Author David Barton provides in his 2016 edition of The Jefferson Lies one of the most exceptional refutations of modern revisionism regarding the life and faith of Thomas Jefferson. Each chapter is nearly saturated with primary source documentation repudiating each of the revisionist lies. Chapter 7, however, would be the notable exception.

Chapter 7 is entitled, “Lie #7: Thomas Jefferson Was an Atheist and Anti-Christian”. The chapter disproves the accusation of Jefferson having atheistic or anti-Christian sentiments. The author begins with Jefferson’s defense of all Christian groups to practice their faith (pp. 208-10). In those defenses, Jefferson acknowledged Jesus as “our Savior”, the New Testament “writers were inspired”, and the church doctrines “necessary to salvation.”

The author continues by showing Jefferson’s spiritual journey of growing up Anglican, dealing with the tragic loss of his wife Martha, working with interdenominational ministers during the Great Awakening of 1730-1770, and then the influential factors of the Charlottesville, VA area and of the Second Great Awakening beginning around 1800 (pp. 211-19). It is in this period the author turns his attention toward what came to be known as the Restoration Movement.

It appears at this point Mr. Barton forsakes good scholarship by relying too heavily on secondary sources. Additionally, he expresses a peculiar distaste and antagonism toward these particular Christians of the early 19 ^th century. Mr. Barton curiously states, “Ironically, in seeking to revive a so-called earlier and purer version of Christianity, it actually introduced doctrinal heresy” (p. 220). He also comments, “But in their fervor to restore primitive Christianity and return to what they deemed to be the bible’s simplicity, they rejected many of Christendom’s historic creeds, including the doctrine of the Trinity” (p. 221). The author spends 14 pages (220-33) arguing that this movement led Jefferson to be “the most unorthodox of his life” (p. 224).

This discourse struck me as shocking for a man such excellent scholarship, partly due to my own research regarding the matter. My senior research project [1] in pursuit of my history degree was the history of the Restoration Movement, with special emphasis on the movement’s history in my home state of Illinois. Never in the months of research did I come across anything even closely resembling the accusations made in Mr. Barton’s book. This motivated me to examine Mr. Barton’s work more closely, upon which it appeared to me that he relied much more upon secondary sources in this particular matter rather than primary sources.

This addendum attempts to correct the misconceptions and false accusations regarding the Restoration Movement through the use of primary sources alone.

“Ironically, in seeking to revive a so-called earlier and purer version of Christianity, it actually introduced doctrinal heresy” (p. 220).

The citation for this serious charge is a book written about Thomas Jefferson in 2015 (endnote 37, p. 340). It provides no evidence or primary sources to validate the charge.

“This movement became known as Christian Primitivism, or the Restoration Movement, and it had developed around four primary leaders” (p. 220).

The four leaders listed by David Barton on page 220 are Barton Stone (1772-1844), Thomas Campbell (1763-1854), Alexander Campbell (1788-1866), Elias Smith (1769-1846), and James O’Kelly (1735-1826). Why the author claimed four leaders and then listed five names is certainly a mystery. Additionally, this claim leaves out many other prominent leaders and does not fully express the organic, spontaneous nature of the movement.

Other prominent men of the movement would be Rice Haggard (1767-1819), Abner Jones (1772-1841), John Mulkey (1773-1844), “Racoon” John Smith (1784-1868), John Wright (1785-1851), Christian Dasher (1789-1866), and Walter Scott (1796-1861).

These men represent organic movements that started in Vermont, North Carolina, New Hampshire, Indiana, Massachusetts, Kentucky, Georgia, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Virginia, all independent of and uncoordinated with each other.

These men also represent a variety of backgrounds: Presbyterian, Methodist, Baptist, Anglican, Congregationalist, etc. It is, therefore, a dishonest inference that there were a few select men who began teaching strange, new doctrines that somehow led thousands of people into a heretical movement. They all came from Protestant denominations who on their own began to realize there was too much division, too much sectarianism, and not enough unity in the cause of Christ. They, therefore, sought to find unity on simply the Word of God and it alone.

“But in their fervor to restore primitive Christianity and return to what they deemed to be the Bible’s simplicity, they rejected many of Christendom’s historic creeds, including the doctrine of the Trinity. As bluntly explained by the Reverend Barton Stone, ‘The word Trinity is not found in the Bible’; they therefore considered it a false doctrine of men, not of God. Of the four major leaders, only O’Kelly openly embraced Trinitarianism” (p. 221).

