Humility and Human Flourishing : A

Study in Analytic Moral Theology

Michael W. Austin
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmass.com/product/humility-and-human-flourishing-a-study-in-analytic-m
oral-theology-michael-w-austin/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

Essays in Analytic Theology Michael Rea

https://ebookmass.com/product/essays-in-analytic-theology-
michael-rea-2/

Humility, Pride, and Christian Virtue Theory (Oxford

Studies in Analytic Theology) Kent Dunnington

https://ebookmass.com/product/humility-pride-and-christian-
virtue-theory-oxford-studies-in-analytic-theology-kent-
dunnington/

Analytic Theology and the Academic Study of Religion

William Wood

https://ebookmass.com/product/analytic-theology-and-the-academic-
study-of-religion-william-wood/

Essays in Analytic Theology Michael Rea

https://ebookmass.com/product/essays-in-analytic-theology-
michael-rea/
Theater and Human Flourishing Harvey Young

https://ebookmass.com/product/theater-and-human-flourishing-
harvey-young/

The Moral Powers: A Study of Human Nature P. M. S.

Hacker

https://ebookmass.com/product/the-moral-powers-a-study-of-human-
nature-p-m-s-hacker/

Buddhism and Human Flourishing Seth Zuih■ Segall

https://ebookmass.com/product/buddhism-and-human-flourishing-
seth-zuiho-segall/

Cinema, Media, and Human Flourishing Timothy Corrigan

https://ebookmass.com/product/cinema-media-and-human-flourishing-
timothy-corrigan/

Regret: A Study in Ancient Moral Psychology James

Warren

https://ebookmass.com/product/regret-a-study-in-ancient-moral-
psychology-james-warren/
 OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/9/2018, SPi

OXFORD STUDIES IN ANALYTIC THEOLOGY

Series Editors
Michael C. Rea Oliver D. Crisp
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/9/2018, SPi

O X F O R D S T U DI E S I N AN A L YT I C T H E OL OGY

Analytic Theology utilizes the tools and methods of contemporary

analytic philosophy for the purposes of constructive Christian
theology, paying attention to the Christian tradition and develop-
ment of doctrine. This innovative series of studies showcases
high-quality, cutting-edge research in this area, in monographs
and symposia.

PUBLISHED TITLES INCLUDE:

Metaphysics and the Tri-Personal God

William Hasker
The Theological Project of Modernism
Faith and the Conditions of Mineness
Kevin W. Hector
The End of the Timeless God
R. T. Mullins
Ritualized Faith
Essays on the Philosophy of Liturgy
Terence Cuneo
In Defense of Conciliar Christology
A Philosophical Essay
Timothy Pawl
Atonement
Eleonore Stump
Humility, Pride, and Christian Virtue Theory
Kent Dunnington
 OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/9/2018, SPi

Humility and
Human Flourishing
A Study in Analytic Moral Theology

MICHAEL W. AUSTIN

1
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/9/2018, SPi

3
Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, OX2 6DP,
United Kingdom
Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford.
It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship,
and education by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of
Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries
© Michael W. Austin 2018
The moral rights of the author have been asserted
First Edition published in 2018
Impression: 1
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in
a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the
prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted
by law, by licence or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics
rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the
above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the
address above
You must not circulate this work in any other form
and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer
Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press
198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
Data available
Library of Congress Control Number: 2018941694
ISBN 978–0–19–883022–1
Printed and bound by
CPI Group (UK) Ltd, Croydon, CR0 4YY
Links to third party websites are provided by Oxford in good faith and
for information only. Oxford disclaims any responsibility for the materials
contained in any third party website referenced in this work.
 OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/9/2018, SPi

This book is dedicated to Lewis Winkler, Dave Dishman,

Terry McKinney, and Dave Leedy, good friends and mentors.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/9/2018, SPi
 OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/9/2018, SPi

Acknowledgments

I have greatly benefitted from the help of many people, who offered
their expertise and assistance to me as I worked on this volume.
Thanks to Ian Church, Taya Cohen, Terence Cuneo, Trent Dougherty,
Doug Geivett, Angela Knobel, Cristian Mihut, Christian Miller, Nancy
Snow, James Spiegel, Rebecca Stangl, and two anonymous referees
for Oxford University Press. Thanks as well to the staff at Oxford
University Press, including Tom Perridge, Karen Raith, and the others
who helped create the final product. Finally, many thanks go to my wife
Dawn, and my daughters Haley, Emma, and Sophie, for the years of
listening to me talk about the book, and for their encouragement
and love.
I am also grateful for the permission of the following publishers,
allowing me to make use of my work contained in the following
materials:
“Is Humility a Virtue in the Context of Sport?” Journal of Applied
Philosophy 31 (2014): 203–14. Permission granted by Wiley-
Blackwell.
“Defending Humility: A Philosophical Sketch with Replies to Tara
Smith and David Hume,” Philosophia Christi 14 (2012): 461–70.
Permission granted by the journal. More information about the
journal can be found at www.epsociety.org.
“Christian Humility as a Social Virtue,” in Character: New Directions
from Philosophy, Psychology, and Theology, Christian Miller,
Angela Knobel, R. Michael Furr, and William Fleeson, eds (Oxford
University Press, 2015), pp. 333–50. Permission granted by Oxford
University Press.

This volume was made possible through support of a grant from the
Character Project at Wake Forest University and the John Templeton
Foundation. The opinions expressed in this book are those of the
author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Character
Project, Wake Forest University, or the John Templeton Foundation.
I am grateful for the support.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/9/2018, SPi
 OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 20/9/2018, SPi

Contents

1. Philosophy, Theology, and Christian Virtue 1

2. A Christian Account of Humility 20
3. Theological and Philosophical Objections 92
4. Humility and Human Flourishing 137
5. Contemporary Applications 178
6. Conclusion: Summary and a Brief Reflection on John 13 217

Appendix: The Modules of Christian Humility 225

Bibliography 227
Scripture Index 240
Index 242
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/9/2018, SPi
 OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/9/2018, SPi

Philosophy, Theology, and

Christian Virtue

Humility is a complex, controversial, and misunderstood virtue. People

conceive of the nature and value of this trait in a variety of ways. There
are distinct and sometimes mutually inconsistent philosophical and
theological accounts of this virtue. There are also different folk under-
standings of what humility is and what it requires. One common view
of Christian humility is that it involves having a low view of oneself. On
this view, the humble person has low self-esteem, and perhaps a very
low regard for her interests. The humble person should not be assertive,
but rather passive and submissive. I will argue that this view is mistaken,
and contrasts in significant ways with a proper Christian conception of
the virtue of humility.
This diversity of opinion with respect to humility is perhaps rein-
forced by the fact that philosophers past and present have expressed
skepticism concerning its status as a virtue. For example, humility does
not have a place in Aristotle’s catalogue of the virtues. David Hume
expresses deep skepticism about humility’s status as a virtue, and asserts
that it is a moral vice. Contemporary philosopher Tara Smith argues
that pride, and not humility, is a virtue.1
Within the Christian tradition, however, many take humility to play
a central role in the moral and spiritual life. The virtue of humility
is also emphasized in different parts of the Bible, sometimes quite
strongly. In Numbers 12:3, the author states that “the man Moses
was very humble, more so than anyone else on the face of the earth,”
and subsequently records Yahweh’s confrontation of Aaron and Miriam
for speaking against Moses. Humility is also a trait that God is said

