In 1798 and 1799 Thomas Jefferson had conversations with Dr Joseph Priestly and Dr Benjamin Rush on the topic of the Christian faith.  Jefferson was questioned about his own religious beliefs.  Jefferson put off his response until about four years later when he was serving as President.  He wrote a short outline entitled “Syllabus of an Estimate of the Merit of the Doctrines of Jesus, compared with those of others” which he sent to his two companions with accompanying letters.  

This outline, along with the two letters makes clear Jefferson’s general religious beliefs. Jefferson believed in God in some form.  He believed the Jesus was an enlightened man, not a Godhead, and that his teachings were imperfect, both in their original teachings and in their recording and interpretation.  Jefferson believed that conscience and faith are a private affair between God and the individual.  Once matters of faith are made public they become instruments for public manipulation.  He believed that conviction must come from within, from one’s personal beliefs, not from outside teachings.

I took the text of the two letters and the outline from http://www.constitution.org/tj/jeff10.txt, cleaned them up a bit, and added a few personal notes.  Enjoy.

First, Jefferson’s letter to Priestly.

TO DR. JOSEPH PRIESTLEY.
WASHINGTON, April 9, 1803.

DEAR SIR,

While on a short visit lately to Monticello, i received from you a copy of your comparative view of Socrates and Jesus, and I avail myself of the first moment of leisure after my return to acknowledge the pleasure I had in the perusal of it, and the desire it excited to see you take up the subject on a more extended scale.

In consequence of some conversation with Dr. Rush, in the year 1798-99, I had promised some day to write him a letter giving him my view of the Christian system. I have reflected often on it since, and even sketched the outlines in my own mind. I should first take a general view of the moral doctrines of the most remarkable of the ancient philosophers, of whose ethics we have sufficient information to make an estimate, say Pythagoras, Epicurus, Epictetus, Socrates, Cicero, Seneca, Antoninus.

I should do justice to the branches of morality they have treated well; but point out the importance of those in which they are deficient: I should then take a view of the deism and ethics of the Jews, and show in what a degraded state they were, and the necessity they presented of a reformation.

I should proceed to a view of the life, character, and doctrines of Jesus, who sensible of incorrectness of their ideas of the Deity, and of morality, endeavored to bring them to the principles of a pure deism, and juster notions of the attributes of God, to reform their moral doctrines to the standard of reason, justice and philanthropy, and to inculcate the belief of a future state. This view would purposely omit the question of his divinity, and even his inspiration.

To do him justice, it would be necessary to remark the disadvantages his doctrines had to encounter, not having been committed to writing by himself, but by the most unlettered of men, by memory, long after they had heard them from him when much was forgotten, much misunderstood, and presented in every paradoxical shape. Yet such are the fragments remaining as to show a master workman, and that his system of morality was the most benevolent and sublime probably that has been ever taught, and consequently more perfect than those of any of the ancient philosophers. His character and doctrines have received still greater injury from those who pretend to be his special disciples, and who have disfigured and sophisticated his actions and precepts, from views of personal interest, so as to induce the unthinking part of mankind to throw off the whole system in disgust, and to pass sentence as an impostor on the most innocent, the most benevolent, the most eloquent and sublime character that ever has been exhibited to man.

This is the outline; but I have not the time, and still less the information which the subject needs. It will, therefore, rest with me in contemplation only. You are the person of all others would do it best,  and most promptly. You have all the materials at hand, and you put together with ease. I wish you could be induced to extend your late work to the whole subject.

I have not heard particularly what is the state of your health; but as it has been equal to the journey to Philadelphia, perhaps it might encourage the curiosity you must feel to see for once this place, which nature has formed on a beautiful scale, and circumstances destine for a great one. As yet we are but a cluster of villages; we cannot offer you the learned society of Philadelphia ; but you will have that of a few characters whom you esteem, and a bed and hearty welcome with one who will rejoice in every opportunity of testifying to you his high veneration and affectionate attachment.

In this letter Jefferson refuses to work on the comparison of Jesus with Socrates.  Jefferson gives pointers to Priestly on how the subject might be approached.  In this letter Jefferson gives some clues about what he thinks of Jesus, certain Western philosophers, and the Jews.

J. refers to “the deism and ethics of the Jews.”  Deism to Jefferson is essentially monotheism.

J. connects Jesus to Deism: “I should proceed to a view of the life, character, and doctrines of Jesus, who sensible of incorrectness of their ideas of the Deity, and of morality, endeavored to bring them to the principles of a pure deism, and juster notions of the attributes of God, to reform their moral doctrines to the standard of reason, justice and philanthropy, and to inculcate the belief of a future state.”  He pushes for an idea of God and morality that are based on a purer (less revealed, more rational) concept of God, and on morality that is centered in “reason, justice and philanthropy” rather than revealed teachings.  He also comments on the belief in an after life without stating his own belief in the subject.  What J. is doing here is pointing to his own philosophy and telling Priestly: this is what I believe, take it or leave it.  Perhaps he is suggesting that his personal beliefs are not in line with Priestly’s, so he is unwilling to pursue Priestly’s project because it represents a conflict of ideals. Jefferson was President of the US at the time, so he was overwhelmed with other work.

