41 Treaties and Other International Agreements of the United Sates of America 1776-1949, ed. Charles I. Bevans (Washington: Dept. Of State), vol. 11:1070, n. 3.
42 Joel Barlow’s extended notes on atheism are found in his papers that are preserved in the Harvard University archives. We provide here a few examples of Barlow’s investigation of atheism in his private reflections based on various French encyclopedia articles. Based upon such musings, one can understand why he interpolated the text that denies any connection between Christianity and the United States. The language of the Treaty was discussed in note 28 above. Barlow wrote:
...Critius, a famous atheist, agreed that the stars etc. were the first objects of worship.—but accounts for it in a singular manner. He says men were first disorderly and unjust, and lived by open violence. They soon found it was best to have laws to repress these evils. These served very well for a while. But their authority soon grew feeble, and men found the means to allude them by committing their crimes in secret. To repress these, some wise politician invented the fable of gods. He said every planet was a god, and he placed gods everywhere to watch men’s secret actions and made them believe they would be punished hereafter. Such is his idea of the origin of religion. ...
...The monotheist, such as the Jews, the Christians, and the Mehomitans, whose history is best known to us, are remarkable for religious wars. The Jews founded their empire upon them.—the Mehomitans did the same; and the Christians, if we reckon their sectarians wars, their Mehomitan wars, their South American wars and their pagan wars, have probably destroyed more men than both the other classes of monotheists.
...In this examination of monotheism I do not bring into view the ancient philosophers, who believed in one God only, nor the modern Deists. The hands of those classes of men never formed a national religion and consequently have had very little affect on the moral or political character of any people. These teach in speculation are certainly repectable, but if they were reduced to dogmas, and formed into a system of worship, it is probable that such a system would degenerate into something like the Jewish or Mehometan. They might avoid the absurdities of the Christian system, but who could guarantee them against other absurdities as great?
Questions.
If man in all ages and countries had understood astronomy and physics as well as they do now generally in Europe would the ideas of God and religion have ever come into their minds?
Have not these ideas been greater sources of human calamity than all other moral causes? Is it not necessary in the nature of things that they should be so, as long as they exist in the minds of men in such a strong degree as to form the basis of education?
If we admit that these ideas are wholly chimerical having arisen altogether from ignorance of natural causes is it not the duty of every person who sees this evil tendency to use his influence to banish them as much as possible from society?
Is it not possible wholly to destroy their influence and reduce them to the rank of other ancient fables to be found only in the history of human errors?
If the existence of philosophy would have prevented their existence why shall it not destroy them?
Had it been known that the earth moved round the sun, the latter would not have been considered a god. The knowledge of this movement would have been the key to all the science of astronomy and prevented mankind from being deceived for so many ages by false appearances in the movements of the heavenly bodies. Those false appearances gave the idea of life and intelligence in those bodies. Their influence on the earth was apparent, and if we suppose those influences to be directed by their intelligence the consequence is that they control us and either make or destroy our happiness. They are therefore gods, good or bad according as we are affected by their influence.
Darkness, storms, whirlwinds, thunders, inundations, were deified on the same principles, being unexplained they were supposed to act from their own will or that of their masters, they were therefore feared and adored as beings whom we could not control but might hope to soften by our prayers as we might a passionate master who had us in his power.
Joel Barlow was one of the few atheists among the early American governmental leaders. It seems that he kept his thoughts on this topic mainly to himself in his notes. Could it be that the anomalous and disputed text distancing America from the Christian religion in his version of the Treaty of Tripoli may reflect his own philosophical approach addressed above—“If the existence of philosophy would have prevented their existence [i.e. the errors of religion] why shall it not destroy them?”
CHAPTER 27
1 WGW, vol. 35, Farewell Address, 1796.
2 Cf. W. T. Jones, Kant to Wittgenstein and Sartre (New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc., 1969), p. 8.
3 Alexander Pope again found the words to describe this new deistic creed of Enlightenment religion: “Father of all! In every age, In every clime adored, By saint, by savage, and by sage.” “The Universal Prayer”, 1738.
4 Noah Webster, American Dictionary of the English Language, 1828.
5 Norman Cousins, ‘In God We Trust’ The Religious Beliefs and Ideas of The American Founding Fathers, (Harper & Brothers, New York, p. 6).