1
I discuss the views of Hume and Smith in chapter 3.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/9/2018, SPi

2 Humility and Human Flourishing

to reward (see Proverbs 22:4). In Micah 6:8, the author states “He has
told you, O mortal, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you
but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your
God?” Humility also appears in the gospels and many New Testament
epistles. It is described as a trait that Jesus possesses and that his
followers should exemplify.2
With respect to the meaning of humility, Stephen Pardue observes
that while it is clear that this trait is commended in both the Hebrew
Bible and Judaism more broadly, the definition of it is less clear.3
He notes that some take the Hebrew Bible to associate humility
with humiliation, while others dispute this and contend instead that
humility involves recognizing one’s dependence on God, submitting
to God, and service to others. In the Jewish tradition, humility is
taken to be an important trait for relating to God and others, includ-
ing a recognition of one’s own intellectual limitations and being
humble in one’s actions.4 Pardue also notes that those who espouse
a Christian understanding of humility in the New Testament and the
early Christian tradition “renovate humility in light of Jesus’ life and
death, transposing the rich Jewish tradition regarding the virtue and
its social, political, and theological implications into a Christocentric
key.”5 This renovated notion of humility plays a significant role in the
Christian narrative, culminating in the person and work of Christ. It
is developed in the New Testament as a central virtue for piety and
for hope in the eschaton.6 For example, humility is seen as important
for one’s relationship to God, insofar as “God opposes the proud, but
gives grace to the humble” (James 4:6). Humility also appears in some
of the New Testament virtue lists (Colossians 3:11–13; Ephesians
4:1–3). It is seen as a product of wisdom (James 3:13). The humility
of Christ is evident in the gospels. Jesus is reported as ascribing
humility to himself in Matthew 11:28–30, where he describes himself
as “humble in heart.” He exemplifies humility when he washes the feet
of his disciples (John 13:1–20). The apostle Paul urges the Philippian
church to imitate the humility of Christ in their relationships with one
another, following the pattern displayed by Jesus in his incarnation

2
For example, see Matthew 11:29, Colossians 3:12, Ephesians 4:2, 1 Peter 5:5–6,
Philippians 2:1–11, and James 4:10.
3
Stephen T. Pardue, The Mind of Christ: Humility and the Intellect in Early
Christian Theology (New York, NY: Bloomsbury T & T Clark, 2013), pp. 31–5.
4 5
See Sirach 3:17–31. Pardue, The Mind of Christ, p. 35.
6
ibid. p. 38.
 OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/9/2018, SPi

Philosophy, Theology, and Christian Virtue 3

and crucifixion (Philippians 2:1–11). I engage with much of this
biblical material in more detail later in the book. At present, my point
is merely that humility appears in many places in both the Hebrew
Bible and the New Testament.
As the Christian tradition continued, many Christian thinkers devoted
attention to the virtue of humility. Augustine, for example, holds that
love is perfected in humility.7 In humility, we realize our weakness, we
come to see who and what we are, and in dependence on God we also
see that by grace we are nevertheless loved and capable of virtue.
Humility, then, is not only concerned with our limitations, but also
with God empowering us to transcend many of them in particular
ways, by grace.8 For Aquinas, humility is primarily concerned with
subjecting oneself to God, which is clearly vital for the human real-
ization of the beatific vision (partially now, fully in the hereafter).9
He maintains that humility also involves subjecting ourselves to other
human persons as appropriate, and that it includes knowledge of
one’s deficiencies. Christian monastics such as Bernard of Clairvaux,
Benedict, Bonaventure, and John Cassian also take humility to be a
virtue of central importance, and focus on its formation within monas-
tic communities.10 Benedict contends that the humble person should be
convinced that he is (in some sense) worse than everyone else.11 Saint
Gregory the Great holds that “humility is the guardian of virtue.”12

7
Augustine, The Trinity Book IV, chs 1–2. See also Book VIII, ch. 7 and Book IV,
ch. 4; and City of God, Book XIV, ch. 13.
8
Some of our creaturely limitations are to be transcended, but others not. For
example, God empowers us to transcend our selfishness, but not our finitude. For
more on the empowering aspects of humility for Augustine, see Pardue, The Mind of
Christ, pp. 145–58.
9
Aquinas, Summa Theologiae IIaIIae.161.
10
Saint Benedict, The Rule of Benedict (New York, NY: Penguin Group, 2008);
Bernard of Clairvaux, The Steps of Humility and Pride (Trappist, KY: Cistercian
Publications, 1973); Bonaventure, Bonaventure: The Soul’s Journey into God, The
Tree of Life, The Life of St. Francis (New York, NY: Paulist Press, 1978); John Cassian,
Conferences of John Cassian, Conference 14, ch. 10.
11
Benedict, The Rule of Benedict, p. 25.
12
Saint Gregory the Great, “On the Gospel (Homily 7),” http://www.lectionarycentral.
com/advent4/GregoryGreat.html. Gregory is considered a saint in both the Roman and
Eastern Orthodox traditions. Eastern Orthodox theologian Saint John Climacus extols
humility as follows: “The sun lights up everything visible. Likewise, humility is the source
of everything done according to reason. Where there is no light, all is in darkness. Where
there is no humility, all is rotten.” See Saint John Climacus, “On Humility (Step 25),”
Ladder of Divine Ascent http://www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/vainglory_
ladder_climacus.htm#_Toc530064365.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/9/2018, SPi

4 Humility and Human Flourishing

Teresa of Avila writes “so long as we are on this earth, nothing matters
more to us than humility.”13 In seventeenth-century England, several
Protestant theologians conceive of humility as the “chief attribute of
their religion.”14 In the late nineteenth century, South African Dutch
Reformed pastor Andrew Murray extols humility as “the only root from
which the graces can grow, the one indispensable condition of true
fellowship with Jesus.”15 Twentieth-century Roman Catholic philoso-
pher and theologian Dietrich von Hildebrand maintains that humility is
the “fountainhead of all specifically human virtues.”16 Contemporary
philosopher Paul Copan claims that Jesus exemplified humility in his
incarnation and crucifixion, and that it is a crucial virtue with respect to
our worship of God. Copan argues that humility involves a realistic
assessment of oneself, including one’s weaknesses and one’s strengths.17
Pardue offers a definition of humility as “a long term tendency to
recognize and embrace creaturely limits in such a way that, by the
working of divine grace, those limits are surpassed and expanded over
time.”18 Others could be alluded to, and there is more to say about these
accounts of humility, but my point at present is that humility is both
studied and taken to be a vital Christian virtue by a variety of Christian
thinkers across denominations, times, and cultures.
While humility holds a significant place in both Scripture and
Christian thought, and its value is proclaimed in both, it is clear
that there is some disagreement on the nature of this virtue.19 An
examination of a key biblical term translated as “humility” can be

13
St. Teresa of Avila, Interior Castle, trans. E. Allison Peers (Radford, VA: Wilder
Publications, 2008), p. 24.
14
Kari Konkola, “Have We Lost Humility?” Humanitas (2005): 183. Numerous
examples from this time period are illustrative of the prominence of humility in the
works of its theologians (many of them bestsellers at the time). For example, in The Whole
Duty of Man (1658), Richard Allestree takes humility to be the most important Christian
virtue and discusses it at length.
15
Andrew Murray, Humility (Bloomington, MN: Bethany House Publishers,
2001), p. 12.
16
Dietrich von Hildebrand, Humility: Wellspring of Virtue (Manchester, NH:
Sophia Institute Press, 1997), p. 5.
17
Paul Copan, “Divine Narcissism? A Further Defense of God’s Humility,” Philo-
sophia Christi 8 (2006): 313–25. Humility does not necessarily include a recognition of
weakness or limitation, according to Copan, but merely an accurate self-assessment.
This is why God can be humble, on his view.
18
Pardue, The Mind of Christ, p. 158.
19
Josef Pieper agrees, and notes that “the notion of humility has become blurred
even in the Christian consciousness.” See his The Four Cardinal Virtues (Notre Dame,
IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1966), p. 189.
 OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/9/2018, SPi

