SUMMER 1985 Journalism Quarterly Devoted to Research in Journalism and Mass Communication

By David Paul Nord

The Authority of Truth: Religion And the John Peter Zenger Case

Freedom of expression had gious roots. The Zenger affair reveals important religious roots. some of these roots. Beneath the Sut$ace w This article is about religion in the John Religion lay beneath the surface and Peter Zcnger case of 1735. Its main argu- between the lines of the Zenger case; the ment is that an appreciation of the reli- overt issues were political and legal. John gious milieu of the case can help to explain Peter Zenger's New York Weeklv Journal, the nature of Zenger's defense, the mean- which began publication in 1733, has been ing of the jury's verdict, and the ambig- described as the "first political indepen- uous legacy of the trial for freedom of dent" newspaper in America.1 This is not expression in America. In essence, the quite true. It would be more accurate to Zenger case was a disputation on truth, call it the first political party paper. The and on how truth is revealed to man. Journal was launched by a group of New Because this issue lay at the heart of Prot- York politicians. led by , estant religion as well as colonial politics who opposed the administration of Gov- in the . the Zenger case can be seen ernor . Although Zenger as an interesting intersection of the two. was the printer and proprietor of the Throughout their history, Americans have Journal, the true editor seems to have been strangely intolerant libertarians, of- been , a well-known law- ten suppressing individual liberties in the yer. a member of the Morrisite circle, and name of a more transcendent freedom. later the mastermind of Zenger's defense.* This article contends that America's heri- The heart of each issue was usually a polit- tage of freedom of expression is ambig- ical essay. either an excerpt from "Cato's uous, at least in part, because of its reli- Letters" or a pseudonymous letter written by one of the Morrisite leaders. Most of

I Vincent Buranelli. "Introduction." in Vincent Buranclli. ed.. these essays were abstract attacks on 771~Trial uf Peter Zenger (New York: New York University tyranny and official abuse of power, but Press. 1957). p. 24. Stanley Nidcr Katz. 'Introduction." in Stanley Nidcr Katz. ed.. A Brief Narrative of the Case and Trid uf John Peter Professor Nord, a specialist in journalism history, (Footnote continued) teaches journalism at Indiana University. 22 7

