Jonathan Mayhew Responds to Gregg Frazer
Bill Fortenberry
In the book The Religious Beliefs of America’s Founders, Gregg Frazer made several strong accusations against the patriot preacher Jonathan Mayhew. Mayhew was one of the most well known preachers of the era leading up to the American Revolution, and his sermons were printed in newspapers throughout the colonies. Several of America’s founders referenced Mayhew’s sermons as being influential in shaping their ideology, and they praised him highly for his leadership in the cause of liberty. Of course, this kind of influence made him a target for many of those who opposed his views. His writings were criticized by several loyalist authors, and it is easy for historians opposed to the Revolution to repeat these criticisms to bolster their cause. This appears to have been Frazer’s tactic in his recent book.
After reading Frazer’s claims, I determined to verify Mayhew’s opinions for myself and began to read through his writings. I was not very surprised at all to find that most of Frazer’s claims were wholly unjustified, but I was surprised to discover that Mayhew had written a defense of his views which proved to be the perfect answer to Frazer’s charges against him. Here is a brief excerpt about Mayhew from Frazer’s book followed by a riposte from Mayhew.
Gregg Frazer on Mayhew:
Reason taught Mayhew two other things about God. The first was that He was not Triune. Mayhew, as was mentioned, was "the first outspoken Unitarian in New England." He openly taught unitarianism from the pulpit and in a published book of sermons. In his rejection of the Trinity, he took the Arian view of Christ. The second thing reason taught Mayhew about God was that He was providential. He expressed a "firm belief" in God's "universal providence" and often spoke of God's governance over the world and the universe.
Although he tried to minimize their ultimate importance, Mayhew was outspoken about numerous doctrines. He "specifically attacked as unChristian and unscriptural the orthodox ... doctrines of imputation, justification by faith, total depravity, and the need of irresistible grace." He was "openly critical" of the Virgin Birth and held unorthodox views concerning regeneration, grace, the satisfaction of Christ, and original sin. Regarding original sin and total depravity, Mayhew held that "the doctrine of a total ignorance, and incapacity to judge of moral and religious truths, brought upon mankind by the apostasy of our First Parents, is without foundation." Regarding the satisfaction of Christ, Mayhew held a governmental, or Grotian, view of the atonement. In other words, Christ's death served merely as an example to men of the consequences of sin; it did not provide any "satisfaction" of God's justice. Consistent with his Arian views, Mayhew saw Christ as a "mediator" between God and men "who should do and suffer what might have a tendency, and be sufficient to vindicate the honor of his laws, by exciting and preserving in all, a just veneration for his government, at the same time that guilty creatures were made partakers of his lenity and grace." Put another way, Jesus came "to give mankind the most perfect and engaging example of obedience to the will of God." The rationalists were correct in seeing a relationship between the doctrines of the Trinity and the atonement. Mayhew's view of the atonement gave the greatest importance a unitarian could give to Christ's death.[1]
Mayhew’s Response:
That I ever denied, or treated in a bold or ludicrous manner, the divinity of the Son of God, as revealed in Scripture, I absolutely deny. My soul loves and adores him. Of his great salvation I have a good hope thro' grace; more prized by me than many, than all worlds: And I have made it my serious endeavour to preach his unsearchable riches according to the Scriptures of truth, without pretending to be wise above what is written. I have indeed expressed my disbelief, and even contempt of certain metaphysical and scholastic, unscriptural and ridiculous definitions or explications of the trinity, which some men have given. This is all that he can make of those places in my sermons, to which he has had the assurance to refer the reader, without quoting a syllable of them. He hoped, no doubt, that his word would be taken, on account of the formality of a marginal reference. but in some of these very passages, the true scriptural account of Christ's divinity is asserted and proved. -- But this is the practice of some men. With them rejecting mere human inventions and refinements respecting the doctrines of Scripture, is the same thing with denying scripture doctrines themselves. And accordingly they scruple not boldly and plumply to tax others therewith, in general terms; and to treat them as hereticks...
But this is not the only specimen which this writer has given of his candor towards me, with respect to doctrinal points. In his flaming apostrophe ... he accuses me of "attempts to undermine the fundamental principles of their faith" -- "those essential doctrines" -- "the doctrines of grace" -- destroying the fundamental principles of their faith" -- and "undermining the dignity and divinity of the Son of God." -- All these railings and accusations are in page 77. In the next, I am said to "deny and ridicule the doctrine of justification by faith;" -- to "discard the notion of original sin;" -- and to "brand the notion of imputed righteousness with the reproach of nonsense." ... Concerning all which, as they respect myself, I protest before God and the world that they are absolute falsehoods. Nor has he produced a single sentence from any of my writings, to support any one of them; which, he knew, was not in his power.
