Indeed, Mr Hume, the past is another country. They do things differently there.
Brooke Allen wrote a good book about the Founders’ religion. At any rate I recall thinking it was well researched & written. Now, looking it up on Amazon, I see there is quite a genre of such books from different points of view.
On a more particular note, do you (or readers) know of any comments any of the founders may have made concerning your eponym?
Jefferson thought that Hume’s History of England was dangerous: he prohibited it from inclusion in the University of Virginia library. He said it was responsible for the spread of “toryism”.
A bit odd, considering that Hume was a Whig.
@Bradlaugh
So was Burke, interesting enough. And Burke and Jefferson aren’t exactly ideologically compatible.
David Holmes’s book “The Faiths of the Founding Fathers” and Stephen Waldman’s “Founding Faith,” well put the religion/FFs issue in perspective. James Hutson has a quote book that is very fair with lots of useful quotes showing the differences between the more orthodox and heterodox FFs.
I think Holmes, though, understates the extent to which Jefferson, J. Adams and company had to keep their heterodoxy on the down low.
My blog American Creation (to which SR kindly permalinks) deals with this issue on a daily basis and tries to have posters of different perspectives to “check” one another.
One point I/we stress is that the label “Christian” back then as well as today has disputed meaning (and indeed, the theological sectarian disputes that caused war and bloodshed were on their minds).
Jefferson, Franklin and J. Adams all (apparently) believed in an active personal God and thought of themselves “Christian”/presented their creed under the auspices of “Christianity” — either “rational Christianity” or “unitarian Christianity.”
They’ve been labeled “Deist” in part because they rejected core doctrines of Christian “orthodoxy” including original sin, Trinity, Incarnation, Atonement, infalliblity of the biblical canon, eternal damnation.
They didn’t think of themselves as “Deists” like Thomas Paine, however. Yet, to the “orthodox,” “rational Christianity” was little better or different than Deism.
If there is anything that many scholars (of both sides) don’t understand, but we do, it is that.
The kind of “rational Christianity” that the key FFs believed in was exposited by British Whig theologians like the Socinian Joseph Priestley and the Arian Richard Price. Jefferson may not have bought everything those guys taught (in fact, he was quite explicit when he disagreed with them). But he loved them, as fellow theological unitarians, nonetheless.
Here is a quote from one of Priestley’s orthodox critics that typifies how the “orthodox” viewed the “rational Christianity” of the key Founders:
“As to your concern for the conversion of infidels, I look upon it as the cant of a philosophical crusader, and am sorry I cannot coincide with you in your projected conciliation of the rational truths of philosophy, with the mysterious truths of Christianity. I am apprehensive that it is impossible, without endangering the cause of both, to bring them into too close a contact….It is a moot point with me, whether the really thinking and intelligent philosophers, whom Dr.Priestley wishes to convert, are greater infidels in their present state of unbelief, than they would be, if converted by him into rational Christians,…”
http://americancreation.blogspot.com/2009/09/orthodox-on-joseph-priestley.html
Never judge historical figures by contemporary standards. By the standards of their day, the Adames, Washington, etc., were well within the mainstream of colonial Christianity. Franklin and Jefferson were on the fringe, no question, but still largely identified with the Christian tradition.
One particular problem is with the definition of the term “deist.” If one reads Jefferson and Franklin re: religion one sees that my modern standards they would qualify as theists. Franklin, for example, affirmed the power of divine Providence (with a capital “P”), as did Jefferson. They did not believe in a distant “watchmaker” god, they believed in a God who intervened in human affairs and in individual human lives. They may well have been wrong about that, but that’s what they believed. And that’s not the modern idea of “deism” — they weren’t “deists” by modern standards, they would be classified as theists. Now, in their own day, they would be thought of as deists. But in our day, that word has a different meaning, leading to confusion.
Whoops! By the time I posted, Jon Rowe had already written a much better post stating the point I was trying to make in a much better way. Thanks, Jon! American Creation rocks!
Heh. It was a Providential coincidence. (Mark is a co-blogger at AC.)
As a follow up to his post, I’d note both “Christian” and “Deist” have broad and narrow meanings. One unfair thing scholars from both sides do is read one term broadly and the other narrowly to try and “capture” a Founder for each respective side.
The broad understanding of Deism includes belief in an active personal Providence. The broad definition of Christianity includes anyone who call himself a Christian or is formally/nominally associated with a Christian church.
The narrow definition of Deism means belief in a non-intervening God. The narrow definition of Christianity requires strict adherence to the orthodox Trinitarianism found in, for instance, the Nicene Creed.
Broadly understood, the “key FFs” (the first 4 Presidents, Ben Franklin and a few others) were both “Christians” and “Deists.” Hence David Holmes’ term “Christian-Deism” to describe their creed. Narrowly understood they were neither. Hence terms like “unitarianism” or “theistic rationalism” to describe this creed.
Perfect description, Jon. Great explanation. Precisely right.
And that Christian-Deist approach isn’t simply restricted to the Founding generation. The lion of the South, John C. Calhoun, was a Christian-Deist and a staunch unitarian. Even Lincoln’s mature view of religion could be classified in the same tradition.
hume’s history of england supposedly was perceived to have a pro-tory bias. additionally, he ridiculed lockean social contractism, so no surprise that jefferson was not well disposed….
Ah, the best contribution Hume made to political philosophy: driving the stake through the heart of social contract utopianism! In one fell stroke, he vanguished Hobbes, Locke and Rosseau. For that alone, he should be praised by all who follow him…
@David Hume
As far as I can tell, John Adams had little use for The History of England as well.
The fact that both atheists/agnostics and religious fundamentalists try to claim the Founding Fathers seems to be a symptom of the American cult of the Founding Fathers. People through the ages envisioned the divine to be a reflection of their personal worldview and ideology and similarly modern Americans want to believe the beloved Founding Fathers were of course really on their side. It’s an article of faith independent of any historical facts.
History is a tool people use to control the present.
Pingback: Positive Liberty » Competing Definitions of “Deism” and “Christianity”