John Henry Livingston and the Liberty of the Conscience

John Coakley

Although John Henry Livingston ( 17 46-1825), "father of the Reformed Church," is well known for his achievements as an ecclesiastical statesman, he has not had much fame as a theologian. 1 To be sure, he respectably held the office of Professor of Theology for forty-one years, but not even his contemporary admirers considered him a creative thinker. Thus John De Witt, Livingston's junior colleague at the seminary at New Brunswick, remarked in his funeral oration that there was nothing very original in the system of theology that Livingston taught. 2 And Livingston's biographer and sometime confidant Alexander Gunn, while declaring that he "had a sound, acute, discriminating, comprehensive intellect," and that "in professional learning, he was unquestionably preeminent, and had scarce a compeer in the country, " prefaced those observations by acknowledging that "he was not distinguished, indeed, for fertility of imagination, or for originality and sublimity of thought. "3 Yet his ideas, original or not, have a historical importance, if only because of the undisputed importance of his career as a whole; for ideas underlie actions. In this essay I shall therefore consider Livingston as a man of ideas, and the importance for him of one idea in particular: the liberty of the conscience. This idea played a consistent and fundamental role in his thinking from the time of his first published work, through the early decades of his career when he was making his now famous contributions to the formation of the Reformed Church. For background purposes, let us recall those contributions. First, it was Livingston who organized and chaired the convention in 1771 which ratified the Plan of Union to heal the schism between the Coetus and Conferentie factions, effectively to remove the church from subordination to the Classis of Amsterdam, and thus make it finally a self-determining entity. 4 Second, as Professor of Theology from 1784 until his death, he figured prominently in the long, complex, but finally successful struggle to give the professorate a permanent home--ultimately in New Brunswick, where he settled in 1810--and to fund it adequately. 5 Third, he apparently did much of the preparation of the church's first hymnal, Psalms and Hymns , which was published in 1789, and in 181 2- 13 produced more or less single-handedly a considerably different second edition of this work. 6 Fourth, in 1790 it was he who, as the chairman of a committee to translate the Church Order of Dordt into English, pointed out to

119 the General Synod the need for "inserting or adding some further rules" to that document; and he principally drafted the resulting "Explanatory Articles" which the synod ratified in 1792 and published (along with the translation of the Order of Dordt and the Standards -and Liturgy) as the Constitution of the church in 1793. 7 He seems to have had a hand in all the major business of the church in its early, post-colonial years, and moreover to have had a certain genius for accomplishing things. No other single figure of his time in the Reformed Church contributed to its development in so many prominent ways . 8 So much for his tangible accomplishments. What of his thoughts? What leading ideas did he bring to his work? Here we are fortunate to have an early work from his pen which antedates all of his major accomplishments, and reveals his mind at a moment when he was poised, as it were, at the edge of his illustrious career, so that we get a glimpse of his mind at the beginning. This is the treatise De foederis Sinaitici natura (On the nature of the Sinaitic covenant), the discourse he defended to receive his doctorate in theology at the University of Utrecht in 1770. 9 In what follows I shall first examine the ideas of this treatise and then point out some of their echoes in Livingston's writings in the active years that followed. In all of this, as suggested earlier, the notion of liberty of conscience will turn out to have a peculiar importance.

De Foederis Sinaitici Natura Livingston wrote the doctoral discourse at the end of his four-year stay at the University of Utrecht, after he had received a call to the Collegiate Church of New York and was about to head home to begin his illustrious career. He had come to the in the first place (arriving 20 June 1766) with the encouragement of Archibald Laidlie, the first English-language minister of the Collegiate Church, and of some of the congregation who hoped to have him back as Laidlie's colleague. Once settled in Utrecht, he continued to correspond with them. 10 The New York consistory issued a call in March, 1769. By the time he received it he had completed his basic theological studies and had been licensed to preach by the Classis of Amsterdam. 11 Nonetheless he postponed a response, and instead commenced work toward a doctorate. It is probably germane that an American professorate in the Reformed Church was clearly going to be established in the near future and would likely come the way of someone conspicuously qualified. 12 At any rate, he worked quickly, sustained his first set of examinations for the degree, and wrote his discourse in the winter of 1769-70, and only then, on 1 April 1770, accepted the call and received ordination. 13 He successfully defended the discourse on 6 May, sailing for America soon afterward. 14 The New York consistory received him on 6 September. 15 For Livingston therefore, the discourse was a last academic exercise before the beginning of his active ministry. We can view it therefore