He has indeed had the confidence to refer in the margin, to some of my sermons, to render his groundless accusations the more plausible; hoping his word would be taken. but whoever will be at the pains to turn to these passages, will find the whole amount of them to be this -- that I explode certain wrong and unscriptural explanations of those doctrines; some of them tending to licentiousness; while I not only allow, but assert and prove the doctrines, in a sober, scriptural sense. What an iniquitous artifice is this, to bring such general charges without quotations; and without making any distinction betwixt the doctrines of Scripture in general, and unscriptural refinements upon them? I appeal to God and the world -- nay, to the conscience of this virulent accuser himself, if it is not such an one as we read of in one of St. Paul's epistles. (I Timothy 4:2)
But he goes still further; intimating his suspicions that I am a deist ... "The Dr.'s reflection upon the Song of Solomon is sufficient to show how easy it is for him to discard the sacred canon of scripture itself: Or perhaps," &c. But he dared not to cite that reflection, as he calls it. The most that can be fairly and logically inferred from it, is, that I supposed there was near as much reason for admitting the Wisdom as the Song of Solomon into the canon; -- a very harmless supposition, even tho' it should be a mistake; and which does not imply the latter to be admitted without reason. -- He had before intimated ... that there was ground to "suspect that I deceive myself, when I profess a regard for -- divine revelation" -- Behold his candor! He also makes a great outcry, because I somewhere said, that certain passages of Scripture seemed "at first view" to countenance the doctrine of annihilation. "This," says he, "will be greedily catched at by those who have lived in such a manner, as to have no better hope in their death" -- "This and several other passages -- certainly have a threatening aspect upon the religion of Jesus Christ."
Now if I had any reason to think him sincere in all this, I should think myself bound as a christian to give him a particular answer. At present I shall only observe, that if he had had enough of the charitable spirit of that religion, for which he expresses so great a concern; or if he had but duly meditated upon the eternity of those torments, which he supposes struck at by me, before he began to write; he would probably have spared some of his railing accusations, and palpable falsehoods; and made that candor which he professes, a little more conspicuous to his readers.[2]
For more information on the errors in Frazer's book on the founders, check out my short booklet The Founders and the Myth of Theistic Rationalism
__________________________________________________________
[1] Frazer, Gregg L., The Religious Beliefs of America’s Founders (Lawrence: University of Kansas Press, 2012), 62-63
[2] http://books.google.com/books?id=yatbAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA92
After reading Frazer’s claims, I determined to verify Mayhew’s opinions for myself and began to read through his writings. I was not very surprised at all to find that most of Frazer’s claims were wholly unjustified, but I was surprised to discover that Mayhew had written a defense of his views which proved to be the perfect answer to Frazer’s charges against him. Here is a brief excerpt about Mayhew from Frazer’s book followed by a riposte from Mayhew.
Gregg Frazer on Mayhew:
Reason taught Mayhew two other things about God. The first was that He was not Triune. Mayhew, as was mentioned, was "the first outspoken Unitarian in New England." He openly taught unitarianism from the pulpit and in a published book of sermons. In his rejection of the Trinity, he took the Arian view of Christ. The second thing reason taught Mayhew about God was that He was providential. He expressed a "firm belief" in God's "universal providence" and often spoke of God's governance over the world and the universe.
