Charles J. Reid on Brian Tierney Part 3- From American Creation

Hello My Name Is Gratian And I Think I Have Something To Add To This Discussion

Hello again American Creation family! I hope you all remember me in that I do not think I have posted here since Summer. This was due to the time consuming re-launching of my real estate business after it turned out that the oil had not ruined the part of the Gulf Coast I live in forever after all. Anyway, I am going to dive in and pick up right where I left off: Charles J. Reid's review of Brian Tierney's book, The Idea of Natural Rights: Studies on Natural Rights, Natural Law, and Church Law 1150 to 1625. Before doing so, I think it wise to summarize where we were in the discussion 4 months ago, the first two parts in this series, and the concept of a "zone of autonomy" being at the core of the Christian argument for natural rights.

Four months ago we were involved in a debate over my challenge to the idea articulated by Ed Brayton, Gregg Frazer, and Jon Rowe that, "that the Bible nowhere speaks to the concept of unalienable rights, especially an unalienable right to religious and political liberty." I pointed to the work of Brian Tierney and his contention that the pre-Aquinas development of Canon Law heavily impacted the evolution of the Western Legal Tradition which in turn had great influence on our founding era idea of natural rights. Then I followed that general overview of Reid's book review with a post that began to sort through some of the details. I started with Reid's brief summary of the contributions of Justian, Gratian, and the "decretists" as he follows Tieney's account of the evolution of the idea of natural rights.

The "decretists" were the Canonists that sifted through the works of Gratian per Justinian and attempted to address some of the inherent contradictions they saw in his work. In the process they began to articulate a coherent case for natural rights that I think is summed up best by Rufius,

Rufinus began, "'a certain force instilled in every human creature by nature to do good and avoid the opposite.' ' This force, he continued, "'consists in three things, commands, prohibitions, and demonstrations. . . . It cannot be detracted from at all as regards the commands and prohibitions . .. but it can be as regards the demonstrations, which nature not command or forbid but shows to be good."'

The "demonstrations" alluded to above are actions that the Bible neither commands nor prohibits and leaves to each man's own discretion as to whether "nature" shows it to be "good". It is my contention that our discussions of the differences between "Classically Conservative" vs. "Classically Liberal", "Enlightenment" vs. "Christendom", and "French Revolution" vs. "American Revolution" should all start with the question of, "Liberty" or "License" per Locke via Hooker.

Thus, my question to Brayton, Rowe, Frazer, is how we can even begin to have this conversation about the "Christian" idea of rights until we enlarge the historical discussion to include the men I have mentioned above and their contributions to the Western Legal Tradition?

Marx or Locke From 3rdWAVElands

This is a post from my real estate blog but references a theme I hit on here as well. Here is the money quote:

On the other hand, Locke felt that the right to property was an inalienable right given to man by God. He thought it essential that man be allowed to keep the fruit of his labors for him to pursue happiness. Furthermore, he was absolutely against one group of people using the power of government to take property from the other. As was stated, this was the idea that was at the core of our founding as a nation.

More "Extremes" from the Harvard Narrative?

In his last post Jon Rowe cited Paul Sigmund, of Princeton, reviewing John Marshall, of Johns Hopkins on John Locke. That piece contained this statement:

"Locke believed that Christ died not to atone for Adam's sin, but to show us the way to eternal life."

In the comments section I proposed changing that to the following:

"Locke believed that Christ died not to atone for Adam's sin, but for the sin of each individual."

I went back and read his notes on Romans 5:12-19 from The Works of John Locke, Volume 8 and it seems clear that he did not believe in original sin. You can read it for yourself, but in my reading I found no dispute with the first half of this statement quoted above from Jon's post.


Nonetheless, I do dispute the second half of the quote. I base this on reading Locke's notes on Romans 3:24 in which he stated this:

"For it is to God we are redeemed, by the death of Christ"

Thus my contention that Locke believed that Christ died for our personal sins.