Philosophy, Theology, and Christian Virtue 5

helpful, but is not in and of itself sufficient for the clarity we need
to understand this trait. Tapeinophrosune is translated as “humility,”
but it can also be translated as “lowliness of mind.”20 This term, and
most of its cognates in both the Hebrew Bible and New Testament,
can be interpreted as describing something that is needed for a proper
relationship with God and other human beings.21
In spite of its significance and prevalence in the history of Christian
thought, many contemporary Christian reference works are either
silent or quite limited concerning humility.22 However, humility is
receiving renewed attention from some popular religious authors.23
In addition, in the wake of the revival of virtue ethics in philosophy,
some contemporary analytic philosophers have turned to an analysis
of individual virtues, including courage, compassion, and forgiveness.24
There is also a renewed interest among some of these philosophers
regarding the nature and value of humility. Some of these contem-
porary treatments of the virtue of humility are explicitly theological,
but in general this is not the case. Some offer a naturalized version of
this virtue that has long been associated in the minds of many with
Christian theism, rather than atheism or philosophical naturalism.25
Erik Wielenberg, for instance, argues that there is a naturalistic
version of humility that corresponds to Christian humility.26 Others
conflate humility with modesty.27
The primary aims of this book, then, include an explanation,
defense, and application of a Christian account of the moral virtue
of humility. I do not engage in an exhaustive linguistic study of
“humility” and its cognate terms in the Scriptures, nor do I attempt

20
Verlyn Verbrugge, New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology,
abridged edition (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2000), p. 555.
21
ibid. I examine this term in more detail in chapter 2.
22
See Konkola, “Have We Lost Humility?” for a survey of such works which
supports this claim.
23
See C. J. Mahaney, Humility: True Greatness (Colorado Springs, CO: Multnomah
Books, 2005); and John Dickson, Humilitas: A Lost Key to Life, Love, and Leadership
(Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2011).
24
See Clifford Williams, ed., Personal Virtues (New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan,
2005).
25
For example, see G. Alex Sinha, “Modernizing the Virtue of Humility,” Australasian
Journal of Philosophy 90 (2012): 259–74.
26
Erik J. Wielenberg, Value and Virtue in a Godless Universe (New York, NY:
Cambridge University Press, 2005), pp. 102–16.
27
On this see Jonathan L. Kvanvig, Faith and Humility (Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 2018), chapter 8.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/9/2018, SPi

6 Humility and Human Flourishing

a fully comprehensive biblical or historical treatment. All of these
elements are present in the following study of humility, however, in
which I apply the methods of analytic philosophy to the field of moral
theology in order to analyze a Christian conception of this virtue. This
book, then, is best characterized as a work of analytic moral the-
ology.28 In the next section, I describe what this means.

ANALYTIC MORAL THEOLOGY

In order to understand the nature of analytic moral theology, con-

sider Michael Rea’s description of analytic theology as “the activity of
approaching theological topics with the ambitions of an analytic
philosopher and in a style that conforms to the prescriptions that
are distinctive of analytic philosophical discourse.”29 The ambitions
of the analytic philosopher include identifying the scope and limit
of our epistemic powers as well as constructing a true explanatory
theory in some area of philosophical inquiry. The analytic theologian
has the same ambitions in an area of theological inquiry. As Rea
characterizes them, the prescriptions of analytic philosophy include
a style of writing in which philosophical argumentation is made up of
formalized and logically manipulable sentences; the prioritization of
precision, clarity, and logical coherence; the avoidance of the non-
decorative use of metaphor; the employment of primitive concepts or
concepts that can be analyzed in such terms, when possible; and the
belief that conceptual analysis can serve as a source of evidence.30
Along these lines, Oliver Crisp states that:
analytic theology, like contemporary analytic philosophy, involves the use
of certain tools like logic to make sense of theological issues, where
metaphysical concerns are central. And like analytic philosophy, analytic
theology will prize intellectual virtues like clarity, parsimony of expression,

28
It could also be called “Christian moral philosophy” or “philosophical moral
theology” while still capturing what I take to be distinctive about this approach. I have
chosen “analytic moral theology” given recent developments in what is called “ana-
lytic theology.” I discuss this in the section, “Some Objections to Analytic Moral
Theology.”
29
Michael Rea, “Introduction,” Analytic Theology, Oliver Crisp and Michael Rea,
eds (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2009), p. 7.
30
ibid. pp. 5–6.
 OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/9/2018, SPi

Philosophy, Theology, and Christian Virtue 7

and argumentative rigour. It will also, where appropriate, seek to deal
with complex doctrinal concerns by dividing them into more manage-
able units, or focusing on providing a clear expression of theological
terms that inform particular doctrines in important respects . . . analytic
theology is about redeploying tools already in the service of philosophy
to a theological end.31
Analytic moral theology, then, involves approaching theological topics
where moral concerns are central with the ambitions of an analytic
philosopher, prizing particular intellectual virtues, and using the
analytic style of discourse.
Applying analytic methodology to topics of theological significance
is nothing new. For instance, a significant body of work in philosoph-
ical theology has emerged in recent years dealing with central Christian
doctrines such as the Incarnation and the Trinity using the methods of
analytic philosophy. However, in recent years comparatively little has
been done in the field of moral theology using those methods. Many
scholars are engaged in some form of moral theology, but compara-
tively few of them make use of the methods and tools of analytic
philosophy in their work.32 Analytic methodology is certainly not the
only methodology we should employ, but much progress has been
made in advancing a Christian understanding of God by this method-
ology via its application to doctrines such as the Incarnation and the
Trinity. Similarly, I believe that there is great potential for progress in
our understanding and application of concepts in Christian moral
theology if we approach the field with analytic ambitions and style.
This is not to belittle or question the significance of the moral reflection
that has been done and is being done by biblical scholars, theologians,
or others using non-analytic methodologies. Rather, the aim is to bring
some underutilized tools to bear on Christian moral theology. More
specifically, my aim in this book is in part to achieve greater clarity and
depth with respect to our understanding of the Christian virtue of
humility. Such moral knowledge is both theoretically significant and
practically useful, as will become clear in the pages that follow.

31
Oliver Crisp, “On Analytic Theology,” in Analytic Theology, Crisp and Rea, eds,
pp. 38–9.
32
For examples of such work, see Cristian Mihut, “Change of Heart: Forgiveness,
Resentment, and Empathy,” Philosophia Christi 14 (2012): 109–24; Robert C. Roberts,
Spiritual Emotions: A Psychology of Christian Virtues (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans,
2007); and a special issue of the journal Faith and Philosophy dealing with virtues and
virtue theories from a Christian perspective; see Faith and Philosophy 15:4 (1998).
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/9/2018, SPi

