Amanda Porterfield here lays down a challenge to the interpretation of evangelical Protestantism as a broadly progressive and democratic force in the new American nation. She argues that evangelicalism in the young American republic was neither democratic nor optimistic, but profoundly authoritarian. It came into existence to combat and manage doubt. By “doubt,” Porterfield means not only religious doubt (usually in the form of deism), but doubts about the emerging two-party system that the Founders had dreaded and doubts about the chaotic economic system (or non-system) that invited unscrupulous behavior, as well as fears of hedonism and the decline of community. In her presentation, the authority of scripture became a refuge for people who were frightened, pessimistic, and even “felt a nostalgia for monarchy” (114). People mistrusted the other political party and the other religious denominations, especially—as it came to be strengthened by immigration—the Roman Catholic Church. There is certainly a lot to be said for Porterfield's view of American society as plagued by doubts and fears—anti-Masonic, anti-Mormon, and “Know Nothing” sentiments would all demonstrate her point (although she does not carry her analysis forward in time enough to deal with them). Porterfield provides an interpretation of antebellum evangelicalism relevant to our own time. Secular academics appalled by politically right-wing fundamentalist evangelicals of today will find Professor Porterfield's portrait of evangelicalism in the early republic remarkably familiar.

Amanda Porterfield draws upon her broad learning to tell many fascinating stories and display many an illuminating example in the course of presenting her thesis. Aaron Burr, Charles Brockton Brown, and Henry Clay appear in original contexts; Thomas Jefferson's attitudes and behavior are subjected to incisive analysis. Porterfield addresses both the New England Federalist evangelicals and the frontier populist evangelicals; her explication of the emergent alliance between the latter and Jeffersonian politicians is subtle and impressive. Her treatments of such diverse topics as gender relations, rhetoric, and the cult of honor are original and rewarding. Her description of counterfeiting as the quintessential example of the manifold problems of trust in an unstructured society is brilliant. Her comments on evangelical hymnody are welcome and apt. I loved her use of “The Star-Spangled Banner” to illustrate the resolution of doubt. Even while making highly sophisticated arguments, her writing remains refreshingly jargon-free.

But however much I admire Professor Porterfield's learning and workmanship, I remain unconvinced by her argument that evangelicalism in the early republic was basically an antidemocratic, authoritarian movement and a rejection of the Enlightenment. Evangelical religion did not just suddenly appear in reaction against the (brief) popularity of deism in the late eighteenth century, the rise of political parties, and the social dislocations of post-revolution America. Its antecedents went back to colonial times; George Whitefield was popular long before Tom Paine. The momentous connection of the evangelical movement to multifaceted humanitarian reform causes receives little attention in this book, being addressed within the terms of an outdated “social control” paradigm. Porterfield treats the evangelical Protestant emphasis on mass literacy (to enable bible-reading), which did so much to encourage public education, as mere indoctrination. But surely it had a democratic effect, preparing the way for the ideal of an educated citizenry. And how can the evangelical movement have been simply a reaction against alarming American social conditions, when so many European countries had their own evangelical movements?

Professor Porterfield completely ignores the disestablishment of religion, which occurred first in the former Anglican colonies and then in the former Puritan ones. Disestablishment was accomplished in both cases by alliances between anticlerical freethinkers and “dissenting” religious denominations (that is, the denominations that were not established). Apparently this development does not fit into her overarching thesis that evangelical religion was authoritarian and anti-democratic.

Porterfield largely ignores the massive reconciliation that occurred between Protestant Christianity and the Enlightenment in both Britain and the United States in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. This synthesis of Protestantism and the Enlightenment has been amply demonstrated and analyzed by Henry F. May and more recently by David Hollinger, among others. The Harvard Unitarians constitute the most dramatic example, but plenty of American thinkers who proudly claimed the labels Trinitarian and evangelical also incorporated the Enlightenment into their intellectual framework—Ezra Stiles and John Witherspoon, for example. The English Archdeacon William Paley synthesized the Enlightenment with Protestantism in his utilitarian ethical theory and his natural theology. Paley was widely taught throughout American colleges, though Porterfield never mentions this. Nor was respect for the Enlightenment confined to a Christian academic elite. The populist evangelical Alexander Campbell avowedly and effectively combined biblical literalism with democracy, reason, and science. His debate with the Welsh rationalist Robert Owen in Cincinnati in 1829 represented a landmark in the evolution of American public opinion, but there is nothing about this in Porterfield's account; Porterfield seems to assume the incompatibility of biblical Christianity with science during the period she treats, but this is not historically accurate. Prior to the publication of Darwin's Origin of Species in 1859, a synthesis of scientific evidence and reason with biblical Protestantism was standard natural history. In this important respect, the antebellum intellectual world was very different from our own.

Although I do not endorse the thesis presented here, I do welcome Amanda Porterfield's book for its originality and scope. It will stimulate students and scholars to re-think the evangelical movement in America, including the manner in which it provided a sense of security in the face of frequently dismaying circumstances.