December 21, 2009
John Adams
(Founder, First Vice President, Second President of the United States)
I continue in the series examining quotations of our Founding Fathers as to whether they supported or denounced biblical Christianity. Next up at bat: John Adams. His first “berating” of Christianity comes from a letter dated 1816:
As I understand the Christian religion, it was, and is, a revelation. But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legends, have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed?
Letter to F.A. Van Der Kemp
December 27, 1816
It looks as if Adams here is asserting that Christianity has been corrupted with myths and legends and has resulted in “the most bloody religion that ever existed”. In itself, that’s no vote of confidence for Christianity. But, as we’ve seen before in previous Founders’ Foundations, it’s important to examine the context of the passage. So below is the letter, in its entirety, Adams wrote to Mr. Van Der Kemp. Yeah, it’s long — you’re welcome to read the whole thing, but in case you just want to cut to the chase, I’ve emphasized those statements within the letter that are at the heart of this inquiry of the Founders’ Christian worldview:
TO F. A. VANDERKEMP.
Quincy, 27 December, 1816.I do declare that I can write Greek better than you do, though I cannot say, so well as you can if you will. I can make nothing but pothooks and trammels of the frontispiece of your amiable letter of the 15th. If you had quoted your authority, I might have found it.
Jesus is benevolence personified, an example for all men. Dupuis [an opponent of Christianity] has made no alteration in my opinions of the Christian religion, in its primitive purity and simplicity, which I have entertained for more than sixty years. It is the religion of reason, equity, and love; it is the religion of the head and of the heart.
It would be idle for me to write observations upon Dupuis. I must fill thirteen volumes. If I was twenty-five years old, and had the necessary books and leisure, I would write an answer to Dupuis; but when, or where, or how should I get it printed? Dupuis can be answered, to the honor and advantage of the Christian religion as I understand it. To this end I must study astrology as well as astronomy, Hebrew, Greek, Latin, Arabic, Persian, and Sanscrit.
But to leave Dupuis to be answered or reviewed in Edinburgh or London, I must inquire into the attributes given by the ancient nations to their divinities; gods with stars and new moons in their foreheads or on their shoulders; gods with heads of dogs, horns of oxen, bulls, cows, calves, rams, sheep, or lambs; gods with the bodies of horses; gods with the tails of fishes; gods with the tails of dragons and serpents; gods with the feet of goats. The bull of Mithra; the dog of Anubis; the serpent of Esculapius!!!!
Is man the most irrational beast of the forest? Never did bullock, or sheep, or snake imagine himself a god. What, then, can all this wild theory mean? Can it be any thing but allegory founded in astrology? Your Manilius would inform you as well as Dupuis.
The Hebrew unity of Jehovah, the prohibition of all similitudes, appears to me the greatest wonder of antiquity. How could that nation preserve its creed among the monstrous theologies of all the other nations of the earth? Revelation, you will say, and especial Providence; and I will not contradict you, for I cannot say with Dupuis that a revelation is impossible or improbable.
Christianity, you will say, was a fresh revelation. I will not deny this. As I understand the Christian religion, it was, and is, a revelation. But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legends, have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed? How has it happened that all the fine arts, architecture, painting, sculpture, statuary, music, poetry, and oratory, have been prostituted, from the creation of the world, to the sordid and detestable purposes of superstition and fraud?
The eighteenth century had the honor to discover that Ocellus of Lucania, Timæus of Locris, Aristotle, Tacitus, Quintilian, and Pliny, were in the right. The philosophy of Frederic, Catharine, Buffon, De la Lande, Diderot, d’Alembert, Condorcet, d’Holbach, and Dupuis, appears to me to be no more nor less than the philosophy of those ancient men of science and letters, whose speculations came principally from India, Egypt, Chaldea, and Phœnicia. A consolatory discovery, to be sure! Let it once be revealed or demonstrated that there is no future state, and my advice to every man, woman, and child would be, as our existence would be in our own power, to take opium. For, I am certain, there is nothing in this world worth living for but hope, and every hope will fail us, if the last hope, that of a future state, is extinguished.