8 Humility and Human Flourishing

SOME OBJECTIONS TO ANALYTIC
MORAL THEOLOGY

Given the nature and contemporary practice of analytic philosophy,

one might be concerned about applying its methods to theological and
existentially important issues concerning Christian morality and human
fulfillment. There are several concerns here. Perhaps it is unrealistic for
analytically trained philosophers to do theology, given what is required
to do it well. In addition, the tendency of analytic philosophy to focus on
theory rather than practice poses a problem for doing moral theology
with analytic philosophical methods, given that theology for many has
an essentially practical element. Others may object that the practice of
analytic moral theology is not conducive to moral and spiritual growth. It
is to these types of worries that I now turn.
William Abraham describes a potential objection to the practice of
analytic theology that can be raised from within the field of theology,
namely, that it is unrealistic for analytically trained philosophers to
engage in it well, given the variety of fields that are involved in doing
theology well: ancient and modern languages, the historical study of
the Scriptures, church history, and familiarity with other disciplines
such as sociology and psychology.33 This is perhaps especially troub-
ling for someone engaging in an analytic study of the virtue of
humility, because the charge of hubris seems appropriate to the one
who assumes that she has the requisite mastery of the relevant fields.
In reply to this concern, Marc Cortez agrees that it is unrealistic to
expect a philosopher to master all of the relevant disciplines that theo-
logians draw upon in their work.34 However, he also points out that
there is a question of fairness here. Theologians do not meet these
(unrealistic) standards; they do not master all of the relevant disciplines
and methods of study. Rather, they specialize and depend on others to
help them fill in the gaps. So while it is important to be sufficiently
equipped for the task of theological study, those who take an analytic
approach are in the same boat, i.e., they bring a variety of disciplines to

33
William J. Abraham, “Turning Philosophical Water into Theological Wine,”
Journal of Analytic Theology 1 (2013): 2–16. Abraham describes but does not offer a reply
to this objection.
34
Marc Cortez, “As Much As Possible: Essentially Contested Concepts and Analytic
Theology: A Response to William J. Abraham,” Journal of Analytic Theology 1 (2013):
17–24.
 OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/9/2018, SPi

Philosophy, Theology, and Christian Virtue 9

bear on the issues that are of special concern to them, and ideally
collaborate with others to help them when they venture outside their
areas of specialization. Such collaboration will take different forms, but
it is needed in an era of academic specialization.
Philosophers who engage in analytic theology can derive an import-
ant lesson here, apart from accepting the need for collaboration. They
should come to see that theology, like philosophy, has a deep and
rich history that must not be ignored by the philosopher who seeks to
engage in theological study with the tools of analytic philosophy. As
Abraham puts it, “Imagine a theologian showing up and offering to
do philosophy without serious immersion in the whole history of
philosophy (ancient, medieval, and modern), and without first-order
work in epistemology, normative ethics, metaphysics, logic, and phil-
osophy of language.”35 This goes the other way, too. Philosophers must
familiarize themselves with the relevant issues and historical develop-
ments concerning the particular theological concepts they are inter-
ested in analyzing. It is realistic to expect that philosophers who take
part in the analytic theological enterprise will immerse themselves in
the historical and contemporary theological literature to a significant
degree. They should show serious concern for and attention to the
historical development of the relevant doctrines as well as the most
significant discussions of the biblical texts related to the theological
issues they are examining.
Another reason that some may have for being skeptical about the
enterprise of analytic moral theology has to do with the emphasis on
metatheoretical rather than substantive issues present in contempor-
ary analytic philosophy. Metatheoretical questions are important,
but if the analytic moral theologian neglects substantive theological
issues, then this is problematic. In his book, Reason in Faith: On the
Relevance of Christian Spirituality for Philosophy,36 Adriaan Peperzak
observes that contemporary philosophy can be “overly-reflective”
insofar as the substantive questions philosophers ask end up being
an afterthought. Prior to addressing these questions, philosophers
“are tempted to devote ample time to defining the problem, deter-
mining the methodological requirements for a possible answer,
and critically evaluating previous approaches. Such metatheoretical

35
Abraham, “Turning Philosophical Water into Theological Wine,” p. 4.
36
Adriaan Peperzak, Reason in Faith: On the Relevance of Christian Spirituality for
Philosophy (Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 1999).
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
Whitbread, Samuel, member of Parliament, i. 50; ii. 270.
Widgery, William, member of Congress from Massachusetts, ii.
400.
Wilberforce, William, member of Parliament, ii. 273, 280.
Wilkinson, James, brigadier-general, his movements, i. 37;
Gallatin’s remarks on his character, 38;
military court of inquiry on, 169;
his influence on the army, 169;
ordered to New Orleans, 170;
his encampment at Terre aux Bœufs, 171–175;
summoned to Washington for investigation, 175;
senior brigadier, ii. 291.
Williams, David R., not a member of the Eleventh Congress, i.
76;
in the Twelfth Congress, ii. 122;
chairman of military committee, 124, 435.
Wilna, in Poland, Barlow’s journey to, ii. 263, 264.
Winchester, Joseph, brigadier-general, ii. 291.
Winder, William H., Colonel of Fourteenth Infantry, ii. 357, 359.
Wolcott, Alexander, i. 359, 360.
Wool, John E., Captain of Thirteenth Infantry, gains Queenston
Heights, ii. 349, 350.
Woollen manufactures, i. 17.
Wright, Robert, member of Congress from Maryland, his motion
on impressments, i. 351, 352;
opposes Gallatin’s taxes, ii. 167;
his threats against opposition, 213.

York, or Toronto, capital of Upper Canada, ii. 316.

