Roger Williams: Christian Restorationist

Nearly every student of early American history has heard the tale of Roger Williams. His story is usually told from the perspective of his being a religious anomaly of sorts, who defied the Puritans of Massachusetts and established a community of religious toleration in Rhode Island. While this version of the Williams story is generally true, there is a deeper saga that is often omitted from the Williams chronicle.

As we all know, Williams was a deeply inquisitive man. His knack for questioning everything around him -- particularly in the religious arena -- caused Williams to constantly push the religious envelope. Though he originally embraced Puritan theology, Williams' concerns that Puritanism still maintained an attachment to the Church of England -- which he saw as a continuation of Roman Catholic dominion as the Antichrist -- caused him to adopt a more Separatist perspective. Inspired by these anti-Church of England sentiments, Williams embraced the admonition of the Apostle Paul in 2 Corinthians 6:17 to, "come out from among them, and be ye separate."

Williams not only decided to completely separate himself from any attachment to the Church of England, but also chose to separate from the home world itself. Upon his arrival to the "New World," Williams took his religious views even further. Instead of following the traditional beliefs of the early Puritans in Massachusetts, Williams chose to criticize his new neighbors for what he saw as a lack of penance. While Massachusetts Puritans were happy to accept both the godly and ungodly in their worship services -- with an exception being made for the Lord's Supper -- Williams believed that those outside of God's grace should not be permitted to worship with God's elect. In other words, those who had not yet experienced God's saving grace could not even attend the same services as those that had received God's grace (See The Hireling Ministry None of Christs). In addition, Williams also believed that any person who had not repented for his/her former association with the Church of England was in danger of losing their salvation. As Williams stated:

"why although I confesse with joy the care of the New English Churches, that no person be received to Fellowship with them, in whom they cannot first discerne true Regeneration, and the life of Jesus: yet I said and still affirm, that godlie and regenerate persons are not fitted to constitute the true Christian Church, untill it hath pleased God to convince their soules of the evill of the falce Church, Ministry, Worship etc. And although I confesse that godly persons are not dead but living Trees, not dead, but living Stones, and need no new regeneration, yet need they a mighty worke of God's Spirit to humble and ashame them, and to cause them to loath themselves for their Abominations or stincks in Gods nostrils..." (The Complete Writings of Roger Williams, vol. 1, 350).

These religious views, which eventually landed Williams in trouble with the Puritans of Massachusetts, only tell part of the story. Williams' departure to Rhode Island actually caused him to further question his faith. Williams began to question the validity of his baptism and those of his followers, which eventually helped to spawn the Anabaptist movement. As Williams continued to ponder the Bible and its teachings, he eventually came to the shocking conclusion that no church had the authority to assemble in Christ's name. His reasoning was simple: The apostles commissioned by Christ had been his personal ministers on earth. Until Christ returned to the earth and renewed the apostleship, no person/persons had the right or authority to gather as a Christian Church. In other words, Roger Williams began to believe that a complete and total RESTORATION of Christ's gospel, complete with the authority of the holy apostleship, had to return to the earth, or no religion could rightfully act in the name of God. Williams makes this belief clear when he writes:

I desired to have been dilligent and Constant Observer, and have been my selfe many ways engaged in City, in Countrey, in Court, in Schools, in Universities, in Churches, in Old and New-England, and yet cannot in the holy presence of God bring in the Result of a satisfying discovery, that either the Begetting Ministry of the Apostles or Messengers to the Nations, or Feeding and Nourishing Ministry of Pastors and Teachers, according to the first Institution of the Lord Jesus, are yet restored and extant" (The Complete Writing of Roger Williams, vol. III, 160).

Williams further adds credence to his argument when he writes:

"If Christs Churches were utterly nullified, and quite destroyed by Antichrist, then I demande when they beganne againe and where? who beganne them? that we may knowe, by what right and power they did beginne them: for we have not heard of any new Jo: Baptist, nor of any other newe waye from heaven, by which they have begunne the Churches a newe" (John Winthrop Papers, vol. III, 11. Quoted in Roger Williams: The Church and the State, 52, by Edmund Morgan).

By first separating himself from Puritan thought both spiritually and literally, Williams was free to explore the full scope of his radical views on Christianity. Through intense scripture study and personal reflection, Williams came to the conclusion that Christianity, in all of its forms, was a distortion of Christ's actual gospel taught in antiquity. In much the same way that Thomas Jefferson believed that the original doctrine of Christ had been changed over time, Williams believed that the religion and authority of Christ was not on the earth, and would not return until Christ's Second Coming. In essence, Williams' religious beliefs should be classified as those of a RESTORATIONIST. In this sense, Williams can be compared with the Restorationist beliefs of Thomas Jefferson, Joseph Smith, Jemima Wilkinson, etc.

***On a side note (which is sure to appeal to all Mormons), guess who is a direct descendant of Roger Williams? Jeffrey R. Holland.***

Interesting Map of American Religion

Dr. Paul Harvey, who was one of my graduate professors, recently posted a very interesting map on his website, Religion in American History. The map breaks down by county where different denominations are strongest. Very interesting to look at.