120 as an index of his intellectual formation for that ministry, an indicator of the ideas he brought along to it. We can discern two sets of ideas in De foederis Sinaitici. First, and most obvious, are certain notions rooted in the "covenant theology" that had occupied a prominent place in much of Reformed dogmatics for a hundred years and more. 16 Second, less immediately apparent yet arguably more fundamental for Livingston, are some concepts of human freedom which he derived, not from Reformed dogmatics per se, but probably (as I shall argue) from the work of the British philosopher John Locke. To begin with covenant theology: De foederis Sinaitici natura ostensibly shows Livingston asking what sort of covenant God made with the Israelites in giving them the law at Mount Sinai. This was a question to which, Livingston notes, theologians had given various answers. 17 The treatise argues the position that although this covenant displayed characteristics of both the covenant of works (i .e., God's covenant with Adam, whereby salvation was conditional on Adam's obedience) and the covenant of grace (i.e., the unconditional agreement between God and the elect, whereby God graciously grants salvation because of Christ's mediation), fundamentally it was neither. Rather it was a "national" covenant, the direct aim of which was not to grant adherents salvation, but rather to set them clearly apart as a nation. Since the Sinaitic covenant essentially continues the covenant made with Abraham, as is suggested both by the frequent linked references to the two in Scripture and by the fact that the Israelites are called the "people of God" both before and after Sinai, to speak of one covenant is to speak of the other; and it is actually from the covenant with Abraham that Livingston adduces the main traits that he sees as characterizing the Sinaitic covenant. 18 Specifically, what the covenant with Abraham in Genesis 17: 1-14 accomplished was to establish the "media" through which the promises were fulfilled that had been implied in Genesis 12:2-3, namely that Abraham would be "father of all the faithful" and "progenitor of the future Messiah. "19 These "media" are the strict separation of Israel from other peoples, the establishment of a "theocracy" whereby God was to be king and civil head of the family, and in consequence of this, the forging of a "perfect union between church and state fpolitia] . "20 And since the Abrahamic and Sinaitic covenants are essentially the same, the latter's main thrust was likewise the proclamation of a theocracy for the purpose of setting Israel aside for its task of producing the Messiah. Now the view that the Sinaitic covenant was primarily an instance of neither the covenant of works nor the covenant of grace had also been held by the Dutch theologian Herman Witsius ( 1636-1708), whom Livingston acknowledges; and a comparison is instructive. 2 1 In maintaining this position, Witsius seems at heart to have been concerned to maintain proper definitions of the covenant of works and the covenant of grace, respectively. Thus he argues that the Sinaitic

121 covenant could not have been an instance of the covenant of works because after Adam's fall that covenant could not be "renewed," because the Sinaitic covenant demanded only "sincere obedience" whereas the covenant of works demanded "perfect obedience," and because the Sinaitic covenant did not exclude the possibility of pardon for lapses as did the covenant of works .22 Furthermore it could not be an instance of the covenant of grace, since it lacks the promise of the "strength to obey" that is part and parcel of the covenant of grace. 23 In concluding then that the Sinaitic covenant was "a national covenant between God and Israel," Witsius was chiefly concerned to have demonstrated what it was not. 24 Livingston, for his part, makes some, though not all, of the same observations as Witsius in distinguishing the Sinaitic covenant from the covenant of works and the covenant of grace, pointing out in effect that the Sinaitic covenant did not enjoin perfect obedience, and that it did not itself justify. 25 But his intent in all this seems rather to have been to show what the Sinaitic covenant was--to explore what it meant to be a "national covenant." It is to this end that he devotes so much attention to the terms of the covenant with Abraham, in which the purpose of the covenant to prepare for the Messiah is more clearly stated. The central thrust of the treatise is to characterize the Sinaitic covenant as constitutive of a theocracy. The treatise thus places the Sinaitic covenant within--or perhaps we should say outside--the basic categories of the received covenant theology. But we may well ask why this should be of any importance. The answer to that question emerges from the second set of ideas to be noted in Defoederis Sinaitici natura. Now the importance that Livingston himself seems to attach to his argument in the treatise is that, by showing Israel's constitutive covenant to be aimed primarily at establishing theocracy, it construes the national polity of Israel as a supernaturally-caused, special case, not imitable by any other human society. Thus in the context of explaining that Israel's role of Messianic preparation required a purity of doctrine and therefore a strict separation from idolatrous peoples, Livingston notes that in order for such a separation to occur the sovereign must exercise sovereignty over the consciences of the subjects. No mortal sovereign however could rightly exercise such sovereignty. This consideration alone requires, and explains, the theocracy. The crucial passage is as follows: The necessity of the separation of the family of Abraham is easily demonstrated from the nature of these promises [i.e., the ones made to Abraham] . For Abraham is promised to be "himself the father of all the faithful." It is therefore necessary for them to be faithful. But they cannot be faithful without knowledge of the doctrine of salvation. Conservation of that doctrine is therefore absolutely necessary. But without separation from idolatrous peoples, how can this conservation