York, Duke of, i. 57, 58, 105.
END OF VOL. II.
 FOOTNOTES:
[1] Tooke’s Prices, ii. 389, 390.
[2] State Papers, iii. 373.
[3] State Papers, iii. 376.
[4] Instructions of Wellesley to Foster, April 10, 1811; Papers
presented to Parliament, February, 1813.
[5] Robert Smith to Pinkney, July 2, 1810; State Papers, iii.
360.
[6] Smith to Pinkney, July 5, 1810; State Papers, iii. 362.
[7] Pinkney to Wellesley, Dec. 10, 1810; State Papers, iii. 376.
[8] Russell to Cadore, Dec. 10, 1810; State Papers, iii. 391.
[9] Wellesley to Pinkney, Dec. 29, 1810; State Papers, iii. 408.
[10] Pinkney to Wellesley, Jan. 14, 1811; State Papers, iii. 409.
[11] Pinkney to Madison, Dec. 17, 1810; Wheaton’s Pinkney,
p. 452.
[12] Wellesley to Pinkney, Feb. 11, 1811; State Papers, iii. 412.
[13] Pinkney to Wellesley, Feb. 13, 1811; State Papers, iii.
412.
[14] Pinkney to Wellesley, Feb. 13, 1811; State Papers, iv.
413.
[15] Wellesley to Pinkney, Feb. 15, 1811; State Papers, iii.
413.
[16] Smith to Pinkney, Nov. 15, 1810; State Papers, iii. 375.
[17] Pinkney to Wellesley, Feb. 17,1811; State Papers, iii. 414.
[18] Wellesley to Pinkney, Feb. 23, 1811; State Papers, iii.
415.
[19] Pinkney to Wellesley, Feb. 23, 1811; State Papers, iii.
415.
[20] Pinkney to Robert Smith, March 1, 1811; State Papers, iii.
415.
 [21] Wellesley to Foster, April 29, 1811; Papers, etc., 1813, p.
294.
[22] F. J. Jackson to Pickering, April 24, 1811; New England
Federalism, p. 382.
[23] Bath Archives, Second Series, i. 219.
[24] Pinkney to Madison, Aug. 13, 1810; Wheaton’s Pinkney,
p. 444.
[25] Papers relating to America, C, presented to Parliament,
February, 1813.
[26] Instruction No. 3; MSS. British Archives.
[27] Instruction No. 8; MSS. British Archives.
[28] Bath Archives, Second Series, i. 221.
[29] Cobbett’s Debates, xxiv. 34.
[30] Secretary Hamilton to Commodore Rodgers, May 6, 1811;
MSS. Navy Department Archives.
[31] Secretary Hamilton to Commodore Rodgers, June 9,
1810; MSS. Navy Department Archives.
[32] Rodgers’s Report of May 23, 1811; State Papers, Foreign
Affairs, iii. 497.
[33] Niles’s Register, i. 34.
[34] American State Papers, Foreign Affairs, iii. 473.
[35] State Papers, iii, 477.
[36] London Times, Dec. 7, 1811; Palladium, Feb. 18, 1812.
[37] James. Naval Occurrences, p. 97.
[38] Monroe to Foster, July 8, 1811; State Papers iii. 543.
[39] Foster to Wellesley, July 5, 1811; MSS. British Archives.
[40] Foster to Monroe, July 3, 1811; State Papers, iii. 435.
[41] Foster to Wellesley, July 7, 1811; MSS. British Archives.
[42] Monroe to Foster, July 23, 1811; State Papers, iii. 439.
[43] Foster to Wellesley, July 18, 1811; MSS. British Archives.
[44] Serurier to Champagny, No. 5, March 5, 1811. Archives
des Aff. Étr. MSS.
 [45] Serurier to Champagny, Feb. 17, 1811; Archives des Aff.
Étr. MSS.
[46] Serurier to Champagny, March 26, 1811; Archives des Aff.
Étr. MSS.
[47] Serurier to Champagny, April 5, 1811; Archives des Aff.
Étr. MSS.
[48] Serurier to Maret, June 30, 1811; Archives des Aff. Étr.
MSS.
[49] Serurier to Maret, July 5, 1811; Archives des Aff Étr. MSS.
[50] See vol. v. p. 393.
[51] Serurier to Maret, July 10, 1811; Archives des Aff. Étr.
MSS.
[52] Serurier to Maret, July 20, 1811; Archives des Aff. Étr.
MSS.
[53] Serurier to Monroe, July 19, 1811; MSS. State
Department Archives.
[54] Serurier to Maret, July 20, 1811; Archives des Aff. Étr.
MSS.
[55] Serurier to Monroe, July 23, 1811; State Papers, iii. 508.
[56] Serurier to Maret, July 24, 1811; Archives des Aff. Étr.
MSS.
[57] Monroe to Taylor, June 13, 1812; Monroe MSS.
[58] Dawson’s Harrison, p. 8.
[59] Dawson’s Harrison, p. 11.
[60] Dawson’s Harrison, pp. 7, 31, 32.
[61] Life of Lincoln, by Hay and Nicolay, chap. i.
[62] Jefferson to Harrison, Feb. 27, 1803; Works, iv. 471.
[63] Dunn’s Indiana (American Commonwealths), p. 324.
[64] Dillon’s History of Indiana, App. G. p. 617.
[65] Dunn’s Indiana, p. 397.
[66] Treaty of Greenville; State Papers, Indian Affairs, p. 562.
[67] Harrison to the Secretary of War, March 22, 1814; Drake’s
Tecumseh, p. 161.
 [68] Treaty of Nov. 7, 1807; State Papers, Indian Affairs, p.
747.
[69] Dawson’s Harrison, p. 106.
[70] Dawson, p. 129.
[71] Eustis to Harrison, July 15, 1809. Indian Affairs, p. 761.
[72] Harrison to the Secretary of War, March 22, 1814; Drake’s
Tecumseh, p. 162.
[73] Dawson, p. 142.
[74] Harrison to Eustis, July 4, 1810; Dawson, p. 149. Harrison
to Governor Scott, Dec. 13, 1811; Dawson, p. 244. Badollet’s
Letters to Gallatin; Gallatin MSS. Dillon’s Indiana, p. 455.
[75] Harrison to Governor Scott of Kentucky, March 10, 1809;
Dawson, p. 119.
[76] State Papers, Indian Affairs, p. 799.
[77] War Department Archives, MSS.
[78] Dawson, pp. 173, 174.
[79] Dawson’s Harrison, p. 179.
[80] Dawson, p. 190.
[81] Dawson, p. 191.
[82] Dawson, p. 200.
[83] Boyd to Eustis, Dec. 10, 1811; MSS. War Department
Records.
[84] Marshall’s Kentucky, ii. 509.
[85] Dawson, p. 195. Cf. McAffee, p. 18.
[86] Harrison to Eustis, Oct. 6, 1811; MSS. War Department
Archives.
[87] Dawson, p. 253.
[88] Harrison to Eustis, Oct. 13, 1811; MSS. War Department
Archives.
[89] Harrison to Eustis, Nov. 2, 1811; MSS. War Department
Archives.
[90] Letter in New England Palladium, Dec. 24, 1811.
[91] Dawson, p. 196.
 [92] Dawson, p. 196.
[93] Speech of Captain Charley, July 10, 1814; State Papers,
Indian Affairs, i. 830.
[94] Dawson, p. 206.
[95] Harrison to Governor Scott, Dec. 13, 1811; Dawson, p.
244.
[96] McAffee, p. 25. Dawson, p. 206.
[97] Harrison to Eustis, Nov. 18, 1811; State Papers, Indian
Affairs, p. 776.
[98] Harrison to Eustis, Nov. 18, 1811; State Papers, Indian
Affairs, p. 776.
[99] Dawson, p. 216.
[100] Dawson, pp. 216, 250.
[101] Dawson, p. 211.
[102] McAffee, p. 28.
[103] Harrison to Eustis, Nov. 18, 1811; State Papers, Indian
Affairs, p. 776.
[104] See Plan of Camp. Lossing, p. 205.
[105] Lossing, p. 203.
[106] Harrison to Eustis, Nov. 8, 1811; National Intelligencer,
Nov. 30, 1811. Niles, i. 255.
[107] William Taylor to ——, Nov. 8, 1811; National