Here is more from Locke on the topic of redemption from The Reasonableness of Christianity that brings some context to my quote above:

"IT is obvious to any one, who reads the New Testament, that the doctrine of redemption, and consequently of the gospel, is founded upon the supposition of Adam's fall. To understand, therefore, what we are restored to by Jesus Christ, we must consider what the scriptures show we lost by Adam. This I thought worthy of a diligent and unbiassed search : since I found the two extremes that men run into on this point, either on the one hand shook the foundations of all religion, or, on the other, made Christianity almost nothing : for while some men would have all Adam's posterity doomed to eternal, infinite punishment, for the transgression of Adam, whom millions had never heard of, and no one had authorised to transact for him, or be his representative ; this seemed to others so little consistent with the justice or goodness of the great and infinite God, that they thought there was no redemption necessary, and consequently, that there was none ; rather than admit of it upon a supposition so derogatory to the honour and attributes of that infinite Being ; and so made Jesus Christ nothing but the restorer and preacher of pure natural religion ; thereby doing violence to the whole tenour of the New Testament."

I think this says it all and gives us a true picture of what Locke taught about original sin and redemption. It also makes me wonder if the modern Locke scholars just ignore the things that do not align with their preconceived notions of Locke that do not fit with the "extremes" Locke warned against found in the Harvard Narrative? Locke seems to have had a problem with Augustine and Calvin, not the Bible.

Calvin, Ponnet, and Deposing Tyrants

Jon Rowe stated the following in his last post about Romans 13:


"Another authentic expression of orthodox Trinitarian political theology is that Romans 13 gives guidelines for rulers, but ultimately demands submission to government no matter WHO is in power, even if pagan tyrants. This was Calvin's position. Arguably this was St. Paul's position when he told believers to submit to the pagan psychopath Nero. Thus revolt -- whether to Clinton, Obama, Reagan, GW or GHW Bush, Stalin or Hitler -- is forbidden. But godly rulers, once in power, are free to enact biblically influenced laws, for instance the burning of heretics at the stake. "


This seems to state that Calvin taught that to revolt against a tyrant was forbidden with NO exceptions.  If that is in fact what Jon is stating here he is completely mistaken.  The following is Calvin's own words:


"I speak only of private men. For when popular magistrates have been appointed to curb the tyranny of kings, (as the Ephori, who were opposed to kings among the Spartans, or Tribunes of the people to consuls among the Romans, or Demarchs to the senate among the Athenians; and, perhaps, there is something similar to this in the power exercised in each kingdom by the three orders, when they hold their primary diets.) So far am I from forbidding these officially to check the undue license of kings, that if they connive at kings when they tyrannise and insult over the humbler of the people, I affirm that their dissimulation is not free from nefarious perfidy, because they fraudulently betray the liberty of the people, while knowing that, by the ordinance of God, they are its appointed guardians."(bold is mine)

Gary Amos, the Declaration, and "Christian" Ideas?

In my last few posts have spent some time trying to shift the discussion away from asking what key figures of the founding were or were not Christian to asking if the ideas that shaped the founding were or were not Christian.  I chose to do this in the context of a series of essays at "Cato Unbound" that addressed the question of which factors led to the emergence of the modern world produced by the what Alvin Toffler would call the "Second Wave".    

In that spirit, I attempted to narrow down the topic a bit by asking two questions that I hoped would be a baseline for the beginning of a Socratic dialogue about what ideas shaped the founding era, the origins of those ideas, their impact on bringing about the modern world, and how we can apply this information in our efforts to catch the "Third Wave".  In the spirit of putting first things first, I would like to focus on the first question:

"Which Christian ideas, if any, helped bring us into the modern world?

In his essay "How an Engineering Culture Launched Modernity" at Cato Jack Goldstone provided a quote from Joseph Priestley that he felt captured the spirit of the the founding age:

"Nature, including both its materials and its laws, will be more at our command; men will make their situation in this world abundantly more easy and comfortable, they will prolong their existence in it and grow daily more happy. . . the end will be glorious and paradisiacal beyond that our imaginations can now conceive."

Goldstone then added the following analysis: 

"This was a radical departure from the belief of almost all civilizations (including that of the classical and medieval West) that humanity’s golden age lay in the past. Instead the new engineering culture proclaimed that an earthly paradise lay in man’s future, and that it would be brought about by mankind’s own progress in developing and applying new scientific knowledge rather than by divine redemption."

