JCR Vol. 12 No. 01: Symposium On The Constitution and Political Theology

Volume 12
1988
The Journal of
Christian
Reconstruction
Symposium on the
Constitution and
Political Theology
A C HA L C E D O N P U B L I C AT I O N
Number 1
Journal of Christian Reconstruction / Vol. 12.1
Copyright
The Journal of Christian Reconstruction
Volume 12 / Number 1
1988
Symposium on the Constitution
and Political Theology
Garry J. Moes, Editor
ISSN 03601420.
A CHALCEDON MINISTRY
Electronic Version 1.5 / 2012
Copyright 1987 Chalcedon Foundation. All rights reserved.
Usage: Copies of this file may be made for personal use by the original purchaser
of this electronic document. It may be printed by the same on a desktop printer
for personal study. Quotations may be used for the purpose of review, comment,
or scholarship. However, this publication may not be duplicated or reproduced
in whole or in part in any electronic or printed form by any means, uploaded
to a web site, or copied to a CD-ROM, without written permission from the
publisher.
Chalcedon Foundation
P.O. Box 158
Vallecito, CA 95251
U.S.A.
To contact via email and for other information:
www.chalcedon.edu
Chalcedon depends on the contributions of its readers,
and all gifts to Chalcedon are tax-deductible.
Opinions expressed in this journal do not necessarily reflect the views of
Chalcedon. It has provided a forum for views in accord with a relevant, active,
historic Christianity, though those views may have on occasion differed
somewhat from Chalcedons and from each other.
The Journal of Christian Reconstruction
The Journal of Christian

Reconstruction
This Journal is dedicated to the fulfillment of the cultural mandate
of Genesis 1:28 and 9:1to subdue the earth to the glory of God. It is
published by the Chalcedon Foundation, an independent Christian
educational organization (see inside back cover). The perspective of the
Journal is that of orthodox Christianity. It affirms the verbal, plenary
inspiration of the original manuscripts (autographs) of the Bible and the
full divinity and full humanity of Jesus Christtwo natures in union (but
without intermixture) in one person.
The editors are convinced that the Christian world is in need of a serious
publication that bridges the gap between the newsletter-magazine and
the scholarly academic journal. The editors are committed to Christian
scholarship, but the Journal is aimed at intelligent laymen, working
pastors, and others who are interested in the reconstruction of all
spheres of human existence in terms of the standards of the Old and
New Testaments. It is not intended to be another outlet for professors
to professors, but rather a forum for serious discussion within Christian
circles.
The Marxists have been absolutely correct in their claim that theory must
be united with practice, and for this reason they have been successful
in their attempt to erode the foundations of the noncommunist world.
The editors agree with the Marxists on this point, but instead of seeing
in revolution the means of fusing theory and practice, we see the fusion
in personal regeneration through Gods grace in Jesus Christ and in the
extension of Gods kingdom. Good principles should be followed by good
practice; eliminate either, and the movement falters. In the long run, it is
the kingdom of God, not Marxs kingdom of freedom, which shall reign
triumphant. Christianity will emerge victorious, for only in Christ and
His revelation can men find both the principles of conduct and the means
of subduing the earth: the principles of biblical law.
Table of Contents
Copyright
1. THE CONSTITUTION
Introduction: The Constitution of Society
Garry J. Moes .................................................................................................... 6
The United States Constitution

R. J. Rushdoony .............................................................................................. 22
The Legend of the Constitution

Otto Scott ......................................................................................................... 49
2. POLITICAL THEOLOGY AND ACTION

The New Christian Right and the Ideology of CounterSecularism
Daniel Dreisbach ........................................................................................... 66
Federalism and Republican Government

Tommy W. Rogers ...................................................................................... 102
Historical Reality of the Christian Cultural Consensus in

Europe and America
Jean-Marc Berthoud ................................................................................... 125
Theopolitics: Theological Grounds of Political Action

Bradley P. Hayton, Ph.D. .......................................................................... 135
Biblical Law as the Foundation for Constitutional SelfGovernment

David Dawn .................................................................................................. 162
God, Caesar, and the Constitution

The Political Theology of John Witherspoon
Roger Schultz ................................................................................................ 202
Table of Contents
3. BOOK REVIEWS
Harold Lindsell: The New Paganism.
Reviewed by Randall E. Otto ................................................................... 334
The Ministry of Chalcedon
1.
THE CONSTITUTION
Introduction:
The Constitution of Society
Garry J. Moes
In 1865, Southern congressman and political thinker Alexander