Downloaded from jmq.sagepub.com by FELICIA GREENLEE BROWN on April 12, 2012 228 JOURNALISM QUARTERLY the connection to the Cosby administra- something like the first shot fired in the tion was always unmistakable.' Not sur- .7 prisingly, Governor Cosby immediately In the early 20th century, the case came began to plot his revenge. Throughout to be celebrated more as a legal landmark 1734, Cosby sought, unsuccessfully, the in the development of the law of libel. help of the New York grand jury and the Vincent Buranelli's laudatory account of colonial assembly in suppressing the pa- the trial was probably the apotheosis of per. Finally, in November, 1734, Zenger this view. He declared in 1957 that was arrested and charged with publishing Zenger's acquittal "was not just a personal seditious libels. After much legal wran- thing, or the wresting of a momentary gling, Zenger came to trial in August of privilege from an indolent or interested 1735.4 official. It was a legal precedent."* After The story of the trial itself is well 1960, prompted chiefly by the work of known, largely because of the perennial Leonard Levy, historians moved away popularity of James Alexander's pamphlet from this view, generally agreeing that the A Brief Narrative ofthe Case and Trial of Zenger verdict had no direct impact on the John Peter Zenger. which was first pub- law of libel and little indirect legal impact lished in 1736 and frequently reprinted of any sort9 The standard view today thereafter.5 In the trial, attorney Andrew seems to be that the case was neither a Hamilton, then the most celebrated of political nor a legal landmark, but that it American courtroom lawyers, made his did become an important symbolic event famous plea that truth should be admitted Zenger, 2nd Ed. (Cambridge, Mass.: Bdknap Press of Harvard as a defense and that the jury should University Press. 1972). pp. 7-8. See also Vincent Buranelli. "Peter Zenger's Editor." American Quarrerir. 7: 174-8I (Sum- decide not only the facts of publication mer, 1955): Cathy Covert. "Passion Is Ye Prevaling Motive': but also how the law should be applied. The Feud Behind the Zenger Case." Journalism Quurrerlv. 503-10 (Spring, 1973). On New York politics during this era. These two principles were good politics in see Gary 8. Nash. The Urban Crucihle: Social Change. Polirical New York but bad law in an English Consciousness. and the Origins o/ rhe American Revolurion court; the presiding judge rejected both. (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1979). pp. 140-46; Patricia U. Bonomi. A Facrious People: Politics and Soriel? in Hamilton ignored the rulings from the Coloniol New York (New York: Columbia University Press. bench, however, and appealed directly to 1971). Pan IV. the jury. He admitted that Zenger pub- 3 New York Weeklv Journal. 1733-1734.passim.A few selec- tions from the Journal are reprinted in Katz. op. cir.. and in lished the statements in question, but he Leonard W. Levy. ed.. Freedom o/rhe Press from Zenger ro argued that they were true statements and Jefferson: Earlv American Libertarian Theories (Indianapolis: therefore not libelous. And he told the Bobbs-Merrill. 1966). 4 Katz. op. dr.. pp. 20-23.Katz also includes reprints of pre- jurors that they had the right to so decide. trial materials. Hamilton's plea on both principles was 5 Katz. op. cir.. is the most recent republication of the Zenger persuasive. and the jury brought in a ver- trial pamphlet. An uncorrected literal version of the trial pam- phlet is contained in Livingston Rutherfurd. John perer Zenger: dict of "not guilty." When the verdict was His Prers. Hi> Trial and a Bibliography o/ Zenger lmprinrs read, three "huzzas" rang out in the court- (New York: Dodd. Mead & Company. 1904). For other edi- tions. see "Bibliography of the Trial of John Peter Zenger." in room. And later that night the Morrisites Rutherfurd. Rutherfurd's book was reprinted (1968) by the gathered at the Black Horse Tavern tc Johnson Reprint Corporation. drink toasts to Hamilton and to celebrate Katz. op. d..p. 101 and passim: Rutherfurd. op. cir.. p. the vindication of liberty in America.6 But 126. For example. see George Bancroft. Hisrory ofrhe Unired what were they really celebrating? Siare3 tiom rhe Di.wJl.ery of (he American Conrinenr. Vol. 3 The legal and political significance of (Boston: Little Brown. 1859). pp. 393-94;Richard Hildreth. The History of the Unired Yares pf America. Vol. 2 (New York: the Zenger case seemed simple enough to Harper and Brothers, 1882). p. 360. the celebrants that night at the Black * Buranelli. Triolo/ Peter Zenger. p. 57. See also John Fiske. Horse. But the meaning of the case has The Dutch and Quaker Colonies in Ameriu~.Vol. 2 (Boston: been warmly debated by historians, law- Houghton Mifllin. 1900) p. 296; Rutherlurd. op. d.,p. 131. 9 Levy. up. cir., pp, xxxi-xxxiii. See also Levy. &gOl',V of yers and journalists ever since. In the 19th Suppre,sion: Freedom pf Speech and Press in Earlv American century, the trial was generally viewed as a Hislory (Cambridge. Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1960). p. 133: Katz. "Introduction." op. cir.. pp. 1-2: Warren C. Price, landmark in the growth of political free- "Reflections on the Trial of John Peter Zenger," Journalnm dom and resistance to tyranny in America- Quarrerlv. 32161-68 (Spring, 1955).

