4 Slaughter, The History of Truro Parish in Virginia, pp. 3-4.
5 Can we claim Jefferson for the Christian fold? This is attempted by Catherine Millard in Rewriting of America’s History, pp. 91-109.
1. The problem is that Jefferson explicitly affirmed that he believed the following things:
The Bible is not revealed of God.
It is good to doubt religion and God to assert the oracle of reason.
He opposed Calvinism and Trinitarianism.
That he was a unitarian.
That he was a member of a sect all his own.
That clergy in general were the source of intolerance.
That he was a “true Christian” in the sense of viewing Jesus’ theology and morals as the same as his own.
Paul was one of the worst corrupters of Jesus’ teachings.
A. The Jefferson Bible’s purpose and history: To distill Jesus’ ethics from corruptions to his system found in the Bible by his followers.
B. Jefferson’s religious doubts were carried out in secret, not the public eye, for fear of its impact upon his career.
C. The irony of Jefferson’s fears of the Supreme Court’s unchecked power under the Constitution!
D. But were Jefferson’s ethics and politics contrary to Christianity?
1. His view of the ethics of Jesus—the best the world has ever known.
2. His view of the Bible in schools—to be used in schools for education.
3. His view of Christianizing the Indians—approved of money given from government.
4. His view of religion in the states—federalism permitted religious actions by state government, but not by federal government as he saw the First Amendment.
The Point of his 1802 letter to Danbury Baptists, which uses the famous phrase, “separation of Church and State,” was to reassure the Baptists that there would be no established federal denomination. He was not afraid of religious activity, and even worshiped on Sundays in a church that met in the Capitol Building in Washington, D.C. Boyd Stanley Schlenther, Charles Thomson: A Patriot’s Pursuit (Newark: University of Delaware Press 1990), p. 216-217.
Not surprisingly, Thomson’s translation of the Bible had left him as a target for several eccentric correspondents. Perhaps the most curious was the Master of the Masonic Order in Baltimore who was “determined... to unbosom my heart.” This man urged Thomson to become a Mason to help him bring the order (which had “deviated from the truth) back to the “first principles” of Christianity. “I am in, you are out,” wrote the Masonic Master. “Will you – can you- deem yourself called upon to lend your aid to do much good?” Thomson stayed out. In fact, thoughtout his life he appears never to have joined any organization that he did not feel was involved in some useful purpose. He never was a member of the Tammany Society; he never joined Philadelphia’s Hibernian Club, organized in 1759 by bother Protestant and Roman Catholic Irish immigrants. It appears that any group that smacked of frivolity or that was mainly given to socializing was never to Thomson’s taste, and even those organizations with which he had associated himself –such as the Philosophical Society and the Agricultural Society – soon lost their charm and interest, especially if they had appeared to have served their purpose for him.
To occupy his time after Hannah’s death, Thomson turned once again to biblical studies. Even while the Bible was in the process of printing, Thomson had begun “to draw up a harmony of the four evangelists from my translation following the Order of Dr. Doddridge.” Thomson believed that by arranging the facts presented in the Gospels, producing them in parallel columns, he had “removed the seeming inconsistencies with which they are charged & shewn that instead of contradicting, they strengthen & confirm one another’s narrative.”
In it, he justified publication on the grounds that though there had been many such harmonies, “infidels still continue to charge the Evangelist with inconsistency, and contradiction.” As for himself, Thomson publicly admitted that the real reason he first undertook the task was for his own “solace.”
One result of the publication of the synopsis was brief renewal of his correspondence with Jefferson, which had not been maintained, following their exchanges at the appearance of the full Bible in 1808. Early in 1816 Jefferson wrote that he had received a copy of the synopsis, and after perfunctory compliments, he proceeded to inform Thomson that he had made a “wee little book” of his own; by cutting the texts from the Gospels which include the words of Jesus, Jefferson had compiled what he called the “Philosophy of Jesus.” This information led Thomson to an innocent but extremely awkward indiscretion. Delighted that Jefferson saw this project as proof of his own religious nature) “I am a real Christian – that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus”), Thomson brought several Philadelphians to the conclusion that there was reason for “the Religious world. ...[to be] daily congratulating each other,” on Jefferson’s “happy change of Religious belief.” The miraculous had happened: Jefferson had made “a profession of faith.” The matter had gone so far that Thomson nearly provided Jefferson’s letter for publication, only to receive this rebuke: “I apprehend that [you] were not sufficiently aware of its private & personal nature, or of the impropriety of putting it in the power of an editor to publish, without the consent of the writer.” Crestfallen, Thomson wrote immediately to apologize. Jefferson – who had been caused no little anxiety and trouble by the who affair – replied, saying that he had received a communication from a person in Philadelphia who had seen his letter to Thomson, asking Jefferson “questions which I answer only to one Being. To himself, therefore. I replied: ‘Say nothing of my Religion; it is known to my God and myself alone.’” Under the circumstances, it was a kindly response to Thomson, but this really was the last letter ever to pass between the two men.