122 be effected? Besides, God promises to Abraham that he will be the progenitor of the Messiah. Who does not see then that it is necessary that Abraham's family thus be conserved from adulteration by other families of the world, and kept pure and unmixed until the birth of the Messiah? ... From the purpose of their separation, it appears clearly that a theocratic regime is necessary in such a society. For in order to conserve the doctrine of salvation infallibly, command [imperium] is required over the consciences of the subjects, by means of which they will be obligated by penal laws to the instituted worship and the prescribed faith. But who would dare to assert that such command could belong to any mortal king? Thus it is easily concluded that God, to whom alone belongs the right to obligate consciences, must be the king, and hold supreme authority in that society. 26 This comment makes it clear that his argument serves to explain something he otherwise would find troubling, namely the Old Testament's seeming violation of the basic principle of the liberty of the human conscience. This underlying concern to uphold the inviolable liberty of the conscience displays, I suggest, an apparent affinity with the ideas of John Locke about toleration; and indeed we can determine that Livingston was influenced directly by reading Locke. This is not, of course, to say that Locke was his only source of such ideas. Doubtless there were other important influences on Livingston also, which have yet to be explored. 27 But the connection with Locke is striking. In the light of the words of Livingston above, a few words from Locke's Letter on Toleration, may first illustrate the general affinity between the two: . . . it appears not that God has ever given any such authority to one man over another, as to compel any one to his religion. Nor can any such power be vested in the magistrate by the consent of the people; because no man can so far abandon the care of his own salvation, as blindly to leave it to the choice of any other, whether prince or subject, to prescribe to him what faith or worship he shall embrace. For no man can, if he would, conform his faith to the dictates of another. 28 Livingston specifically acknowledged Locke's actual influence some seven years later, in a letter to his cousin Robert Livingston dated 28 February 1777, concerning the role of religious freedom in the new constitution of the State of New York, of which Robert had been a drafter. Here John says that it was Locke's Letter on Toleration that "first enlarged my views" on the subject of "the rights of mankind . . . and the mode of securing the privileges of

123 conscience." He goes on to say that the draft constitution happily "breathes the same spirit," in the sense of embodying the notion that all people have a right to "believe for themselves and worship God according to the dictates of their conscience without depending upon fellow subjects, sister churches, or even the civil magistrates in religion," and that this is in fact a natural right, not a gift from the State.29 Now if it was indeed Locke who "first enlarged" his "views" on the subject, then since those views were evidently already "enlarged" by the time of De foederis Sinaitici natura, we can conclude that Locke had already influenced his thinking directly. 30 Another Lockean touch in the treatise which deserves mention is Livingston's attempt to appropriate the notion of a contract as the foundation of society. Locke had developed this idea in his Essay on Civil Government, where he posited a "state of nature" wherein all persons are perfectly free to choose to do "as they think fit, " and saw "political societies" to originate from those free choices: Men being, as has been said, by nature, all free, equal and independent, no one can be put out of this estate, and subjected to the political power of another, without his own consent. The only way, whereby any one divests himself of his natural liberty, and puts on the bonds of civil society, is by agreeing with other men to join and unite into a community .... 31 It was by means of this notion that Livingston answered, in effect, the question why God bothered to effect a covenant, i.e., a bilateral agreement, at Sinai, if indeed God intended thereby only to establish a theocracy, i.e. , to reserve power for himself. The answer--that even a theocracy could not be established without the consent of the governed--is expressed in vocabulary close to Locke's: The origin of society is truly derived from that state of nature, as it is called, in which humans, by reason of liberty, join themselves together in a certain civil bond [se civili quodam vinculo copularunt]. Moreover, the state of being thus joined flows out of free choice, and can never be formed without their consent . . . . And this is the reason why God in his affairs with the family of Abraham on Mount Sinai, did not just starkly promulgate the divine law, but also brought about a covenant with them: for without a popular covenant, a theocracy could not be established. 32 Clearly Livingston saw no contradiction here between the apparent denial of freedom implied in the theocracy's binding of consciences, and the principle that government is based on free consent; the Israelites chose, in effect, to have their consciences bound. In exercising their right of choice, they were thus like