Intelligencer, Dec. 7, 1811.
[108] General Return; State Papers, Indian Affairs, i. 779.
[109] Dawson, p. 233.
[110] Dawson, p. 233. Lossing, p. 206, note.
[111] Report of Nov. 18, 1811; Niles, i. 304.
[112] Dawson, p. 267.
[113] Lossing, p. 206, note.
[114] Marshall’s Kentucky, ii. 507, 521.
[115] Harrison to J. M. Scott, Dec. 2, 1811. Niles, i. 311.
[116] Harrison to Eustis, Dec. 4, 1811; State Papers, Indian
Affairs, p. 779.
 [117] MSS. Canadian Archives. C. 676, p. 147.
[118] J. Rhea to Eustis, March 14, 1812; State Papers, Indian
Affairs, p. 806.
[119] Dawson, p. 263.
[120] State Papers, Indian Affairs, p. 808.
[121] Dawson, p. 266.
[122] Serurier to Maret, Oct. 23, 1811; Archives des Aff. Étr.
MSS.
[123] Foster to Wellesley, Nov. 5, 1811; MSS. British Archives.
[124] Macon to Nicholson, Nov. 21, 1811; Nicholson MSS.
[125] Annals of Congress, 1811–1812, p. 715.
[126] Serurier to Maret, Nov. 28, 1811; Archives des Aff. Étr.
MSS.
[127] Foster to Wellesley, Nov. 9, 1811; MSS. British Archives.
[128] Foster to Wellesley, Nov. 21, 1811; Papers presented to
Parliament in 1813, p. 417.
[129] Foster to Wellesley, Jan. 16, 1812; MSS. British
Archives.
[130] Foster to Wellesley, Dec. 11, 1811; MSS. British
Archives.
[131] Foster to Wellesley, Dec. 11, 1811; MSS. British
Archives.
[132] Foster to Wellesley, Jan. 16, 1812; MSS. British
Archives.
[133] Foster to Wellesley, Feb. 2, 1812; MSS. British Archives.
[134] Crillon’s evidence; Annals of Congress, 1811–1812, p.
1222.
[135] Les États Unis il y a quarante ans; Par Caraman. Revue
Contemporaine, 31 Août, 1852, p. 26.
[136] Serurier to Maret, May 27, 1812; Archives des Aff. Étr.
MSS.
[137] Serurier to Maret, March 2, 1811; Archives des Aff. Étr.
MSS.
 [138] Serurier to Maret, March 2, 1811; Archives des Aff. Étr.
MSS.
[139] Serurier to Maret, March 22, 1811; Archives des Aff. Étr.
MSS.
[140] Serurier to Maret, May 27, 1812; Archives des Aff. Étr.
MSS.
[141] Caraman, p. 28. Revue Contemporaine, 31 août, 1852.
[142] Serurier to Maret, Jan. 2, 1812; Archives des Aff. Étr.
MSS.
[143] Serurier to Maret, March 2, 1812; Archives des Aff. Étr.
MSS.
[144] Foster to Wellesley, March 12, 1812; MSS. British
Archives.
[145] Foster to Wellesley, April 1, 1812; MSS. British Archives.
[146] Papers communicated to Parliament in 1813, p. 314.
[147] Foster to Wellesley, April 1, 1812; MSS. British Archives.
[148] Serurier to Maret, March 23, 1812; Archives des Aff. Étr.
MSS.
[149] Macon to Nicholson, March 24, 1812; Nicholson MSS.
[150] Statesman’s Manual, ii. 444, note.
[151] Adams’s Gallatin, pp. 457–459.
[152] Speech of John Smilie, April 1, 1812; Annals of
Congress, p. 1592. Monroe to Colonel Taylor, June 13, 1812;
Monroe MSS.
[153] Speech of John Randolph, April 1, 1812; Annals of
Congress, p. 1593.
[154] Speech of John Randolph, April 1, 1812; Annals of
Congress, p. 1593.
[155] Foster to Wellesley, April 1, 1812; MSS. British Archives.
[156] Foster to Wellesley, April 2, 1812; Papers, 1813, p. 564.
[157] Foster to Wellesley, April 3, 1812; MSS. British Archives.
[158] Serurier to Maret, April 9, 1812; Archives des Aff. Étr.
MSS.
 [159] Supplemental Journal, April 1, 1812; Annals of
Congress, 1811–1812, p. 1588.
[160] Madison to Jefferson, April 24, 1812; Writings, ii. 532.
[161] Serurier to Maret, April 24, 1812; Archives des Aff. Étr.
MSS.
[162] National Intelligencer, April 23, 1812.
[163] Serurier to Maret, May 4, 1812; Archives des Aff. Étr.
MSS.
[164] Message of March 27, 1812; Niles, ii. 39.
[165] Adams’s Gallatin, p. 460, note.
[166] Ante, vol. i. pp. 139, 142.
[167] Foster to Castlereagh, May 3, 1812; MSS. British
Archives.
[168] Papers presented to Parliament, 1813, p. 475.
[169] Serurier to Maret, May 27, 1812; Archives des Aff. Étr.
MSS.
[170] Madison to Jefferson, May 25, 1812; Works ii. 535.
[171] Madison to Barlow, Aug. 11, 1812; Works ii. 540.
[172] Madison to Henry Wheaton, Feb. 26, 1827; Works iii.
553.
[173] Castlereagh to Foster, April 10, 1812; Papers, etc.,
1813, p. 511.
[174] Foster to Castlereagh, June 6, 1812; Papers, etc., 1813,
p. 577.
[175] Madison to Wheaton, Feb. 26, 1827; Madison’s Works,
iii. 553.
[176] Richard Rush to Benjamin Rush, June 20, 1812; Rush
MSS.
[177] Serurier to Maret, June 13, 1812; Archives des Aff. Étr.
MSS.
[178] Adams’s Gallatin, p. 466.
[179] Petition of inhabitants; Annals of Congress, 1811–1812,
p. 2157.
[180] United States vs. Arredondo, 6 Peters, p. 741.
 [181] State Papers, Foreign Relations, iv. 617, 623; Diary of J.
Q. Adams, Feb. 15, 1819, iv. 254, 255.
[182] Secretary of State to Gen. George Matthews and John
McKee, Jan. 26, 1811; State Papers, Foreign Affairs, iii. 571.
[183] Matthews to Monroe, Aug. 3, 1811; Secret Acts,
Resolutions, and Instructions under which East Florida was
invaded in 1812 and 1813. Washington.
[184] Matthews to Monroe, Oct. 14, 1811; Secret Acts,
Resolutions, and Instructions under which East Florida was
invaded in 1812 and 1813. Washington.
[185] Niles, ii. 93.
[186] State Papers, Foreign Affairs, iii. 572.
[187] Crawford to Monroe, Aug. 6, 1812; Monroe MSS. State
Dep. Archives.
[188] Works, ii. 532.
[189] Serurier to Maret, May 4, 1812; Archives des. Aff. Étr.
MSS.
[190] State Papers, iii. 572.
[191] State Papers, iii. 573.
[192] Governor Garzia to Governor Mitchell, Dec. 12, 1812;
Niles, iii. 311.
[193] An Act, etc., Annals of Congress; 12th Congress, 1811–
1812, Part I. p. 324.
[194] Maret to Serurier, October, 1811; Archives des Aff. Étr.
MSS.
[195] Barlow to Monroe, Nov. 17, 1812; MSS. State
Department Archives.
[196] Notes dictées en conseil, 25 nov. 1811;
Correspondance, xxiii. 36.
[197] Note sur le Blocus continental, 13 janvier, 1812;
Correspondance, xxiii. 167.
[198] Barlow to Monroe, Dec. 19, 1811; State Papers, Foreign
Affairs, iii. 515.
[199] Napoleon to Davoust, Jan. 19, 1812; Correspondance,
xxiii. 182.
 [200] Napoleon to Davoust, Jan. 19, 1812; Correspondance,
p. 194.
[201] Barlow to Russell, March 2, 1812; State Papers, Foreign
Affairs, iii. 518.
[202] Barlow to Monroe, March 16, 1812; MSS. State
