministers were able to distinguish between
secular and sacred causes. They did see political and religious issues as being
interrelated, believing that British political tyranny would eventually destroy
religious freedom. As John Witherspoon put it "there is no instance in
history in which civil liberty was destroyed, and the rights of conscience
preserved entire". Yet as my own study has shown, even at the height of
political and civil strife, these ministers gave the greatest priority to
spiritual struggles, the need for salvation, and eternal destiny of
all.[18]

Classical Influence
	The legacy of classical antiquity also had a powerful influence on the
American patriots, who were steeped in the literature of Greece and Rome. For
the revolutionary generation, which shared what historian Page Smith has called
the "classical-Christian consciousness", the lessons of antiquity
tended to corroborate and confirm the Christian world view.[19]
	Their view of human nature, for example, was rooted in the Biblical
idea of Original Sin and buttressed by generally negative classical notions of
human motives and conduct. These convictions about human depravity led to
sometimes hysterical concerns about corruption in government and a passionate
commitment to cultivating civic virtue. The history of the Roman Republic,
especially when read from the perspective of Machiavelli's
"Discourses" or the pessimism of "Catos' Letters",
showed how immorality, licentiousness, and greed ultimately produced despotism.
English Whiggish authors further argued that man's natural corruption led
to self-interest in government and eventual tyranny. Hence the idea that power
corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Hence also the constant
pleading for limited government, public morality, and most importantly,
'virtue', ideals outlined in the classics. Classical texts, then,
reinforced both the doctrine of human depravity and the need for Christian
morality in society and society's leaders.
	These concerns are clearly seen in the U.S. Constitution. The framers,
following Montesquieu, outlined a network of checks and balances to guarantee a
republican government. Given their fears that politicians would usurp power,
the framers insisted on a division of power to prevent tyranny. The commitment
to a balance of powers and factions, growing from the convictions about human
depravity, was especially keen in James Madison, the "Father of the
Constitution". He learned this from Witherspoon, the leading colonial
Presbyterian, who directed Madison's graduate program at the College of
New Jersey. In short, the classical-Christian consciousness, with its emphasis
on human corruption and the need to insure public virtue, was the foundation
for the colonists' world view and was enshrined in the U.S.
Constitution.[20]

The Enlightenment
	The European Enlightenment also influenced Revolutionary America, but only in
a limited way. Americans diluted and modified Enlightenment ideas borrowed from
England, where the Enlightenment impulse itself was weaker than on the
continent. 
	Historian Henry May argues that there were four different streams of
Enlightenment thought. First, there was the Moderate Enlightenment of 17th
Century England, which emphasized reason, balance and order. These ideas were
not necessarily antithetical to orthodox Christianity; indeed, they fit nicely
with the notion of God's orderly creation and providence. John
Locke's political theories are an example of how this benign version of
the Enlightenment touched America.[21]
	The next types of Enlightenment thought were more radical and anti-Christian.
The Skeptical Enlightenment, best represented by Voltaire, flourished in France
around 1750. It was negative, iconoclastic, and feverishly opposed to the
Christian faith, but had few American adherents. The Revolutionary
Enlightenment, best represented by Rousseau and the later writings of Thomas
Paine, sought to destroy the old order and create a new heavens and new earth,
and came to fruition in the French Revolution. But it had few partisans in
America, where pragmatic leaders were more committed to sustaining a
conservative English tradition than dabbling with the speculative,
rationalistic ideals of the Enlightenment.[22]
	The Didactic Enlightenment is May's last category. Strong in Scotland,
particularly in Scottish "Common Sense" Realism, this form of
Enlightenment thought vigorously opposed the skeptical and revolutionary
versions of the Enlightenment and affirmed the legitimacy of reason and moral
judgments. In many respects this variety of the Enlightenment was
anti-Enlightenment, in that it tried to answer the radical and anti-Christian
tendencies of the 18th century. Historians who claim that John Witherspoon or
other revolutionary leaders became children of the Enlightenment by virtue of
quoting Scottish Realists have missed the whole point. By quoting philosophers
who attacked the radical Enlightenment, these American patriots tried to oppose
the spirit of the Enlightenment, and only the weirdest mental gymnastics could
transform them into philosophes  and deists. Yet this approach is not
uncommon. (Recently an historian used this rationale to suggest that, because
of their zeal for rationalistic certainty in defending Biblical inerrancy,
modern-day fundamentalists possessed the spirit of Enlightenment philosophes .)
In short, though they might quote from the 'conservative
Enlightenment', Christians in the Revolutionary age were no more the
disciples of the Enlightenment than are contemporary
fundamentalists.[23]
	Even when colonists quoted from moderate Enlightenment authors, and they did,
sometimes prodigiously, they did not necessarily embrace those authors'
philosophical systems. Historian Bernard Bailyn notes that colonists borrowed
quotations wholesale from Europe with a view to buttressing their arguments and
sounding learned. These superficial references in no way suggested that the
leaders in the Independence movement endorsed the Enlightenment. In fact, to
prove a point, they might cite authors with whom they otherwise vehemently
disagreed.[24]
	Modern Christians employ the same technique. Gary North, who has sharply
criticized Witherspoon for citing Enlightenment philosophers, frequently uses
secular sources to prove a point. Using such sources is legitimate. Invoking
non-Christian Austrian economists in support of some proposition, even a
Biblical one, does not diminish the truth of the proposition, nor necessarily
compromise the invoker. (His appeals to non-believing Jewish economist Ludwig
von Mises, for instance, does not necessarily make North an infidel or
Zionist.) Believing in "general revelation", Christians have always
held that non-Biblical references can illustrate the truths that scripture
teaches. The Revolutionary leaders used Enlightenment sources in the same way
scholars use sources today: to rebut ideas. It does not follow that they
endorsed everything those sources advocated, nor that their Christian
convictions were compromised in the process.[25]