The Levellers: A Forgotten or Distorted History? Part III

The Putney Debates
of 1647

In part III of my series on the history of The Levellers I would like to shift my focus a bit. As has been pointed out in the comments sections of my previous posts on this subject, many of you feel that the Levellers are a product of a general trend towards popular rights in both England and Europe. And while I agree that the Levellers are hardly the exclusive guardians and protectors of this trend towards the rights of the masses, I do believe that they should be credited for their intense drive -- a drive that was arguably more passionate than any other organization at the time -- to bring about social change.

This drive is best illustrated in the Putney Debates of 1647. First off, let me briefly describe the Putney Debates since they, like the Leveller movement in general, are a neglected historical topic.

In the wake of the New Model Army's victory over King Charles I in 1647, Oliver Cromwell and other senior officers of the army -- known as Grandees -- attempted to negotiate new terms with the crown, which they hoped would secure additional rights for the common man. However, during the course of these negotiations, Cromwell and his fellow officers backtracked on their demands and acquiesced to the king's desire to maintain a powerful monarchy and House of Lords. For the more radical segment of the New Model Army -- which consisted primarily of Levellers -- these compromises were completely unacceptable. As a result, members of the Grandees -- led by Cromwell himself -- agreed to meet with Levellers and other radical apologists within the army, who were anxious to see that their demands be met.

Hence, the Putnam debates were born! Later in the Fall of 1647, these two opposing sides came together in Putnam to debate their proposals. For historians, these debates are a literal treasure trove of primary documents that reveal the intense political and ideological struggle that gripped 17th century England. Virtually all of the early proceedings were recorded verbatim, allowing historians of all generations the chance to examine how these debates played out. For the most part, the debates center around the general premises found in the Agreement of the People, a document drafted by key members of the Leveller movement that outlined the precise demands being made by the radical members of the New Model Army (I discussed the general history of Agreement of the People in a former post that can be found here). In fact, the Putney Debates began with a reading of Agreement of the People and then a detailed discussion on each of it's primary points followed.

The Putney Debates played host to two primary topics: representation of the masses and freedom of religion -- or perhaps better put, freedom from religion. As Professor William Whyte of St. John's College in Oxford states:

In the run up to the Civil War, the role of religion in national life was hotly contested. For most people, England was a Protestant place. But what Protestantism meant in practice was far from clear. For Charles I and for Archbishop Laud, the ideal was a centralized, hierarchical Church: led by its bishops, who were the King’s servants. Church buildings should be stately and gracious and worship should be orderly and measured. For their opponents – the people we know as Puritans – all this smacked of corruption. Their ideal was simplicity and authenticity. Church buildings were unimportant; ritual and religious images were dangerous – even idolatrous; bishops had no place in a believers’ church.

The struggle between these different religious ideals was political as well as theological. It was political because the Church was political: its bishops were appointed by the king and sat in parliament; the Church was responsible to the State. It was political because people understood politics in religious terms. At the Putney Debates themselves, the problems faced by the New Model Army were attributed to God’s anger. And it was political because the religious reforms envisaged by both Charles and his Puritan opponents had a political dimension. For Charles and for Laud, the orderly, hierarchical Church was intended to underpin an orderly, hierarchical society. For the Puritans, by contrast, the simple, honest, authentic Church was intended to transform the country into a nation of Bible-reading Christians; people who would abandon ‘Pagan’ festivals like Christmas, ‘Pagan’ activities like sport, and ‘Pagan’ habits like drinking too much.

Whilst Charles and many of his Puritan opponents wanted to enforce their vision of religion on all people, at the Putney Debates another vision of religious life was proclaimed. Almost all those present were Puritans – but they were what were known as ‘Independents’. They believed in freedom of conscience and in freedom of worship. No one, they affirmed, should be compelled to attend church or forced to conform to another person’s beliefs.

This was not the first time that such a principle was articulated. Nor did everyone accept its implications. But some these ideas were carried out under Cromwell and still others were embodied in the Toleration Act of 1689. Religion remained hotly contested, but increasingly – in England at any rate – people no longer died to preserve their freedom of conscience.

It is from this understanding of religion that the Levellers pushed for additional rights. As Colonel Thomas Rainsborough stated on day two of the debates:

We do not empower or entrust our Representatives to continue in force, or to make any Laws, Oaths, Covenants, whereby to compell by penalties or otherwise any person in any thing in or about matters of faith or to exercise of Religion according to his conscience, nothing having caused more distractions and heart burnings in all ages, that persecution and molestation for matters of Conscience in and about religion.

Rainborough continued his rhetoric regarding the freedom of the individual to choose by shifting his focus to the political arena:

I desired that those that had engaged in it might be included. For really I think that the poorest he that is in England has a life to live as the greatest he; and therefore truly, sir, I think it's clear that every man that is to live under a government ought first by his own consent to put himself under that government; and I do think that the poorest man in England is not at all bound in a strict sense to that government that he has not had a voice to put himself under. And I am confident that when I have heard the reasons against it, something will be said to answer those reasons — insomuch that I should doubt whether he was an Englishman or no that should doubt of these things.

And though these ideas did not have their genesis in the Leveller movement -- one could trace these ideas back quite a ways -- it is clear that the Putney Debates carried trmendous political and social clout. Now, it is worth pointing out that Cromwell, despite hearing the various arguments presented at the Putney Debates, chose to present an entirely different set of proposals to the King. As a result, the Leveller demands were never proposed or discussed outside of Putney. However, this should not be taken as proof positive that the Leveller movement was but a simple failure that eventually faded away with the passage of time. The Corkbrush Field mutiny in the latter part of 1647 illustrated -- at least for Cromwell and many of his followers -- that the ideas of freedom, equality, etc. were not likely to die out with the extermination of the Leveller movement. Instead, an unstoppable titlewave of change was underway.