Downloaded from jmq.sagepub.com by FELICIA GREENLEE BROWN on April 12, 2012 Religion and the John Peter Zenger Case 229 for 18th-century politics in America-a about. Hamilton did not-he could not- kind of “guiding light for those who were ask the jury to decide the nature and gradually developing an ideology of free- extent of individualism and free thought. dom of expression.”IO He asked them instead to decide the ques- But what was this developing ideology tion, “What is truth?“ In our age of rela- of free expression? It was not, certainly, an tivism and skepticism. this would seem to unqualified libertarian commitment to be the more troubling question. But in individualism and individual freedom. It 1735, the jury was prepared to take it on. was, rather, a belief that people should It is the thesis of this article that the have the right to speak the truth. This was audacity displayed by the Zenger jury in ’s plea to the 12 jury- accepting the burden of this great question men. He asked them to affirm, not the is understandable only when viewed in the sanctity of Zenger’s individual rights, but context of religion-religion as displayed the sanctity of the truth. “Truth ought to in the trial itself, in the pages of the New govern the whole affair of libels,” Hamil- York Weekly Journal, and in the wider ton told the jury. “For as it is truth alone society of colonial New York in 1735. which can excuse or justify any man for complaining of a bsd administration, 1 as The Trial frankly agree that nothing ought to excuse First, it is clear from the text of the trial a man who raises a false charge or accusa- that Hamilton meant to associate politics tion.” Time and time again, Hamilton and political liberty with religion and reli- made it clear that he was pleading only for gious dissent. He described for the jurors Zenger’s right to speak the truth.” the ironic contrast between the “great lib- Levy, writing from the perspective of a erties” they possessed in matters of reli- 20th-century libertarian, has criticized this gion and the political tyranny of the cur- doctrine as an exceedingly weak founda- rent regime. “In New York,” he said tion for freedom of expression. According sarcastically, “a man may make very free to Levy, “Hamilton did not appreciate with his God, but he must take special care that truth is a mischievous, often an illu- what he says of his governor.”13Several of sory, standard that often defies knowledge the cases he cited as precedents, such as or understanding and cannot always be the famous libel trial of the seven bishops established by the rules of evidence.” It is in England in 1688, involved religious dis- “shallow soil” in which to plant the seeds putes rather than purely political mat- of liberty.12 ters.’‘ In his discussion of the evils that Levy, of course, is surely right, but his arise when judges and other authorities perspective is too present-minded. Truth have too much power, Hamilton used could not have been avoided as the stan- images of religious repression and “pop- dard in the Zenger trial, because the ery.” He told the jury: nature of truth was what the trial was all ‘0 Paul Finkelman. ‘The Zcnger Cax: Prototype of a Politi- There is heresy in law as well as in religion, cal Trial.” in Michael R. Belknap. ed.. American Poliiical Trials (Weslport. Conn.: Greenwood Press. 1981). p. 40. See also and both have changed very much; and we Harold L. Nelson. ‘Seditious Libel in Colonial America.“ well know that it is not two centuries ago Amprican Journal of kfal Histor?. 3:IM72 (April. 1959); that a man would have been burnt as an Dwighl L. Teeter. “Press Frccdom and the Public Printing: heretic for owning such opinions in mat- Pennsylvania. 1775-1783.” Journali.m Quarierlr. 45:445-5 I (Autumn 1%8); Clark Rivera. ‘Ideals Interests. and Civil Lib- ters of religion as are publicly wrote and erty: The Colonial Press and Frccdom.” Journalism Quarlrrlv. printed at this day. They were fallible men, 55:47-53 (Spring. 1978). it seems, and we take the liberty not only to 11 Katz. op. tit,, pp. 62, 69. 15, 84 (quole). 99. Throughout differ from them in religious opinions, but this articlc. I have modernized 181h century spelling and punc- to condemn them and their opinions too; tuation. All references to the trial text are to the Katz edition. and I must presume that in taking these 12 Levy. Freedom of the Pr~sp. xxxii: Levy. kfaq of Supprwion. p. 133. freedoms in thinking and speaking about matters of faith or religion, we are in the ‘J Kati. op.

14 Ihid.. p. 72. See also Hamilton’s discussion of the case of right.15 Edward Hala. pp. 85-86. and the London Quakers. pp. 92-93. The phrase “we are in the right” is an ‘J lbid., p. 87.

Downloaded from jmq.sagepub.com by FELICIA GREENLEE BROWN on April 12, 2012 230 JOURNALISM QUARTERLY

important one, for it suggests the central- they did not have to defer to any authority ity of truth. Hamilton did not argue, in on matters of truth. “Jurymen are to see this passage or anywhere in the trial, that with their own eyes, to hear with their own men should be freed from the obligation ears, and to make use of their own con- of truth, whether in religion or govern- sciences and understandings in judging of ment. He argued only that the history of the lives, liberties, or estates of their fellow religion and politics showed that great subjects.”20 Hamilton made it clear to the men, including kings and judges, popes jurors that authority lay within them- and bishops, could be wrong. The people selves. “A proper confidence in a court is of England, he said, had learned during commendable,” he said, “but as the verdict the reigns of the Catholic Stuart kings (whatever it is) will be yours, you ought to that is was dangerous to trust even “the refer no part of your duty to the direction greatest men in the kingdom” with the of other persons.“21 power to judge what was true and what To make the point that libel exists in the was false. eye of the beholder, Hamilton talked So who should judge what is true or about the interpretation of Bible passages. false? In a trial, Hamilton said, it must be He cited passages that speak of corrupt the jury.16 And he went to some trouble in leaders, of blind watchmen, and of “greedy the Zenger trial to demonstrate that the dogs that can never have enough.” He question of truth was peculiarly the jury’s suggested that any of these passages could, domain. with the help of innuendoes connecting Hamilton’s argument was twofold. First, them to the Cosby administration, be he pointed out that the jurymen brought denounced as libe1.22 Like Zenger’s paper special knowledge to the case from their or any other publication, even the Bible experience outside the courtroom. “The could be interpreted differently by differ- law supposes you to be summoned out of ent people. Thus, it behooved the jury not the neighborhood where the fact is alleged to abandon their right of interpretation to to be committed.” he said, “and the reason an ostensibly higher authority. In matters of your being taken out of the neighbor- of interpretation of truth, no man pos- hood is because you are supposed to have sessed more authority than another. the best knowledge of the fact that is to be Hamilton’s Biblical allusions puzzled tried.”l7 Actually, this was a rather shaky and infuriated the first great critic of the legal position. By 1735, the practice had Zenger case, a West Indian lawyer who already been long established that juries published a detailed rebuttal of Hamil- were to consider only evidence presented ton’s arguments in the Barbados Gazette in the trial itself.18 in 1737 under the pseudonym “Anglo- The special knowledge of jurors, how- Americanus.” Though critical of Hamil- ever, was not the main thrust of Hamil- ton on every point, Anglo-Americanus ton’s argument. His main point was that seemed especially annoyed that “The Holy libel exists in the eye of the beholder. For Scriptures [were] brought in to season his a statement to be libel, it must be “under- jokes.” But, he added sarcastically, be- stood” to be libelous. This perceptual cause this misuse of the Bible seemed quality of libel confounds the issues of fact “designed only for a sally of wit and with issues of law, for in Hamilton’s view humor, I shall not offer to detract from its the truth or falsity of the statements will merit; considering too it had so happy an always affect how they are “understood.” effect as to set the good people alaughing Thus, the decision on both fact and law becomes the province of the jury. “Then it Ih lbid., pp. 90.91. follows,” Hamilton declared, “that those I7 lhid., pp, 75.92. 12 men must understand the words in the Ihrd.. p. 227n. I* Ihid.. pp. 69. 78. information to be scandalous, that is to 3 Ihid.. pp. 92-93. say false.”lg 2’ Ihid.. p. W. Hamilton admonished the jurors that 2: hid., pp. 9S-96.