Deism
	The religion of the European Enlightenment, deism, was very rare in America.
First, it is important to distinguish between 18th century classical deism and
radical deism. Today, deism, or radical deism, is synonymous with a belief that
God made the world and then left. In this view, God is a sort of an absentee
landlord. Or to use the metaphor of a watch, God created the world like a
watch, wound it up, and left it to run without any intervention. But to even
the freest 18th century American thinker, this radical deism would have seemed
strange and extreme. Classical deism, on the other hand, which did have
adherents in colonial America, was more of a "generic theism". It had
five principal ideas: 1) God exists, 2) God created and governs the world, 3)
God should be worshipped, 4) God has moral laws which people are bound to obey,
and 5) there is a future state of reward and punishment. Classical deism was
clearly not atheistic, agnostic, or even "deistic", according to its
radical, modern definition. 18th century American deists saw their religion as
a pure, simple monotheism in the Judeo-Christian tradition  -  a type of
moralistic, utilitarian Unitarianism.
	The critical differences between classical deism and orthodox Christianity
were over the nature of authority, salvation, and Christ. Deists stressed
"general revelation", seeking a "religion within the bounds of
reason alone", and tended to overlook or minimize the special revelation
of scripture. Deists saw Christ as a great and perfect man, but rejected,
ignored, or were "doubtful" about his claim to be the divine son of
God. Furthermore, deists had no concept of salvation and atonement, stressing
instead moral duties and ethical responsibilities. They did not, however, deny
the operation of God in history. It is arguable, in fact, given their stress on
how God superintended the direction of history that classical deists had a
keener sense of God's providence than modern evangelicals. In any event,
deism, even in this moderate form, was rare in 18th century America.
	Deism has been a blind spot in American historiography. Some partisans, eager
to show the influence of the European Enlightenment and tuned for rationalistic
arguments, find deists under every rock. Others, writing from a Christian
perspective and looking for radical deists, find nary a one. The real problem
is that people have failed to understand the type of deism articulated in the
colonies. The next section of this essay will examine the beliefs of three such
"classical deists" to explain the parameters of their world view. To
begin, Jefferson, Franklin, and Paine were not Christians and their views were
unBiblical. Yet, their ideas were not as radical as usually assumed; in fact,
they often protested that they were  religious and were  Christians.
Furthermore, recognizing that the rabble were not as sophisticated about
religious questions, these men were very cautious about publicizing their
ideas. And finally, even their cautious, moderate version of deism was very
rare in the colonies.[26]