The refusal to pledge allegiance to a man-made creed (i.e. Apostles’ Creed, Nicene Creed, etc.) does not mean rejection of the doctrine included in that creed. Thus, it is a false premise and borderline slanderous to say that everyone except James O’Kelly rejected Biblical doctrines because they rejected adherence to creeds as a test of fellowship.

Barton Stone

The quote of Barton Stone is an accurate statement: the word “trinity” appears nowhere in Scripture. To point out this fact is not an automatic rejection of the concept or doctrine. Yet, this is David Barton’s method of attack. He states on page 232, “Restorationists and Christian Primitivists thought that if a term was not in the Bible, then it should not be in Christianity. This is why the Reverend Stone had said that the doctrine of the trinity should be rejected.”

The only source cited by the author regarding his claim and Stone’s comment is a 1995 issue of Christian History Magazine  – NOT a primary source (endnote 41, p. 340).  

When perusing the primary sources, we find many interesting thoughts and statements from Barton Stone. For one, he decried the antagonistic and divisive mentalities of what was called “partyism” (i.e. denominationalism). He stated in his publication The Christian Messenger , “We have long seen and lamented the evils which naturally grow in the prolific soil of partyism… A preacher, professing to be specially called of God and sent to preach the gospel to every creature, ascends the pulpit… gives vent to his boiling, angry passions against an unoffending unassuming people called Christians , calling them… deceivers – hypocrites – blasphemers – who have committed the sin against the Holy Spirit, by denying that he is God supreme and the third person in Trinity… When we meet with a member of such a party, we feel no spirit for religious conversation with him; because it is immediately suggested to us, he views me a hypocrite, a deceiver, a bad man… And is this the demon of partyism, fostered by the professed followers of the Lamb of God? What more foreign from the Spirit of God?” (Vol. 2, No. 6, April 1828, “The Evils of Partyism”).

In a response to a letter from Alexander Campbell, Stone clearly identified Campbell as trinitarian, writing, “They have said that you asserted, you did not believe the Holy Spirit was a person… Hence they concluded, you were not a Trinitarian. I am confident they must have affixed a meaning to your language you did not intend; for you plainly tell us in this friendly letter, that the bible teaches us something concerning three beings … We, from this, must conclude that the Holy Spirit is as much a person as the Father or the Word is; and therefore infer you must have been misunderstood” (Vol. 2, No. 1, Nov 1827, “Reply”).

Stone went on to say to Campbell, “You express your fears lest the name christian , will become as much a sectarian name as any other, because of certain opinions received by them, called Arian, Unitarian, &c… We do not believe that our opinions are either Arian, or Unitarian… I confide this observation to us in the West. The Christians in the East, we are sorry to say, have admitted the name Unitarian. This has caused much sorrow to some of us in the West… I have no doubt that they admitted the term without due consideration of the consequence, and that they will retract it on mature reflection” (ibid.).

Stone was opposed to the Unitarian position as well as the Trinitarian position. This may seem contradictory, but it was consistent in his effort to eliminate divisive names and labels in the pursuit of unity. That said, it is a fact that Stone was adamant that he was not trinitarian in his beliefs in the traditional understanding (see The Christian Messenger , Vol. IV, No. 8, July 1830).

What was his position if it was neither Trinitarian nor Unitarian? “We think that all Christians believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, the only begotten Son of God… who was sent by the Father to be the Savior of the world – who took flesh and blood such as children had, a body which God had prepared for him by the power of the Holy Ghost in the womb of the Virgin Mary – who was born of her and tabernacled among us – whom God anointed with the Holy Ghost… in whom dwelt all the fulness of the Godhead bodily, because it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell – that he died for our sins according to the scriptures, that he was buried and rose again from the dead the third day, and was received up into glory, the glory he had with the Father before the world was – who sat down at the right hand of God, and ever liveth to make intercession for us – who will come again to judge the world in righteousness, and assign to all men their eternal portions. In this faith, all Christians can surely agree; for this must be confessed to be the doctrine of God, and surely none will deny this to be sufficient for salvation” (“Objections to Christian Union Calmly Considered”, The Christian Messenger , Vol. 1, No. 2, Dec. 1826).

Yet David Barton claims Stone was one who “introduced doctrinal heresy” (p. 220). Stone’s views of the “trinity” or “Godhead” and of the deity of Christ would be considered heretical to both Trinitarians [as he denied the deity of Christ, believing He was only the Son of God and not God] and Unitarians [as he accepted the divinity of Christ, contrary to Unitarian doctrine]. Stone’s consistent point whenever discussing it was to find a path toward unity that did not compromise the saving message of Jesus Christ. If previous to his death (1826) Jefferson had read any of Barton Stone’s works, which is questionable, they would certainly not have led him into unorthodoxy.

