"The proof that God has revealed himself to man by special and express communications, and that Christianity constitutes that revelation, is no part of these inquiries"
About this Quote
A judge’s disclaimer can be more revealing than a verdict. Greenleaf’s line draws a hard jurisdictional border: the courtroom is not a chapel, and the rules of evidence he’s willing to entertain are not the rules of faith. By saying the “proof” of divine revelation and Christianity “is no part of these inquiries,” he’s telegraphing an intellectual posture that was especially attractive in the early American republic: religion may be socially dominant, but it doesn’t get to smuggle itself in as an axiom when the task is to weigh testimony, probability, and human conduct.
The specific intent is procedural. Greenleaf, one of the era’s celebrated legal minds and an authority on evidence, is signaling that whatever argument follows will not depend on proving Christianity true as a theological system. That’s a preemptive strike against the common 19th-century rhetorical move of treating orthodoxy as self-authenticating. He’s also protecting his credibility with skeptical readers: you can disagree about miracles and still participate in the inquiry.
The subtext is more tactical than it first appears. By bracketing off the grand metaphysical claim, he implicitly elevates a narrower, “admissible” question: what can be established using the tools of law - consistency of witnesses, corroboration, motive, opportunity, character. It’s a move that flatters modern sensibilities too: keep the supernatural out of the premises, then see what survives cross-examination.
Context matters: this is the age when Protestant culture and Enlightenment method were in tense but productive coexistence. Greenleaf isn’t rejecting Christianity; he’s insisting that, if it has a case, it should be able to meet him on evidentiary ground rather than demand deference.
The specific intent is procedural. Greenleaf, one of the era’s celebrated legal minds and an authority on evidence, is signaling that whatever argument follows will not depend on proving Christianity true as a theological system. That’s a preemptive strike against the common 19th-century rhetorical move of treating orthodoxy as self-authenticating. He’s also protecting his credibility with skeptical readers: you can disagree about miracles and still participate in the inquiry.
The subtext is more tactical than it first appears. By bracketing off the grand metaphysical claim, he implicitly elevates a narrower, “admissible” question: what can be established using the tools of law - consistency of witnesses, corroboration, motive, opportunity, character. It’s a move that flatters modern sensibilities too: keep the supernatural out of the premises, then see what survives cross-examination.
Context matters: this is the age when Protestant culture and Enlightenment method were in tense but productive coexistence. Greenleaf isn’t rejecting Christianity; he’s insisting that, if it has a case, it should be able to meet him on evidentiary ground rather than demand deference.
Quote Details
| Topic | God |
|---|
More Quotes by Simon
Add to List