Downloaded from jmq.sagepub.com by FELICIA GREENLEE BROWN on April 12, 2012 Religion and the John Peter Zenger Case 23 I when they heard the word of God most exaggeration, but it is true that these fa- ingeniously burlesqued in a Christian mous radical Whig essays were frequently c0~rt:*23 and prominently featured. In “Cato’s Let- In fact, Hamilton’s exercise in Biblical ters,” John Trenchard and Thomas Gor- exegesis apparently evoked, not derision, don developed a philosophy of liberty that but “applause” and “approbation” from had at its core the concept of freedom of the spectators in the courtroom.24 Consid- expression.25 Central to Cato’s philosophy ering the verdict as well as the applause, it was the principle that governmental author- appears that these New Yorkers did not ity must be limited and that it could be view Hamilton’s little homily as a bur- limited only if individuals were free to lesque upon religion. Quite the contrary. speak truth to power. Like Hamilton in They seemed to understand his point very the Zenger trial, Cat0 never advocated well-perhaps because it grew quite natur- “that men should have an uncontrolled ally from the arguments that had been liberty to calumniate their superiors, or propounded both in the pages of the New one another. . . . We have very good laws York Weekly Journal and in the sermons to punish any abuses of this kind already, of popular preachers of the time. and I will approve them, whilst they are prudently and honestly executed, which I Political Liberty really believe they have for the most part and Religious Dissent since the [Glorious] Revolution.” It was In several ways, including religious sen- the abuse of these laws to suppress truth timent, Hamilton’s courtroom plea re- that Cat0 opposed. So long as men were flected the principles that John Peter free to speak the truth, Cat0 believed, a Zenger’s newspaper had professed during wicked and tyrannical government could the two years before his trial. The themes not stand.26 developed in the Journal were chiefly legal To an extent not often appreciated, and political, just as they were in the trial. Cato’s understanding of truth was rooted But the association of political liberty with in religion. All human authority and religious dissent was the underlying found- power were divinely limited, in Cato’s ation upon which many of the key argu- view. “Power without control appertains ments were built. As in the trial, the fun- to God alone,” he wrote, “and no man damental question was: What is truth, and ought to be trusted with what no man is how is it revealed to man? equal t0.”2~Throughout his essays, Cat0 The New York Weekly Journal is some- associated political liberty with religious times remembered today as a virtual dissent. “Every man’s religion is his own,” anthology of “Cato’s Letters.” This is an Cat0 declared, “nor can the religion of any 2J Barhadoh Gaierre. July 20. 1737. This letter was reprinted man, of what nature or figure soever, be in a pamphlet titled Remarks on Zinger’s Trial. Taken Our of the religion of another man, unless he also the Earhados Gazerre for rhe Benefit of the Srudrnrs in Low. and Ofhers in North America (New York: William Bradford. chooses it; which action utterly excludes 1737). It isalso reprinted in Katz.op. cir.. pp. 152-180(quote p. all force, power, or government.”28 Truth 180). will triumph in both religion and politics, 24 Cadwallader Colden. ‘History of Gov. William Cosby’s Administration and of Lt.-Gov. George Clarke’s Administra- Cat0 believed; but it must triumph through tion through 1737.“ reprinted in Collecrions of the New York its own strength, never through the exer- Hi.rrorica/ Socirry. 68:337 (1935). cise of human power.29 2) Levy. Freedom of the Press. p. xxiv: Bernard Bailyn. The IdeoloEical Origins qf the American Rrvolurion (Cambridge: Though truth possessed a life of its own Harvard University Press. 1967). Chapter 2. in Cato’s philosophy, it necessarily fell to M New York Weekly Journal, Dec. 9. 1734, p. 2. See also each individual to seek truth for himself: ihid.. Nov. II. 1734. pp. 1-2: March 4, 1734, p. I. I have changed dates to conform to the modern practice ofstarting the “Every man is, in nature and reason, the new year on Jan. 1st. judge and disposer of his own domestic 2’ Ihid.. March I I, 1734. p. 2. See also Bailyn. op. cit.. Chap- affairs; and, according to the rules of reli- ter 3. gion and equity, every man must carry his 2” New York Weektv Journal. Aug. 25. 1735. p. I. 2. Ihid.. Dec. 9. 1734, p. 2. own conscience.”30 If individual reason Ihid.. Scpt. 8. 1735, p. 2. and conscience were the way to divine