Thomas Campbell

David Barton states that Thomas Campbell “held many of the same beliefs as Stone” (p. 220). This is true. The problem is he fails to list which beliefs were the same and which were different. This is very deceptive as the inference made is that Campbell shared Stone’s views of the Trinity when in fact Campbell detailed a very different belief than Stone’s.

In the 1816 Minutes of the Redstone Baptist Association , Thomas Campbell authors the circular letter to be sent to all the churches. The topic was the Trinity.

Within his dissertation, he wrote, “To us, then, who hold the Christian faith, there is but one God the Father, of whom are all things and we to him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things and we by him; and one Spirit who worketh all things… And these three are one; even the one Jehovah Alehim, who claims all religious worship and obedience as his proper due… the infinitely holy, just and jealous God… Yet seeing the Scriptures manifestly declare that the one Jehovah exists in three distinct intelligent agents, each of which is the one Jehovah so existing” (p. 10).

Perhaps Mr. Barton did not believe this was trinitarian enough because Campbell did not specifically use the word “trinity” in the letter. Campbell also stated, “It appears to be a query with some who profess to hold this doctrine, whether it be correct to use the term person when speaking of the above distinct characters in the divine essence. As to this, let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind” (p. 10).

Perhaps, again, this allowed for Mr. Barton too much individual interpretive liberty regarding trinitarian doctrine. The Redstone Baptist Association in Brooks County, VA thought not and sent it to all their member churches.

Mr. Barton then makes the shocking statement on page 221 that “Thomas Campbell took no position”. What is one to conclude from such an erroneous statement? Was Barton’s research that shoddy or is this a clear falsehood? It may simply be an over-reliance on secondary sources.

Alexander Campbell

To allude that Alexander Campbell was guilty of the same heresy (pp. 221, 237) borders on absurdity. As noted above, Stone claimed in 1827 that it was a foolish notion to consider Campbell anti-trinitarian. Campbell actually made his thoughts well known in his publication The Christian Baptist :

“[T]here was no topic in common estimation so awfully sacred as that of the doctrine of ‘the Trinity,’ and if a man did not speak in a very fixed and set phrase on this subject, he endangered his whole christian reputation and his own usefulness” (“To Timothy”, The Christian Baptist , Vol. IV, No. 10, 1827).

Notice how Campbell begins by acknowledging the virulent intolerance of some sects to even have a discussion on the matter. Nevertheless, Campbell put his thoughts on paper for all to read:

“In the first place I object to the Calvinistic doctrine of the Trinity… I wish to give him [Jesus] more glory than the Calvinists give him. They are as far below his real glory, in my judgment, as the Arians are in their judgment. But in the second place, I have an insuperable objection to the Arain and Calvinistic phraseology… because it confounds things human and divine, and gives new ideas to bible terms unthought of by the inspired writers… Of these terms expressive of relations, the most suitable must be, and most unquestionably was, selected… The Holy Spirit selected the name Word, and therefore we may safely assert that this is the best, if not the only term, in the whole vocabulary of human speech at all adapted to express that relation which existed ‘in the beginning,’ or before time… A word is a sign or representative of a thought or an idea, and is the idea in an audible or visible form. It is the exact image of that invisible thought… All men think or form ideas by means of words or images; so that no man can think without words or symbols of some sort. Hence it follows that the word and the idea which it represents, are co-etaneous, or of the same age or antiquity. It is true the word may not be uttered or born for years or ages after the idea exists, but still the word is just as old as the idea. The idea and the word are nevertheless distinct from each other, though the relation between them is the nearest known on earth. An idea cannot exist without a word, nor a word without an idea… It is a relation of the most sublime order; and no doubt the reason why the name Word is adopted by the apostle in this sentence was because of its superior ability to represent to us the divine relation existing between God and the Saviour… As a word is an exact image of an idea, so is ‘The Word’ an exact image of the invisible God. As a word cannot exist without an idea, nor can idea without a word, so god never was without ‘The Word,’ nor ‘The Word’ without God; or as a word is of equal age, or co-etaneous with its idea, so ‘The Word’ and god are co-eternal. And as an idea does not create its world, nor a word its idea; so God did not create ‘The Word,’ nor the ‘Word’ God… As God was always with ‘The Word,’ so when ‘The Word’ becomes flesh, he is Emanuel, God with us. As God was never manifest but by ‘The Word,’ so the heavens and the earth, and all things were created by ‘The Word.’ And as ‘The Word’ ever was the effulgence or representation of the invisible God, so he will ever be known and adored as ‘The Word of God’… These views place us on a lofty eminence whence we look down upon the Calvinistic ideas… From eternity was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was, I say, from eternity with God. By him all things were made, and he became flesh and dwelt among us. He became a child born and a son of man. As such he is called Emanuel, Jesus, Messiah, Son of God, Only Begotten of the Father” (ibid.).

