The Dangers of “Ctrl + F” in Historiography
Isaac Backus, the State, and Nursing Fathers
My studies in the PhD program at SBTS remind me that doing history is hard. Shortcuts in research are fraught with problems that become exposed by the light of good historiography. Recently, my attention was drawn to an X (or Twitter) exchange between Hillsdale professor D.G. Hart and James Baird. Baird published a book on Reformed political theology at the end of 2025.[1] My point is not to get involved in inter-Presbyterian debates on political theology. I noticed the interaction primarily because both interlocuters quoted Isaac Backus, the subject of much of my current research. Two Backus quotes from Presbyterians strangely warmed my heart!
Unfortunately, Baird’s use of Backus proves problematic. As you can see below, he uses a quote to indicate that Backus endorsed the Reformed concept of the civil magistrate as a nursing father. Those from the magisterial Protestant tradition have historically used this idea, derived from Isaiah 49:23, to justify the civil magistrate’s role in the enforcement of Christianity. If Backus believed that, then it would have certainly put him at odds with most Baptists of his day. I was taken aback when I saw this because I knew that Backus did not support that idea.[2] Baird’s quotation omits the actual context of the quote.
In 1773, Backus published An Appeal to the Public for Religious Liberty, and Baird’s quote derives from that pamphlet. The context below shows that Baird pulled the quote from a larger argument, and that Backus was actually pushing back on those who used Isaiah 49:23 as justification for the magistrate to interfere with worship and to claim the right of the state funding the salary of the established clergy. Backus cited the work of Roger Williams and the defenses he made against those who confounded church and state together. Consider now the full context of Backus’ quote on kings as nursing fathers:
How weighty are these arguments against confounding church and state together? Yet this author’s appearing against such confusion, was the chief cause for which he was banished out of the Massachusetts colony. And though few if any will now venture openly to justify those proceedings, and many will exclaim against them at a high rate; yet a fair examination may plainly shew, that those fathers had more appearance of a warrant for doing as they did, then their children now have, for the actings which we complain of. For those fathers were persuaded, that the judicial laws of Moses which required Israel to punish blasphemers, and apostates to idolatry with death, were of moral force, and binding upon all princes and states; especially on such as these plantations were. And how much more countenance did this give for the use of force to make men conform to what they believed to be the right way, than men can now have for compelling any to support a way which at the same time they are allowed to dissent from? For the Jews also were required to pull down houses, and to have persons away out of their camps or cities, if the priests pronounced them unclean; and they were not permitted to set up any king over them who was not a brother in their church. Did not these things afford arguments much more plausible, for their attempt to compel the world to submit to the church, than any can have for the modern way, of trying to subject the church in her religious affairs to rulers, and the major vote of inhabitants, a great part of whom are not brethren in any church at all! Though the state of Israel was obliged thus to inflict death or banishment upon nonconformers to their worship, yet we have not been able to find, that they were ever allowed to use any force to collect the priests or prophets maintenance. So far from it, that those who made any such attempts were Sons of Bethel, and persons that abhorred judgment, and perverted ALL EQUITY (1 Sam. 2: 12-16, Mic.3: 5, 9).
Many try to vindicate their way by that promise, that kings shall become nursing fathers, and queens nursing mothers to God’ people. But as the character carries in its very nature an impartial care and tenderness for all their children; we appeal to every conscience, whether it does not condemn the way of setting up one party to the injury of another.[3] Our Lord tells us plainly, that few find the narrow way, while many go in the broad way; yet the scheme we complain of, has given the many such power over the few, that if the few are fully convinced that the teacher set up by the many, is one that causeth people to err, and is so far from bringing the pure gospel doctrine, that they should break the divine command, and become partakers of his evil deeds; if they did not cease to hear him, or to receive him into their houses a gospel minister; yet only for refusing to put into such a minister’s mouth, the many are prepared with such instruments of war against them, as to seize their goods, or cast their bodies into prison, where they may starve and die, for all what that constitution has provided for them. In cases of common debts the law has provided several ways of relief, as it has not in the case before us; for here the assessors plead, that they are obliged to tax all according to law, and the collector has the same plea for gathering of it, and the ministers says, I agreed with the society for such a sum, and it is not my business to release any. So that we have had instances of serious christians, who must have had died in prison for ministers rates, if christianity and humanity had not moved people to provide them that relief, which neither those ministers nor the law that upholds them have done.[4]
The full context from Backus’ work demonstrates a reasoned-out position that the Standing Order of Massachusetts erroneously claimed the concept of kings and nursing fathers as a defense for their blending church and state. Backus rejected the biblical interpretation used by these Congregationalist leaders to justify their intrusion into matters reserved exclusively for Christ as head of the church. Far from endorsing kings as nursing fathers, Backus put forth a position that stood in the tradition of Williams. Baird thus presents Backus as arguing for the very opposite of what he actually wrote!
Sound historiography does not seek shortcuts. Now, it is beneficial to be able to search through a document and find specific words or phrases. At the same time, a good historian labors over the context and how the author used specific language. In this case, the context provides clarity and precision as to what Backus meant. Our culture is currently flooded with phrases such as “fake news” and “do the reading.” Good historians do the reading, and they do so in a fair manner. All of us make mistakes and no historian is infallible. It is incumbent upon us to read carefully and not put words into the mouths of any man, dead or alive.
Baird’s erroneous characterization of Backus exemplifies fallacious historical reasoning. Ironically, he included a cherry under his quote presumably to imply that Hart had “cherry-picked” his own quote of Backus. Yet, if anyone cherry-picked during this interaction, it was clearly Baird. I fear this is one symptom of our social media age. In his attempt to “own” Hart with a Backus quote that seemingly contradicted Hart’s view, Baird mischaracterized Backus. May those of us engaged in historiography do so with patience, diligence, and humility. I think those virtues characterized the pastor from Middleborough who was a faithful historian in his own day.
[1] Casey McCall wrote two excellent reviews of this book. See https://elephantinroom.substack.com/p/must-government-promote-christianity and https://mereorthodoxy.com/james-baird-king-of-kings-review.
[2] For more on Backus’ views on this matter, see this excellent essay by Matt Thomas: https://thelondonlyceum.com/no-more-nursing-fathers-a-baptist-theological-rationale-for-religious-liberty/
[3] Bolded section is the section that Baird quoted from.
[4]Isaac Backus, An Appeal to the Public for Religious Liberty (Boston: 1773), 26–28.