Hamilton Stephens wrote, How society is to be constituted so
that all can attain justice; that is the vexed question.1
That vexed and still vexing question has been with American
society throughout its history. It was present at its conception
as godly Pilgrims sought refuge from religious and political
tyranny. It was the seminal question at Americas inception as a
nation in the Declaration of Independence. And, as the phrase
itself suggests, how a society is to be constituted was the very
foundational question prompting the writing of the Constitution.
A constitution, to put it simply, is a declaration concerning
how a society is to be constituted.
Stephenss observation addresses two important points which
have been at the heart of the constitutional debate in America
for the 200-year period since the Constitution was written (1787)
and ratified (178789). The first phrase how to constitute
a societyraises the issue of the nature of this societys
Constitution. The latter phraseso that all can attain justice
contemplates the purpose of the Constitution.
When considering the American Constitutions nature, reference
must be made to the documents structural components and its
contents (substance), factors related to how it is to be read on its
face. But {6} any examination of the nature of the Constitution
must also include how its contents are to be interpretedas
they inevitably will bewith the passage of time and with the
progression or regression of the society whose constitution
1. Myrta Lockett Avary, ed., Recollections of Alexander H. Stephens: His
Diary Kept When a Prisoner at Fort Warren, Boston Harbor, 1863 (New York:
Doubleday, Page, 1910), 157.
it reflects. Some have posed the key question this way: to what
extent does the nature of the American Constitution define the
nature of American society? Others have reversed the question: to
what extent does the nature of our society define the nature of the
Constitution? Which question one selects and how one answers
the selected question makes all the difference in the world in terms
of the establishment of constitutional law and the governance of
the nation.
In examining the Constitution, the logical place to begin is
with its prosethe words. Apart from the Preamble, perhaps, the
words are largely mundane, as one might suppose concerning a
legal document. They do not contain the stirring trumpet calls
of, say, the Declaration of Independence. They have power, but
with an austerity which their framers intended for the constituted
institution of power in their society. Time magazine essayist Roger
Rosenblatt found the words to have such key literary qualities as
economy of language, orderliness, symmetrical design, a strong,
arresting lead sentence.2 Another Time writer, Lance Morrow,
found, on the other hand, that the 7,567 words of the Constitution
and amendments, mostly dry and functional prose, are sometimes
cryptic and elusive....3
Though the debate over the Constitution seems to reach
an increasingly feverish pitch as the document ages, there is
evidence, ironically, that many engaged in the debate have all but
forgotten its words. Most of the public debate focuses, actually,
on the Constitutions amendments, particularly those initial ten
which comprise the Bill of Rights. Unless one is a government or
industry attorney, struggling with interstate commerce tangles or
the legality of an interstate compact on water use, for example, it
is easy to get the impression that the Bill of Rights and a handful
of key subsequent amendments are the Constitution. Few students
or laymen (except for some tax protesters and other militants who
have taken to carrying copies in their hip pockets) read the original
articles anymore, and those who do are sometimes surprised to
discover forgotten passages and provisions. Did you know, for
example, that the name United States is almost always used in
2. Roger Rosenblatt, Words on Paper, Time, special issue, July 6, 1987, 21.
3. Lance Morrow, The Ark of America, in ibid., 27.
the plural in the Constitution, a fact which says much about the
nature of the Union? Or did you know that an unamended clause
forbids the states {7} to allow any thing but gold and silver coins
a[s] tender in payment of debts?
An increase in knowledge about the Constitution would, thus,
be a great aid in its understanding, and commemorations such
as the Constitutions Bicentennial celebration of the past year or
so can be useful, providing that knowledge is faithfully imparted
thereby. The Symposium on the Constitution and Political Theology
contained in this edition of the Journal of Christian Reconstruction
is dedicated to this aim. Unfortunately, through much of the
Bicentennial hoopla, propaganda and sentiment have been the
chief commodities imparted.
Knowledge of the words themselves is crucial to understanding
and implementing the Constitution because, as R. J. Rushdoony
has observed, ...the language of the document itself is the language
of express powers.4 Daniel Dreisbach, in a vein still found in the
decisions of some of our remaining faithful judges and courts,
says that the first step in interpreting the Constitution is a close
reading of constitutional language. Fidelity to the words and
explicit provisions of a written constitution is the firmest barrier to
becoming a nation governed by men rather than by laws.5
The Foundation for the Commemoration of the United States
Constitution headlined a promotional advertisement: The best
way to protect the Constitution is to understand it. The best way
to honor it is to learn more about it. And the Foundation, which
funds educational efforts related to the Constitution, urged, in
words which unhappily border on idolatry, We Americans, while
celebrating its birth, would do well to reacquaint ourselves with
the instrument that assures us our power.6
But raw knowledge is relatively easy to acquire for those
committed to its attainment, and so most of the concern over the
nature of the Constitution has been not so much about words on
4. R. J. Rushdoony, This Independent Republic (Fairfax, VA: Thoburn Press,
1978), 156.
5. Daniel Dreisbach, Constitutional Interpretation and the Framers Intent,
Rutherford Institute Magazine, JulySeptember 1987, 13.
6. Printed in Time, special issue, July 6, 1987, 85.
10
parchment but about the meaning of those words. This is probably