David Barton calls these views of Alexander Campbell “convoluted” (p. 223).

Elias Smith

In his booklet Age of Enquiry , Elias Smith wrote in 1825 of “our Lord Jesus the everlasting Father” ( Age of Enquiry , 1825, p. 4). He goes on to quote II Corinthians 4:6 and state, “The light which they [the Apostles] received was the knowledge of his [God’s] glory in the face of Jesus Christ. This shews that though a man may have some knowledge of God’s glory in his works, yet they cannot have a knowledge of the glory of his grace unless it is revealed to him by the Spirit which glorifies Christ. Had the Apostles preached any other glory, short of the glory of God in Christ, their hearers would have thought that they had either forgotten their errand, or changed their sentiments” (ibid., p. 33).

Smith continued, “Christ is Lord, and ministers must be servants; they must pay such respect to Christ’s commands as to engage their brethren to obey Christ through their own example” (ibid., p. 38).

Smith delved into Universalism for a while (the belief that every individual is eventually saved), but eventually abdicated. He was, however, identified as a Unitarian by Simon Clough in his 1827 An Account of the Christian Denomination in the United States. Only six men are listed by name in this history, in which the author declares all to be Unitarians: R. Foster, Elias Smith, Rev. Mr. Millard, Rev. Barton W. Stone, Rev. Mr. Potter (all p. 5), and Rev. Mr. Badger (p. 9). As noted earlier, Barton Stone disavowed being a Unitarian.

Notice, though, who is not mentioned: Abner Jones, James O’Kelly, Thomas Campbell, Alexander Campbell, Rice Haggard, John Mulkey, and “Racoon” John Smith.

Instead, Clough mentions these six men and enthusiastically writes, “We are Evangelical Unitarians in preaching and applying the Unitarian doctrine… It is this mode of preaching and applying the Unitarian doctrine which has crowned our labors with such a rich harvest… it is this which constitutes us the pride and glory of Unitarianism” (pp. 8-9).

There is one important detail Clough relays in his history that must be noted: “As it respects doctrine, it is granted, when the Christian denomination first began to organize societies, there was a great diversity of sentiments and opinions among us… At first we were all nominally Trinitarians, having been educated in that doctrine” (p. 6). This is significant regarding the religious influences upon Thomas Jefferson.

James O’Kelly

David Barton claims on page 221, “Of the four major leaders, only O’Kelly openly embraced Trinitarianism”. It has already been clearly revealed from their own writings that this is blatantly false regarding Thomas and Alexander Campbell. Again, we hope this is simply an over-reliance upon secondary instead of primary sources.

Before this comment, though, Mr. Barton writes, “As bluntly explained by the Reverend Barton Stone, ‘The word Trinity is not found in the Bible’; they therefore considered it a false doctrine of men” (p. 221). The irony of Mr. Barton’s statement is that his supposed lone Trinitarian, James O’Kelly, said the exact same thing regarding the word “trinity”: “The word trinity is not found in the scripture, but we read of three that bear record, and we need some word to convey our meaning, as we use many proper words not found in holy writ” ( The Divine Oracles Consulted , 1820, p. 39).

In complete refutation of Mr. Barton’s point, O’Kelly showed that it was possible to acknowledge the fact that the word “trinity” is nowhere in the Bible and yet still believe the concept of the three in one Godhead.

Mr. Barton, however, goes on to incorrectly claim that O’Kelly “was in the definite minority” (p. 221).

“Sadly, the Restoration and Christian Primitive Movement was the dominant religious force in Charlottesville in Jefferson’s later years, and he openly embraced and promoted the same views held by so many of the professing Christians and ministers in his own community… the result was that Jefferson’s writings throughout this later time are by far the most unorthodox of his life. They routinely reflect the major tenets of Christian Primitivism and Restorationism and use almost the exact tenor and words as those of the Restoration ministers surrounding him” (pp. 223-4).

David Barton lays forth his argument that Thomas Jefferson abandoned orthodox Christianity late in life in favor of Unitarian beliefs because of the influence of the preachers in his home area, who were Unitarians. He then blames the Restoration Movement for bringing these heretical influences to the Charlottesville, VA area (p. 220) as he believes the preachers of the movement were predominantly unitarian.