Downloaded from jmq.sagepub.com by FELICIA GREENLEE BROWN on April 12, 2012 232 JOURNALISM QUARTERLY truth, then the authority of human law, tem in the Journol was political and legal. whether ecclesiastical or secular, could Several articles praised the jury system as never be absolute. For Cato, “the viola- the most valuable of English political priv- tion, therefore, of law does not constitute ileges.” Some of the essays, however, went a crime where the law is bad; but the viola- beyond politics to place the jury system tion of what ought to be law, is a crime squarely within the realm of religious even where there is no law.”Jl Cat0 never practice. The key link in this association developed the specific argument that juries was the juror’s oath. In several discussions should decide the law as well as the facts in of the role of juries, Journal writers libel cases. But from the Cat0 essays pub- argued that jurymen were divinely bound lished in the Journal this notion would by their oaths to be “true” and to do what have been only a modest extrapolation. was right, regardless of human law. “Cato’s Letters” were not the only polit- “There is none of this story of mutter of ical essays in the New York Weekly Jour- focr. distinguished from law in your oath,” nal that reflected a fundamentally reli- said one article.35 Another writer argued gious understanding of truth and author- that because of their oaths jurors were not ity. Many of the writers in the Journol required to follow a judge’s direction any discussed political liberty and religious more than they were required to believe a dissent in similar terms. In both religion witness’s testimony. They were bound and politics, tyranny was attributed to a only by God and only to the truth. He false authority based upon power rather wrote that “anything any jury does ought than truth. For example, an anonymous to quoadem evongelium. to be what they essay at the end of 1733 declared: laid their hands on taking their oaths; when they write billa vero on any indict- If we reverence men for their power alone, ment, they undeniably compare the truth why do we not reverence the Devil, who has so much more power than men? But if of the contents therein to the truth of the reverence is due only to virtuous qualitites Gospel, and this upon oath.”36 and useful actions, it is as ridiculous and In short, though the New York Weekly superstitious to adore great mischievous Journal was essentially a political news- men as it is to worship a false god or Satan paper, it professed a politics with deep in the stead of God.. .. A right honorable religious roots. The easy interplay between or a right reverend rogue is the most dan- politics and religion in the pages of the gerous rogue, and consequently the most Journal suggests that for many New detestable.’* Yorkers the two were actually one. For Like Cato, the anonymous writers for example, in an article in early 1734 on the the Journal usually placed the burden of importance of freedom of the press, the judging truth upon the reason and con- author made it clear that freedom of science of the individual. The history of thought and expression played the same religious tyranny demonstrated the danger role in both politics and religion-that is, of leaving the interpretation of truth in the the discovery of truth. He added: hands of power. Using a religious exam- Such points of religion and politics do ple, one writer explained that he agreed stand upon a very weak foundation, if the that “the abuse, and not the use of the maintainers of them can be afraid of hav- press, is blameable. But the difficulty lies ing their doctrines and measures fairly [in] who shall be the judges of this examined and brought to the test of REA- abuse. . . . In Spain and Portugal to write against transubstantiation is an horrible ’1 Ibid.. July 7. 1735. pp. 1-2. abuse; in England as great a one (though 32 Ibid., Dec. 31. 1733,~.2. Secalsoibid.. Jan. 13. 1735.p. 3. not so fatal) to write for it.”33 Signifi- 3J Ibid.. Fcb. 18. 1734, p. 2. cantly, several Journal writers explicitly Y Ibid., Dee. 3. 1733. p. 2. See also ibid.. Jan 7. 1734. pp. 1-2: Jan. 14. 1734. pp. 1-2: Fcb. I I. 1734. p. I; Jan. 20. 1735. p. 1-3: developed this general notion into a the- July 28. 1735. pp. 1-3. ory of the role of juries. 1) Ibid.. Aug. 2. 1735, p. 3. Much of the discussion of the jury sys- Y Ibid., Jan. 13. 1735. p. I.