He then went on to say what was perhaps the chief catalyst in the acceptance and spread of this new engineering culture:

       

"What I believe is most critical to insist upon is the degree to which Europe itself had to repudiate central elements of its own history and culture — the absolute authority of hereditary rulers, the prohibition of diverse religious beliefs in any one society, the elevation of the rights and needs of political and social status elites above those of ordinary inhabitants — in order to develop and implement the idea of society as a community of free individuals sovereign over a limited state. Yet this was necessary if the marriage of engineering culture and entrepreneurship was to survive and flourish, and produce the economic and technological miracles of the last two centuries.

The Origins of "Christian Ideas" that Helped Bring Us into the Modern World

In an attempt to begin answering one of the questions I brought up in my last post I copied and pasted this short excerpt from the notes of John Adams.  The question I asked in my last post was this:


Which Christian ideas, if any, helped bring us into the modern world?


I think John Adams points us in the right direction with the following:




Defence of the Constitutions of Government
of the United States of America 



(Source, Charles F. Adams, ed., The Works of John Adams [1851] Vol. 6, p. 3-4)

There have been three periods in the history of England, in which the principles of government have been anxiously studied, and very valuable productions published, which, at this day, if they are not wholly forgotten in their native country, are perhaps more frequently read abroad than at home.


The first of these periods was that of the Reformation, as early as the writings of Machiavel himself, who is called the great restorer of the true politics.  The "Shorte Treatise of Politick Power, and of the True Obedience which Subjects owe to Kyngs and other Civile Governors, with an Exhortation to all True Natural Englishemen, compyled by John Poynet, D. D.," was printed in 1556, and contains all the essential principles of liberty, which were afterwards dilated on by Sidney and Locke. This writer is clearly for a mixed government, in three equiponderant branches, as appears by these words:

"In some countreyes they were content to be governed and have the laws executed by one king or judge; in some places by many of the best sorte; in some places by the people of the lowest sorte; and in some places also by the king, nobilitie, and the people, all together. And these diverse kyndes of states, or policies, had their distincte names; as where one ruled, a monarchie; where many of the best, aristocratie; and where the multitude, democratie ; and where all together, that is a king, the nobilitie, and commons, a mixte state; and which men by long continuance have judged to be the best sort of all.  For where that mixte state was exercised, there did the commonwealths longest continue."

The second period was the Interregnum, and indeed the whole interval between 1640 and 1660. In the course of those twenty years, not only Ponnet and others were reprinted, but Harrington, Milton, the Vindiciae contra Tyrannos, and a multitude of others, came upon the stage.The third period was the Revolution in 1688, which produced Sidney, Locke, Hoadley, Trenchard, Gordon, Plato Redivivus, who is also clear for three equipollent branches in the mixture, and others without number. The discourses of Sidney were indeed written before, but the same causes produced his writings as did the Revolution.
Americans should make collections of all these speculations, to be preserved as the most precious relics of antiquity, both for curiosity and use.


This seems to be part of the thread of political theology that heavily influenced the founding.  I also think it is interesting that one the three periods he references is the Revolution of 1688 that Brad Hart posted on the other day.  I think the name of the book was, "The First Modern Revolution".   Maybe Christian political theology did help usher us into the modern world.  That is the thesis of Gary Amos in his book, "Defending the Declaration: How the Bible and Christianity influenced the writing of the Declaration of Independence".  


He gives some compelling evidence that the founders laid out the same legal case for independence that many cited here by Adams had used before.  Maybe our founding was not as "revolutionary" as some would give it credit for.  Could it have been tied to a long tradition of ideas that could be traced back to pre-Aquinas Christianity?  We shall see.  


More to come... 

Response to Greg Frazer on Romans 13-Part IV

This post will resume my quest to respond to some of the arguments of Dr. Gregg Frazer regarding Romans 13. Nonetheless, in an attempt to more align my thoughts with the unique character and format of this blog I have modified my quest that was stated in my last post to attempting to explain why many Clergy at the time of the Revolution:

1) Did not believe that the Declaration of Independence was rebellion against God.