Cooking With Corazon, Episode XIII

Apple and Avocado
Philly Cheesesteak

Tonight I decided to bring my own twist to one of my all-time favorite things to eat: the Philly Cheesesteak:



Like any traditional cheesesteak, I used thinly sliced steak (sirloin in my case) with onions and cheese (provolone). However, I "spiced" things up a bit by adding grilled apples and some avocado to the mix. It was awesome! Here's the recipe:

- 6 oz. steak
- 1/2 avocado
- 1/2 granny smith apple (finely chopped)
- 1/2 onion (chopped)
- 2 slices smoked provolone cheese
- 2 garlic cloves
- 1 tsp. dijon mustard
- Salt and pepper

Directions:
- Slice steak very thin (the thinner the better)
- Grill steak with onions, minced garlic, salt and pepper
- About halfway through cooking add chopped apples
- Spread avocado over one half of bread
- Spread dijon mustard over the other half of bread
- Add provolone cheese slices to steak and allow to melt a bit
- Place grilled steak, onions, apples and cheese on bread
- SCARF!!!!!

It's awesome. I promise.

Cooking With Corazon, Episode XII

Catalina
Pork Roast

A special shout out to my buddy Cory Gillaspie for sending me this recipe that his family has PERFECTED over the course of several generations, dating back to the Middle Ages (his 35th great-grandparents made this dish for Charlemagne, who upon eating it screamed aloud, "CATALINA" giving the name to the famous salad dressing).

True story!

Recipe:

-1 pork tenderloin (1 lb)
-1/4 cup of kraft catalina dressing
-1 tsp. chili powder
-1 tsp. garlic powder
-1 tsp. dry mustard
-1/2 tsp. paprika
-1/4 tsp dried thyme leaves
-1 tbsp. honey.

Heat oven to 425 degrees. Brush meat with 2 tbsp of the dressing. Mix the dry ingredients, rub them onto the meat. Place in a pammed baking pan. Mix remaning 2 tbsp dressing and the honey and set it aside.

Bake for 15 min, brush with the dressing mixture. Bake an additional 10 min or until cooked through. Brush on remainder of catalina dressing and bake for another 10 minutes or until cooked.

SCARF!!!

The Levellers: A Forgotten or Distorted History? Part II

In Friday's post, I briefly outlined the role and alleged impact that a group of English reformers -- known as The Levellers -- had in helping to bring about social change during the Cromwell era.

For many historians, the Levellers have come to represent an early foreshadowing of the political and social advances that later became a hallmark of the American and French Revolutions. But for other historians, the Levellers represent how a 21st century perspective can thwart objective scholarly inquiry. For these historians, the legacy of the Levellers has been immersed in a modern mythology that has the appearance of 17th century history but is, in reality, more akin to modern interpretations of social equality. In other words, the Levellers have fallen victim to the dangerous plague of "presentism."

Historian Edward Vallance of Roehampton University is a champion of such an interpretation. In his October, 2007 article from BBC History Magazine, Vallance explains that modern Leveller historiography has fallen victim to, "the condescension of the tourist industry." Regarding the modern historiographical approach to Leveller history, Vallance writes:

Marxists scholars such as Christopher Hill saw the Levellers as representing the English petty bourgeoisie. American liberals like William Haller praised John Lilburne as an early advocate of ‘free enterprise’. The celebration of the Levellers’ contribution to the development of democracy has spread into the political arena. Since 1975, left-wingers have commemorated the suppression of the Leveller-inspired mutiny at Burford in 1649. The socialist icon Tony Benn used his speech at the second ‘Leveller Day’ to applaud them for their forward-looking ideals which ‘anticipated by a century and a half the main ideas of the American and French Revolutions.’ Paraphrasing Benn, Tristram Hunt has described Rainborowe’s comments as expressing the ‘ethical ideal of socialism’ and suggested that the ‘language and ideas expressed in the US constitution were lifted straight from the Putney debates’.

It is doubtful that the words spoken at Putney influenced the Founding Fathers, given that the text of the debate was not published until 1891. In 1649, the imprisoned John Lilburne had defiantly predicted that ‘posterity … shall reap the benefit of our endeavours whatever shall become of us.’ Yet, for over two hundred years, references to the Putney debates and the Levellers were few and far between. Although a permanent record of the debates was kept by the general secretary of the army, William Clarke, all reporting of the debates in the press was banned. They were barely mentioned in contemporary newssheets and pamphlets.

This secrecy was unsurprising. The discussion of the franchise, the most celebrated element of the debate for recent historians and commentators, was neither the most significant nor the lengthiest portion of the discussions. The focus instead was on settling the kingdom: in particular, the King’s role in any future peace negotiations. During the debates, two soldiers referred to Charles I as a ‘man of blood’, a tyrant who had waged war against his people and must be brought to retributive, divinely-willed justice. Religious language suffused the talk at Putney. People attending the debates also gathered for prayer meetings charged with apocalyptic language. New historical research suggests that Putney saw a shift from the pursuit of a negotiated settlement with the King to the decision to bring Charles I to trial. In the chaotic political situation following the first civil war, few of the participants in the debate, Cromwell least of all, were prepared to leave hostages to fortune by letting the proceedings be reported in public.

