The Bible in American Law and Politics. John R. Vile
Joseph P. Bradley (1813–1892) was appointed by President Ulysses S. Grant to the Supreme Court in 1870 and served there until his death. Raised in the Dutch Reformed Church, he initially studied for the ministry at Rutgers before pursuing the study of law and developing a national reputation in patent and railroad law. A selection of his writings published after his death contains a long section dealing with his view on religious and moral issues, in which he both articulated his admiration for the Bible and indicated that he believed that God continued to reveal himself through nature and through other extra-biblical writings.
In an opening letter in this section, he indicated that he did not consider the omission of an explicit acknowledgement of God in the Constitution to demonstrate “hostility to religion” but rather “as showing a fixed determination to leave the people entirely free on the subject” (Bradley 1902, 358). For this reason, he did not support the so-called Christian Amendment, which had been supported by his colleague Justice William Strong.
Bradley further explored such esoteric topics as the dimensions and layout of Noah’s Ark, the history of English translations of the Bible (despite his liberalism, Bradley was a strong defender of the elegance of the King James Version), and the likely year and date of the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus. He also explicated the Lord’s Prayer and four points that he believed constituted “the whole essence of the Christian religion,” namely:
1 God’s existence, fatherhood and loving kindliness to all, and hence His attention to our wants and prayers.
2 The equality and brotherhood of all men, and hence the duty of Universal Charity.
3 The prime importance of our spiritual nature, and hence the secondary importance of sensuous and material things.
4 The need of God’s forgiveness and help, and hence the hopelessness of an unforgiving spirit. (Bradley 1902, 369)
In writing about the Bible, Strong described it as “a valuable repository.” He specifically commended “the devotional fervor of the Psalms, the sententious wisdom of the book of Proverbs, and the profound reflections of Ecclesiastes,” as well as the “exalted moral exhortation and instruction” of the prophets, and “the simple and searching lessons of faith, sincerity, purity of heart and universal charity of the New Testament” (370). Bradley thought that it was possible to commend the Bible “without entering into the question of special revelation and miracles, which have so much agitated both the curious inquirers and the superstitious devotees of the Christian world” (370–71). Moreover, such an approach “is consistent with the free and intelligent use of all similar aides to virtue and spiritual elevation to be found in the sayings of the great and good of all nations and times” (371). In another essay entitled “Inerrant or Infallible Bible,” Bradley observed, “The Spirit of God moves upon the ocean of human thought, ever evolving light and truth, which concreted in words of immortal power, becomes 69stereotyped upon the consciousness of the nations, consecrated by antiquity into the forms of sacred learning, and hallowed by all holy and religious associations” (401–2).
Suggesting that those with superior wisdom should tolerate attempts to incorporate biblical teachings into doctrines, in another essay, Bradley observed that “if we do not believe in miracles, we may well believe in the vast importance and benefit of those hoary traditions of Divine influence which have become as effective for good with the great mass of mankind as if they were based on the most certain deductions of reason and experience” (404). In a similar vein, Bradley observed,
Until the world is ready for the truth, it is not safe to communicate it, except to the select view who can be trusted to embrace and guard it; that select few who are governed by inherent and unbending rectitude. The wise man will continue to respect and observe the laws, usages and modes which prevail, and which society regards as essential to the conservation of order and morality. Mankind in general can only be gradually awakened to truth. The light of science will, in the end, quench the farthing candles of error and superstition. (Bradley 1902, 406)
Believing that Jesus had largely freed his followers from strict observance of the Sabbath, Bradley thought “that civil society has a right to enact wholesome laws on the subject is manifest both from the sayings of Christ and from the incalculable benefits which society derives from the institution” (410).
Arguing that the primary goal of religion was not “to avoid eternal misery and obtain eternal happiness,” he said that “its true object is to make men better, or rather, to make them good—a word which includes every virtue” (424). In this same essay, he observed that “a belief in an officious God is absolutely necessary to elevate and purify the masses” (426).
Bradley thought that there should be progress “in religious science” just as in other areas; this, in turn, required rejecting “the theory that revelation of Divine truth was miraculously made to these men at first hand and has never been made except through Hebrew prophets and seers” (428). He specifically argued that “every page of Nature’s great Book” refused the “narrow theory of a six day’s creation” (428–29). Bradley further said that the only dogma that Jesus taught was “that God is our Father and that we are all brethren” (481).
In an essay dated July 4, 1871, Bradley recorded some “Esoteric Thoughts on Religion and Religionism,” which concluded with the thought that “it is for us, through all difficulties and temptations, to pursue an honorable, dignified, truthful and loving life, so that whenever our task is done, we may depart amidst the blessings of mankind and be remembered for our good deeds. This is my religion” (435).
See also Christian Amendment; King James Version of the Bible; Sunday Closing Laws
For Reference and Further Reading
Bradley, Joseph P. 1902. Miscellaneous Writings of the Late Hon. Joseph P. Bradley, ed. and compiled by Charles Bradley. Newark, NJ: L. J. Hardham.
70
Hitchcock, James. 2004. The Supreme Court and Religion in American Life: From “Higher Law” to “Sectarian Scruples.” Vol. II of 2 vols. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Brewer, David J.
David J. Brewer (1837–1910) was among the most biblically literate of those who have served as justices of the United States. The son of a Congregationalist minister who had served as a missionary to Turkey and been active in the abolitionist movement, Brewer was educated at Yale University. There he was particularly influenced by Professor (and later president) Theodore Dwight Woolsey, who combined a strong commitment to Christianity with the belief that individuals were free moral beings (Hylton 1998, 420).
In Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States (1892), Brewer described the United States as a “Christian nation,” but part of what he thought made it Christian was its commitment to religious liberty. In interpreting the Constitution, Brewer emphasized the principles articulated in the first paragraph of the Declaration of Independence.
Brewer was fond of giving speeches, and, in a review of his faith, Linda Przybyszewski observes that Brewer “often quoted from the Christian Bible and popular Protestant hymns” (2000, 231). In a speech defending free enterprise, Brewer cited Micah 4:4 and its reference to individuals being able to sit under their own vine and fig trees (2000, 231). In a speech entitled “The Religion of a Jurist,” Brewer quoted Paul (1 Corinthians 15:53) in saying, “For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality” (2000, 234). In defending toleration, he observed Jesus’s statement to Pilate in John 18:36 that “my kingdom is not of this world” (2000, 238). In a speech to the Sons of the Pilgrims of Charleston, South Carolina, Brewer likened the founding of America to Abraham’s journey to Canaan (2000, 238). In opposing excessive police powers, he said, “My heart responds to the gentle invitation of the Man of Galilee [Matthew 11:28], ‘Come unto