2) Believed that the Bible seemed to uphold the duty of the Christian to submit to the institution of government but also allowed(and perhaps demanded)resistance to tyranny in certain circumstances. 3) Validated the THEOLOGICAL and philosophical ideas on government of Shaftesberry and Locke in their pulpits; whether they mentioned them by name or not or agreed with their views on salvation or not.

The sermon that has been the center of this dialogue is the most famous of this period: "Concerning Unlimited Submission and Non-Resistance to Government Powers." It was preached by a man named Jonathan Mayhew and his core theme was that "rebellion against tyrants is obedience to God." For this to be true then the more absolute interpretations of Romans 13 and the extreme doctrines that came with them had to be proven wrong. In short, Mayhew was out to disprove the interpretations of the Bible that lead to the doctrine of the "Divine Right of Kings."

The following is the crux of his argument against a more absolute interpretation that seeks to argue that people must submit to tyrants no matter what they do:

"For what can be more absurd than an argument thus framed? “Rulers are, by their office, bound to consult the public welfare and the good of society: therefore you are bound to pay them tribute, to honor, and to submit to them, even when they destroy the public welfare, and are a common pest to society, by acting in direct contradiction to the nature and end of their office.”

Mayhew is pointing out the inherent contradiction of what Paul would have to be saying if the more absolutist interpretations are to be believed. To interpret this the way loyalists of that day and Frazer do, one would have to believe that Paul was saying not only did we have to submit to people who were obviously violating clear biblical mandates about the duties and obligations of civil rulers but that we had to pay honor to men who were killing people for their own pleasure! Thus, unless one believes that honor is due a tyrant then the first verse of Romans 13 can not mean what they say it does. Either submission does not mean what they say it does or what we are to submit to means something different than what they say it does. In other words, if Frazer and the loyalists are wrong then Paul would seem to be talking about the institution of government in general and not tyrants.

Another sermon of the era, preached by a man named Abraham Keteltas, seems to shed more light on the thoughts of the time on this matter. It was called "God Arising and Pleading His People's Cause." It more or less was stating that God was with the people of the Revolution and was pleading their cause because it was his cause. One would probably ask, If God ordains all authority and the leaders are his anointed then how could the fight of the common people to secure their rights from a King be God's cause?

I think Keteltas sheds great light on this with this excerpt:

"God commanded the Israelites, saying, ye shall not oppress one another. Leviticus 25, 14–17. When the ten tribes had revolted from Rehoboam, because of oppression, and when Rehoboam and Judah went out to fight against them to bring them back to subjection, God sent his prophet to Rehoboam and Judah, saying, ye shall not go up, nor fight against your brethren! 1 Kings 12, 24. God declared to Abraham, I will bless them that bless thee, and curse them that curse thee. See also 1. Chron. 16, 22, compared with Psalm 105, 15, where Jehovah is represented, saying, touch not mine anointed, and do my prophets no harm: i.e. God’s anointed people, and not kings, because it is said in the preceeding verse, he suffered no man to do them wrong, yea, he reproved kings for their sake.

If this is to be believed, then God's anointed people can be kings and common folk alike. This would seem to indicate that what God ordained to be submitted to was something different than a tyrant King and possibly just the institution of government itself intimated before.

This brings me to a question that gives us insight into the reasoning behind the Frazer/Loyalist argument:

"If Romans 13 does not mandate subjection to wicked, ungodly, tyrannical rulers -- what sense did it make to the addressees of the letter? What sense did it make to those for whom the letter was written and to whom it was sent -- Christians living under Nero?"

Since this is not a new debate and to bring this discussion into line with the history of this debate lets allow for the fact that Frazer is not just questioning my theological and philosophical line of reasoning when it comes to government. He is questioning a line of reasoning that goes back to Locke, Shaftsberry, and possibly some of the scholastics. I put theological in bold face because it seems that most want to read Locke's Second Treatise and ignore his First Treatise. The first is filled with biblical arguments against the Divine Right of Kings and the second is his philosophical views that are grounded in his theology. Thus, if true, this line of reasoning that Frazer questions is based on a theological argument not a non-theological enlightenment one. In other words, Frazer and company will have to answer the question and stop changing the subject by calling everyone who disagrees with them "Theistic Rationalists."