Celebration of the Levellers...has been driven by a desire to fit them into a tradition of British radicalism, as forerunners of democracy, liberalism and socialism. But if the Levellers are part of a ‘democratic tradition’, it is a tradition which has largely been invented by twentieth and twenty-first century historians, journalists and politicians, not one created by radical movements themselves. Until the late nineteenth century there was very little reference to the Levellers and there is, frankly, scant evidence that their works influenced any subsequent radicals either in Britain, America or France. Even once C. H. Firth’s transcriptions of the Putney debates had been published, they were mainly seen as being of interest to military historians. It was not until the publication in 1938 of A. S. P. Woodhouse’s provocatively titled Puritanism and Liberty, that Putney was established as a milestone in British constitutional history. Woodhouse’s edition of the debates had an explicitly political aim: to provide ideological ammunition for the public in the battle against the forces of Fascism and, later, Soviet totalitarianism. It is his re-interpretation of Putney as a crucible of democratic thought which has proved most influential to the present day.

Historians have now begun to ask if the Levellers have been given disproportionate attention; and whether, indeed, we can talk of the ‘Levellers’ at all. Recent scholarship has argued that there was no coherent ‘Leveller’ programme before the autumn of 1647. The term ‘Leveller’ itself did not appear until after the Putney Debates and was a pejorative label attached to these London radicals by their opponents. The radicals’ critics claimed they wanted to ‘level’ all social distinctions and do away with private property. The leading ‘Leveller’ writers, William Walwyn, John Lilburne and Richard Overton, were always keen to disassociate themselves from the term. In A Manifestation (1649) they complained that they ‘never had it in our thoughts to level men’s estates, it being the utmost of our aim … that every man may with as much security as may be enjoy his propriety’. Perhaps, as some historians have suggested, we have been guilty of accepting the words of the Leveller’s critics too literally and have viewed them as a more radical, more modern and more coherent group than they really were.

The proposals for St Mary’s Church Putney to remember the 360th anniversary of these debates threaten to set the anachronistic interpretation of the Levellers as the first democrats/liberals/socialists in stone, institutionalising an invented tradition of British radicalism through museum displays, heritage centres, and public memorials. Hunt has argued that commemorations of this kind provide an antidote to a heritage industry fixated on the lives of our kings and queens but, in fact, this version of Putney really only offers its ‘radical’ equivalent: a romantic vision of great historical democrats (Lilburne, Walwyn) struggling against oppressive tyrannical ‘baddies’ (Cromwell, Ireton). Good melodrama perhaps, but bad history. E. P. Thompson, whom Hunt invokes to promote his project, would, I suspect, be horrified at the proposed ‘heritage- ization’ of British radicalism. Thompson believed that the role of radical history was to arm the people for the political struggles that they faced in the future. Yet the recent Guardian competition offered only an opportunity to ‘celebrate’, through a Whiggish narrative of ever-broadening British freedom, the rights we enjoy at present. The history of the Levellers themselves, crushed by the army leadership and largely forgotten for nearly a quarter millennia, should warn us against this smug complacency about the security of our civil liberties.

So should we bother to commemorate Putney at all? Yes – but in ways which will allow us to continue to benefit from the most recent historical research on the subject. The Levellers are important. They were the first western Europeans to develop the idea of an essentially secular written constitution (though they did so to preserve their own deeply held religious beliefs). Consequently, they were the first to approach a more modern understanding of freedom of conscience and freedom of speech as natural, human rights. Their analysis of the politics of the 1640s remains very relevant today. They saw that an over-mighty Parliament could be as dangerous (if not more so) than a tyrannical King and called both for greater accountability in government and the establishing of civil liberties which could not be undermined by either the monarch or his ministers (even under the pretence of ‘emergency’ or ‘necessity’).

This month sees the release of a new paperback edition of the debates, and a major new collection is forthcoming on the Agreements of the People. These publications and the celebrations of the 360th anniversary of these remarkable debates should be used to spark a discussion of the enduring importance of these English writers and politicians. Leveller writing has much to say about present threats to our rights and freedoms, if we read their own words and not the anachronistic bowdlerisations of their twentieth-century interpreters. Those who spoke, wrote and gave their lives for liberty deserve more than to have their ideas reduced to ignominious (and inaccurate) banalities on a blue plaque.

Regarding the alleged impact that the Levellers had on future figures like Locke, historian Julian Franklin writes the following:

The main point, in any effect, is that Leveller ideas were not, unfortunately, were not to have any direct effect on subsequent generations...as is often taught to be the case...

Critics of Dr. Vallance and other skeptics of modern Leveller historiography argue that if the Levellers are simply the mere invention of modern enthusiasm, how was it possible for men like Lilburne to have such a direct and dramatic influence on 17th century England? David Hoile, a pro-Libertarian author and supporter of the modern Levellers scholarship, argues that skeptics of the current Leveller scholarship are often too quick to throw men like Lilburne and others under the bus, simply because the Leveller movement eventually faded away. He writes:

The Leveller movement failed because of the several factors mentioned above. They had tried to work through a parliament which was ultimately unsympathetic and suspicious of the movement, its leaders and its political aspirations. It was a parliament deeply uneasy with any break with the Crown, nurturing as it did for much of the 1640s a hope for a rapprochement with the king. And when the break did come, with the execution of Charles Stuart, Leveller views were still seen as too radical for the English body politic under Cromwell, a man more concerned, at that stage at least, with the nature of political power than with political philosophy. It was this growing gulf between the Levellers and the government of the Commonwealth which saw a stepping-up in the extra-parliamentary activity such as the political propaganda petition which was the hallmark of the movement. It would lead ultimately to the advocacy of armed struggle against what was perceived as an illegitimate authority.