I know how to sympathize with a wounded leg, having been laid up with one for two or three months, and I have felt the delightful attentions of a daughter. May you have the felicity to celebrate as many more lustres of Madam Vanderkemp as human nature can bear. (emphasis added)
Here’s Adams’ summation of Christianity:
- It’s founder, Jesus, is benevolence personified, an example for all men
- It is the religion of reason, equity, and love; the religion of the head and the heart
- It is the religion that promotes hope to all because of its declaration of a future state with God
The only reason he calls Christianity a bloody religion is because it was corrupted by pharisaical ecclesiasticism — but its “primitive purity and simplicity” can’t be matched by any other religion or philosophy; that’s the faith — the worldview — John Adams embraced.
John Adams’ quote #2:
I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved– the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!
Letter to Thomas Jefferson, September 3, 1816
In the letter Adams wrote to Thomas Jefferson from which this quotation is taken, there were two themes presented: 1) What are the uses of grief, that is, how can grief be a benefit, and; 2) What are the abuses of grief; how has grief been used as a detriment. It’s this second point we’ll focus on. Summarizing Mr. Adams’ letter, he gives six examples of how grief has been abused. He writes that Plato’s death and the grief his followers experience unduly overblew Plato’s reputation (yeah, Adams’ believes Plato wasn’t all that). You may not agree, but my point isn’t whether Adams was right about Plato, but that he saw that the grief his followers had led them to abuse Plato’s legacy.
He points out five other abuses of grief that resulted from the death of Julius Caesar, George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, Fisher Ames, and Jesus Christ. Read it for yourself and you’ll see what’s Adams’ actual point:
JOHN ADAMS TO THOMAS JEFFERSON.
Quincy, September 3, 1816.Dear Sir
…Now, Sir, I will tease you with another question. What have been the abuses of grief? In answer to this question, I doubt not you might write an hundred volumes. A few hints may convince you that the subject is ample.
1 st. The death of Socrates excited a general sensibility of grief at Athens, in Attica, and in all Greece. Plato and Xenophon, two of his disciples, took advantage of that sentiment, by employing their enchanting style to represent their master to be greater and better than he probably was; and what have been the effects of Socratic, Platonic, which were Pythagorian, which was Indian philosophy, in the world?
2d. The death of Caesar, tyrant as he was, spread a general compassion, which always includes grief, among the Romans. The scoundrel Mark Antony availed himself of this momentary grief to destroy the republic, to establish the empire, and to proscribe Cicero.
3d. But to skip over all ages and nations for the present, and descend to our own times. The death of Washington diffused a general grief. The old tories, the hyperfederalists, the speculators, set up a general howl. Orations, prayers, sermons, mock funerals, were all employed, not that they loved Washington, but to keep in countenance the funding and banking system; and to cast into the background and the shade, all others who had been concerned in the service of their country in the Revolution.
4th. The death of Hamilton, under all its circumstances, produced a general grief. His most determined enemies did not like to get rid of him in that way. They pitied, too, his widow and children. His party seized the moment of public feeling to come forward with funeral orations, and printed panegyrics, reinforced with mock funerals and solemn grimaces, and all this by people who have buried Otis, Sam Adams, Hancock, and Gerry, in comparative obscurity. And why? Merely to disgrace the old Whigs, and keep the funds and banks in countenance.
5th. The death of Mr. Ames excited a general regret. His long consumption, his amiable character, and reputable talents, had attracted a general interest, and his death a general mourning. His party made the most of it, by processions, orations, and a mock funeral. And why? To glorify the Tories, to abash the Whigs, and maintain the reputation of funds, banks, and speculation. And all this was done in honor of that insignificant boy, by people who have let a Dance, a Gerry, and a Dexter, go to their graves without notice.