rightly and inevitably so, because words cannot be understood
apart from their meanings.
Most American courts at least pay lip service to the notion
that interpretation of the Constitution must begin with the plain
meaning of the words. But intent and meaning are not always
clear. As Rosenblatt has noted, despite all the Constitutions
literary orderliness and linguistic economy, theres all that
shapely ambiguity.7 Because that is so, citizens, courts, and
scholars have been forced to resort to interpretation, and it is
the presuppositions and methodology of {8} interpretation which
have produced all the heat in the constitutional debate of the past
200 years.
There are many ways to state the pivotal issue of the interpretation
debate, but it could be fairly said that the key point is whether
or not the present generation must seek out the intent of the
framers when attempting to establish meaning for the existent
words. This is a central question in the current controversy over
judicial restraintthe conflict over whether judges must abide by
original intent of constitutional and enacted laws or may instead
create law through their own contemporary vision. Dreisbach
adopts the terms interpretivism and non-interpretivism to
describe the two positions concerning the necessity of original
intent.
Interpretivism, and the related concept of intentionalism, holds that
judges adjudicating constitutional issues should confine themselves
to enforcing values or norms that are expressed or clearly implicit in
the written Constitution. Since a written constitution is the voice
of the framers, interpretivists and intentionalists seek to effectuate
the purposes or intentions of the framers when construing the
Constitution. And in instances where these purposes are not
clear, legislative bodies accountable to the electoratenot a freewheeling, unelected judiciaryshould determine which of the
competing values in our democratic society should prevail and
how they should be implemented.
Noninterpretivists, on the other hand, believe judges should go
beyond the set of references found within the four corners of the
7. Rosenblatt, Words on Paper, 21.
11
Constitution and enforce extraconstitutional values and norms,

such as those offered by sociological inquiry, popular morality,
or prevailing theories of justice. Noninterpretivists argue that the
framers deliberately constructed broad constitutional provisions so
subsequent generations could adapt the Constitution to changing
social, economic, and political need. This approach, they claim,
prevents citizens of the twentieth century from being bound by
18th-century conventions.8
Dreisbach goes on to note that intentionalists counter their

opponents argument by claiming that both content and meaning
can be ascertained only by discovering the framers intent and that
only in this way can political stability be achieved. He cites three
buttressing arguments used by inte-ntionalists:
1) The very decision to produce a written constitution presupposed
a mode of interpretation anchored in an observance of the original
document and its intended functions....
2) Democratic theory...requires fidelity to the original document of
{9} 1787. This was the text the framers proposed and the American
people accepted through their representatives in state ratifying

conventions. When an unelected, elitist judiciary substitutes its
own prepossessions for the principles of the original document or
the expression of a popularly elected legislature, it undermines the
democratic consensus.... [This argument loses some force in state
and local jurisdictions which have elected judges.GJM]
3) The Constitution itself includes a specific provision for overruling
the founders intentionsthe formal amendment process....9
There are many difficulties with both the interpretivist and

non-interpretivist viewpoints. Since there are fewer with the
former view, we will consider some of them first. (The latter view
is extremely dangerous and totally unacceptable, and will be
disposed of later.)
One of the problems with the intentionalist viewpoint, as
Dreisbach points out, is that it is difficult to learn the intentions
of the framers. First, the record of the drafting convention is not
satisfactorily complete and materials often are conflicting. This
8. Dreisbach, Constitutional Interpretation, 12.
9. Ibid., 1213.
12
leaves troublesome questions if ones approach is to consider

strictly the deliberations of the convention delegates for evidence
of intent. That is not to say that much was not written about the
theories, processes, and underlying concepts of the Constitution
outside of the official record of the convention, even by some who
played key roles in the draftingJames Madison, for example.
But if one moves outside the official records of the proceedings,
it seems necessary to consider the broad debate surrounding the
Constitution by a variety of writers and thinkers of the time. This
approach broadens the term framers to include many others
beside the duly elected drafters in convention. And when the
base of inquiry thus broadens, it becomes even more difficult to
determine original intent. This, then, is the second difficulty of
the intentionalist approach.
In this context, some have said that the Constitutions language
and provisions were the result of numerous compromises within
the convention, compromises which represented the synthesis of
competing ideas in the broader national community. The record
indicates, however, that there were few compromisesthat is,
political concessionsbut that the language and provisions were
determined on the basis of consensus, thus reflecting the agreed,
rather than conceded, will of the debaters. This may or may not be
a significant difference, and it does little to solve the problem of
determining whose intentions should be sought when turning to
the framers.
A third, and the most serious, of the problems with the original
{10} intent argumentone which it shares, if less problematically,
with the non-intentionalist argumentis that it may ascribe too
much wisdom to the original framers, whomever they might
have been. To say that a nation must forever be constituted
on the basis of the collected wisdom of a group of delegates or
their contemporary thinkers (some of whom were undisguised
propagandists) is to ascribe too much infallibility to them and to
place too much faith in them.
Some small comfort comes in the fact that many, if not most,
of the Founding Fathers were either biblically based Christians
or were informed by Scripture or a biblical cultural heritage.
Christian patriots in our day, especially those who make much of
the intentionalist argument, have gone to great lengths to establish
13
the Christian credentials of the founders. There can be no doubt