Although he tried to minimize their ultimate importance, Mayhew was outspoken about numerous doctrines. He "specifically attacked as unChristian and unscriptural the orthodox ... doctrines of imputation, justification by faith, total depravity, and the need of irresistible grace." He was "openly critical" of the Virgin Birth and held unorthodox views concerning regeneration, grace, the satisfaction of Christ, and original sin. Regarding original sin and total depravity, Mayhew held that "the doctrine of a total ignorance, and incapacity to judge of moral and religious truths, brought upon mankind by the apostasy of our First Parents, is without foundation." Regarding the satisfaction of Christ, Mayhew held a governmental, or Grotian, view of the atonement. In other words, Christ's death served merely as an example to men of the consequences of sin; it did not provide any "satisfaction" of God's justice. Consistent with his Arian views, Mayhew saw Christ as a "mediator" between God and men "who should do and suffer what might have a tendency, and be sufficient to vindicate the honor of his laws, by exciting and preserving in all, a just veneration for his government, at the same time that guilty creatures were made partakers of his lenity and grace." Put another way, Jesus came "to give mankind the most perfect and engaging example of obedience to the will of God." The rationalists were correct in seeing a relationship between the doctrines of the Trinity and the atonement. Mayhew's view of the atonement gave the greatest importance a unitarian could give to Christ's death.[1]
Mayhew’s Response:
That I ever denied, or treated in a bold or ludicrous manner, the divinity of the Son of God, as revealed in Scripture, I absolutely deny. My soul loves and adores him. Of his great salvation I have a good hope thro' grace; more prized by me than many, than all worlds: And I have made it my serious endeavour to preach his unsearchable riches according to the Scriptures of truth, without pretending to be wise above what is written. I have indeed expressed my disbelief, and even contempt of certain metaphysical and scholastic, unscriptural and ridiculous definitions or explications of the trinity, which some men have given. This is all that he can make of those places in my sermons, to which he has had the assurance to refer the reader, without quoting a syllable of them. He hoped, no doubt, that his word would be taken, on account of the formality of a marginal reference. but in some of these very passages, the true scriptural account of Christ's divinity is asserted and proved. -- But this is the practice of some men. With them rejecting mere human inventions and refinements respecting the doctrines of Scripture, is the same thing with denying scripture doctrines themselves. And accordingly they scruple not boldly and plumply to tax others therewith, in general terms; and to treat them as hereticks...
But this is not the only specimen which this writer has given of his candor towards me, with respect to doctrinal points. In his flaming apostrophe ... he accuses me of "attempts to undermine the fundamental principles of their faith" -- "those essential doctrines" -- "the doctrines of grace" -- destroying the fundamental principles of their faith" -- and "undermining the dignity and divinity of the Son of God." -- All these railings and accusations are in page 77. In the next, I am said to "deny and ridicule the doctrine of justification by faith;" -- to "discard the notion of original sin;" -- and to "brand the notion of imputed righteousness with the reproach of nonsense." ... Concerning all which, as they respect myself, I protest before God and the world that they are absolute falsehoods. Nor has he produced a single sentence from any of my writings, to support any one of them; which, he knew, was not in his power.
He has indeed had the confidence to refer in the margin, to some of my sermons, to render his groundless accusations the more plausible; hoping his word would be taken. but whoever will be at the pains to turn to these passages, will find the whole amount of them to be this -- that I explode certain wrong and unscriptural explanations of those doctrines; some of them tending to licentiousness; while I not only allow, but assert and prove the doctrines, in a sober, scriptural sense. What an iniquitous artifice is this, to bring such general charges without quotations; and without making any distinction betwixt the doctrines of Scripture in general, and unscriptural refinements upon them? I appeal to God and the world -- nay, to the conscience of this virulent accuser himself, if it is not such an one as we read of in one of St. Paul's epistles. (I Timothy 4:2)
But he goes still further; intimating his suspicions that I am a deist ... "The Dr.'s reflection upon the Song of Solomon is sufficient to show how easy it is for him to discard the sacred canon of scripture itself: Or perhaps," &c. But he dared not to cite that reflection, as he calls it. The most that can be fairly and logically inferred from it, is, that I supposed there was near as much reason for admitting the Wisdom as the Song of Solomon into the canon; -- a very harmless supposition, even tho' it should be a mistake; and which does not imply the latter to be admitted without reason. -- He had before intimated ... that there was ground to "suspect that I deceive myself, when I profess a regard for -- divine revelation" -- Behold his candor! He also makes a great outcry, because I somewhere said, that certain passages of Scripture seemed "at first view" to countenance the doctrine of annihilation. "This," says he, "will be greedily catched at by those who have lived in such a manner, as to have no better hope in their death" -- "This and several other passages -- certainly have a threatening aspect upon the religion of Jesus Christ."
Now if I had any reason to think him sincere in all this, I should think myself bound as a christian to give him a particular answer. At present I shall only observe, that if he had had enough of the charitable spirit of that religion, for which he expresses so great a concern; or if he had but duly meditated upon the eternity of those torments, which he supposes struck at by me, before he began to write; he would probably have spared some of his railing accusations, and palpable falsehoods; and made that candor which he professes, a little more conspicuous to his readers.[2]
For more information on the errors in Frazer's book on the founders, check out my short booklet The Founders and the Myth of Theistic Rationalism
__________________________________________________________
[1] Frazer, Gregg L., The Religious Beliefs of America’s Founders (Lawrence: University of Kansas Press, 2012), 62-63
[2] http://books.google.com/books?id=yatbAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA92