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


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


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


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

1996 issue 3 - history study: the declaration of independence and the american enlightenment part 2...

Documents