Downloaded from jmq.sagepub.com by FELICIA GREENLEE BROWN on April 12, 2012 Religion and [he John Peter Zenger Case 233 SON and DIVINE REVELATION. Those both the religious and the political impact that deny these maxims sap the foundation of the Great Awakening. One critic has of our Reformation and Revolution, upon recently argued that the whole idea of a which our religious and civil rights are now sweeping “great awakening” is largely an established, and therefore they are justly to interpretative fiction. In fact, he says, the be esteemed enemies to them, and friends to popery and arbitrary power.” revivals of the 1730s and the ’40s were “erratic, heterogenous and politically The Religious A wakening benign.”]* The revival in New York, for Such blasts against popery and arbi- example, has always been considered a trary power in the Journal, were, of rather modest affair. Neither the New course, the standard invocations of Pro- York pastors nor their parishioners are testantism. But there was more than just well remembered by historians for their the usual dissent in American Protestant- theology or their enthusiasm.39 But the ism in 1735. In New England and the intellectual milieu of the revivals in the Middle Colonies, religious revivals were Middle Colonies is interesting nonethe- brewing, revivals that expressed in purely less. New Yorkers were involved directly religious terms the same themes of truth in the early 1730s in several important and individual conscience that pervaded revival-related controversies, including con- the Zenger trial and the Zenger press. A troversies in the rapidly growing Presby- close look at the wider religious milieu of terian churches. the 1730s suggests that the trial of John As in the revivals of New England, the Peter Zenger may, in some interesting great issue for the Presbyterians was, at ways, be viewed as part of the early stages heart, the fundamental question of Pro- of the Great Awakening. testant Christianity: How are individuals Historians probably have exaggerated to know God and God’s truth? The answers proposed by the leaders of the Ibid.. Jan. 14. 1734, p. 3. revival in the Middle Colonies bear an ’8 Jon Butler, ‘Enthusiasm Described and Decried: The Great Awakening as Interpretative Fiction.” Journal of Ameri- interesting resemblance to Andrew Hamil- can History. 69325 (September. 1982). On the political implica- ton’s arguments in the Zenger case about tions ofthe Great Awakening. see Alan Heimen. Religion and the American Mind from the Great AwakeninR to the Revolu- truth and men’s apprehension of it. And tion (Cambridge. Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1966). p. several of the first and most important re- viii; Nash. op. cit.. Chapter 8; Rhys ISMC.The Transformation of Virginia. 1740-1790(Chapcl Hill: Universityof Nonh Carol- vival sermons on this question were pub- ina Press. 1982). Chapter 8-9 Kenneth A. Lockridge. Settlr- lished in 1735 in the print shop of John mrnt and Unsettlement in Earl, America: The Crisis of Politi. cal Legirimai’.r before the Revolution (Cambridge. England: Peter Zenger.40 Cambridge University Press. 1981). pp. 43-48. Sn also Richard For example, Zenger was an early prin- L. Burhnun. ‘Introduction.” in Richard L. Bushman. ed., The ter and promoter of the works of Gilbert Great Awakening: Documents on the Revival of Religion. 1740-1745 (New York: Atheneum. 1970). p. xiv. Tennent, the most important of the revi- For a recent bibliographicalreview of colonial religion stu- valist preachers in the Middle Colonies. dies, scc David D. Hall. “Religion and Society: Problems and Reconsiderations.” in Jack P. Grcene and J.R. Pole. eds.. Tennent began his ministry in New Bruns- Colonial British America: Essays in the New History of the wick in 1726, and soon his several congre- hrlv Modern Era (Baltimore:Johns Hopkina University Press. 1984). gations between New Brunswick and