Department Archives.
[203] Barlow to Bassano, May 1, 1812; State Papers, iii. 602.
[204] Barlow to Monroe, May 12, 1812; State Papers, iii. 603.
[205] See ante, Vol. v. p. 402.
[206] Maret to Serurier, May 10, 1812; Archives des Aff. Étr.
MSS.
[207] Madison to Barlow, Aug. 11, 1812; Works, ii. 540.
[208] Bassano to Dalberg, 10 August, 1812; Archives des Aff.
Étr. MSS.
[209] Bassano to Dalberg, 10 August, 1812; Archives des Aff.
Étr. MSS.
[210] Dalberg to Bassano, Aug. 11, 1812; Archives des Aff.
Étr. MSS.
[211] Madison to Wheaton, Feb. 26, 1827; Works, iii. 553.
[212] State Papers, iii. 421.
[213] The Courier, Sept. 22, 1812; Letter signed “Vetus.”
[214] Cobbett’s Debates, xxi. 61.
[215] Cobbett’s Debates, xxi. 773.
[216] Reflections, etc.; Letter, etc., February, 1812. By Joseph
Phillimore.
[217] Cobbett’s Debates, xxi. 847.
[218] Times report, March 4; National Intelligencer, April 25,
1812. Cf. London Morning Chronicle, March 4, 1812.
[219] Memoirs of R. Plumer Ward, i. 446.
[220] Memoirs of R. Plumer Ward, i. 450.
[221] Memoirs of R. Plumer Ward, i. 441.
[222] Life of Sidmouth, iii. 74.
[223] Memoirs of R. Plumer Ward, i. 478.
 [224] Castlereagh to Foster, April 10, 1812; Papers of 1813,
No. 4, p. 505.
[225] Monroe to Russell, July 27, 1811; State Papers, iii. 422.
[226] Russell to Monroe, March, 1812; State Papers, iii. 426,
427.
[227] Macon to Nicholson, March 25, 1812; Nicholson MSS.
[228] Autobiography, p. 31.
[229] Eustis to Anderson, June 6, 1812; State Papers, Military
Affairs, i. 319.
[230] Hull to Eustis, March 6, 1812; Hull’s Defence, pp. 29–32.
[231] Defence of Dearborn, by H. A. S. Dearborn, p. 1.
Boston, 1824.
[232] Prevost to Brock, July 31, 1812. Tupper’s Life of Brock,
p. 209.
[233] Hull’s Trial; Defence, pp. 21, 22.
[234] Hull’s Trial; Evidence of Eustis, Appendix, p. 4.
[235] Defence of Dearborn, p. 9.
[236] Memoirs, p. 36.
[237] Gallatin’s Writings, ii. 503–511.
[238] Armstrong’s Notices, i. 48.
[239] Hull’s Trial; Hull to Eustis, July 9, 1812, Appendix, p. 9;
Clarke’s Life of Hull, p. 335.
[240] Hull’s Memoirs, pp. 45, 46. Trial, App. (18).
[241] Hull’s Trial; Evidence of Col. Joseph Watson, p. 151.
[242] Hull to Eustis, July 19, 1812; War Department MSS.
[243] Dearborn to Eustis, May 8, 1812; War Department MSS.
[244] Dearborn to Eustis, June 26, 1812; War Department
MSS.
[245] Clarke’s Life of Hull, p. 417. Hull’s Memoirs, p. 173.
[246] Dearborn to Eustis, July 1, 1812; War Department MSS.
[247] Eustis to Dearborn, July 9, 1812; War Department MSS.
[248] Eustis to Dearborn, July 9, 1812; Dearborn MSS.
 [249] Dearborn to Eustis, July 13, 1812; War Department
MSS.
[250] Eustis to Dearborn, July 20, 1812; MSS. War
Department Records.
[251] Dearborn to Eustis, July 28, 1812. Defence of Dearborn,
p. 4.
[252] Richardson, p. 5; Christie, ii. 34; Prevost to Bathurst,
Aug. 26, 1812; Brock to Prevost, Aug. 7, 1812; Niles, iii. 265, 266.
[253] Lieutenant-Colonel Raby to Captain Gleg, July 27, 1812.
Proctor to Brock, July 26, 1812. MSS. Canadian Archives.
[254] Richardson, p. 9.
[255] Hull to Eustis, July 22, 1812. Hull’s Defence, App. No. 2
(10).
[256] Richardson, p. 18.
[257] Hull’s Trial, Cass’s testimony. Hull’s Memoirs, p. 64.
[258] Abstracts of General Returns of Troops in Upper and
Lower Canada, July 30, 1812. Freer Papers, 1812–1813. MSS.
Canadian Archives.
[259] Prevost to Bathurst, Aug. 17, 1812; MSS. British
Archives.
[260] Brock to Liverpool, Aug. 29, 1812; MSS. British Archives.
[261] Van Rensselaer’s Narrative, pp. 9, 10.
[262] Dearborn’s Defence of Dearborn, p. 4.
[263] Dearborn’s Defence of Dearborn, p. 4.
[264] Life of Prevost, p. 39; Life of Brock, p. 214.
[265] Dearborn to Eustis, Aug. 9, 1812; Dearborn’s Defence,
p. 6.
[266] Van Rensselaer to Dearborn, Aug. 18, 1812; Van
Rensselaer’s Narrative, App. p. 25.
[267] Richardson, pp. 16, 24; James’s Military Occurrences, i.
65.
[268] Hull to Eustis, Aug. 26, 1812; Niles, iii. 46.
[269] McAffee, pp. 83, 84.
[270] Hull to Eustis, Aug. 26, 1812; Niles, iii. 55.
 [271] Hull’s Trial; Evidence of James Dalliby, pp. 80, 81. Life of
Brock, p. 289.
[272] Hull to Eustis, Aug. 26, 1812; Niles, iii. 55.
[273] Hull’s Trial; Evidence of Colonel Miller, p. 111.
[274] Memoir, p. 110.
[275] Hull to Eustis, Aug. 26, 1812; Niles, iii. 55.
[276] Hull to Eustis, Aug. 26, 1812; Niles, iii. 55.
[277] Hull’s Trial; Evidence of Major Jesup, p. 96.
[278] Life of Brock, p. 228.
[279] Despatch of Aug. 29, 1812; MSS. British Archives.
[280] Letter of Sept. 3, 1812; Life, p. 267.
[281] Richardson, p. 30.
[282] Hull’s Trial; Evidence of Major Snelling, p. 40.
[283] Jefferson to Duane, Oct. 1, 1812; Works, vi. 79.
[284] Madison to Gallatin, Aug. 8, 1812; Gallatin’s Writings, i.
524.
[285] Prevost to Bathurst, Aug. 17, 1812; MSS. British
Archives.
[286] Prevost to Bathurst, Aug. 24, 1812; MSS. British
Archives.
[287] Dearborn to Madison, Aug. 15, 1812; Madison MSS.
State Department Archives.
[288] Eustis to Dearborn, Aug. 15, 1812; Hull’s Memoirs, p. 87.
[289] Dearborn to Eustis, Aug. 15, 1812; War Department
MSS.
[290] Van Rensselaer to Tompkins, Aug. 19, 1812; Narrative,
Appendix, p. 27.
[291] Life of Brock, pp. 293, 294.
[292] Van Rensselaer’s Narrative, Appendix, p. 35.
[293] Van Rensselaer’s Narrative, Appendix, p. 42.
[294] Dearborn to Eustis, Sept. 14, 1812; War Department
MSS.
 [295] Dearborn to Eustis, Sept. 1, 1812; War Department
MSS.
[296] Van Rensselaer to Tompkins, Sept. 15, 1812; Narrative,
Appendix, p. 50.
[297] Dearborn to Van Rensselaer, Sept. 17, 1812; Narrative,
Appendix, p. 56.
[298] Dearborn to Van Rensselaer, Sept. 26, 1812; Narrative,
Appendix, p. 59.
[299] Dearborn to Van Rensselaer, Oct. 13, 1812; War
Department MSS.
[300] Narrative, p. 19.
[301] Report of Lieutenant Elliott, Oct. 9, 1812. Official Letters,
p. 66.
[302] Van Rensselaer to Secretary Eustis, Oct. 14, 1812;
Narrative, Appendix, p. 62.
[303] Life of Brock, p. 330.
[304] Christie’s Report, Feb. 22, 1813; Armstrong’s Notices, i.
207.
[305] Life of Brock, p. 324.