124 every other human society; their difference from all other societies was that only they could legitimately choose to have their consciences bound, because only they had a civil sovereign who could legitimately bind them, namely God. De foederis Sinaitici natura shows us then more than a young man demonstrating his exegetical ability and his familiarity with the topics of the Reformed theology of his time. The concerns that appear most fundamentally to drive his thinking--in the sense of motivating his argument here--emerge from Lockean reflection on freedom and toleration. Indeed, one could even say that what Livingston was doing was to take freedom of conscience as the fundamental assumption on which he proceeded to interpret Scripture--a principle which he did not, in fact, derive from Scripture, but rather brought to it.

America and the Church Although an analysis of all of Livingston's writings is beyond the scope of this essay, I want to offer examples of two prominent themes in his subsequent writing in which the concerns of the De foederis Sinaitici natura continued to echo. One of these was the theological estimation of America; the other was the clarification of the work of the church and its role in the new American society. Livingston the patriot clearly held America in high regard because it embodied those principles of freedom that, as we have seen, had underlain his thinking in 1770. This becomes clear in a sermon preached at the renovated Middle Collegiate Church in New York twenty years later (published under the title "Sanctuary Blessings") on the text "In all places where I record my name, I will come unto thee and bless thee" (Exodus 20. 24). The verse was one of God's utterances on Sinai, and to begin exegeting it, Livingston in effect capsulizes the argument of his doctoral discourse: it was in order (he says) that the Messiah be recognized when he should come, that God acted on Sinai to set Israel apart as "a particular nation, to preserve the truths of revelation, and be the peculiar people from whom the Saviour, as to the flesh, was to spring." Consequently a theocracy was necessary, which "no human constitution could possibly effect," and God' s direction here to establish a public cult of sacrifice at particular places applies to Israel specifically under the terms of that theocracy. 33 In the "present dispensation, " by contrast, "an union between the church and state, however artfully contrived to suit the genius of civil government, or ingeniously defended to apologize for usurped privileges, is, under the present dispensation, absurd and impossible--it is of human invention, and. has often prostituted the most sacred things, by making them subservient to mere political views, to avarice, or the lust of domination. "34 So the Sinaitic dispensation is here adduced specifically to show the sense in which it is irrelevant, and thus highlight the fundamental principle of liberty of conscience (all consistently with the argument of the doctoral discourse). To interpret the

125 verse positively then for his hearers, Livingston construes it as pertaining to the present dispensation in that enduring "spiritual" sense, noting that true "recording of the name of the Lord" is not tied to place but rather refers to "sound evangelical doctrine and worshiping in spirit and truth. "35 In any event, there is indeed a sense of the specialness of the within the present dispensation, as the place where the freedom of conscience that is essential to it has become notably manifest. The sermon was delivered on 4 July, and toward the end he includes an appreciative excursus on the state of the nation after the revolution: A station and rank is now obtained among the nations of the earth; and, if the full enjoyment of civil and religious liberty is a constituent part of social happiness--if the prospects of the rising importance, strength, and greatness of our new empire are of any weight in the scale, we may safely pronounce ourselves, at this day, to be the happiest nation in the world. A nation where all the rights of man are perfectly secured. Without a monarchy--without hereditary nobility, and without an hierarchy. Hail, happy land A land of liberty! --of science!--of religion! Here an undisturbed freedom in worship forms the first principle of an equal government." There follows a glowing description of prosperity and freedom. 36 Livingston therefore held a high view of the significance of America. But there is also a note of caution in "Sanctuary Blessings." Immediately after the passage cited above, Livingston distinguishes his sermon from political July 4 addresses, and says, "I desire, with plainness of speech, to raise your views to heaven, and persuade you wisely to improve your precious privileges. "37 America's freedom is a gift of God, a set of privileges to be guarded carefully, not a birthright and--significantly--not a matter of privileged transaction with God. As Earl William Kennedy has noted, Livingston in general "falls short of a 'civil religion,"' in the sense that he never, for instance, hypothesized with Jonathan Edwards and others that it would be America's role to inaugurate the Millennium, and as for "Sanctuary Blessings," "there is really little here to suggest that America is God's 'new Israel,' although this notion is not necessarily excluded. "38 Kennedy is right that America is not for Livingston a new Israel; however, reading the beginning of the sermon in the light of De foederis Sinaitici natura , we can go further and say that the notion probably is excluded, on precisely the grounds that Israel's chosenness necessarily entailed a theocracy that was the opposite of all that America epitomized. This brings us to the second theme in Livingston's thought that I wish to point out, namely that of the role of the church in the new American society. Livingston's reflections on this theme come clearly into view in his inaugural