Benjamin Franklin
Ben Franklin was an excellent symbol of the American Enlightenment, since the
rustic, provincial philosopher had an international reputation. Franklin was so
popular that when he served as a diplomat during the American Revolution, the
French decorated commemorative items with his chubby visage, including chamber
pots (which Franklin thought was a bit extreme). 
	In the area of religion, Franklin was a perfect example of a moderate,
classical deist. He confessed that he became a "thorough deist" at an
early age, but resented the labels of infidel and atheist, acquired because of
his "indiscrete disputations". Throughout his life he was dubious of
orthodox dogmas. During a dispute in his Presbyterian church, he opined that
"Original sin was as ridiculous as imputed righteousness". Though he
admired the ethical teachings of the Bible, he refused to accept the
inspiration of the Old Testament, because of the "abominably wicked and
detestable action of Jael". He tried, probably without much success, to
comfort his mother and persuade her that his soul was eternally safe when she
became frantic about her sons' flirtations with Arianism and Arminianism.
But Franklin eventually tired of deism for pragmatic reasons, saying "I
began to suspect that this doctrine, though it might be true, was not very
useful".[27]
	Franklin was very cautious about his beliefs, skirting around sensitive
religious issues to avoid trouble, which is a good indicator of public
religious sensibilities in America. One must read Franklin carefully, because
he systematically tried to avoid the impression of heresy. Franklin began his
Autobiography  by giving thanks to "God's providence" in the
following fashion: "I attribute the mentioned happiness of my past life to
his divine providence, which led me to the means I used and gave the
success". It is unclear whether Franklin is sincerely thanking God for his
success or is lauding his own diligence. Franklin's Autobiography 
concluded with a letter home after a 1757 voyage to England. Upon arrival,
passengers immediately went to church and "with hearts full of gratitude
returned sincere thanks to God for the mercies we had received". But it is
not certain that he shared these sincere thanks. As a non-Catholic, he
wouldn't vow to build a chapel, and, if inclined to vow at all, Franklin
said he would build a lighthouse. One wonders if Franklin was most thankful for
God's mercies or the ship captain's navigational skill.
	Franklin's ambiguous relationship with established religion is seen in
his career as a Pennsylvania officeholder. The colony required all civil
officials to take a Trinitarian oath, guaranteeing, at least in theory, godly
leadership. Here is the oath Franklin took: "I.... solemnly and
sincerely profess faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ his Eternal Son,
the true God, and the Holy Spirit, one God, blessed forevermore." Civil
officials also swore that the Holy Scriptures were written "by divine
inspiration". Clearly, Franklin was not completely candid in taking this
oath. (In 1776, he led the movement to modify the oath to refer only to the
existence of God and the authority of the Bible.) Yet, at the same time,
Trinitarian orthodoxy was not so repugnant to him as to preclude governmental
service. There is a lesson here, too, for enthusiasts of modern religious
oaths, who believe that these test oaths will secure a righteous republic. They
didn't work in the past. And we might ask of evangelicals, who see
Franklin's squeamishness about test oaths as a sign of apostasy, how many
would be willing to support even Franklin's simple vow about God and the
Bible as a civic test oath?[28]
	But Franklin also felt that religion was important and insisted that he had
always possessed religious principles. While he rarely attended divine
services, either because he studied on Sundays, or disliked the preaching, or
was angry that the congregation ran off a favorite minister, Franklin
faithfully supported the Presbyterian church in town. He had an intense Yankee
moralism that was reminiscent of the Puritans. Indeed, he praised Cotton
Mather's Essays to do Good  as one of the most influential works he had
read. During one intensely moralistic phase, he kept a notebook to chart
progress in his personal life, revolving around virtues such as temperance,
silence, order, resolution, frugality, industry, sincerity, justice,
moderation, cleanliness, tranquility, chastity, and humility, hoping to attain
moral perfection, though he discovered that this was a more "arduous"
task than anticipated. Though he did not see the Bible as authoritative,
Franklin believed it was useful and contained solid advice. Franklin's
writings, especially Poor Richard's Almanac , often sound like devotional
literature because they are filled with scriptural quotations and allusions,
usually from the Proverbs.[29]
	Franklin's moralistic commitments were especially strong in the area of
public ethics and virtue. According to Franklin, "You can not legislate
morality, but you must regulate behavior". People who use the first half
of the quote to deny the civil government's ability to maintain public
standards of morality have unwittingly perverted Franklin's sense.
Franklin echoed the convictions of the Revolutionary generation that virtue was
imperative for the success of the new country. Reportedly asked about what was
the best form of government, he responded, "A republic, if you can keep
it", revealing his fear that corruption and immorality might eventually
destroy a nation. 
	Concerned about civic virtue, Franklin often supported public expressions of
religion to strengthen society. He proposed a public fast day in New York
"to promote reformation and implore the blessing of Heaven on our
undertaking". While such a petition for God's favor would embarrass
evangelicals today, during the Revolution it was supported by the young
nation's most famous freethinker. Franklin was also a friend to George
Whitefield, published his material, gave him favorable press coverage during
the Great Awakening, and seemed sympathetic with the evangelist's aims,
particularly as they tended to improve the public moral climate. Franklin even
outlined a way of increasing the chapel attendance in the local militia. When
the militia chaplain, a "zealous Presbyterian", complained that
soldiers were more prompt in receiving rum rations than in attending church,
Franklin suggested the chaplain distribute the refreshments after prayers.
Franklin noted that the chaplain liked the idea and undertook the task, and
that "never were prayers more generally and punctually
attended".[30]
	What Franklin disliked about religion was its dogma and sectarianism. Though
"religiously educated as Presbyterian", Franklin said that "some
of the dogmas of the persuasion, such as the eternal decrees of God, election,
reprobation, etc., appeared to me unin-telligible, others doubtful..."
He complained that the end of preaching was "to make us good
Presbyterians  rather than good citizens ". Later, as a member of the
Anglican church, Franklin deleted theological material from the prayerbook. His
Revised Prayerbook  dropped everything from the catechism except the duty to
honor God and serve man, and purged from the Psalter all imprecatory psalms.
Franklin omitted all potentially divisive doctrinal material since he believed
that the differences of denominations only served "to divide
us".[31]
	Franklin developed his own religious creed, including the doctrines he
believed were central to all religions. He expressed it simply as:

That there is one God, who made all things. That he governs the world by his
providence. That he ought to be worshipped by adoration, prayer, and
thanksgiving. But that the most acceptable service to God is doing good to man.
That the soul is immortal. And that God will certainly reward virtue and punish
vice, either here or hereafter.[32]