6th. I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved—the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced! With the rational respect which is due to it, knavish priests have added prostitutions of it, that fill, or might fill, the blackest and bloodiest pages of human history. (underlining added)
The Writings of Thomas Jefferson,
Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Adgate Lipscomb, et al,
pp 66-69
Do you see how context clarifies? Adams isn’t decrying the death of Jesus as symbolized in the cross; he’s decrying how people have corrupted the true intent of the cross, turning it into a weapon of immorality and cruelty. The cross of Christ was meant to bring mankind into a right relationship with God and his fellow man — knavish priests, however, transformed it into a “prostitute” for their own selfish pleasures and desire for power. That’s what Adams condemns.
Adams quote #3:
The divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity. Nowhere in the Gospels do we find a precept for Creeds, Confessions, Oaths, Doctrines, and whole cartloads of other foolish trumpery that we find in Christianity.
This is actually a combination of snippets of two of Adams’ diary entries (February 13 and 18, 1756). The first portion is from the following:
Major Greene this Evening fell into some conversation with me about the Divinity and Satisfaction of Jesus Christ. All the Argument he advanced was, “that a mere creature, or finite Being, could not make Satisfaction to infinite justice, for any Crimes,” and that “these things are very misterious.” (Thus mystery is made a convenient Cover for absurdity.)
Diary of John Adams, February 13, 1756
His February 18 entry reads as follow:
Spent an hour in the beginning of the evening at Major Gardiner’s, where it was thought that the design of Christianity was not to make men good riddle-solvers, or good mystery-mongers, but good men, good magistrates, and good subjects, good husbands and good wives, good parents and good children, good masters and good servants. The following questions may be answered some time or other, namely, — Where do we find a precept in the Gospel requiring Ecclesiastical Synods? Convocations? Councils? Decrees? Creeds? Confessions? Oaths? Subscriptions? and whole cart-loads of other trumpery that we find religion incumbered with in these days? (emphasis added)
Diary of John Adams, February 18, 1756,
Although you could say there’s some ambiguity in what exactly Adams referrs to as absurd (the deity of Chirst or Major Greene’s statement about the deity of Christ and His atonment), quotation #5 below I believe confirms that Adams considers absurd the belief in the deity of Christ.
There, see? Adams is another example of the diversity of philosophies that were part of our early history.
Well, no. And I’ll explain why when we look at quote #5 in just a bit. But before we get there, did you notice what Adams believed Christianity was supposed to do? It was to produce “good men, good magistrates, and good subjects, good husbands and good wives, good parents and good children, good masters and good servants.” What’s he saying here?
-
Good men – a quality of character we are all to have
-
Good magistrates – a quality of skill in the political arena (you’ll note that Adams believed that if you were going to be a good magistrate [ie., a good civil servant], that would be achieved by being a Christian)
-
Good subjects – a quality of skill as citizens (you’ll note again that Adams beleived that if you were going to be a good citizen, that would be achieved by being a Christian)
-
Good husbands/wives – a quality of relationship in the foundation of a society: marriage
-
Good parents/children: a quality of relationship in the perpetuation of society
-
Good masters/servants: a quality of relationship in the vocational arena
Did you notice that all of these areas Adams listed are enhanced and enriched by Christianity, and all of these areas are but reflections of worldview and values: how we live our lives. I may not agree with Adams’ theology (which isn’t the issue here), but I heartily agree with his worldview (which is the issue).
Adams quotation #4:
Can a free government possibly exist with the Roman Catholic religion?
John Adams, letter to Thomas Jefferson, May 19, 1821
Adams, no doubt, was less than amicable towards Catholicism and Anglicanism. The quotation, however, doesn’t do any disservice to Adams loyalty toward biblical Christianity. He and many others were disgusted with the ecclesiasticism (as we’ve already discovered) that had become the Catholic and Anglican religions. His devotion to the scriptures, however, isn’t tarnished by this statement.