126 oration as Professor of Theology in 1784. Beginning the oration on a note that reminds us of "Sanctuary Blessings," Livingston exclaims, after a brief encomium to the heroism of the patriots during the war: "O blessed republic! Who (excepting Jacob of old) has been served like you by the Lord, the shield of your help and the sword of your excellence [Deut. 33:29]? 0, happy threefold and fourfold if you recognize your own benefit in these favors, and not (which God forbid) through extravagance or other wicked conduct, quickly cause all that you have, and your newborn authority, to be forgotten, and undermine their foundation." Here again he pictures America as being comparable with Israel in blessings, and yet, being free rather than under a theocracy, as in danger of freely forgetting those blessings. It is this fact, it would seem, that gives the church a crucial place in the republic, for as a republic "we would be miserable except for the knowledge and practice of true religion, which is more necessary than anything. . . . For justice exalts a people, and to worship God and to fear him is the source of right living, and the highest wisdom." It is for the sake of the republic, then, and specifically for the sake of the morals which are its foundation, that the church must teach the "knowledge and practice of true religion. "39 The substance of the oration is then an attempt to argue that Christian religion was true, on grounds typical of the eighteenth-century supernatural rationalism, and with much attention to refuting the Deists. 40 Toward the end of the oration, after bringing this argument to a close, he returned to the theme of America's blessings: "Well done, my country! Well done, new commander of the American world! 0 if you knew, and especially on this auspicious day, how much you owe to the Christian religion! For it will be your salvation! Receive truly this divine revelation! Receive to your bosom the aforesaid books [i.e., the Scriptures] as infallible truth! Never trust in natural religion for eternal life . . .. "41 On the matter of the work of the church and its role in American society, probably Livingston's most influential work was in the drafting of the "Explanatory Articles," which specifically attempted to detail the particulars of the Reformed Church's adaptation to American life. We are soon to have a study of these from Daniel Meeter. Here I want only to refer to the document called the "Preface to the Entire Constitution," which served as introduction to the Articles, as well as to the Standards and Liturgy, in the first edition of the Constitution of the Church in 1793. This "Preface" is not signed, but both because Livingston apparently chaired the committee to compile the Constitution and because the ideas are so consonant with his own, there is little doubt that it fundamentally reflects his thinking, whether or not it is literally from his pen. What is particularly striking about the "Preface" is that here the conviction that consciences cannot be coerced--that same Lockean conviction that motivated the young Livingston's reflections on the Sinaitic covenant--becomes part of the church's very rationale for confessing its faith. Thus the "Preface" asserts that

127 it is in order to perform rightly the "duty as well as privilege, openly to confess and worship [God] according to the dictates of their own consciences, " as well as to oppose heresy and error, that the church needs to formulate its "articles of faith and discipline." Moreover, it appears likewise to be the church's duty to society to do this, in the sense that it behooves the church to prove to society that it is in fact "a bond of union wholly voluntary, and unattended with civil emoluments or penalties" and therefore "cannot be considered as an infringement upon the equal liberties of othP!"S ... "42 Thus, Livingston and his co-drafters are saying, the intentio;-, of the church in establishing a constitution is to prove to society its own consonance with the principles of the freedom of conscience. Just so, they go on to say, anything in the Church Order of Dordt relating to "the immediate authority and interposition of the Magistrate in the government of the Church ... is now entirely omitted." The "Preface" continues in a vein consistent with Livingston's other views on America as it pictures America in terms of great blessing and opportunity (though, it will be noted, not chosenness): Whether the Church of Christ will not be more effectually patronised in a civil government where full freedom of conscience and worship is equally protected and insured to all men, and where truth is left to vindicate her own sovereign authority and influence, than where men in power promote their favorite denominations by temporal emoluments and partial discriminations, will now, in America, have a fair trial; and all who know and love the truth will rejoice in the prospect which such a happy situation affords for the triumph of the Gospel and the reign of peace and love. 43 Livingston had for a long time not only subscribed to, but even taken as a fundamental theological principle, the liberty of conscience. The "Preface" shows the church precisely, and by its very constitution, taking that principle for its own as well.