These tenets are the essence of classical deism. They closely
paralleled the doctrines of Freemasonry, an organization to which Franklin
belonged, and nascent American Unitarianism. While Franklin's creed is not
orthodox, it is strongly theistic. It is, in fact, very similar to the
mainstream liberalism of 20th century American Christianity.
	Notice how this creed differs from the radical deism which is often attributed
to Franklin. Franklin clearly believed in God's providence, the existence
of heaven and hell, and the possibility of God's blessing and retribution
in the present life. Franklin's idea of providence bears further
consideration, especially since he believed that prayer was a human duty. In
his private religious devotions, Franklin said that since God was "the
fountain of wisdom", he thought it was "right and necessary to ask
God's assistance for attaining it". He was disturbed by Thomas
Paine's religious heresies, telling Paine that a belief in
"particular providence" was essential to religion. And at the
Constitutional Convention, Franklin sought prayers for God's blessing on
the new nation, arguing that "if a sparrow cannot fall without God's
notice, a nation cannot rise without his assistance".[33]
	Franklin maintained this theology until the end of his life. In response to a
question six weeks before his death, Franklin repeated his old creed, focusing
on the familiar themes of one Creator God, his providential governance of the
world, the obligation to worship him and do good to his children, the
immortality of the soul, and the future life. He also added his view of Jesus
of Nazareth, whose religion and system of morals were "the best the world
ever saw", but of whose divinity Franklin had "some doubts". But
on Christ's deity he quickly added  -  and this is vintage Franklin
 -  that "it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never
studied it, and think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect
soon an opportunity of knowing the truth with less trouble". He believed
there was "no harm" in the doctrine, especially if it made
Christ's doctrines "more respected and more observed". Franklin
concluded that, "having experienced the goodness of that Being in
conducting me prosperously through a long life, I have no doubt of its
continuance in the next, though with the smallest conceit of meriting such
goodness".[34]
	In conclusion, while Franklin was not a orthodox Christian, neither was he a
radical deist. According to current definitions Franklin might easily be
considered a conservative activist because he believed in God's
providential involvement in human affairs and the need for public morality and
religious observances. It is hard to imagine Franklin being enthusiastic about
current National Endowment for the Arts projects or the types of public
expression made famous by the Kitty Kat Lounge. If we are looking for symbols
of the liberal, secularized Enlightenment in America, we must look elsewhere.

Thomas Paine
	The most notorious infidel during the Revolutionary period was Thomas Paine.
Contemporaries saw Paine as an odious creature, infamous for his drunkenness,
bankruptcy, scandalous moral behavior, and strange beliefs. Though an icon for
future libertines, Paine had only limited influence on the early revolutionary
movement, and the influence he did have, through Common Sense , was not of a
radical nature. Paine was a latecomer to the colonies, not arriving til
November, 1774, after the First Continental Congress convened, and thus had no
influence on the early colonial resistance movement. Furthermore, Paine's
radical phase came in the 1790s, long after the American Revolution. In the
interim he traveled to France, joined its Revolution, proclaimed himself a
"citizen of the world", and picked up additional nutty, radical
ideas. (He became interested in Freemasonry, for instance, believing it
embodied the sun worship of ancient Druidism and could be an occult alternative
to Christianity.) When the French Revolution turned nasty, Paine returned to
the safety of the United States to propagate his kookery. But such ideas were
absent from Paine's Common Sense  (1776), an anonymously published pamphlet
which largely owed its popularity to its Biblical
orientation.[35]
	No Revolutionary period work is better known than Common
Sense , the 1776 pamphlet that helped push colonists from resisting Great
Britain to independence. What is often forgotten is that Common Sense  is full
of Biblical quotations and allusions and urged colonists to oppose monarchy
because it was unscriptural. Noting that Gideon refused Israel's crown,
Paine charged the king-coveting Hebrews with "disaffection to their proper
Sovereign, the King of heaven". Turning to the institution of the Hebrew
monarchy in I Samuel 8, Paine quoted the entire chapter with its warning about
the inevitable tyranny of monarchy and statist government. Then he commented:
"These portions of scripture are direct and positive. They admit of no
equivocal construction. That the Almighty hath here entered his protest against
monarchial government, is true, or the scripture is false". It is doubtful
that any evangelical would so strongly argue that the Bible addresses the
nature of government.[36]
	Paine used the same Biblical and religious terminology in calling for an early
American constitution. Of this charter Paine said : "let it be brought
forth and placed on the divine law, the word of God; let a crown be placed
thereon, by which the world may know, that so far we approve of monarchy, that
in America, THE LAW IS KING". Paine explicitly notes the divine origin of
law, and implicitly refers to Rutherford's great work. Again, it is
difficult to imagine a politician using such religious language
today.[37]
	Paine's early works included many religious allusions. American
independence was made possible, Paine argued, because of God's unique
providence, seen in the discovery of the new world at the time of the
Reformation and the distance from the mother country which allowed for
political autonomy. In the early numbers of the Crisis , Paine employed
religious language in virtually every paragraph. He explained, for example,
that "I am as confident, as I am that GOD governs the world, that America
will never be happy til she gets free of foreign
domination".[38]
	It is possible that Paine was not entirely honest about his religious
convictions in these passages. But even so, his constant use of Biblical motifs
suggests that colonists were responsive to that type of argument. If Common
Sense 's religious language does not reveal the true nature of Paine's
beliefs, it does reveal a great deal about the intellectual climate in America.
Common Sense  was successful, in part, because Christians found it persuasive.
It is noteworthy that the most influential work of America's most
notorious infidel has a strong religious tone.
	And even then, Christian clergymen were perceptive enough to recognize that
the author of Common Sense  was not wholly orthodox. They complained about
Paine's naïve concept of human goodness and his distasteful
comparison of original sin and hereditary monarchy. Though a proponent of
independence himself, John Witherspoon sharply criticized the anonymous
author's weak conception on human depravity. (In light of this, it is
curious that neo-evangelical historians both complain that Revolutionary era
clergymen did not challenge Paine's theology, and allege that Witherspoon
was weak on original sin, having a "high view" of
man.)[39]

Thomas Jefferson
	As a revolutionary leader, primary author of the Declaration of Independence,
U.S. president, and planter-philosopher, Thomas Jefferson was the era's
most famous freethinker and an icon of the American Enlightenment. Those
denigrating the Christian influence in American history inevitably raise up the
Virginia slaveholder and his neutered Bible with miracles and the supernatural
expunged as an examples of the liberal and secular bent of the American mind.
But the extent and influence of Jefferson's religious views have been
overemphasized. To begin with, Jefferson believed in God, claimed to take the
teachings of Jesus seriously, and considered himself a Christian. While his
beliefs were not orthodox, they were very similar to Franklin's moralistic
theism and the Unitarianism emerging in the 19th century. Further, Jefferson
was a very prudent infidel, revealing the heterodox notions developed later in
life only in private correspondence to trusted friends, and then only after
they were made fashionable by the Unitarian movement. Jefferson's
reluctance to reveal his true heretical views is a good barometer of American
religious convictions at the time. 
	Jefferson's most famous work, the Declaration of Independence, was filled
with religious imagery. Gary Amos's recent Defending the Declaration  clearly shows the Judeo-Christian orientation
of the Declaration. Terms like Creator, God, Providence, self-evident truths,
and Supreme Judge had specific religious connotations. A deist could use such
language, but so could orthodox Christians. While the language of the
Declaration was broad, it was intentionally theistic. Though scholars might
dispute Jefferson's intentions and the etymology of the legal and
political terms employed in the Declaration, the references to God and appeals
to divine standards in the document are inescapable. Such language today,
appearing in a valedictorian's address, would undoubtedly prompt an outcry
from the ACLU.[40]
	Most neglected about Jefferson's religious views is that he considered
himself a Christian. Indeed, he believed that he alone practiced a pure form of
the Christianity. His religious ideas were summed up in "A Syllabus of the
Doctrines of Jesus", in 1803, a privately circulated manuscript designed
to correct "libels" against him. Jefferson said of his religious
views:

They are the result of a life of inquiry & reflection, and very different
from the anti-Christian system imputed to me by those who know nothing of my
opinions. To the corruptions of Christianity I am indeed opposed; but not to
the genuine precepts of Jesus himself; I am a Christian, in the only sense he
wished any to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines, in preference to all
others; ascribing to him every human  excellence; & believing he never
claimed any other.[41]

Note Jefferson's insistence that he was a true follower
of Christ, and that his reputation for infidelity had been manufactured by
detractors. 
	His main argument in the "Syllabus" was with the Bible and
ecclesiastical tradition, which had distorted the teachings of Jesus. According
to Jefferson, traditions about Jesus were written down long after the events by
"the most unlettered and ignorant men". Established religions then
transmitted the ideals of Jesus in a "mutilated, misstated, and often
unintelligible" form, and "schismatizing" clerics further
corrupted, perverted, and disfigured the simple ethic of Jesus by grafting them
into "mysticisms of a Grecian sophist". All this sounds like the
standard liberal jargon disseminated by mainline denominational seminaries. 
	Jefferson's greatest invective was leveled at the systematic Biblical
theology of Calvinism. In an 1813 letter to John Adams, he said of Calvin:

He was indeed an atheist, which I can never be; or rather his religion was
dæmonism. If ever a man worshipped a false God, he did. The God described
in his five points [sic] is not the God whom you acknowledge and adore, the
Creator and benevolent Governor of the world, but a dæmon or malignant
spirit.[42]

