1996 Issue 3 - History Study: The Declaration of Independence and the American Enlightenment Part 2...
-
Upload
chalcedon-presbyterian-church -
Category
Documents
-
view
222 -
download
0
Transcript of 1996 Issue 3 - History Study: The Declaration of Independence and the American Enlightenment Part 2...
-
8/12/2019 1996 Issue 3 - History Study: The Declaration of Independence and the American Enlightenment Part 2 - Counsel
1/4
y
Rev Sfeve Wjjfki s
The Declaration of
Independence The
American Enlightenment
(II)
John Locke The
American
Independence
Much has been made of
the colonists usage of John
Locke (who has been labeled
a Deist by many). Doesn't
the fact that Locke
is so
prominent in the writings of
the founding era prove that
the generation of the 18th
centllry was far more open to
deism than we are willing to
admit A number of things
must be noted:
First, Locke was
emphatically
not
a Deist in
the common sense of the
term. James Bulman makes
this point plainly: 'Locke's
philosophy by no means
required a Deistic
interpretation: Locke himself
certainly not holding any
God s Providence ...
HISTORIC L
PERSPECTIVES
' '. .
such interpretation For
all his insistence on reason,
Locke subjected his reason to
the Bible; because the Bible
is altogether reasonable,
while his capacities were
faulty Locke said, I shall
presently condemn and quit
any opinion of mine, as soon
as I am
shown
that
t
is
contrary to any revelation in
the Holy Scripture he
affirmed the Scriptures to
have been dictated by the
infallible spirit of Ciod."
The Bible is the book,
Locke said, "Whither, at
last, everyone must have
recourSe, to verify that of it,
which he fjnds anywhere
else."
(It
Is
Their Right, pp.
22,23) Regardless of what
we might think of some of
Locke's views (and I for one,
don't
think much of some of
them ) it must be
acknowledged that these
sentiments are not those of
the consistent Deist.
Archie Jones has this to
say about Locke's political
views: "Locke himself
was
the direct heir of Puritan
political thinkers, as well as
the son of a Puritan,
who not
only claimed that he derived
his
politic l
teachings from
the Bible, but
whose
political
teachings had become the .
common stock-in-trade of the
Independents
as
a whole
for Locke, Ciod was not
absent from the civil order;
rather, it was under His rule
and was to be ordered
according to His
will. (
The
Christian Roots of the War
for Independence,
The
Journal of Christian
Reconstruction, vol. III,
Summer, 1976, no. 1, pp.
32,33)
Winthrop S. Hudson
notes: Where did Locke
derive his political ideasl
With
regard to his general
political principles one need
not look far.
They
were
being shouted from the
housetops during the years he
was at Westminster and
Oxford, and they had been
explicated again
and
again by
the sons of Cieneva with
whom he
was
in contact
throughout his life." (Ibid., p.
33)
Secondly, the colonists
quoted Locke selectively.
Where he defended liberty
and property, they quoted
him; where he advocated
majoritarianism, they ignored
him.
It must be remembered
that Locke followed a long '
April,
1996 f
THE COUNSEL
of Chalcedon 'f 15
-
8/12/2019 1996 Issue 3 - History Study: The Declaration of Independence and the American Enlightenment Part 2 - Counsel
2/4
line orthodox theological '
writers (Calvin, Vindicae
Contra Tyrannos, Samuel
Rutherford, John Owen, etc.)
and often was merely
restating familiar principles
which had Biblical
foundations.
It
is
well
to
remember, however, says
Jones, that Locke was used
selectively by the colonists,
and that he Wi\S preceded by ,
a long line of more explicitly
theological political thinkers
who
originil{ed and
developed:the themes of
society as contractual, of
individual rights and of the
right of the people,
to
revolt
,
against an u,njust ruler:'
(Ibid., p. 32)
It
should also
be n\lledth
-
8/12/2019 1996 Issue 3 - History Study: The Declaration of Independence and the American Enlightenment Part 2 - Counsel
3/4
carried the ranks of militia
and citizens was the
universal persuasion that
they,
by
administering to
themselves a spiritual purge,
acquired the energies (jod
had always, in the manner of
the
Old
Testament, been
ready to impart to His
repentant children. (quoted
by North, op. cit.,
p
97)
In other words, the
language of the Declaration
(especially the prologue) was
primarily for European
consumption. The colonists
needed their support and in
order to gain it, they clothed
the Declaration in language
in line with the dominant
philosophy of the day.
2. MYTH #2: The
Declaration had a great
impact on American society
during the War .
There
is
little evidence to
support this view. (jary
North writes, Very small
attention was paid to [the
Declaration) .
t
was far more
Widely read during
Jefferson's campaigns for the
presidency in 1796 and
1800. (Ibid., p 97) Thai
which drew the most
attention in 1776
is
the very
thing that
is
most ignored
today, not the prologue but
the list of constitutional
charges against King (jeorge.
The philosophical language
of the prologue
was
largely
ignored.
3. MYTH #3: The
Declaration has legal
standing in our
law
.