that, in many cases, those credentials are indeed compelling, and
the impact of their thinking was substantial in creating a truly
Christian nation. But there were humanists among the founders as
well, and the debate has become lively over just how much influence
the humanistic Enlightenment had in laying the foundations of
the nation and in the constituting of this society. Henry May, for
example, in The Enlightenment in America, contended that the
Constitution and original laws of the nation reflected all the
virtues of the Moderate Enlightenment.10 Rosenblatt expands the
discussion, writing:
The century that began in the Age of Reason ended in the Age of
Romanticism, and the Constitution accommodated that severe
transition. If the basic text is an Enlightenment document, the Bill
of Rights is a homage to Romantic thought, challenging not so
much the specifics of the basic Constitution as its earnest sense of
permanence. Amendments did not promise answers to sentimental
wishes, but they did build in rooms for restlessness. Amendments
promised more, and more is a Romantic idea. The person who
lived in the Constitution was born in the last century that equally
prized both modesty and fantasy, and he shuttled naturally between
the poles.11
Whether or not the founders were humanists or influenced by
emerging humanist trends, they were undeniably humans, and
thus potentially fallible. This fact has been overlooked by some
zealous worshippers of the Christian Founding Fathers, who speak
of them and their work in sacred tones. Even secular writers have
slipped into such tones on many occasions. Journalist Morrow
noted recently:
The Constitution has the aura of the sacred about it. It occupies a
shrine up in the higher stretches of American reverence. A citizen
imagines sunshot clouds, the founders hovering like saints in
religious art.12
Congressman Caleb Cushing, elected in the early nineteenth
10. Quoted by Rosenblatt, Who Lives There? Time, special issue, July 6,
1987, 98.
11. Ibid.
12. Morrow, Ark of America, 23.
14
century, called the Constitution our Ark of the Covenant,

implying that God Himself dwelt therein. The Mormons, who
arrived on the scene in the nineteenth century, then and still
today profess their belief in the literal divine inspiration of the
Constitution.
Well, the Constitution was not divinely inspired, even if it most
surely evidences much that could be ascribed to the providence
and blessing of God on a people who broadly acknowledged
His Law as the basis of their civil law. Even if the framers were
thoroughly Christian in profession or orientation, it remains a
dangerous thing to place hope for justice or salvation in human
benevolence. Many provisions of the American Constitution
and the constitutions of Soviet bloc nations are similar, and the
difference seems to be in the benevolence of those who enforce
(or ignore) the provisions. Since no nations constitution is in itself
divinely inspired, but the product of human minds, it may be
highly unreliable to constitute a society on original intent.
Non-interpretivists, who would constitute society on the
basis of an ever-changing, fluidly interpreted Constitution,
demonstrate absolutely the folly of faith in human intent. At
least the intentionalists would have society measured by some
standard. The non-interpretivists position explodes any notion
of a standard, and they engage in double-speak when they base
any claims on a constitution. Non-interpretivist constitutional
methodology is really constitutional mythology.
Modern non-interpretivists may claim to interpret the
Constitution, but such claims are nonsense. A constitution is by
definition a basic standardan established precedent or custom,
and to talk about a standard that is not fixed is to prattle gibberish.
It is like building a house on a foundation which is unceasingly
being subjected to an earthquake.
Rushdoony correctly observes that where social custom rules,
People become group-directed, and they feel it imperative to be
members of the pack. Their standards vary as the customs and
fads of the group vary. Instead of being individualistic, they are
collectivistic, anxious at all times to be with a particular group
whose customs are their social code. Society then is governed by
mob psychology, or by the law of the pack, and the social order
15
lacks stability or character.13
Mob rule has never produced justice, as the French Revolution,

the recent state of governance in Lebanon, and virtually every
other lawless {12} social movement have more than adequately
demonstrated. It makes little difference if the mob is large and
encompasses the whole of the masses or if it is a small, lawless
but powerful oligarchy. Crime syndicates are often referred to as
the Mob, an apt label which well describes their form of rule.
Whether rule is by the mob masses of a lawless democratic state
or by a criminal mob of a lesser order, the result is the same
violence, chaos, and injustice. Rule by whim, whether by the whim
of the many or the whim of a single dictator, is arbitrary rule,
and arbitrary rule is not the rule of law. Moreover, lawless rule is
governance without justice.
Stripped of justice, the law becomes an instrument of extortion and
oppression in the hands of whatever group of men control it. If men
of wealth control the state, the law becomes their tool to subjugate
the poor and to make them poorer. If poor men control the state,
the law then is used to rob the rich and all hard-working men to
support those who want to live on the proceeds of robbery....And
today, because Gods righteousness is despised, the nations of the
world are becoming robber states and lands without justice....
The only difference then between the criminal syndicate and the
modern state is that the state claims to have the general will of a
nation behind it; the lesser order of the criminal syndicate is thus
ruled out as an illegitimate order. But this limited logic could lead
a world state to call a national state a criminal order because it
merely represents a limited segment of the worlds peoples.14
Today in America, the public opinion poll has become a fourth