In Jefferson's view, then, Calvinism, and probably most of
orthodox Christianity, was a perversion of the true religion of Christ and a
false, demonic religious system. (This hostility to Calvin is not restricted to
professed deists. John Wesley would probably have concurred with Jefferson.) In
short, Jefferson claimed that he was a true follower of Jesus, whose teachings
were misrepresented in the Bible and the traditional doctrines of the
established church.
	Jefferson described his religion as deism: he called himself a Deist, and said
he wanted to encourage a "pure deism", defining it as "pure
monotheism". He said of the Jews that "their system was Deism; that
is the belief of one only God". He prudently avoided questions of the
divinity of Christ and the inspiration of the Bible, insisting that they did
not interest him, trying to avoid the central rub between deism and
Christianity. In almost every instance, certainly in public pronouncements,
Jefferson tended to stress the common ground he had with Christians by
stressing the existence of God, his governance of the world, and the need to
honor him.
	His exuberant use of religious language is apparent in the 1786 "Act for
Establishing Religious Freedom", the act disestablishing the Anglican
church in Virginia, which Jefferson considered one of his greatest
contributions. The first sentence of the Act has four specific references to
God (Almighty God, the Lord, the Holy Author of our faith, etc.) In public
documents, even those with the reputation for being hostile to Christianity,
Jefferson self-consciously used religious terms to maintain common ground with
the evangelical dissenters who were his allies.[43]
	Though Jefferson despised traditional theology and opposed the established
church, he strongly emphasized the need for Christian morality in private and
public behavior. In the 1803 "Syllabus" Jefferson described
Christ's moral system the "most eloquent and sublime" ever
taught. Or as he told Adams in 1817, true religion was constituted by the
"sublime doctrines of philanthropism and deism taught us by Jesus of
Nazareth, in which we all agree". The whole purpose of the New Testament
was to "reform ...moral doctrines" and to "inculcate the
belief of a future state". Though it is not part of Jefferson's
standard persona, he believed the doctrine of the future life was a major
contribution of Jesus and was essential for encouraging morality; in other
words, it was important to teach about heaven and hell to get people to behave
themselves.[44]
	Finally, it must reemphasized that Jefferson was secretive about his beliefs.
His 1803 "Syllabus" was privately circulated to a three or four close
friends, with careful instructions not to reveal the contents. Jefferson told
one: "he could make any use of it his discretion would approve, confident
as Th: J. is that his discretion would not permit him to let it be copied lest
it should get into print". In other words, this was not for public
consumption. (Jefferson was afraid that "every priest" in the land
would attack the syllabus if it leaked out.) Jefferson sent the
"Syllabus" to another friend with this warning: "Th:J. would
thank Mr.L. not to put his name on the paper in filing it away, lest in case of
accident to Mr.L. it should get out." Jefferson's reticence about the
Syllabus is a good indication of the Christian temper of the American mind and
the type of public backlash he could expect if his deist notions became
public.[45]
	Jefferson at least partially succeeded in disguising his beliefs. While some
Christians bitterly attacked him during the election of 1800, some likening him
to the Antichrist, others came to his defense, arguing that enemies had trumped
up stories of Jefferson's infidelity. Tunis Wortman, for instance, argued
that one attack on Jefferson was "a base and ridiculous falsehood"
and dedicated his "A Solemn Address to Christians and Patriots" to
the ninth commandment. Arguing that "we have every reason to believe him
(Jefferson), in sincerity, a christian", Wortman claimed that the charge
of deism was "false, scandalous, and malicious" and that there was
not a single passage in Jefferson's writings "repugnant to
christianity, but on the contrary, in every respect, favourable to
it".[46]
In conclusion, the most famous infidels in the Revolutionary generation,
Franklin, Paine, and Jefferson, were ambiguous representatives of the
Enlightenment. While not true, orthodox Christians, they believed in God and
God's providential governance of the world, stressed the need for
Christian morality, defined themselves as Christians, showing the greatest
respect for Jesus and his teachings, and filled their works with religious
terminology and allusions. Knowing the orthodox religious climate in America,
they intentionally disguised and under communicated their heretical opinions.
And these heterodox views evolved late, after the American Revolution. And even
then, they felt constrained to reveal those views privately to trusted friends.
The writings of these leaders do not substantiate a wide influence of the
radical Enlightenment in America.