We often hear appeals to
the Declaration in an effort
to prove the legality of the
demands of minorities or
special interests groups. This
became a popular tactic
during the abolition
movement. The Declaration
was simply a declaration
and nothing more.
t holds
historic interest and
significance but has no
standing at
law
.
4. MYTH #4: The
Declaration legitimizes
revolution.
Two
things must
be noted:
First, lawless revolution
was never the goal of the
patriots in 1776. Bailyn
notes, the primary goal of
the American Revolution,
which transformed American
life and introduced a
new
era
in human history, was not
the overthrow or even the
alteration of the existing
social order
but
the
preservation of political
liberty threatened by the
apparent corruption of the
constitution,
and
the
establishment in principle of
the existing conditions of
liberty. (Ideological Origins,
p
19) If it
was
such a
radical document,
how
could
men who were by and large
men of strict conservative
(and Biblical) principles, have
signed itl
Would
John
Witherspoon have signed a
document which advocated
or condoned
and promoted
lawless revolution1
Secondly, i t cannot be
forgotten that the Declaration
was primarily designed to
enlist the aid of European
countries (especially France).
The language reflects
the
care
they
had
not to offend
European sentiments.
European monarchs
would
not have been favorably
inclined to support
them
if
the Declaration
was
stated in
blatantly revolutionary
rhetoric: Jefferson
and
the
other member of the
Congress had no desire to
alienate the monarchs of
Europe, which is exactly
what
would have happened
had they presented their
cause as that
of
philosophical
radicalism.
The
doctrine of
permanent revolution had no
place in the American
Revolution. This
is
precisely
the reason why Jefferson
spent so much of the space of
the document in a
point-by-point expose of the
kings illegal activities. He
was trying to
show that
there
were deep-rooted legal causes
for the patriots armed
opposition to English
domination. (North, op. cit. ,
pp. 98,99)
5. MYTH 5:
The
Declaration is the exclusive
work of Thomas Jefferson.
He
was the chief drafter,
of course. But there were
four other men on the
committee
John Adams,
Ben
Franklin, Roger
Sherman,
and
Robert
liVingston -. and another
fifty men
who
spent part of
July 2nd
and
all of July 3rd
revising the document. We
April, 1996 $ THE COUNSEL of Chalcedon 17
-
8/12/2019 1996 Issue 3 - History Study: The Declaration of Independence and the American Enlightenment Part 2 - Counsel
4/4
know that the committee '
made at least thirty changes.
Congress made some
fifty-fiVe additional
alterations, including the
removal of .480 words. (Ibid.)
Apparently, the idea that
Jeffersol1 was the exclusive
author
was promoted (as
so
many other '
misrepresentations) by
Jefferson himself d1:Jring the
presidential campaign against .
Adams.
All
' th ings considered, the
D.ecla'ration
is
not the radical
document it
is
often made to
appear by modern .
. revolutionaries. The plain
fact is, the language of the
Declaration can b ~
interpreted n both a
traditional Biblical sense as
well as a liberal; humanistic
sen'se.
It
was as much the .
affirmation of the Calvinistic
John Witherspoon as t was
of the Vnitarian Thomas
Jefferson. Again
to
quote
North: "The more
conservativ.e delegates
accepted the
dO iUlnents
vaguely liberal fanguage,
since they were equally
capable of using very similar
terms to support quite
different goals-from those
Jefferson no dou,bt ..
entertained in, private. The
r a d i ~ a i s
of 'later generations
could Pick'u certain phrases
used
by
Jefferson, but only by
reading into . hose terms
ideas that would 'have been
foreign to the majority ,of
the
members
of
the Continental
Congress, and probably
foreign to Jefferson himself:
(Ibid., p. 100)
Why is this view so
unpalatable to modern
Americans Because, for the
most part,
we
have all been
trained by the revolutionaries
(and their unwitting allies) of
this century. Sadly, most of
us think like ut teachers
taught us to think. Modern
revolutionaries
want us
all
to
think that they ate the
philosophical children' of the
founding fathers. They want
us to
believe there was
no
difference between the
inotiyes and goals of the
American revolution and the
French Revolution. They
especially want to llndermine
the idea that the Bibie or "
biblical thinking had any
place in the philosophical
foundations of this nation.
This
is
why the
Declaration is r ~ d as the
Revolutionarys Manifesto
.and
why
anyone
who
suggests it might have been
something less are defamed,
derided, and ridiculed. This
is the new tolerance that is
tolet.ant of everything except
that which seeks to uphold
the honor of Qod and defend
honorable men. The
Revolution cannot allow such
a thing
It
is
all
for
your
good, you understand. They.'
don 't
want
yo,u to be ,
confusedby a different
perspective. Why then, you
might doubt their
infallibility
8
HECOUNSEL.of Chalcedon
t
April,
996
llKiss the
son lest
he
be
an-
gry and
ye perish
in tbe
way
For
his
wrath
will soon
be
l ~ i n d l e d
Blessed
are all
they that
t a l ~ e
refuge in
irn
77
Psaltn : 12