6 Adams Family Correspondence, L.H. Butterfield, Editor volume 1 – December 1761-May 1776, pp. 626-27.
7 The Works of Benjamin Franklin, ed. Jared Sparks (Chicago: Townsend MacCoun., 1882), x. 281-82.
8 Bishop Meade, Old Church Ministers and Families of Virginia p. 223-224.
The strength as well as tenderness of Judge Marshall’s attachment to Mrs. Marshall will appear from the following affecting tribute to her memory, written by himself, December 25, 1832: “This day of joy and festivity to the whole Christian world is, to my sad heart, the anniversary of the keenest affliction which humanity can sustain. While all around is gladness, my mind dwells on the silent tomb, and cherishes the remembrance of the beloved object which it contains.
“On the 25th of December, 1831, it was the will of Heaven to take to itself the companion who had sweetened the choicest part of my life, had rendered toil a pleasure, had partaken of all my feelings and was enthroned in the inmost recess of my heart. Never can I cease to feel the loss and to deplore it. Grief for her is too sacred ever to be profaned on the day, which shall be, during my existence, marked by a recollection of her virtue.
“On the 3rd of January 1783, I was united by the holiest bonds to the woman I adored. From the moment of our union to that of our separation, I never ceased to thank Heaven for this its best gift. Not a moment passed in which I did not consider her as a blessing from which the chief happiness of my life was derived. This never-dying sentiment, originating in love, was cherished by a long and close observation of as amiable and estimable qualities as ever adorned the female bosom. To a person which in youth was very attractive, to manners uncommonly pleasing, she added a fine understanding, and the sweetest temper which can accompany a just and modest sense of what was due to herself. She was educated with a profound reverence for religion, which she preserved to her last moments. This sentiment, among her earliest and deepest impressions, gave a colouring to her whole life. Hers was the religion taught by the Savior of man. She was a firm believer in the faith inculcated by the Church (Episcopal) in which she was bred.
“I have lost her, and with her have lost the solace of my life! Yet she remains still the companion of my retired hours, still occupies my inmost bosom. When alone and unemployed, my mind still recurs to her. More that a thousand times since the 25th of December 1831, have I repeated to myself the beautiful lines written by General Burgoyne, under a similar affliction, substitution ‘Mary’ for ‘Anna’:
“’Encompass’d in an angle’s frame,
An angel’s virtues lay;
Too soon did Heaven assert its claim
And take its own away!
My Mary’s worth, my Mary’s charms,
Can never more return!
What now shall fill these widow’d arms?
Ah me! My Mary’s urn!
Ah me! Ah me! My Mary’s urn’”
As to the religious opinions of Judge Marshall, the following extract from a letter of the Reverend Mr. Norwood may be entirely relied on: “I have read some remarks of yours in regard to Chief-Justice Marshall, which have suggested to me to communicate to you the following facts, which may be useful should you again publish any thing in relation to his religious opinions. I often visited Mrs. General Harvey during her last illness. From her I received this statement. She was much with her father during the last months of his life, and told me that the reason why he never communed was, that he was a Unitarian in opinion, thought he never joined their society. He told her that he believed in the truth of the Christian revelation, but not in the divinity of Christ; therefore he could not commune in the Episcopal Church. But during the last months of his life, he read Keith on Prophecy, where our Saviour’s divinity is incidentally treated, and was convinced by his work, and the fuller investigation to which it led, of the supreme divinity of the Saviour. He determined to apply for admission to the Communion of our Church, objected to commune in private, because he thought it his duty to make a public confession of the Saviour, and which waiting of improved health to enable him to go the church for the purpose, he grew worse and died, without ever communing. Mrs. Harvey was a lady of the strictest probity, the most humble piety, and of a clear discriminating mind, and her statement, the substance of which I give you accurately (having reduced it to writing) maybe entirely relied on.
“I remember to have heard Bishop Moore repeatedly express his surprise (when speaking of Judge Marshall) that, though he was so punctual in his attendance at church, and reproved Mr. – and Mr. – and Mr. – when they were absent, and knelt during the prayers and responded fervently, yet he never communed. The reason was that which he gave to his daughter, Mrs. Harvey. She said he died an humble, penitent believer in Christ, according to the orthodox creed of the church.
Very truly, your friend and brother in Christ, Wm. Norwood.