J9 The standard account is Charla Hanrhorn Maxson, ’fhe Staten Island were stirring with religious Great An-akening in rhr Middle Colonies (Chicago: University life. To break up the “presumptuous secur- of Chicago Pms. 1920). See also Michael Kammen. Colonial New York: A History(New York: Scribner’s. 1975). Chapter9 ity” of nominal Christians, Tennent Manin E. Lodge, ‘The Crisis of the Churches in the Middle preached what he called “conviction” and Colonies. 1720-1750.” Penm.vlvania Magazine of History and “assurance-that is, the notion that an Biography. 95:195-220 (April. 1971). individual must feel convicted of sin and (0 For a list of the sermons printed by Zenger. scc ‘Biblio- graphyofthe lrruesoftheZcnger Press. 1725-1751.”in Ruther- must pass through the terror of realizing furd. op. cit. See also Charles Evans. American Bib1iograh.v. he was not a true Christian before he Vol. 2: 17X%1750 (New York: Peer Smith. 1941). This is a reprint of the original 1904 edition. could at last feel the genuine assurance of

‘1 Leonard J. Trinterud. The Forming of an American Tradi- sal~ation.~lTennent’s sermons were often tion: A Re-xamination of Colonial Resbyterianism (Phila- filled with hell-fire and damnation. But, delphia: Watminster Press. 1949). pp. 58-59. See also Maxson. op. cit., Chapter 3. like Jonathon Edwards, who was then

Downloaded from jmq.sagepub.com by FELICIA GREENLEE BROWN on April 12, 2012 234 JOURNALISM QUARTERLY orchestrating a similar revival in Massa- claimed that “the Bible is our only direc- chusetts, Tennent believed in using the tory.”46 Like Tennent, Dickinson urged harsh conviction of God’s law only to that each individual must experience the make way for the sweet assurance of the communion of God for himself, without Gospe1.42 compulsion. In words reminiscent of Cat0 Central to Tennent’s revivalist theology and of the anonymous writers for the New was the notion that each individual must York Weekly Journal, Dickinson de- experience a direct and very personal con- clared: version. Understandably, his opponents charged that such a view of purely per- Imposing any terms of communion by any sonal conviction and assurance under- penal sanctions is eminently teaching for mined the doctrine and authority of the doctrines the commandments of men. church.43 But despite the emotional qual- Edery person in the world has an equal ity of the conversion experience, Tennent right to judge for themselves, in the affairs never sought to take reason out ofreli- of conscience and eternal salvation. And all have the same natural right to all the gion. On the contrary. He argued in one of benefits and comforts of life.. . . What his popular New York sermons, printed by dreadful work has been made in the world Zenger in 1735, that God deals with peo- by using methods of force in matters of ple “in a way best suited to their rational opinion and con~cience.~’ natures.” People have the duty to use their reason to ponder and to choose that which Dickinson went so far as to call religion is good-a duty that he called “considera- based on coercion a kind of idolatry. He tion.” “Consideration” was an eminently said: rational activity, in Tennent’s view; but it If they without conviction submit to our was also very personal.” opinions, they subject their consciences to The belief that conversion was a direct human, and not to divine authority; and and personal experience, rather than a our requiring this of any is demanding a purely intellectual process of understand- subjection to us, and not to Christ. We ing, made the revivalists skeptical of ‘2 Heimert. op. rir., pp. 39-40. See, for example. Gilbert Ten- nent. A Solrmn Warnin8 10 the Serure Worldfrom the God of creeds and formal statements of doctrine. Terrible Majrsry. or rhr Resumpruous Sinner Derrrred. his This skepticism led to a serious contro- Pleas Considered, and his Doom Displayed (Boston: S. Knee- land and T. Green. 1735). This was the only Tennent sermon versy in American Presbyterianism in the published outside New York in 1735. 1720s and ‘30s over the issue of “subscrip- ‘J Trinterud. op. rir., p. 60. See also Heimert. op. rir.. Chap tion.” Conservatives hoped to protect the ter 4. While it is ceruinly true. as Jon Butler argues. that Ten- nent never attacked the authority of the ministry itself. this church from heretical ministers byrequir- argument -ma to miss the point. For it is true that Tennent’s ing them to “subscribe” to the Westmins- attacks on illqirimarr authority did have an unsettlingeffcd on ter Confession. Many New York and New church hierarchy. Just as in politin. trim of authority in reli- gion invariably begin as attacks upon illegitimacy. not upon Jersey Presbyterians, however, opposed authority ilulf. See Butler, op. rir., p. 314. See also Gilbert enforced subscription to any creedal inter- Tennent. ll~eDarner of an Unronverrrd Minisrr.v (1742). pretation of Scripture. They did not hold reprinted in Bushman. op. cir., pp. 87-93. u Gilbert Tennent. Thr Danger of Forgrrring God. and rhr that ministers should not be examined. Dur.~of Considerinc our Ways Explained (New York: John They merely believed that no man-made Peter Zcnger. 1735). p. 5, I I. and 26. This view of individual reason and conscience is also developed in another Tennent creed could be infallible, no matter how sermon printed by finger in 1735. See Gilbert Tennent. Thr learned the authorities who devised it. fipousals. or a Passionarc Prrsuasiw 10 a Marriace with rhe They urged subscription to the Bible hmb of God, whrrrin rhr Sinner’s Misery and the Redremrr’s Glory is CJnvriled(New York: J. Pner Zcnger. 1735). pp. 33.61. alone.45 ‘5 Trinterud. op. rir., pp. 43-52; Maxson. op. rir.. pp.. 23-25. The leader of the anti-subscription .L Jonathan Dickinaon. T)K Vaniry of Human lnstitulions in party in the Middle Colonies was Jonathan rhr Worship o/God(New York: John Pner finger. 1736). pp. 15-16. This was a180 a recurrent theme of Ebenezer Pemberton. Dickinson, another minister whose a New York minister and another supporter of the Pmbyterian works were published by John Peter revival whose sermons were published by Zenger in the mid- Zenger in New York in the 1730s. In an 1730% Sec Ebenerer Pemberton. A Sermon Rearhrdbrforr rhe Commission of the Synod 41 Philadelphia (New York: John important sermon on “The Vanity of Peter finger. 1735). pp. 19-20. Human Institutions,” Dickinson pro- 4’ Dickiruon. op. rir., p. I I.