Conclusion I have attempted in this essay both to demonstrate something of the consistency of John Henry Livingston's thought over time, and also to suggest its importance for an understanding of the significance of those contributions to the formation of the Reformed Church, for which he has long been celebrated. In all of this, the importance of freedom of conscience for Livingston has loomed especially large. It becomes clear that in his approach to Scripture as well as in his conception of the church and its mission, freedom of conscience was more than one concept among many; rather, it was a point of departure, a fundamental axiom. And insofar as the spirit of the "Preface to the Whole

128 Constitution" has entered the life of the church, and perhaps in other ways as well, his influence has been profound and ongoing. 44 If that be so, then it must be said also that his influence has contributed, in effect, to a tension in the church's history. For although Livingston himself would never have considered the principle of freedom of conscience to conflict with the church's need for a purity of witness, nonetheless in the two hundred years since the publication of the Constitution just such conflict has often seemed to be occurring. 45 In this sense, Livingston's ongoing influence, direct or indirect, may sometimes have helped divide the church. To say so is not, however, to detract from his reputation, but rather to allow his legacy that degree of complexity and ambiguity that follows upon even (and perhaps especially) the greatest of historical achievements.

129 ENDNOTES:

I. Alexander Gunn, Memoirs of the Rev. John H. Livingston (New York: William A. Mercein, 1829), remains the principal source for his life, incorporating extensive excerpts from documents that are now apparently lost, including an autobiographical manuscript written by Livingston in 1818 and at least fifty-two of his letters. A second, condensed, edition of Gunn appeared in 1856 (New York: Board of Publication of the Reformed Protestant Dutch Church). The only critical biographical study is that of Elton Bruins, "John Henry Livingston: His Life and Work" (S.T.M. thesis, Union Theological Seminary, 1957). Herman Harmelink III, "John Henry Livingston 1746-1825," in The Livingston Legacy, ed. Richard T. Wiles ([Annandale-on-Hudson, N.Y.:] Bard College, 1987), 209-220, provides a convenient biographical summary. I do not know when or by whom Livingston was first called "father of the church"; Gunn however already calls him the father of the church's constitution (Gunn, 320; there the pronoun in the phrase "father of it" cannot refer to the church, for which Gunn used the feminine pronoun).

2. "That he possessed powers of original invention, and has left new and unheard of discoveries in theology, it would be fondness to pretend." John Dewitt, A Funeral Discourse, Pronounced in the Reformed Dutch Church of New Brunswick, Occasioned by the Decease of the Rev. John H. Livingston (New Brunswick, 1825), 17 . De Witt added however that "those who have been distinguished by such powers, and have carried their full exercise into that department of knowledge, have proved the entanglers of our faith, and not its guides."

3. Gunn, 487-8. On this point see also John Beardslee, "John Henry Livingston and the Rise of the American Mission Movement," Historical Highlights [Journal of the Reformed Church Historical Society] 8 (October, 1989),10.

4. See Gerald F. De Jong, The in the American Colonies (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978), 188-210. s. See Howard Hageman, Two Centuries Plus (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984), 1-47.

6. See James Brumm, Singing the Lord's Song: A History of the English Language Hymna(s of the Reformed Church in America, Historical Society of the R.C.A. Occasional Papers no. 2 (New Brunswick, 1990), 9-17.

130 7. Acts and Proceedings of the General Synod of the Reformed Protestant Dutch Church in North America (New York: Board of Publication of the Reformed Protestant Dutch Church, 1859), vol. l, 211 (October, 1790), 235-236 (October, 1792), 245-246 (October, 1793). See also Gunn, 311- 320. There is a succinct account in Bruins, 66-77.

8. As Gunn put it: "in seeing at once, or almost intuitively, what would be the consequences of the adoption of any proposed measure, and in suggesting the best means for effecting an important object, he was surpassed by few . " Gunn, 490.

9. The full title is Specimen theologicum inaugurale exhibens observationes de foederis sinaitici natura ex ejus fine demonstrata (Utrecht: J. Broedelet, 1770).

10 · Gunn, 121 -123, 147-205 passim. i 1. The call was issued on 31 March. The Classis minutes of 17 July note that it was received, read, and passed on to Livingston for his response at the next meeting of Class is. The examination for licensure had taken place on 5 June. Ecclesiastical Records, State of New York [ =ERSNYhereafter], ed. Hugh Hastings, vol. 6 (Albany: J. B. Lyon, 1905), 4162-4164.