In comparison, Marxist apologist and historian William F. Warde offers roughly the same pro-Leveller interpretation:

The Levellers called for sweeping democratization of both Church and State. Among the religious reforms were full freedom of religious belief, separation of Church and State, the suppression of tithes; among the political reforms were a constitutional republic, annual election of a Parliament responsible to the people alone, general manhood suffrage; among the legal reforms, the right to a trial by jury, no star-chamber hearings, no capital punishment or imprisonment for debt; among the civil rights, freedom of the press and no license on printing.

Although they have since become commonplace, in their day such doctrines were audacious revolutionary innovations which their advocates like Lilburne and others paid for with tortures, fines and prison terms.

The Levellers started as a propaganda group and transformed themselves into a party as their mass influence extended and the revolutionary movement mounted. They were the first popular revolutionary party in English history, playing a role comparable to that of the Sons of Liberty in the First American Revolution. They were essentially a party of mass action. Like Tom Paine, their leaders addressed themselves first and foremost to the common people, educating, arousing, guiding and organizing them for direct intervention on the key questions of the hour.

And while I remain somewhat uncertain as to the actual role that the Levellers played in history, I am of the opinion that both camps probably contain more than just a kernel of truth. Is modern Leveller historiography influenced by "presentism?" I'm sure it is. But does that simple fact therefore eliminate the prospect that the Levellers were a legitimate and influential movement? I doubt it. Finding the balance is now, in my opinion, where the discussion should lead.

To read part III click here.

The Levellers: A Forgotten or Distorted History? Part I

If there is a historical tale begging to be made into a blockbuster Hollywood movie it is the story of John Lilburne and "The Levellers." Just try to picture it: you take the likes of a Russell Crow type, caught up in an epic love story with a woman almost 30 years his junior, throw them into the convoluted world of 17th century England with a script chalked full of tales of political oppression, heroic resistance, civil war and an early and tragic death and what do you have? A surefire Oscar come February!

Yes, the story of John Lilburne is desperately needing to be told. But since Steven Spielberg, Ron Howard, etc. are unlikely to read this fair blog and alas, will not learn of their next big blockbuster, I will try to pick up the pieces and do what I can to shed light on the conflicting histories surrounding this somewhat obscure portion of English history.

Part I: John Lilburne, The Levellers, and the Fight for Equality

Born in the early years of the 17th century, John Lilburne was destined to crash head on with the political and religious oppression that was plaguing England. A devout Puritan, Lilburne grew to dislike the hierarchy of not only the Anglican Church but the English crown. As a result of his disdain for authority, Lilburne was introduced to a fellow agitator named John Bastwick, a Puritan activist who actively attacked the bishops of the Anglican Church. A sample from Bastwick's A Letany:

Howsoever they [Anglican Bishops] glory in the name of the church and stile themselves with that dignity, excluding all others from that title...they are so far from being the Church as they are not so much as rubbish of that glorious fabricke: for they persecute, destroy and ruine that true Church of Christ and afflict and weary his members continually: and for that end they have their sworne servants through the kingdome to give them information, against both Minister and people that are of a more godly and strict life, and that desire in the purity of his Ordinance to serve ye Lord.

Long story short, Lilburne came to fully embrace Bastwick's passionate assault on Anglican Bishops. In consequence, Lilburne took to regularly smuggling anti-Anglican literature from Holland; a practice that eventually landed Lilburne in jail. It was during his trial that Lilburne demanded certain "freeman" rights, which he believed had been withheld from all English citizens. As a result, Lilburne was allegedly flogged, beaten, gagged and drug from a horse. The events surrounding Lilburne's trial and beating became well-known throughout England, which eventually led to Lilburn receiving the nickname, "Freeman John."

A few years after his release, Lilburne joined up with the likes of Oliver Cromwell and the Robert Devereux. However, Lillburne soon grew impatient with the new Cromwell Administration, believing that he had failed to make the reforms necessary for a free people. Together with other reformers, Lilburne embraced the "Levellers" movement, which set out to bring about constitutional changes that would list specific rights guaranteed to the people. In their manifesto, The Agreement of the People (1647) the Levellers petitioned for:

An Agreement of the People for a firm and present peace...upon grounds of common right.

In addition, the Agreement of the People lists several key rights, all of which are to be guaranteed by law, and which many historians argue served as precursors to the American Bill of Rights that followed:

That the power of this, and all future Representatives of this Nation, is inferior only to theirs who choose them, and doth extend, without the consent or concurrence of any other person or persons, to the enacting, altering, and repealing of laws, to the erecting and abolishing of offices and courts, to the appointing, removing, and calling to account magistrates and officers of all degrees, to the making war and peace, to the treating with foreign States, and, generally, to whatsoever is not expressly or impliedly reserved by the represented to themselves: Which are as followeth.