branch of government, in many cases overriding the powers of the
other three constitutionally established branches. There is a major
political movement in many states to elevate direct democracy
through the electoral forms of the popular initiative and legislative
and constitutional referendum. Related efforts in the economic
realm call for economic democracy, a code word for socialism,
13. R. J. Rushdoony, Law and Liberty (Vallecito, CA: Ross House Books,
1984), 108.
14. Ibid., 91.
16
including the public ownership of utilities, businesses, and other

forms of enterprise.
Direct rule by the masses, of course, is simply a ludicrous,
unwieldy, and chaotic concept. Its proponents privately recognize
this and turn to the authoritarian or totalitarian state or to some
other manifestation of elitist rule for control of the inevitable
chaos. But as Rushdoony has further pointed out,
the will of man, whether as an individual or in mass, is according
to Scripture, a sinful will. Sinful man is not interested in justice; he
is interested {13} in himself, in getting more and more of the best
for himself.15
A society, then, that is constituted on the vagaries of the human
will and the changing interpretations of some written codification
of the human will is a dangerous, destructive, and lawless society.
When the truth is told, it is a society without a constitution, no
matter what venerated documents its archives may hold.
This being so, how may a society be reliably constituted? What
unshakeable standard may it use to order itself? If it chooses to
outline its desires for order in a written document, how may
such a constitution, short of being divinely inspired itself, be
given perpetual validity and relevance? The answer is that both
the society and its constitution must be founded upon an eternal
Higher Law. But where is this Higher Law?
Biblical faith, the faith which spawned American society and its
system of liberties and boundaries on conduct, says that the Law
of God is that Higher Law. This does not mean that the Bible is
the only constitution a Christian nation may have or need, but it
does mean that the Word of God provides the moral and ethical
framework for such a nations constitution and system of laws and
liberties.
Law is the condition of mans life: just as man physically breathes
air to live, so socially and personally his environment of life is law,
which the grace of God enables him to have and to keep (Psalms
119; Prov. 6:23). Man can no more live without law than he can live
without eating. The purpose of Gods law is life; as Moses declared,
the Lord commanded us to do all these statutes... that he might
preserve us alive (Deut. 6:24). Man was created and is saved by
15. Ibid.
17
God to live by law, for its discipline is the way of life (Prov. 6:23).16
The eternal revelation of Gods will for mankind therefore

serves as the basis for constituting a society and for writing and
interpreting a societys laws, including the so-called supreme
law of the land, its written constitution. In the Christian view, of
course, even the supreme law of the land is subject to the Higher
Law of the Kingdom of God. Human law and the political bodies
governed thereby thus become civil spheres under the Supreme
Sovereign, the God of the universe and His Law-Word.
This brings us further to the purpose of our Constitution.
As we noted at the beginning, Alexander Hamilton Stephens
implied that the purpose of constituting a society was to ensure
justice for all. {14} This is indeed a biblical view of the central role
of civil law and government. Furthermore, justice is built from a
variety of componentsamong them, righteousness and freedom.
Righteousnessmoral rectitudeis an absolute prerequisite
to justice. By definition, justice is the principle of rectitude
and just dealing of men with each otherthe principle of
undeviating adherence to moral standards and uprightness.17
It is straightness or conformity to the measure of an eternal,
unswerving rule. The biblical faith says that Gods rule is the only
standard meeting such a requirement, the pattern being Gods
justification of the sinnerHis sovereign declaration, based on
representative satisfaction of divine demands, that the sinner is
legally acceptable to God.
Gods revelation also makes it clear that this justification is the
only road to freedom. Rushdoony alludes to this when he says:
The Bible speaks of the perfect law of liberty (James 1:25; 2:12),
because it views Gods law as the very source and ground of mans
liberty. We must abandon the dangerous idea that freedom means
an escape from law. This can only be true if the escape is from
communism, which is not true law but is tyranny. The word tyranny
is an ancient Greek word with a simple meaning: it means secular
16. R. J. Rushdoony, Freedom Under God, in Comments in Brief, (Vallecito,