“P.S. – Another fact, illustrating the lasting influence of maternal instruction, was mentioned by Mrs. Harvey. Her father told here that he never went to bed without concluding his prayer with those which he mother taught him when a child – viz.: the Lord’s Prayer and the prayer beginning, ‘Now I lay me down to sleep.’”
9 Ibid., p. 33 – Randolph’s Repentance
“It being known that there was a family connection and some intimacy and correspondence between Mr. Randolph and myself, I have been often asked my opinion as to his religious character. It is as difficult to answer this as to explain some other things about this most talented, eccentric, and unhappy man. My acquaintance and correspondence with him commenced in 1813 and terminated in 1818, although at his death he confided a most difficult and important trust to myself, in conjunction with our common and most valued friend, Mr. Francis S. Key. I publish the following letter written in 1815, when his mind seemed to be in a state of anxiety on the subject of religion and an extract from another paper in my possession showing a supposed relief in the year 1818. Other letters I have, during the period of our intimacy, of the same character. The reader must judge for himself, taking into consideration the great inconsistencies of his subsequent life, and making all allowances for his most peculiar and unhappy temperament, his most diseased body, and the trying circumstances of his life and death.”
Richmond, May 19 1815
“It is with very great regret that I leave town about the time that you are confidently expected to arrive. Nothing short of necessity should carry me away at this time. I have a very great desire to see you, to converse with you on the subject before which all others sink into insignificance. It continues daily to occupy more and more of my attention, which it ahs nearly engrossed to the exclusion of every other, and it is a source of pain as well as of occasional comfort to me. May He who alone can do it shed light upon my mind, and conduct me, through faith, to salvation. Give me your prayers. I have the most earnest desire for a more perfect faith than I fear I possess. What shall I do to be saved? I know the answer, but it is not free from difficulty. Lord, be merciful to me, a sinner. I do submit myself most implicitly to his holy will, and great is my reliance on his mercy. But when I reflect on the corruptions of my nature I tremble whilst I adore. The merits of an all-atoning Saviour I hardly dare to plead when I think of my weak faith. Help, Lord, or I perish, but thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven. I know that I deserve to suffer for my sins; for time misspent, faculties misemployed; but, above all, that I have not loved God and my neighbour as we are commanded to do. But I will try to confide in the promises we have received, or rather to comply with their conditions. Whatever be my fate, I will not harbour a murmur in my breast against the justice of my Creator. Your afflicted friend, John Randolph, of Roanoke”
“Reverend William Meade, August 1818,
“It is now just nineteen years since sin first began to sit heavy upon my soul. For a very great part of that time I have been as a conscious thief; hiding or trying to hide from my fellow-sinners, from myself, from my God. After much true repentance, followed by relapses into deadly sin, it hath pleased Almighty God to draw me to him; reconciling me to him, and, by the love which drives out fear, to show me the mighty scheme of his salvation, which hath been to me, as also to the Jews, a stumbling block and, as to the Greeks, foolishness. I am now, for the first time, grateful and happy; nor would I exchange my present feeling and assurances, although in rage, for any throne in Christendom.”
p. 95- Bishop Madison- infidelity?
“In the year 1785, the Reverend James Madison, afterward Bishop of Virginia, became its minister, and continued so until his death in 1812, long before which the congregation had dwindled into almost nothing,- ... A young friend of mine, who was in Williamsburg about the year 1810, informed me that, being desirous of hearing the oratory of Bishop Madison, he had once or twice gone out on a Sabbath morning to this church, but that the required number for a sermon was not there, though it was a very small one, and so he was disappointed. ... In the year 1774 he became Professor in the College of William and Mary, in the year 1777, President of the College, and in the year 1799 was consecrated Bishop of Virginia. His addresses to the Convention breathe a spirit of zealous piety, and his recommendations are sensible and practical. ... I again repeat my conviction that the reports as to his abandonment of the Christian faith in his latter years are groundless; although it is to be feared that the failure of the Church in his hands, and which at that time might have failed in any hands, his secular and philosophical pursuits, had much abated the spirit with which he entered upon the ministry. The old church at Jamestown is no longer to be seen, except the base of its ruined tower.”
10 The reformation envisaged by the Deists was an education founded on reason, coupled with an opposition to revelation and the clergy. As deist Charles Blount wrote in his Oracles of Reason:
“By education most have been misled,