1. That matters of religion and the ways of God's worship are not at all entrusted by us to any human power, because therein we cannot remit or exceed a tittle of what our consciences dictate to be the mind of God without wilful sin: nevertheless the public way of instructing the nation (so it be not compulsive) is referred to their discretion.

2. That the matter of impresting and constraining any of us to serve in the wars is against our freedom; and therefore we do not allow it in our Representatives; the rather, because money (the sinews of war), being always at their disposal, they can never want numbers of men apt enough to engage in any just cause.

3. That after the dissolution of this present Parliament, no person be at any time questioned for anything said or done in reference to the late public differences, otherwise than in execution of the judgments of the present Representatives or House of Commons.

4. That in all laws made or to be made every person may be bound alike, and that no tenure, estate, charter, degree, birth, or place do confer any exemption from the ordinary course of legal proceedings whereunto others are subjected.

5. That as the laws ought to be equal, so they must be good, and not evidently destructive to the safety and well-being of the people.

These things we declare to be our native rights, and therefore are agreed and resolved to maintain them with our utmost possibilities against all opposition whatsoever; being compelled thereunto not only by the examples of our ancestors, whose blood was often spent in vain for the recovery of their freedoms, Buffering themselves through fraudulent accommodations to be still deluded of the fruit of their victories, but also by our own woeful experience, who, having long expected and dearly earned the establishment of these certain rules of government, are yet made to depend for the settlement of our peace and freedom upon him that intended our bondage and brought a cruel war upon us.

In addition to Agreement of the People Leveller supporters like Lilburne and Richard Overton authored countless letters and pamphlets of petition against the Cromwell government, which they saw as being every bit the oppressor as the crown. As Lilburne states in a Sept. 11, 1648 petition:

Insomuch as we who upon these grounds have laid out ourselves every way to the uttermost of our abilities — and all others throughout the land, soldiers and others who have done the like in defence of our supreme authority and in opposition to the king — cannot but deem ourselves in the most dangerous condition of all others: left without all plea of indemnity for what we have done, as already many have found by the loss of their lives and liberties either for things done or said against the king, the law of the land frequently taking place and precedency against and before your authority, which we esteemed supreme, and against which no law ought to be pleaded. Nor can we possibly conceive how any that in any ways assisted you can be exempt from the guilt of murders and robbers by the present laws in force if you persist to disclaim the supreme authority, though their own consciences do acquit them as having opposed none but manifest tyrants, oppressors and their adherents.

For many historians, the story of John Lilburne and the Levellers is a clear-cut stepping stone that later inspired the likes of John Locke, Thomas Hobbes and -- perhaps indirectly -- the Founding Fathers. The petitions of the Levellers, specifically the Agreement of the People are often seen as vital precursors to later documents such as the Declaration of Rights and the Bill of Rights. For these historians, the legacy of the Levellers is a treasure that has unfortunately been obscured over time.

But is the story behind the Levellers that of an unknown, obscure and forgotten legacy of heroism that foreshadowed the later events of the American Revolution? Or is the Leveller saga, like so many "historical" Hollywood films, more the stuff of smoke and mirrors than actual substance? In part II of my series on the Levellers (which will be posted tomorrow) I will present some of the contrary arguments that attempt to uncover the true agenda behind the history of the Levellers.

To read part II click here.

Symbolism in the Dollar Bill

Our Founding Fathers have become icons of American culture. You see their monuments all across this nation's landscape. In Washington D.C., South Dakota, Virginia and other locations, our founders are immortalized in marble and stone. Even the very money we use every day pays homage to several of these important heroes. Though each of these various monuments have their own unique story, I want to focus on the one that is perhaps the most overlooked: our dollar bill.

The dollar bill has a tremendous amount of symbolism and history to it. Chances are that your average dollar bill looks like the one above -- unless you have one of the new ones. The format for this type of dollar bill was created in 1957, and has been the longest standing design in American history. The paper money that comes to us from the various mints across the nation is, in reality, hardly paper. The average dollar bill -- and other bills for that matter-- is actually a linen/cotton/silk blend, which has proven to stand the test of time. Just think about how long a dollar bill can actually last. Pretty incredible for a piece of "paper." The various blue, red, and green fibers make it tremendously hard to duplicate. Even the type of ink used for our money goes through a rigorous process.

Origins of the Dollar Bill Symbols:
During the Second Continental Congress, the delegates commissioned a seven man committee -- which included Benjamin Franklin -- to come up with a national seal, emblem and motto. The committee began its work in 1776, but quickly came to a screeching halt, since the delegates were unable to agree on anything. The only thing that came out of the committee was an idea for the all-seeing eye hovering above a pyramid. Many people today believe this to be the result of masonic influence. The only problem with that theory is that the committee members did not come up with the idea of the Pyramid. In fact, the idea of the pyramid came from Charles Thomson and William Barton, who were both experts in Egyptian history. Thompson and Barton submitted this proposal to the committee, which was unanimously accepted. They also came up with the idea of the eye hovering unattached over the pyramid, to signify that America's quest was not complete (If you look closely at the eye, you will see that it is actually the eye of George Washington on the front side of the dollar bill). One of the most interesting symbols that Thomson and Barton created is that the western side of the Pyramid is shaded. This was to be symbolic of the fact that the western half of America was yet to be explored. The eye was a symbol for God's ever watchful presence. The phrase "Annuit Coeptis (above the pyramid) means "He [God] has favored our undertaking." A close look at the base of the pyramid will show several Roman numerals (MDCCLXXVI) which gives us the number 1776, the year of American independence. The phrase "Novus Ordo Seclorum" means "New Order of the Ages." All of these symbols were finally accepted on June 20, 1782 and were later incorporated onto our money in 1935.