Thus, I will attempt to answer this question as one who is a modern heir to the theological line of reasoning that Locke and others applied to civil government. With that said, a simple look at the History answers Frazer's question. According to several sources I read, Paul wrote Romans in either 54 AD or 56 AD. Since Nero took office in 54 AD it would seem like this question/argument would destroy the whole "Paul was referring to good government/institution of government line of reasoning" that Mayhew and company used. As I mulled this over yesterday I assumed that Frazer knew his history so I began to doubt Mayhew's whole line of reasoning.

However, after many hours of reciting story after story in the Bible that would seem to contradict the loyalist/Frazer absolute interpretation, I decided to check the history this morning. As it turns out, this is either a foolish question by Frazer or there is something about the History of this I do not know. If it is the former then this is really a non-question because Nero did not start his persecution until around 64 AD or at least 8 years after Romans was written. Simply, one of Frazer's strongest arguments turns out to be paper thin. Nero's persecution seems to have no bearing at all on what Paul wrote which leaves the door open for the argument that says that Paul was talking about submission to the institution of government in general not to unconditionally to tyrants.

Another argument that Frazer uses against the Lockean style of theological reasoning about civil government is that while there are examples in the Bible of men disobeying authority they should never cross the line into resistance or rebellion. When asked what the difference is because they both seem to be NON-SUBMISSION and a violation of Paul's admonition in Romans 13:1, Frazer responds that submission and obedience are two different things. He states that one can disobey an authority and still submit himself to that authority. He adds that we should only disobey if that authority asks us to do something that God commands us not to do.

The following question was posed as a challenge to me:

"You have not responded to my EVIDENCE for the difference between "subjection" and "obedience." I gave you the Greek meanings of the terms and showed you how they are consciously separated in Titus 3:1. You just keep saying they're the same thing -- do you have any EVIDENCE to support your view?

Titus 3:1 states:

"Remind the people to be subject to rulers and authorities, to be obedient, to be ready to do whatever is good.

I have two thoughts on this. The first is that if submission is absolute in Romans 13 then obedience is absolute according to Titus 3:1. In other words, Paul is telling Titus to tell the people to submit to AND obey the authorities. He adds obedience in this passage to the submission in Romans 13. So this verse actually destroys Frazer's argument that submission is absolute and obedience is conditional. If Romans 13 is absolute then Titus 3:1 has to be as well. Inversely, this would mean that if obedience is conditional then submission must be as well which contradicts Frazer. If I am right there is no way Romans 13 says what he says it means. You cannot have your cake and eat it too. Accordingly, we need to look for another explanation.

This brings me to my second thought on this verse. Paul seems to hint at the type of governments he is talking about when he tells the people to be ready to do "good" in their obedience and submission. This seems to go right along with the stream of theological reasoning as handed down by Shaftsberry and Locke that Paul is talking about the institution government in general should be submitted to and obeyed. How could they possibly be ready to do "good" by carry out the commands of a lunatic like Hitler? There has to be more than meets the eye to this right?

Well it seems that there is. In fact, I found a copy of Locke paraphrasing Romans on line last night. I think he can answer for himself as Frazer's line of reasoning continues:

"How can the proper interpretation of a passage of Scripture change based on how it is applied or misapplied? Did God not have a particular message? Did He not know what He was saying -- it depends on how people use it? How could the people to whom the message was originally given know what God wants them to do, since they cannot see into the future to see how men misuse the passage?"

Locke:

"And St. Paul had taught them, in his epistle, that all Christians were free from Mosaic Law. Hence corrupt and mistaken men, especially Jewish converts, impatient as we have observed of any heathen dominion might be ready to infer that Christians were exempt from subjection to the laws of heathen governments. This he obviates by telling them that all other governments derived the power they had from God as well as that of the Jews, though they had not the whole frame of their government immediately from him as the Jews had."