CA: Chalcedon, n.d.), 2.
17. Websters New Collegiate Dictionary (Springfield, MA: G. & C. Merriam
Co., 1961), 458, 708.
18
or human rule instead of law, instead of true freedom under God.18
For any constitution to have validity and viability, then, it must

have a nature (contents and interpretability) which is consistent
with Gods Law-Word, and it must have the righteous purpose of
guaranteeing justice (righteousness) and liberty.
The question remains: does the American Constitution do this?
We have seen that it is the product of fallible minds and political
consensus. It is therefore, on its face, no guarantor of justice,
righteousness, or liberty no matter how foresighted or noteworthy
its construction or intentions may have been. Thankfully, to
a large extent, its character is in conformity with the biblical
faith of its framers, who clearly intended to establish an ordered
system under God, free both from lawlessness and tyranny. Pious
resolves, based solely in the human will and understanding, are
not sufficient safeguards upon which to constitute a society. Only
when those resolves find their birth in the Word and Works of
God and their administration through the empowering force of
the Holy Spirit in the hearts of redeemed men can a society be
assured of ongoing peace, prosperity, productivity, and plenty
(Lev. 26). It is the collective heart of a regenerated and obedient
people which alone {15} can constitute such a progressive society.
A constitution is merely a collection of words on paper or
parchment, without this foundation and impetus. But with such a
basis, any society will be well constituted.
The symposium which follows in the pages of this journal, of
course, is not intended to provide a definite answer as to whether
American society is sufficiently well constituted under the great,
historic document which became its chief law in 1789. But the
various historical and philosophical analyses which follow shed
considerable light on the political theology which generated the
American Constitution and pose significant points for pondering
the constitutional directions of our present and future society.
The symposium begins with a six-point analysis of the U.S.
Constitution by R.J. Rushdoony, who has previously written
extensive and authoritative books and essays on the nature of the
American system and the institutionalization of biblical law for
reconstruction of society. In the present essay, Dr. Rushdoony
18. Rushdoony, Freedom Under God, 2.
19
gets to the heart of the constitutional issue when he observes,

The U.S. Constitution gives us no substantive morality, only
a procedural one. It does not claim to be a moral code; rather it
presupposes faith and morality on the part of the people. What
this means is that the defense of the republic is not primarily legal
and constitutional but rather religious. If the people lack Christian
faith and morality, the Constitution becomes meaningless.
In the following essay, Otto Scott, Chalcedons resident
historian, scholar, author, and lecturer, examines the myths and
legends surrounding the American Constitution and concludes,
dismayingly, that the basic law of this nation, as originally
envisioned as early as the biblically based Pilgrims, no longer exists.
Mr. Scott traces historically how, in his analysis, the Constitution
of 178789 met its demise and how, despite this fact, America
can yet salvage and reconstitute its society. Says he, The history
of the Constitution of the United States, like all other aspects of
our national history, reflects the changes in American society and
government through the years. To understand these changes it is
essential to understand that history as it was, and ourselves as we
are.
Daniel Dreisbach continues the symposium with an
examination of the ideology of counter-secularism which he
says the New Christian Right is bringing to bear in its efforts
to reconstitute a troubled American society. Dr. Dreisbach, an
Oxford-educated Rhodes scholar and associate of the Rutherford
Institute, finds that various elements of {16} the New Christian
Right have a bond in a commonly held and advocated doctrine of
constitutional ... revisionism. This approach seeks to restore what
the Christian Right perceives to be the historic role of theism in
government and society.
Attorney, historian, and sociologist Tommy W. Rogers, a
previous contributor to the Journal, next applies the Bibles cultural
ethos to political economy and finds results in the American
federal and republican form of government. [T]he Christian
world- and life-view expressly limits the legitimate claims of the
state and establishes a standard of law against which the state
and its exercise of civil jurisdiction are rightfully measured, Dr.
Rogers observes. The theoretical rationale and the underlying
moral-cultural ethos of the colonial movement for independence
20
were to a significant degree expressly derived from the influence

of the Christian world- and life-view and its standard of resistance
to tyranny.
In an essay entitled The Historical Reality of the Christian
Cultural Consensus in Europe and America, Swiss observer
Jean-Marc Berthoud of Chalcedons European staff traces the
foundations of American law and constitutionalism through its
historic and theological roots in European Calvinism. He also
examines the role of the Enlightenment in this development.
In Mr. Berthouds analysis, The question is not: Was there a
Christian consensus in the American colonies at the time of the
War of Independence? but rather: Has there ever been, can there
ever be in this wicked, fallen world, a Christian consensus in a
nation?
In Theopolitics: Theological Grounds for Political Action,
Bradley P. Hayton examines a variety of viewpoints concerning
the relationship between theology and politics. First, Dr. Hayton
analyzes and answers misconceptions which argue against
Christian involvement in political action. Secondly, he presents
a positive rationale for such involvement. Next, he attempts to
develop a theology of theopolitics and recommends strategies.
Finally, Dr. Hayton concludes, God working through the
Christian, the essence of theopolitics, is truly Gods means for
the Christian to follow Christs injunction to teach all that I have
commanded you. Action in politics is a vital element in taking
part in Gods redemptive process for the world.
Pastor David Dawn, a former Chalcedon staff writer, next offers
a paraphrase and condensation of the introduction to the first
volume of Dr. Rushdoonys monumental Institutes of Biblical Law.
As noted {117} above, Dr. Rushdoonys groundbreaking emphasis
on biblical law is crucial to understanding how society may be
reconstituted under God, and for this reason, Pastor Dawns
simplified rendition makes a valuable addition to this symposium.
To provide some practical insights into constitutional tensions
between church and state in America, we are including in this
edition of the Journal a position paper by one evangelical church
which experienced the pressures of the state a few years ago.
Accompanying this paper are legal documents prepared for
litigation in which the church was involved.
21
Finally, we are pleased to include as a highlight of this