Due to the fact that the committee was only able to come up with the all-seeing eye is important to note, because it signifies that our emblem is not entirely inspired by the Founding Fathers, and that it was CERTAINLY not inspired by masonic beliefs. Both Thomson and Barton were never a part of the Freemasons, and gained their inspiration purely from their love of Egyptian history. This is important because the early American republic took many pieces of Roman, Egyptian and Greek civilization and incorporated it into our nations culture (one look at Washington D.C. proves this point. The capital building is very Roman in structure, and the Washington Monument is an Egyptian Obelisk).

The image of the bald eagle has also become synonymous in our day with American virtue. It is present on virtually every national monument and national cemetery. For most, the eagle is the undisputed symbol of American independence. Our Founding Fathers, however, had a completely different interpretation. The early Founders -- including Franklin, Jefferson and Washington -- were against the idea of an eagle as the national symbol. Franklin actually wanted the rattlesnake to be used as the national symbol. Franklin believed that a rattlesnake was unique only to America, and that they were an eternally vigilant animal -- because rattlesnakes have no eyelids. Many scientists of the 18th century believed that the Rattlesnake never slept, making it even more vigilant. Franklin even suggested that the Rattlesnake never strikes unless attacked, signifying America's will to avoid conflict unless attacked first. It was also believed that the Rattlesnake could be brought back to life if it was cut up and its pieces assembled and buried before midnight (a strange 18th century belief). Franklin believed this was significant because it appealed to the unity of the States -- he used this analogy in his earliest political cartoon "Join or Die". Franklin hated the eagle, calling it "a despicable vulture of the sky." In fact, the Rattlesnake had a lot of significance for the founding generation. It was present on several flags, including the first Naval Jack and the Gadsden "Don't Tread on Me" flag. After the Rattlesnake was shot down, Franklin switched to the wild turkey, claiming that it was "the most virtuous of all birds."

Many Freemasons make the claim that the eagle is actually symbolic of their influence on the founders. As they point out, the bald eagle plays an important role in several masonic rituals. If this were true, why would Franklin -- a devout member of the Masons -- be so passionately opposed to the bald eagle?

The bald eagle was later accepted, because it wears no crown, dominates the sky, and is not afraid of a storm. A closer examination of the eagle reveals that he is clutching 13 arrows and 13 olive branches. The olive branches are symbolic of America's eternal quest for peace, and the arrows are symbolic of America's readiness to fight. The phrase above the eagle "E Pluribus Unum" means "From many, one" signifying the hope for American unity. The eagle is also not holding on to the shield, which is symbolic of America's independence, and the fact that she can stand on her own. There is also a cloud of 13 stars hovering over the Eagle, which represent the 13 colonies.

For Masonic conspiracy theorists, the number 13 is supposedly significant of the founders devotion to the order. These "conspiracists" point to the fact that the number 13 appears numerous times on the back of a dollar bill. For example:
-The first colonies numbered 13
-13 colonies signed on for independence
-There are 13 stars above the eagle
-There are 13 steps on the pyramid
-There are 13 letters in the Latin phrase ANNUIT COEPTIS
-There are 13 stripes on the U.S. flag and eagle's shield
-There are 13 olive branches (each olive branch has 13 pieces of fruit attached to it.
-There are 13 arrows

Masonic conspiracy theorists maintain that the number 13 is indicative of the devil, and that it also represents the path to a new world order. As you can see, however, there is a much simpler interpretation. The scientific principle known as Occam's Razor -- meaning All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best -- would simply suggest that the number 13 does not represent a Masonic conspiracy, but instead represents something quite obvious...the 13 original States!

This symbol, which is on the front of the dollar bill, is significant in many ways as well. First off, the scale symbolizes the government's responsibility to maintain a balanced budget, and to be ever-responsible for the people's money. The key symbolizes the key of the treasury, which is to be always secure. There is also the masonic marking of the square, which is to signify exactness in America's finances.

Many people believe these to be masonic symbols that are somehow "magical" or "covert," and that the Founding Fathers were brainwashed by masonic teachings. In reality however, this is not all that accurate. In Colonial America it was common for people to be a part of several social clubs, and the Freemasons are just one of the many that existed in that era. For example, Benjamin Franklin started a group called the Junto, and Washington was a member of the Society of the Cincinnati. The Masons were simply another gentleman's club of the time, which proved beneficial in the post-Enlightenment era of early America. They were not a "secretive" society that had an agenda to create a new world order. They were simply another way for colonists to gather and socialize -- and get drunk!

Cooking With Corazon, Episode XI

Simple, Salacious, Salivating
Salmon Sandwich

The other day I needed something quick and easy to eat. I got home from work pretty late and had not eaten a thing in like 14 hours. Anyway, I had this old piece of salmon in the freezer so I decided to throw something together really quick:



Nothing special about this. I grilled the salmon with a little thyme, rosemary and basil (I also used a few drops of sriracha just because I like the flavor and spiciness). I then threw it on a roll with some fresh pepper, dijon mustard, sprinkled cheese, a dill pickle and spinach leaves.

Nothing fancy, just good quick scarfing food!