J. is putting off addressing the comparison of Jesus with Socrates.  He begs that he lacks the materials to address the topic, which is an obvious white lie.  J. had all the resources he needed to write such a document: He had plenty of books, historical knowledge, intellectual ability.  The only thing he lacked at in April of 1803 was the time to work on this.

J. wrote about his concern that his own beliefs would be used to attack him and his political work.  He was not a mainstream Christian after all, as his letters and outline makes clear.

Here is his letter to Rush.

TO DOCTOR BENJAMIN RUSH.
WASHINGTON, April 21, 1803.

DEAR SIR,

In some of the delightful conversations with you, in the evenings of 1798-99, and which served as an anodyne to the afflictions of the crisis through which our country was then laboring, the Christian religion was sometimes our topic; and I then promised you, that one day or other, I would give you my views of it. They are the result of a life of inquiry and reflection, and very different from that anti-Christian system imputed to me by those who know nothing of my opinions.

To the corruptions of Christianity I am, indeed, opposed; but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian, in the only sense in which he wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines, in preference to all others; ascribing to himself every human excellence; and believing he never claimed any other. At the short interval since these conversations, when I could justifiably abstract my mind from public affairs, the subject has been under my contemplation. But the more I considered it, the more it expanded beyond the measure of either my time or information. In the moment of my late departure from Monticello, I received from Dr. Priestley, his little treatise of “Socrates and Jesus Compared.” This being a section of the general view I had taken of the field, it became a subject of reflection while on the road, and unoccupied otherwise.

The result was, to arrange in my mind a syllabus, or outline of such an estimate of the comparative merits of Christianity, as I wished to see executed by some one of more leisure and information for the task, than myself.

This I now send you, as the only discharge of my promise I can probably ever execute. And in confiding it to you, I know it will not be exposed to the malignant perversions of those who make every word from me a text for new misrepresentations and calumnies. I am moreover averse to the communication of my religious Correspondence tenets to the public; because it would countenance the presumption of those who have endeavored to draw them before that tribunal, and to seduce public opinion to erect itself into that inquisition over the rights of conscience, which the laws have so justly proscribed. It behooves every man who values liberty of conscience for himself, to resist invasions of it in the case of others; or their case may, by change of circumstances, become his own. It behooves him, too, in his own case, to give no example of concession, betraying the common right of independent opinion, by answering questions of faith, which the laws have left between God and himself. Accept my affectionate salutations.

J. gives is this short cryptic sentence: “I am a Christian, in the only sense in which he wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines, in preference to all others; ascribing to himself every human excellence; and believing he never claimed any other.” J. seems to be saying that Jesus is the model of having faith in what one believes, irrespective of formal establishments of religion.  The kingdom of heaven is within J. seems to believe.

J. affirms his belief in God where he states at the end “between God and himself” when discussing the privacy of conscience.  When matters of conscience become too public, an individual loses some of his “independent opinion,” so matters of faith are best left private.

This is Jefferson’s outline that he referenced in his letter to Rush and Priestly.

Syllabus of an Estimate of the Merit of the Doctrines of Jesus, compared with those of others.

In a comparative view of the Ethics of the enlightened nations of antiquity, of the Jews and of Jesus, no notice should be taken of the corruptions of reason among the ancients, to wit, the idolatry and superstition of the vulgar, nor of the corruptions of Christianity by the learned among its professors.

Let a just view be taken of the moral principles inculcated by the most esteemed of the sects of ancient philosophy, or of their individuals ; particularly Pythagoras, Socrates, Epicurus, Cicero, Epictetus, Seneca, Antoninus.

I. Philosophers.
1. Their precepts related chiefly to ourselves, and the government of those passions which, unrestrained, would disturb our tranquillity of mind. In this branch of philosophy they were really great.

2. In developing our duties to others, they were short and defective. They embraced, indeed, the circles of kindred and friends, and inculcated patriotism, or the love of our country in the aggregate, as a primary obligation: towards our neighbors and countrymen they taught justice, but scarcely viewed them as within the circle of benevolence. Still less have they inculcated peace, charity and love to our fellow men, or embraced with benevolence the whole family of mankind.

II. Jews.
1. Their system was Deism; that is, the belief in one only God. But their ideas of him and of his attributes were degrading and injurious.

2. Their Ethics were not only imperfect, but often irreconcilable with the bound dictates of reason and morality, as they respect intercourse with those around us; and repulsive and anti-social, as respecting other nations. They needed reformation, therefore, in an eminent degree.