symposium an outstanding book-length thesis by Roger Schultz
entitled Covenanting in America: The Political Theology of John
Witherspoon. Witherspoon was the Scottish cleric who played
a major role as theologian and educator in influencing events
leading to the War for Independence. Knowledge of his thought
is therefore important to understanding the minds of the nations
Founding Fathers, some of whom later were involved in drafting
the Constitution.
As an introduction to this work, we include here an abstract by
Rev. Schultz, a pastor and church history instructor:
John Witherspoon was one of the most influential American
leaders. In addition to signing the Declaration of Independence
and serving in the Continental Congress, he was responsible for
training a whole generation of revolutionaries at Princeton. The
British believed that Witherspoon, the most visible leader of the
rascally Presbyterians, was the primary cause of the American
Revolution.
Historians have offered many varying explanations of the role
of Christians in the Revolution. Some have argued that the
revolutionary impulse grew out of the past American experience,
particularly from Puritanism or the Great Awakening. Some have
argued, that though Christians were involved in the Revolution,
their rationale for supporting it really developed out of secular and
Enlightenment thought, such as Whiggism and Scottish Realism.
Nathan Hatch has argued that the revolutionary era evinced a major
change in the New England clergymen. They were so caught up in
the spirit of liberty, that liberty became a sacred cause. Although
biblical terms might still be utilized, the desire for freedom and the
fear of tyranny transformed their entire worldview.
Mark Noll has extended this analysis to John Witherspoon. He
believed {18} that, though a Christian man, Witherspoons political
thought could be traced to Enlightenment roots. In his support for
the Revolution, Witherspoon became so caught up with political
causes, that his ministry began to suffer.
Witherspoon was no stranger to the cause of liberty. My thesis
attempts to show that Witherspoons support for the Revolution
can be traced to, and is consistent with, struggles he had had in
22
Scotland. During the Moderate-Popular controversy, Witherspoon,

as leader of the Popular Party, had spoken out strongly against
the attempts of the General Assembly to restrict the liberty of
conscience. He supported his case by referring to the example of
the Scottish Covenanters, who in 1638 had stood up against civil
and ecclesiastical tyranny. For Witherspoon, it was not possible to
separate civil and religious freedoms; the violation of one would
automatically lead to the usurpation of the other. Yet even while
stressing liberty, he affirmed that the most important thing was the
salvation of the soul.
Witherspoon continued the same themes in America. He
emphasized American freedom because he was afraid that
increasing British control would lead to the same type of tyranny
that Scotland experienced in the seventeenth century. Repeatedly
he referred to examples of the Covenanters and the Glorious
Revolution, and the need to fight for those freedoms. However,
in each of his major political sermons, representing his position
before, at the onset of, and after the Revolution, Witherspoon
reminded his listeners that though freedom was important, the
most essential thing was their salvation. Even in rallying the people
for the sacred cause, he insists that they see things from an eternal
perspective.
Witherspoon, in both Scottish and American careers, emphasized
the historic, Reformed faith. Some have argued that Witherspoon,
because of his adherence to Scottish Realism, had a high view
of man. His writings, however, show an orthodox explanation
of human depravity. Others have argued that Enlightenment
ideas crop up in his use of natural reason, and moral philosophy.
Witherspoon, however, consistent with the Reformed faith,
claimed that there was a witness to God in nature. That witness
is not complete, is never able to lead to salvation, and is always
subordinate to the Word of God. Natural revelation is useful,
though, in confirming the truths of Scripture and in answering
the infidels on their own ground. So, Witherspoon used reason
apologeticly, in conformity with the reformers. {19}
My thesis attempts to show that throughout his career Witherspoon
saw himself as an orthodox Christian. His theology, though
occasionally using Enlightenment terminology, is that of historic
Protestantism. He emphasized freedom because he believed it was
not possible to retain religious freedom after losing civil liberty.
23
Even in emphasizing liberty, however, he emphatically pointed out

the importance of eternity and called his listeners to salvation. He
did not demonstrate the outlook characteristic of the sacred cause
of liberty. Finally, Witherspoons emphases were consistent in both
Scottish and American careers, where he continued the example of
the Covenanters.
24
The United States