12 · Thus Gunn's account of these events is slightly defensive. "That Mr. Livingston had no ambition, or that he was not at all desirous of distinction, nor gratified when it was bestowed, is not pretended. We have no wish to represent him in this Memoir, as free from the imperfections and weaknesses of human nature; but, while it is granted that he had his share of these, it is nevertheless, believed that grace reigned in his heart, and that wehn he thought upon things of good report, or endeavoured to advance his reputation, he did so, rather to extend his usefulness in the Church, than to indulge an anxiety for the notice and applause of others." Gunn, 209-210.

13 · On his preparation for the doctorate, see Gunn, 207-2 11. Documentation of the acceptance of call and ordination is in ERSNY 6: 4182-3. In De foed. , 1-2 , Livingston refers to his decision to return home, and the business of his call, to explain the brevity of the discourse.

14 · Apparently by Livingston's own account in the autobiographical manuscript that Gunn relied upon, when faced in the Spring of 1770 with the prospect of defending the discourse publicly, he experienced a failure of nerve, and

131 would have foregone the defense altogether but for a scolding letter from a friend in Amsterdam which changed his mind again. Gunn, 208-9.

15 · ERSNY, 6:4191.

16 · On covenant theology, with partial reference to the preaching of Livingston, see Jack Klunder, "The Application of Holy Things: A Study of the Covenant Preaching in the Eighteenth Century Dutch Colonial Church" (Th.D. Dissertation, Westminster Theological Seminary, 1984), 75-107.

17 · Defoed., 4. He makes general allusion to the work of Hermanus Venema and "the bishop of Gloucester" (William Warburton) but does not identify the views of individuals on the question at hand, with the exception of Witsius (see below).

18 · Defoed., 14-15 . Deut. 1:8, Deut. 9:5-6, Ps. 105:6-11, and Exod. 2:24-5 are cited as examples of the linking of the two covenants, De foed. , 6.

19 · De foed., 8.

20 · De foed., 10-11.

2 1. The work of Witsius (who had tried to occupy a mediating position between the Voetian and Cocceian schools) was clearly an influence on Livingston. Livingston referred to Witsius not only here but also in the Oratio inauguralis (New York: Samuel and John Loudon, 1785), 106, and his name led the list of ten Reformed and Presbyterian divines from New York who signed the commendatory preface to the American edition of Witsius's work The Oeconomy of the Covenants between God and Man (New York, 1798), vol. 1, v.

22 · Witsius, Oeconomy 4:51 (ed. cit., vol. 3, 34).

23 · Witsius, Oeconomy 4:53 (ed. cit. , vol. 3, 35).

24 · To be sure, the Sinaitic covenant was for Witsius not unrelated to the covenant of works and the covenant of grace. It "supposed a covenant of grace" for without grace "man cannot sincerely promise that observance." "It also supposed the doctrine of a covenant of works, the terror of which being increased by those tremendous signs that attended it, they ought to have been excited to embrace that covenant of God. This agreement therefore is a consequent both of the covenant of grace and of works; but

132 was formally neither the one nor the other." Witsius, Oeconomy 4.34 (ed. cit., vol. 3, 36).

25 · Although according to Livingston the Israelites were indeed enjoined tc "perfect spiritual obedience" of the Sinaitic law, insofar as the covenarn enjoined this it did not do so as covenant, but rather as an expression of th< absolute, ultimately non-covenantal, obligation all "rational creatures" hav< to love God, by virtue of their creation (De foed., 15-16). In its covenanta sense, what was being enjoined was obedience to the laws of the theocrac) (17-18). And as for the Sinai tic covenant's insufficiency to justify the sinner, Livingston cites Lev. 4:27-31, which prescribes animal sacrific< which ostensibly is for the sinner's justification, but actually on1~ accomplishes this according to the demands of the theocracy, not accordin! to the requirements for eternal salvation ( 18-19).

26 · Defoed., 10-11. Italics are Livingston's.

27 · Among these must surely be Gisbert Bonnet, the professor at Utrecht whos, reputation attracted Livingston there in the first place, and whom h considered his "Gamaliel" (as Gunn puts it) . See Gunn, 160, 124. It i interesting to note in the present instance, however, that there exists published sermon by Bonnet (preached later, in 1785) on the Sinaiti· covenant (Exod. 19: 1-8a) approaches it in a manner different, even contrary to Livingston's; instead of stressing the difference between Israel's politic< situation and his own nation's, Bonnet sees the Netherlands as being favore· by God as Israel was, and calls on the nation to renew its covenant wit God to avoid impending disasters. Gisbert Bonnet, "Plegtig onderhandeling tusschen God en Israel," in Verzameling van Leerredene1 vol. 4 (Utrecht: Willem van Yzerworst, 1792), 238-275, esp., 267-272

28 · John Locke, "A Letter concerning Toleration," in The Works ofJohn Lockc 9th ed., vol. 5 (London: T. Longman et al., 1794), 10-11.