Deept Thoughts: By Benjamin Franklin

In response to a letter from several scientists asking for Franklin to submit a scientific/scholarly work for the Royal Academy of Brussels, Franklin wrote the following:

---------------------------------------------------------------------

(C. 1781) GENTLEMEN,

I have perused your late mathematical Prize Question, proposed in lieu of one in Natural Philosophy, for the ensuing year, viz. "Une figure quelconque donnee, on demande dy inscrire le plus grand nombre de fois possible une autre figure plus-petite quelconque, qui est aussi donnee". I was glad to find by these following Words, "lAcadeemie a jugee que cette deecouverte, en eetendant les bornes de nos connoissances, ne seroit pas sans UTILITE", that you esteem Utility an essential Point in your Enquiries, which has not always been the case with all Academies; and I conclude therefore that you have given this Question instead of a philosophical, or as the Learned express it, a physical one, because you could not at the time think of a physical one that promisd greater_Utility.

Permit me then humbly to propose one of that sort for your consideration, and through you, if you approve it, for the serious Enquiry of learned Physicians, Chemists, &c. of this enlightened Age. It is universally well known, That in digesting our common Food, there is created or produced in the Bowels of human Creatures, a great Quantity of Wind.

That the permitting this Air to escape and mix with the Atmosphere, is usually offensive to the Company, from the fetid Smell that accompanies it.

That all well-bred People therefore, to avoid giving such Offence, forcibly restrain the Efforts of Nature to discharge that Wind.

That so retaind contrary to Nature, it not only gives frequently great present Pain, but occasions future Diseases, such as habitual Cholics, Ruptures, Tympanies, &c. often destructive of the Constitution, & sometimes of Life itself.

Were it not for the odiously offensive Smell accompanying such Escapes, polite People would probably be under no more Restraint in discharging such Wind in Company, than they are in spitting, or in blowing their Noses.

My Prize Question therefore should be, To discover some Drug wholesome & not disagreable, to be mixd with our common Food, or Sauces, that shall render the natural Discharges of Wind from our Bodies, not only inoffensive, but agreable as Perfumes.

That this is not a chimerical Project, and altogether impossible, may appear from these Considerations. That we already have some Knowledge of Means capable of Varying that Smell. He that dines on stale Flesh, especially with much Addition of Onions, shall be able to afford a Stink that no Company can tolerate; while he that has lived for some Time on Vegetables only, shall have that Breath so pure as to be insensible to the most delicate Noses; and if he can manage so as to avoid the Report, he may any where give Vent to his Griefs, unnoticed. But as there are many to whom an entire Vegetable Diet would be inconvenient, and as a little Quick-Lime thrown into a Jakes will correct the amazing Quantity of fetid Air arising from the vast Mass of putrid Matter containd in such Places, and render it rather pleasing to the Smell, who knows but that a little Powder of Lime (or some other thing equivalent) taken in our Food, or perhaps a Glass of Limewater drank at Dinner, may have the same Effect on the Air producd in and issuing from our Bowels? This is worth the Experiment. Certain it is also that we have the Power of changing by slight Means the Smell of another Discharge, that of our Water. A few Stems of Asparagus eaten, shall give our Urine a disagreable Odour; and a Pill of Turpentine no bigger than a Pea, shall bestow on it the pleasing Smell of Violets. And why should it be thought more impossible in Nature, to find Means of making a Perfume of our Wind than of our Water?

For the Encouragement of this Enquiry, (from the immortal Honour to be reasonably expected by the Inventor) let it be considered of how small Importance to Mankind, or to how small a Part of Mankind have been useful those Discoveries in Science that have heretofore made Philosophers famous. Are there twenty Men in Europe at this Day, the happier, or even the easier, for any Knowledge they have pickd out of Aristotle? What Comfort can the Vortices of Descartes give to a Man who has Whirlwinds in his Bowels! The Knowledge of Newtons mutual Attraction of the Particles of Matter, can it afford Ease to him who is rackd by their mutual Repulsion, and the cruel Distensions it occasions? The Pleasure arising to a few Philosophers, from seeing, a few Times in their Life, the Threads of Light untwisted, and separated by the Newtonian Prism into seven Colours, can it be compared with the Ease and Comfort every Man living might feel seven times a Day, by discharging freely the Wind from his Bowels? Especially if it be converted into a Perfume: For the Pleasures of one Sense being little inferior to those of another, instead of pleasing the Sight he might delight the Smell of those about him, & make Numbers happy, which to a benevolent Mind must afford infinite Satisfaction. The generous Soul, who now endeavours to find out whether the Friends he entertains like best Claret or Burgundy, Champagne or Madeira, would then enquire also whether they chose Musk or Lilly, Rose or Bergamot, and provide accordingly. And surely such a Liberty of Expressing ones Scent-iments, and pleasing one another, is of infinitely more Importance to human Happiness than that Liberty of the Press, or of abusing one another, which the English are so ready to fight & die for. -- In short, this Invention, if compleated, would be, as Bacon expresses it, bringing Philosophy home to Mens Business and Bosoms. And I cannot but conclude, that in Comparison therewith, for universal and continual UTILITY, the Science of the Philosophers above-mentioned, even with the Addition, Gentlemen, of your "Figure quelconque" and the Figures inscrib�d in it, are, all together, scarcely worth a FART-HING.

Nicely done, Ben!