[306] Van Rensselaer to Dearborn, Oct. 14, 1812; Niles, iii.
138.
[307] Dearborn to Eustis, Oct. 21, 1812; War Department
MSS. Dearborn to Madison, Oct. 24, 1812; Madison MSS., State
Department Archives.
[308] Niles, iii. 203.
[309] Lossing, p. 427 note.
[310] State Papers, Military Affairs, i. 501.
[311] Smyth to Dearborn, Dec. 4, 1812; Niles, iii. 282.
[312] Dearborn to Smyth, Oct. 21, 1812; State Papers, Military
Affairs, i. 493.
[313] Niles, iii. 284.
[314] Niles, iii. 264.
[315] Dearborn to Eustis, December 11, 1812; War
Department MSS.
 [316] Major Campbell to General Smyth, Nov. 27, 1812;
Military Affairs, i. 500. General Winder to General Smyth, Dec. 2,
1812; Military Affairs, i. 507.
[317] Dearborn to Smyth, Oct. 28 and Nov. 8, 1812; Military
Affairs, i. 495, 497.
[318] Dearborn to Eustis, Nov. 8, 1812; War Department MSS.
[319] Dearborn to Eustis, Nov. 24, 1812; War Department
MSS.
[320] Dearborn to Eustis, Dec. 11, 1812; War Department
MSS.
[321] Dearborn to Madison, Dec. 13, 1812; Madison MSS.,
State Department Archives.
[322] Hamilton to Decatur, June 5, 1812; MSS. Navy
Department Records.
[323] Hamilton to Rodgers, June 5, 1812; MSS. Navy
Department Records.
[324] Decatur to Hamilton, June 8, 1812; MSS. Navy
Department Records.
[325] Hamilton to Decatur, June 18, 1812; MSS. Navy
Department Records.
[326] Hamilton to Decatur, June 18, 1812; MSS. Navy
Department Records.
[327] Rodgers to Hamilton, Sept. 1, 1812; Official Letters, p.
52.
[328] Adams’s Gallatin, p. 465.
[329] Hull to Secretary Hamilton, July 7, 1812; MSS. Navy
Department.
[330] Hull to Secretary Hamilton, July 10, 1812; MSS. Navy
Department.
[331] Hull to Secretary Hamilton, Aug. 28, 1812; MSS. Navy
Department.
[332] Niles, ii. 333.
[333] Hamilton to Porter, June 24, 1812; MSS. Navy
Department Records.
 [334] Hamilton to Rodgers and Decatur, Sept. 9, 1812; MSS.
Navy Department Records.
[335] MSS. Navy Department Records.
[336] James, Naval Occurrences, p. 152.
[337] Bainbridge’s Journal, Report of Jan. 3, 1813; Niles, iii.
411.
[338] Brigadier-General Tannehill to Brigadier-General Smyth,
Dec. 7, 1812; State Papers, Military Affairs, i. 507.
[339] Remarks of D. R. Williams, Nov. 20, 1812; Annals of
Congress, 1812–1813, p. 156.
[340] Clay to Monroe, July 29, 1812; Monroe MSS., State
Department Archives.
[341] Clay to Monroe, Aug. 12, 1812; Monroe MSS., State
Department Archives.
[342] Clay to Monroe, Aug. 25, 1812; Monroe MSS., State
Department Archives.
[343] Madison to Monroe, Sept. 21, 1812; Monroe MSS., State
Department Archives.
[344] Graham to Monroe, Sept. 27, 1812; Monroe MSS., State
Department Archives.
[345] Crawford to Monroe, Sept. 27, 1812; Monroe MSS.,
State Department Archives.
[346] Monroe to Jefferson, June 7, 1813; Jefferson MSS.,
State Department Archives.
[347] Gallatin to Jefferson, Dec. 18, 1812; Adams’s Gallatin, p.
470.
[348] Jefferson to Madison, Nov. 5, 1812; Jefferson MSS.
series v. vol. xv.
[349] Niles, ii. 355.
[350] Judge Turner’s Affidavit, Boston Patriot, Aug. 19, 1812.
[351] Opinion, etc.; State Papers, Military Affairs, i. 324.
[352] Sumner’s East Boston, p. 738.
[353] Speech of E. Bacon, Nov. 20, 1812; Annals of Congress,
1812–1813, pp. 157, 158.
 [354] Address, etc., June 26, 1812; Niles, ii. 417.
[355] Pickering to John Lowell, Nov. 7, 1814; New England
Federalism, p. 404. The Palladium, Aug. 7, 1812; The Patriot,
Aug. 8, 1812.
[356] Monroe to Jonathan Russell, Aug. 21, 1812; State
Papers, iii. 587.
[357] Report of Baltimore City Council; Niles, ii. 376, 377.
[358] Lossing, p. 244.
[359] The Palladium, Aug. 7, 1812.
[360] John Taylor to Monroe, Nov. 8, 1812; Monroe MSS.
State Department Archives.
[361] Serurier to Maret, Sept. 2, 1812; Archives des Aff. Étr.
MSS.
[362] Serurier to Maret, Oct. 21, 1812; Archives des Aff. Étr.
MSS.
[363] Monroe to Admiral Warren, Oct. 27, 1812; State Papers,
iii. 596.
[364] John Taylor to Monroe, Nov. 8, 1812; Monroe MSS.,
State Department Archives.
[365] Madison to Monroe, Sept. 5, 1812; Monroe MSS., State
Department Archives.
[366] Madison to Monroe, Sept. 5, 1812; Monroe MSS., State
Department Archives.
[367] Madison to Monroe, Sept. 6, 1812; Monroe MSS., State
Department Archives.
[368] Madison to Monroe, Sept. 10, 1812; Monroe MSS., State
Department Archives.
[369] Monroe to Jefferson, June 7, 1813; Jefferson MSS.
[370] Hay to Monroe, Sept. 22, 1812; Monroe MSS.
[371] Monroe to Crawford, Dec. 3, 1812; Monroe MSS.
[372] Monroe to Jefferson, June 7, 1813; Jefferson MSS.
[373] Monroe to Jefferson, June 7, 1813; Jefferson MSS. Cf.
Monroe to Madison, Feb. 25, 1813; Monroe, MSS., State
Department Archives.
 [374] Hammond, i. 358, 360, 405, 406.
[375] Gallatin’s Writings, i. 528.
[376] Jefferson to Monroe, Jan. 1, 1815; Works, vi. 400.
[377] Gallatin to Cheves, Nov. 23, 1812; Annals, 1812–1813,
p. 1258.
[378] Annals of Congress, 1812–1813, p. 800.
[379] Letters of Gallatin, Feb. 3, 1813, and Feb. 9, 1813;
Annals of Congress, 1812–1813, p. 1063.
[380] Annals of Congress, 1812–1813, p. 1063.
[381] Organization of the Army. Niles, iv. 145.
[382] Monroe to Jonathan Russell, June 26, 1812; State
Papers, iii. 585.
[383] Lord Castlereagh to Jonathan Russell, Aug. 29, 1812;
State Papers, iii. 589.
[384] Annals of Congress, 1812–1813, p. 932.
[385] Annals of Congress, 1812–1813, p. 93.
[386] Gallatin to Jefferson, November, 1805; Works, i. 267.
[387] Gallatin to Jefferson, April 16, 1807; Works, i. 335.
[388] Dallas to the Committee of Foreign Relations, Jan. 26,
1816. Annals of Congress, 1815–1816, p. 176.
[389] Massachusetts Report on Impressed Seamen, 1813, p.
53. Speech of James Emott, Jan. 12, 1813; Annals of Congress,
1812–1813, p. 735.
[390] Cobbett’s Debates, Feb. 18, 1813.

Transcriber’s Notes:

1. Obvious printers’, punctuation and spelling errors have been corrected

silently.

2. Where hyphenation is in doubt, it has been retained as in the original.

3. Some hyphenated and non-hyphenated versions of the same words have

been retained as in the original.