John Witherspoon
	 Originally a native of Scotland and a Presbyterian minister, Witherspoon came
to America to assume the presidency of the what is now Princeton, became a
resistance leader in New Jersey and a member of Congress, and was a signer of
the Declaration of Independence, the only clergyman to do so. According to a
probably apocryphal legend, Witherspoon delivered the critical pro-independence
speech at the Continental Congress, after a mud-soaked, all-night ride to
Philadelphia. His contemporaries did not overlook his efforts in behalf of the
revolutionary cause, especially since many of them considered Scots
troublemakers and viewed the Revolution as a "Presbyterian
Rebellion". At the start of the revolution, Horace Walpole opined that
"Cousin America has run off with a Presbyterian parson". Adam
Ferguson, secretary of the British Peace Commission to America in 1778, charged
that Witherspoon was at the "head" of the rebellion (Witherspoon was
on the Continental Congress committee to evaluate the British proposal), but
hoped that if proper measures were taken "we should reduce Johnny
Witherspoon to the small support of Franklin, Adams, and two or three of the
most abandoned villians in the world, but I tremble at the thought of their
cunning and determination against us". Even the first French foreign
minister to the United States saw Witherspoon as the "soul of his
party" in Congress.[47]
	In addition to his personal contribution to the Independence
movement, Witherspoon deeply influenced the direction of the early republic as
an educator. His graduates from Princeton included the following: a president
of the United States, a vice- president, ten cabinet members, six members of
the Continental Congress, 39 U.S. representatives, 21 U.S. senators, 12
governors, 56 state legislators, 30 judges, three U.S. Supreme Court judges,
and six members of the Constitutional Convention. A number of his students
became educators, particularly in the South, of which 13 were college
presidents, including founding presidents of seven colleges. And many Princeton
graduates became ministers. Of the 188 ministers on the General Assembly roster
in 1789, 52 had studied under Witherspoon.[48]
	Despite a stellar transatlantic ecclesiastical and political career, John
Witherspoon is one of the most neglected of the Revolutionary leaders. What
attention he does receive is usually unflattering. Liberal historians often
depict him as a stuffy, straightlaced parson. And now, Christian historians are
attacking Witherspoon. "Un Christian America" historians, through
either sloppy scholarship or deliberate misrepresentation, allege that
Witherspoon was shaped by the Enlightenment and was hyper-patriotic,
subordinating religious values to political goals. Borrowing from these
neo-evangelicals as well as liberal Presbyterian historians, Gary North calls
Witherspoon an apostle of "Apostate Covenantalism", who signed a two
hundred year "jail sentence for the American church" as a
"covenantal agent for the Whig-Patriot churches". While other
historians charitably allow that Witherspoon was ignorant of the way the
Enlightenment compromised his Christianity, North charges he deliberately
conspired to create an apostate, pluralistic, Mason-dominated religious and
civil order.[49]
	The problem with these contemporary accounts is that they neglect
Witherspoon's formative Scottish career, which is the key to understanding
his thought. Witherspoon's forged his basic political commitments as
leader of the Popular Party, a evangelical group contesting the dominance of
the Church of Scotland by the liberal Moderate Party. Witherspoon was committed
to basic democratic ideals, since he and his party insisted that the people of
a parish must vote on the calling of ministers, rather than allowing the
parish's patron and ancient heritor alone to make the decision. Since he
was fighting against what he described as "ecclesiastical tyranny",
Witherspoon also emphasized the "freedom of conscience", arguing that
the church's liberal bureaucracy could not compel ministers to do what
they believed was wrong, as in ordaining or installing ministers to whom the
people of a parish objected. In short, the stands Witherspoon took on freedom
of conscience and the oppressive nature of tyranny during the Revolution
evolved from the ecclesiastical struggles of the Popular-Moderate controversy
in Scotland.[50]
	The controversy also crystallized Witherspoon's orthodox convictions and
forced him to challenge the growing liberalism of the church. The best example
of his confrontational approach to the "enlightened" wing of the
church is his Ecclesiastical Characteristics , a superb piece of satire on
the order of C.S. Lewis' Screwtape Letters . In the Ecclesiastical
Characteristics , a Moderate leader gives advice to a fledgling minister on how
to be a good liberal through a series of maxims. The first maxim says that all
suspected heretics "are to be esteemed men of great genius, vast learning,
and uncommon worth; and are ... to be supported and protected".
Witherspoon's second tongue-in-cheek maxim is that the actions of the
loose and immoral should be described as "good humored vices". The
true moderate man, according to maxim three, must speak of the Confession of
Faith "with a sneer; to give sly hints, that he does not thoroughly
believe it; and to make the word orthodox  a term of contempt and
reproach". In other maxims, the moderate preacher is told to quote pagan
authors, not scripture, use "rational considerations" in sermons,
have "great charity" for Atheists and Deists, and to despise all
learning but the system of Leibnitz and Shaftesbury, which has been so well
licked into form and method by the late Mr. H__n". The Moderate Party,
incidentally, included Francis Hutcheson, Thomas Reed, and other
representatives of the Common Sense Philosophy which was supposed to have
influenced Witherspoon. In the Moderate controversy, then, Witherspoon clearly
attacked the rationalism of the Enlightenment.[51]
	Witherspoon's sermons show that he was thoroughly orthodox and
evangelical. His communion sermons always had evangelistic appeals for people
to be "born again" and experience a saving faith. He vigorously
endorsed and propagated the Reformed faith, which for Witherspoon included
postmillennial expectations of the triumph of Christ's kingdom and the
idea of national blessing and cursing from God's hand.[52]
	Witherspoon did use reason, but only in apologetic sense of appealing to
general revelation. Referring to scripture as the "unerring
standard", Witherspoon stressed: "Let not human understanding be put
in the balance with divine wisdom." Reason, always subordinate to the Word
of God, had value in corroborating the Bible and in "inducing men to
believe the other truths in scripture". As Witherspoon in one sermon:

	If the testimony of God in scripture is to be rested on, this one passage is
sufficient; but the unbelieving heart is ready to challenge and call into
question every such scripture declaration. Therefore, I shall, first, briefly
lay before you some of the scripture declaration on this subject; and secondly,
confirm them from experience, the visible standard of the world, and the
testimony of our own hearts.[53]