I think his thoughts are self explantory but I think it would be helpful to expound on a couple things. First, is that this kind of interpretation would be consistent with the rest of Romans and epistles in general in that they are often written in response to letters from the people with specific questions and usually to deal with some sort of false teaching that was going on. When Locke uses the phrase "impatient as we have observed of any heathen dominion" refering to the Jewish converts, it would seem that he was referencing other parts of the letter. Accordingly, since most of the letter was written to stress that the Jews were no better than the Gentiles(a common theme in Paul's letter) this would seem to jive. Secondly, from other things I have read, it seems that the people he was writing to were mainly Jewish converts.

In response to Frazer, it would seem that the message that God seems to want to convey according to the theology of Locke, Mayhew, Keteltas, is clear and consistent. It is also specific and relevant to the people of that time as Frazer demands it be. They see that God wants all men to submit to and obey the institution of government itself even if one is a Jew and the government of Gentile. It would seem that they all thought this was as simple as Paul validating Gentile government. It might be possible that he was essentially stating that "all governments, not just Jewish ones, are ordained by God." Also, I think that the fact that Romans 13 was misapplied in the "Divine Right of Kings" is important in that often that is the smoking gun that the the theological interpretation behind the philosophical stance is as flawed as the stance itself. This would seem to be whether Frazer thinks this is relevant or not.

I would also state that some of the doctrines least friendly to liberty were constructed on the shaky foundation of theological interpretations that seek to apply a specific exhortation to a specific people at a specific time and make it universal.(Modern Day Domionists) The best example I can give is Paul telling people it is better not to get married in one letter and in a later letter telling windows to get married if they are going to be busy bodies. Either he changed his mind or there are missing pieces we do not understand because he was addressing a specific audience and more than likely specific questions we are not privy to. I think some of his exhortations to women fall into this trap as well when used to make universal dogma. This can be avoided if we look beyond the surface of what the text seems to indicate to the whole counsel of scripture. We have to realize that there is often information left out of the text of the letters because it would be redundant to the people who are receiving the letter. Thus, a possible reason that "including Non-Jewish" was omitted to give context.

Well enough said. I hope I have done a credible job representing the theological and philosophical ideas on government that were passed on from Shaftsberry to Locke and that made it into numerous pulpits in colonial America during the time of the founding. I know that this dialogue kind of turned into what Tom would call a "intramural battle" of competing doctrines at times. However, I do not want people to lose sight of the three most important points that these posts have tried to make:

1. Many of the Christian philosophical ideas on civil government from the Founding Era are grounded in a stream of theology that is taken from the text of the Bible.

2. That this stream of theology and philosophy on civil government preceded the enlightenment.

3. That to state that these preachers' ideas were shaped more by Enlightenment Philosophy than Christian Theology is wrong.

I part with a quote in response to the charge of number three above from David Barton that I do believe is TRUE:

"While such charges certainly reflect the personal views of these critics, they definitely do not accurately reflect the extended theological debates that occurred at the time of the American Revolution. In fact, contrary to Dr. Cornett's claim that the Founding Fathers turned to Enlightenment rhetoric for validation of the American Revolution, the topic of civil disobedience and resistance to governing authorities had been a subject of serious theological inquiries for centuries before the Enlightenment. This was especially true during the Reformation, when the subject was directly addressed by theologians such as Frenchman John Calvin, German Martin Luther, Swiss Reformation leader Huldreich Zwingli, and numerous others."

Maybe Barton is right about some things. Oh and least someone try to use the old "they are all Theistic Rationalist" lines of thinking, Ketelas was an orthodox as they come judging by the first half of his sermon that was quoted above. From a lot of the reading I have done about Locke I think he was orthodox and liberal. The trouble most have in reading him is that he separated doctrine regarding salvation(Where at first glance he seems Orthodox)from doctrines on civil affairs.(Where he is obviously Liberal) I think we would be wise to do the same and avoid the pitfall of labeling everyone a "Theistic Rationalist" that disagrees with the loyalist/Frazer line of reasoning.