Adams quotation #5:
God is an essence that we know nothing of. Until this awful blasphemy is got rid of, there will never be any liberal science in the world.
Letter to Thomas Jefferson, January 22, 1825
Adams’ letter is to encourage Thomas Jefferson in his pursuit of creating what will become the University of Virginia:
Your university is a noble employment in your old age, and your ardor for its success does you honor; but I do not approve of your sending to Europe for tutors and professors. I do believe there are sufficient scholars in America, to fill your professorships and tutorships with more active ingenuity and independent minds than you can bring from Europe. The Europeans are all deeply tainted with prejudices, both ecclesiastical and temporal, which they can never get rid of. They are all infected with episcopal and presbyterian creeds, and confessions of faith. They all believe that great Principle which has produced this boundless universe, Newton’s universe and Herschell’s universe, came down to this little ball, to be spit upon by Jews. And until this awful blasphemy is got rid of, there never will be any liberal science in the world. (emphasis added)
Here I concede this point: Adams believes the deity of Christ to be blasphemy. However, it’s important for us to remember that Adams’ point is theological. As I said at the beginning of this series, I’m not here to defend the theology of the Founders (the fact is, I completely disagree with Adams regarding the deity of Jesus). Though he may consider the deity of Jesus to be blasphemous, he still embraces the foundation of Christianity for his values and worldview. Despite the conflict in theology this quotation poses to historical, orthodox Christianity, it still far from measures up to the standard needed to show a diversity of philosophies in the early years of our republic.
Adams quotation #6:
Have you considered that system of holy lies and pious frauds that has raged and triumphed for 1,500 years?
I think by now you’re getting the picture. Here’s the rest of the story:
What havoc has been made of books through every century of the Christian era? Where are fifty gospels condemned as spurious by the bull of Pope Gelasius? Where are forty wagon-loads of Hebrew manuscripts burned in France, by order of another pope, because of suspected heresy? Remember the Index Expurgato-rius, the Inquisition, the stake, the axe, the halter, and the guillotine; and, oh! horrible, the rack! This is as bad, if not worse, than a slow fire. Nor should the Lion’s Mouth be forgotten. Have you considered that system of holy lies and pious frauds that has raged and triumphed for 1,500 years: which Chateaubriand appears at this day to believe as sincerely as St. Austin did? Upon this system depend the royalty, loyalty, and allegiance of Europe. The vial of holy oil, with which the Kings of France and England are anointed, is one of the most splendid and important events in all the legends. Do you think that Mr. Adams’s system “arrests our efforts and appalls our hopes in pursuit of political good?” His maxim is, study government as you do astronomy, by facts, observations, and experiments; not by the dogmas of lying priests or knavish politicians.
Letter to John Taylor, April 15, 1814 (Section XVI)
Again, Adams writes of his antagonism toward Catholicism and Anglicanism. There isn’t a single jot or tittle in the letter above that condemns biblical Christianity. ‘Nuff said.
And finally, Adams quotation #7:
. . . Thirteen governments [of the original states] thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, and which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favor of the rights of mankind.
“A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America (1787-88)”,
from Adrienne Koch, ed, The American Enlightenment: The Shaping of the American Experiment and a Free Society (1965) p. 258,
quoted from Ed and Michael Buckner, “Quotations that Support the Separation of State and Church (sorry about the long source)
And finally, again, the context:
Thirteen governments thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, which. are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favour of the rights of mankind. The experiment is made, and has completely succeeded: it can no longer be called in question, whether authority in magistrates, and obedience of citizens, can be grounded on reason, morality, and the Christian religion, without the monkery of priests, or the knavery of politicians (emphasis added)
Adams makes the case that a good government can be established and succeed with the foundation of reason, morality and Christianity.
Do I agree with everything the Founders said and did? No, of course not. But is what they said and advocated fundamentally different from a biblical worldview? The evidence so far has robustly supported the Founders’ foundation being, without question, Christian.
Patterson's Perceptions 