29 · Letter in the New York Public Library, transcribed by John Luidens fill made available to me by Norman Kansfield. The letter goes on to complai of the constitution's lack of attention to how the state will "promot< religion. "By promoting I mean that the State judges the fear of God ar his service to be of great importance to society and therefore determines · encourage and help the subjects in the affair."

30 · One possible medium of Lockean influence at Utrecht would have been ti the poet Hieronymus van Alphen and some of his circle, whom Gm

133 (apparently relying on Livingston's autobiographical manuscript) lists as among the students "between whom and himself a most affectionate intimacy subsisted. They aided him in his studies, and their pious conversation was very conducive to his spiritual comfort and edification." Gunn, 163. On van Alphen as a reader of Locke, see P. J. Buijnsters, Hieronymus van Alphen (1756-1803) (Assen: van Gorcum, 1973), passim. (Buijnsters makes brief reference to Livingston as a school friend of van Alphen, 36.) I am indebted to Johan van de Bank for calling van Alphen to my attention.

Two Treatises of Government, in The Works of John Locke, ed. cit., vol. 4, 394 (ch. 8); the state of nature is treated in chapter 2.

De foed., 12-13.

"Sanctuary Blessings, " in The American Preacher ( 1791), 3 7 4.

"Sanctuary Blessings," 386.

"Sanctuary Blessings," 402.

"Sanctuary Blessings," 408-409. Italics are mine.

"Sanctuary Blessings, " 411 .

Earl William Kennedy, "From Providence to Civil Religion: Some 'Dutch' Reformed Interpretations of America in the Revolutionary Era," Reformed Review, 29 (Winter, 1976), 117. See also Beardslee, "John Henry Livingston and the Rise .. .," 10-12.

Oratio inauguralis, 5-6.

By "supernatural rationalism" (a term for which I am indebted to Conrad Wright) I mean that theological position in which the tenets of rational religion (in Livingston's case, in essentially the form that the Deist Lord Herbert of Cherbury enumerated them [ Oratio inauguralis, 45]) are affirmed, but not thought to be adequate for salvation--for which purpose Scriptural revelation was still necessary. John Dillenberger' s summary of the position of Mosheim and some other 18th-century continental theologians on this subject would apply to Livingston also: "Natural religion had an intermediate position. It did not have an independent status; now was it so bound to revelation that it was but a first step. Natural religion was significant apart from anything else; nevertheless, it was fulfilled only in

134 revelation." John Dillenberger, Protestant Thought and Natural Science (Garden City: Doubleday, 1960), 175.

4 1. Oratio inaugumlis, 106. And then he pledged himself, as the Church's Professor, to the Church's task: "to expound the holy Gospel, and its saving truths, to all the men studying theology, and defend it against enemies; and by that means establish more and more firmly that Church which was born in the blood of Christ," 108.

42 · "Preface to the Entire Constitution, Embracing Doctrines, Liturgy and Government, 1792, " in Edward Tanjore Corwin, A Digest of Constitutional and Synodical Legislation of the Reformed Church in America (New York: Board of Publications of the Reformed Church in America, 1906), v.

43 · "Preface," vi.

44 · Eugene Heideman has construed the "Preface" as declaring that, in effect, "the Reformed Church accepted the American Puritan principle of voluntary membership." In this regard, he writes, the "Preface"'s "effect upon the theological stance of the denomination has become ever more important. It forms the milieu in which the theological decisions since have been made; it is a decisive American element in the doctrine of the church which introduces tensions into the theology of Dort. Among the issues raised would be the doctrines of election and limited atonement, the church and the sacraments, especially infant baptism, and the nature of the ministry." Eugene Heideman, "Theology," in Piety and Patriotism, ed. James van Hoeven (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976), 98-99. A similar point is made by James van Hoeven, "Dort and Albany," in Word and World: Reformed Theology in America, ed. James van Hoeven (Grand Rapids : Eerdmans, 1986), 18-19.

45 · For a particularly striking, though hardly unique example, see the report of the General Synod debate on the question of Freemasonry and church ~ membership, in the The Christian Intelligencer, 51 (June 17, 1880), 3-4.

135