It has already been shown that the claim of the Restoration Movement preachers being predominantly Unitarian is false. Rather, as the Unitarian movement began to grow, Restoration Movement preachers did what they could to preach against it and distinguish themselves from it.

For instance, Alexander Campbell knew that some Unitarians in the northeast were using only the name “Christian” by which to identify themselves. Campbell wrote, “If our friends who assume this good name, never had gone into a crusade in favor of opinions, nor had views of the Deity [unitarian]… we should have rejoiced that the name Christian did not now designate a sect , instead of the body of Christ” ( Millennial Harbinger , 1830, p. 373).

Therefore, to make sure they were not identified with the Unitarians, Campbell suggested they identify themselves as the “disciples of Christ.”

Mr. Barton references the 2015 book Doubting Thomas? The Religious Life and Legacy of Thomas Jefferson (p. 220, endnote 37). It argues that when Elias Smith attended a meeting in Caroline County, VA on October 4, 1811, he became the spokesperson for the combined movements that would become known as the Christian Connection. He brought along his unitarian beliefs and then traveled up and down Virginia spreading his heresies, which converted Jefferson.

Problem is that this is once again contrary to the primary sources. According to Smith’s paper Herald of Gospel Liberty , they did meet in Caroline County, VA on October 4th, and the only major topic that posed an issue to unity was their positions on baptism (October 25, 1811, p. 331).

Why is this significant? Because as Simon Clough noted in his 1827 history, at this time when they were first unifying, “we were all nominally Trinitarians” ( Account of the Christian Denomination , p. 6). It is, therefore, extremely unlikely that Smith promoted Unitarian doctrine as he preached throughout Virginia. And even if he did, there are no records of Thomas Jefferson ever hearing him.

Yet it is Elias Smith and the Restoration Movement preachers Mr. Barton blames for Thomas Jefferson’s conversion and expression of unitarian beliefs by 1813, even though Mr. Barton claims James O’Kelly, the supposedly lone trinitarian, is the only one of these preachers that was Jefferson’s friend (pp. 218, 233). So how could Restoration Movement preachers convert Jefferson to unitarian beliefs when his only Restoration Movement friend was trinitarian?

Thomas Jefferson’s first expression of Unitarianism comes in his August 22, 1813 letter to John Adams, in which he writes, “I remember to have heard D ^r Priestley say that if all England would candidly examine themselves, & confess, they would find that Unitarianism was really the religion of all… it is too late in the day for men of sincerity to pretend they believe in the Platonic mysticisms that three are one, & one is three; & yet the one is not three, and the three are not one”.

Jefferson shared with Adams the specific materials that had influenced him. The Dr. Priestley referenced by Jefferson was Joseph Priestley. He became an adamant Unitarian in England and published a book in 1782 entitled A History of the Corruptions of Christianity. Jefferson had corresponded with Priestley for advise in establishing a university. Priestley died, however, 15 years before Jefferson founded the University of Virginia.

Thus Jefferson noted to Adams in the 1813 letter, “but I have read his Corruptions of Christianity, & Early opinions of Jesus, over and over again; and I rest on them, and on Middleton’s writings, especially his letters from Rome, and to Waterland, as the basis of my own faith.”

The second book referenced by Jefferson was Priestley’s 1786 A History of Early Opinions concerning Jesus Christ, compiled from Original Writers, proving that the Christian Church was at first Unitarian. The Middleton referenced by Jefferson was English clergyman Conyers Middleton (1683-1750). He was a prolific and controversial writer of many subjects.

Therefore, according to Thomas Jefferson himself, the works of Joseph Priestley held great sway upon him, whereas neither Elias Smith nor anything associated with the Restoration Movement are ever mentioned.

I have met and conversed with Mr. David Barton and found him to be an exceptional historian and man of faith. I do not question his sincerity nor his dedication to the preservation of American history. I also do not question his integrity. I do, however, question his conclusions in this particular matter regarding Thomas Jefferson and the Restoration Movement. I am curious as to his motives for such an ardent attack and, unfortunately, misleading information regarding the Restoration Movement and its leaders.

That said, I still fully endorse Mr. Barton’s ministry Wallbuilders, their remarkable resources, and recommend this book, The Jefferson Lies , for your consideration.

[1] Cox, Ryan. “History of the Restoration Movement in Illinois”, Southern Illinois University of Edwardsville, Fall 2004.