	And Witherspoon did attack Enlightenment philosophers, including
representatives of Scottish Realism, of which Witherspoon is alleged to be an
unwavering disciple. He warned against mixing philosophy and the gospel, and
was very critical of "nominal Christians" who "disguise or alter
the gospel in order to defend it". As he explained in one sermon:

Hence the unnatural mixture often seen of modern philosophy with ancient
Christianity. Hence the fundamental doctrines of the gospel are softened,
concealed, or denied; as, the lost and guilty state of man by nature, his
liableness to everlasting misery, and the ransom which was paid by our Redeemer
when he died on the cross.[54]

	Witherspoon, selected as Princeton's president precisely
because of his evangelical enthusiasm, maintained these orthodox commitments
throughout his career in America. He was not guilty, as some have charged, of
subordinating the gospel to political activity or fashioning a new gospel of
"the sacred cause of liberty". In all of his political sermons,
delivered before, during, and after the conflict, Witherspoon stressed that the
patriot's greatest concern should be his soul's salvation. Political
concerns, the revolutionary cause, and nation's destiny, though important,
were of little consequence compared to the individual's eternal
destiny.[55]
	Nor is the charge accurate that Witherspoon was a hyper-nationalist who
confused political and religious issues. Witherspoon did believe that America
was unique and had been uniquely blessed by God because of its strong religious
heritage. But he developed and articulated this idea of American exceptionalism
while still in Scotland, long before he came to America. This notion, right or
wrong, was not a product of the Independence movement. Furthermore, Witherspoon
believed that political and religious issues were intertwined and inseparable.
Since there was no instance in history where "civil liberty was lost and
religious liberty preserved entire", he argued, "if we yield up our
temporal property, we at the same time deliver the conscience into
bondage". Like many Americans, Witherspoon feared the expansion of the
Anglican establishment, and those fears were exacerbated by his Scottish
heritage. In his sermons during the War for Independence, he reminded listeners
of the Scottish covenanters and Oliver Cromwell, Christians who resisted
English political and religious tyranny in their own day. Though he was a
"true son of liberty", as John Adams put it, Witherspoon's
ultimate reasons for resisting the crown were not Whiggish, but inherently
religious.[56]
	Witherspoon's reputation as an apostle of the American Enlightenment
arises from his Lectures in Moral Philosophy , an influential set of lectures
dealing with ethics, epistemology, and political philosophy. Witherspoon
compiled the lectures shortly after arriving in America, and delivered them in
essentially unaltered form to each year's senior class for the rest of his
teaching career. It is often the only work cited by historians, who ignore his
other, voluminous writings. And it is one work Witherspoon refused to publish,
believing it was poorly written and organized. There is something strange about
outlining a person's philosophy from a work he did not want in print, and
it is questionable how representative the "Lectures" were of
Witherspoon's thought.[57] 
	By misconstruing his intent in the "Lectures", arguing that since he
uses rational arguments and quotes little scripture, Witherspoon had become a
follower of the Enlightenment, historians have misread Witherspoon's basic
philosophy. They fail to realize that in talking about natural philosophy or
general revelation, for apologetic reasons, Witherspoon was not abandoning the
authority of scripture or Christian orthodoxy. This does not mean that
Witherspoon was unaffected by his age  -  he did use the philosophy of
Scottish Realism to combat the radical Enlightenment. But no honest historian
can claim that Witherspoon was an Enlightenment enthusiast or the apostle of
"Apostate Covenantalism".
	In short, Witherspoon is an excellent example of a Christian in the
Revolutionary period. His career was built upon defending the faith once
delivered, both by stressing evangelism and combating liberalism in the church.
He was an excellent example of the Reformed faith, true to the confessional
standards of the church, stressing God's providential movement in history,
confident in the ultimate triumph of the cause of Christ and the gospel. His
activity in the American Revolution provides a solid model of how a devout
Christian balances concerns about the salvation of souls, the security and
freedom of the church, and the temporal freedoms guaranteed American citizens.
Let us hope that contemporary Christians will become more familiar with this
Christian patriot, from his own writings and responsible biographies, and not
through the jaundiced interpretations of Witherspoon's current
detractors.
	During the twentieth century, historians have increasingly minimized the
influence of Christianity on the War for American Independence. Sometimes it is
accidental, sometimes intentional. The historian who used Jefferson's 1822
quote about the "delirium" of Christian dogma still uses that quote
to prove the influence of the Enlightenment on the Revolutionary generation to
his classes. Apparently constrained by neither fear of exposure nor canons of
objectivity, he still catechizes youngsters with his celebration of infidels.
Unfortunately, Christian students must not only beware of these modern-day
infidels, which is to be expected, but also of neo-evangelical historians, who,
anxious to pronounce the shibboleths of the liberal university, perpetuate its
myths. Perhaps, someday, a truly Christian historian will explain the
Revolution the way Witherspoon did at the time, as an example of "The
Dominion of Providence Over the Passions of Men".  

Contra Mundum Root Page 4-19-95