6 Meade, Old Churches, vol. II p. 48.
7 Ibid., vol. II p. 49.
8 Boller, George Washington & Religion, p.26.
9 Ibid., p.27.
10 Slaughter, The History of Truro Parish, p. 89.
11 Note. See oaths George had to take to assume role of public surveyor
12 Slaughter, The History of Truro Parish p. 34.
13 Ibid., p. 34.
14 Ibid., p. 21. The oaths of office of the vestryman are given to us in Meade, Old Church Ministers, Volume II, 41-42. Again, note how concerned they were that the participants not return to the control of the Roman Church. This is from Bishop Meade’s book, Old Church Ministers and Families of Virginia,
“Oath of Allegiance: “I, A.B., do sincerely promise and swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to his Majesty King George the Second, so help me God.”
Oath of Abjuration: “I, A.B., do swear that I do from my heart abhor, detest and abjure, as impious and heretical, that damnable doctrine and position that Princes excommunicate or deprived by the Pope, or any authority of the See of Rome, may be deposed or murdered by their subjects or any other whatsoever. And I do declare that no foreign Prince, Prelate, Person, State, or Potentate, hath, or ought to have, any jurisdiction, power superiority, pre-eminence, or authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual, within this realm. So help me God.”
II. Oath of Allegiance: “I, A.B., do truly and sincerely acknowledge and promise, testify and declare, in my conscience, before God and the world, that our sovereign Lord, King George the Second, is lawful and rightful King of this realm and all other his Majesty’s dominions and countries hereunto belonging; and I do solemnly and sincerely declare that I do believe in my conscience that the person pretended to be Prince of Wales during the life of the late King James,1 and since his decease pretending to be, and taking upon himself the style and title of, the King of England, or by the name of James the Third, or of Scotland by the name of James the Eighth, or the style and title of King of Great Britain, hath not any right whatsoever to the crown of this realm, or any other dominions hereto belonging. And I do renounce, refuse, and abjure any allegiance or obedience to him and I do swear that I will bear faithful and true allegiance to his Majesty King George the Second, and him will defend to the utmost of my power against all traitorous conspiracies and attempts whatsoever which shall be made against his person, crown, or dignity; and I will do my utmost to endeavor to disclose and make known to his Majesty and his successors all treasonable and traitorous conspiracies which I shall know to be against him, or any of them; and I do faithfully promise to the utmost of my power to support, maintain, and defend the successor of the crown against him, the said James, and all other persons whatsoever, which succession, by an Act entitled ‘An Act for the further limitation of the crown and better securing the rights and liberties of the subjects,’ is, and stands limited to, the Princess Sophia, late Electress and Duchess-Dowager of Hanover, and the heirs of her body, being Protestants; and all other theses things I do plainly and sincerely acknowledge and swear, according to these express words by me spoken, and according to the plain and common sense understanding of the same words, without any equivocation, mental evasion, or secret reservation whatsoever; and I do make this recognition, acknowledgement, abjuration, renunciation, and promise, heartily, willingly, and truly, upon the true faith of a Christian, so help me God....
Test Oath: “I do declare that I do believe that there is not any transubstantiation in the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, or in the Elements of bread and wine at or after the consecration thereof by any person whatsoever.”
Thus, here we see a strong affirmation of the historic Protestant faith.
15 Ibid., p. 5.
16 Ibid., p. 7.
17 Ibid., p. 9.
18 Ibid., p. 8.
19 Ibid., p. 9.
20 Ibid., p. 16.
21 Ibid., p. 18.
22 Ibid., p. 10 n.
23 Ibid., p. 17.
24 Ibid., p. 30.
25 Ibid., p. 78.
26 Ibid., p. 51.