Downloaded from jmq.sagepub.com by FELICIA GREENLEE BROWN on April 12, 2012 Religion and rhe John Peter Zenger Case 235 have indeed a right to give the reasons of to reject the instructions of the chief jus- our opinion; and to endeavor to convince tice of New York. Like the revival con- others, of what we esteem to be truth: But verts who asserted their right to interpret we have no right to claim their assent with the law of God, the Zenger jury asserted conviction .... For every one have the the right of ordinary people to interpret same claim as we have, to judge for t hemsel~es.~* the law of man. In both cases, the opera- tive principle was not freedom, but truth. Neither Tennent nor Dickinson-nor Andrew Hamilton, like a revival preacher, any of the preachers of the Great Awaken- told the jurors that authority lay, not in ing-sought to undermine the authority of them, but in truth. He did not ask them to religion or of the churches. Their aim was condone individualism or to approve indi- merely to return the churches to the truth; vidual diversity of expression-only truth. and they believed that God’s truth could The subtle twist, of course, was that it fell be discerned by man. But their very belief to individuals to decide what truth was. in the divinity of truth led them-as it did And the authority of God and truth and Hamilton and Cato and the Zengerjury- the authority of the individual turned out to the principle that each individual must to be the same. judge for himself. Thus did America back into freedom of expression in politics and journalism, as it God and Truth backed into tolerance and diversity in reli- The Zenger case, then, was as much a gion. At its origin, freedom of speech and religious as a political or legal phenom- press had little to do with the sanctity of enon. Like the Great Awakening, the the individual mind. The individual had Zenger trial reflected the skepticism for the right only to serve the truth, as men human authority felt by ordinary people were free to serve God, Gradually, in the who possessed a deep faith in the existence 250 years since Zenger, a genuine philos- of God and of truth. Like the ministers of ophy of individualism has emerged in the “awakened” congregations, who were wil- realm of freedom of expression. But the ling to reject the authority of creeds and recurrent episodes of repression in Ameri- hierarchies, the Zenger jurors were willing can history since 1735 surely suggest that the “truth” standard, whether in religion ‘8 Ibid., p. 31. Zcnger was also the printer and seller for a number of sermons by the famous revivalist George Whitefield or in politics, still lies only a little beneath in the hte 17- and early . the surface of American libertarianism.

ASNE Finds Minority Employment Unchanged ,The 1985 census of newsroom employment by the American Society of Newspaper Editors showed no gain in the number of minorities employed in newsrooms. The census estimates there are 3,080 minorities among the nation’s 53,800 newsroom employees. The percentage of minority newsroom employees remains at 5.7. This is the first time since ASNE started the annual census of newsroom employees in 1978 that there was no gain in the percentage. The ASNE study is based on returns from 948 newspapers, which is 58% of the total. The percentage of newspapers currently employing no minorities is 60.1. All newspapers with more than 100,000 circulation have at least one minority person in the newsroom. More than half the newspapers that have no minority newspersons are papers with less than 10,000 circulation. Eighty-nine percent of U.S. daily newspapers have no minority news executives. The figure a year ago was 92%.

Downloaded from jmq.sagepub.com by FELICIA GREENLEE BROWN on April 12, 2012