To explain I will exhibit the heads of Seneca’s and Cicero’s philosophical works, the most extensive of any we have received from the ancients. Of ten heads in Seneca, seven relate to ourselves, viz. de ira, consolatio, de tranquilitate, de constantia sapientis, de otio saprientis, de vita beata de brevitate vitae; two relate to others, de clementia, de beneficiis; and one relates to the government of the world, de providentia. Of eleven tracts of Cicero, five respect ourselves, viz. de finibus, Tusculana, academica, paradoxa de Senectute; one, de officiis, relates partly to ourselves partly to others; one, de amicitia, relates to others; and four are on different subjects, to wit, de natura deorum, de divinatione de fato, and somnium Scipionis. 

III. Jesus.

In this state of things among the Jews, Jesus appeared. His parentage was obscure; his condition poor; his education null; his natural endowments great; his life correct and innocent: he was meek, benevolent, patient, firm, disinterested, and of the sublimest eloquence. The disadvantages under which his doctrines appear are remarkable.

1. Like Socrates and Epictetus, he wrote nothing himself.

2. But he had not, like them, a Xenophon or an Arrian to write for him. I name not Plato, who only used the name of Socrates to cover the whimsies of his own brain. On the contrary, all the learned of his country, entrenched in its power and riches, were opposed to him, lest his labors should undermine their advantages; and the committing to writing his life and doctrines fell on unlettered and ignorant men; who wrote, too, from memory, and not till long after the transactions had passed.

3. According to the ordinary fate of those who attempt to enlighten and reform mankind, he fell an early victim to the jealousy and combination of the altar and the throne, at about thirty-three years of age, his reason having not yet attained the maximum of its energy, nor the course of his preaching, which was but of three years at most, presented occasions for developing a complete system of morals.

4. Hence the doctrines which he really delivered were defective as a whole, and fragments only of what he did deliver have come to us mutilated, misstated, and often unintelligible.

5. They have been still more disfigured by the corruptions of schismatizing followers, who have found an interest in sophisticating and perverting the simple doctrines he taught, by engrafting on them the mysticisms of a Grecian sophist, frittering them into subtleties, and obscuring them with jargon, until they have caused good men to reject the whole in disgust, and to view Jesus himself as an impostor.

Notwithstanding these disadvantages, a system of morals is presented to us, which, if filled up in the style and spirit of the rich fragments he left us, would be the most perfect and sublime that has ever been taught by man.

The question of his being a member of the Godhead, or in direct communication with it, claimed for him by some of his followers, and denied by others, is foreign to the present view, which is merely an estimate of the intrinsic merits of his doctrines.

1. He corrected the Deism of the Jews, confirming them in their belief of one only God, and giving them juster notions of his attributes and government.

2. His moral doctrines, relating to kindred and friends, were more pure and perfect than those of the most correct of the philosophers, and greatly more so than those of the Jews; and they went far beyond both in inculcating universal philanthropy, not only to kindred and friends, to neighbors and countrymen, but to all mankind, gathering all into one family, under the bonds of love, charity, peace, common wants and common aids. A development of this head will evince the peculiar superiority of the system of Jesus over all others.

3. The precepts of philosophy, and of the Hebrew code, laid hold of actions only: He pushed his scrutinies into the heart of man; erected his tribunal in the region of his thoughts, and purified the waters at the fountain head.

4. He taught, emphatically, the doctrines of a future state, which was either doubted, or disbelieved by the Jews; and wielded it with efficacy, as an important incentive, supplementary to the other motives to moral conduct.

J. defines Deism as simply monotheism “the belief in one only God.”

J. then presents Jesus as flawed.  To J. Jesus was a philosopher and reformer.  Jesus lacked the wisdom that comes from maturity being only about 33 years of age at his death, he says.  Jesus only spend 3 years devoloping his reformer philosophy.  He did not record his teachings directly, rather his teachings were recorded by others.  When his story was recorded it came out “defective as a whole, and fragments only of what he did deliver have come to us mutilated, misstated, and often unintelligible.”  J. argues that what is presented to us today through scripture is rough and undeveloped to begin with, and then it is modified substantially.  In effect, Jesus was more similar to a prodigious western philosopher, or an Indian guru.

J. points out that Jesus presented a system of morals that “would be the most perfect and sublime that has ever been taught by man.”

J. glosses over the idea of Jesus being the Godhead.  He apologizes that this outline is only meant to address the moral philosophy of Jesus, not the question of his divinity.  However, numerous other statements in the outline makes it clear that J. considers Jesus to be a flawed man, but an enlightened man.

J. points out that Jesus emphasized a belief in heaven, and the Jesus used that belief to motivate people to behave morally.

J. was what we call today a Christian Deist or Unitarian.  He finds the original moral philosophy of Jesus to be the most perfect and sublime known, but shows great doubt about modern version of Jesus’ teachings.  He mentions in his letter to Rush that he does believe in God.  He holds Jesus as a fallible human, not as a pure and perfect Godhead.  J. holds that conscience is a private thing between man and God, and is not something to be held out in public.  Nor is conscience something for others to interfere with.  Once matters of faith are brought out to public light they become instruments for social manipulation.

Stumble it!