Constitution
R. J. Rushdoony
1 . The Constitution and Its Problems

In the past 200 years, the Constitution of the United States has often
been reviled by one group or another which subsequently claimed
it as the foundation of their position. In 1860, both the North and
the South had claimed to represent the true constitutionalism. In
1812, secession and nullification were denounced by the South
when New England advocated them, whereas after John C.
Calhoun, the North piously condemned the same interpretation
by Southerners.
The Constitution has not preserved the United States from
the depravity of man. In the first decade of the new form of civil
government, high federal and state officials as well as military
and other heroes of the War of Independence united in a flagrant
piece of theft. In 1795, Georgia had claim to the territory which
later became Alabama and Mississippi. Although this land
belonged to the Chickasaws, Cherokees, Choctaws, and Creeks,
a group of prominent men organized, went to Augusta where the
Georgia legislature met, and persuaded it to convey title to the
thirty-five million acres to them. Northerners and Southerners of
prominence were involved in this, e.g., men like Wade Hampton,
Robert Goodloe Harper, William Blount, Robert Morris, and
James Wilson. Many of the men held federal and state offices. James
Gunn, a brigadier-general in the war, and now a U.S. senator from
Georgia, headed up a campaign of paying off Georgia legislators.
Shares in the Yazoo territory {21} companies were also given. The
measure passed the House 199, and the Senate 108. The Yazoo
lands went to the companies for less than 1.5 cents per acre, for
25
about $500,000. Indignation over the deal was prompt and came
from rival speculators. The sale was illegal and was soon annulled,
but this did not end the matter. The U.S. entered the scene and
bought the Yazoo lands for $1,250,000. A commission was then
set up to consider the Yazoo claims. The commission was made
up of three of the five Jefferson cabinet members: James Madison,
secretary of state; Albert Gallatin, secretary of the treasury; and
Levi Lincoln, attorney general. The commission stated that the
claims were not supportable but suggested that the land be bought
from the claimants, or bonds be given to them, to the tune of
ca. $10,000,000. Against his own party, John Randolph led the
opposition to such a deal in the House; he saw the entire matter
as a vast swindle. The matter went to the Supreme Court, which
sustained a settlement on the ground that Georgias act annulling
the Yazoo grant impaired the obligation of contract, overlooking
the fraudulent nature of the contract. Thus, Georgia, the Jefferson
administration, Congress, and the Supreme Court were all party
to a raid on the public treasury. This occurred in the days of the
republics youth and supposed innocence.1
Another example: In the concluding paragraph of Article I,
section 8, clause 17 of the U.S. Constitution, federal lands are
limited to a district (not exceeding ten miles square) and to
places purchased in the states for the erection of Forts, Magazines,
Arsenals, Dock-Yards, and other needful buildings. In terms of
this, federal ownership of as much as 90 percent of some western
states is illegal! In the Annotations of Cases Decided by the
Supreme Court of the United States to June 29, 1972, we read:
Places
This clause has been broadly construed to cover all structures
necessary for carrying on the business of the National Government.
It includes post offices, a hospital and a hotel located in a national
park, and locks and dams for the improvement of navigation. But
it does not cover lands acquired for forests, parks, ranges, wild life
sanctuaries or flood control. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court has
held that a State may convey, and the Congress may accept, either
exclusive or qualified jurisdiction over property, acquired within
the geographical limits of a State, for purposes other than those
1. See John T. Noonan Jr., Bribes (New York, NY: Macmillan, 1984), 43542.
26
enumerated in clause 17.2
This clause has indeed been broadly construed! Given such court
{22} interpretations, it is obvious that the Constitution has a limited
meaning. Man in his sin has justified a wide variety of acts morally
and legally.
It is very important to call attention to such facts. A major defect
of the U.S. Constitution has been the attitude of the people towards
it. Thus, many conservatives today believe that the solution to our
problems is a return to the Constitution. But the Yazoo fraud was
one of many such acts in the early years of the country, and the
Constitution prevented none. Today the Yazoo scandal is a small
matter when compared to routine federal activities. A return to
the Constitution is meaningless when the people are sinful. The
old adage says it well: you cant make a good omelette with bad
eggs. California State Senator H.L. Bill Richardson observed to
me in a conversation, it is difficult to fight for a weak people. To
call the people weak is still to compliment them!
Moreover, certain general observations are in order in any
consideration of the U.S. Constitution. First, it is not the Bible; it is
not inerrant; and it has faults. Thus, hard money, gold and silver,
is not required of the banks. Federal borrowing has no limits of
amount or time. The Electoral College voting is not confined to
the congressional districts, with two electors at large. In the early
years, this was done, which meant that each congressional district
elected an elector to vote their local election results. This meant
that a states electors voted for several different men as president.
When the state and not the district determined the electors, then
urban centers, minority groups, and single issue voters began
to dominate the election results. Many other defects mark the
Constitution, an excellent though imperfect document. The
amendment provision was a recognition of human fallibility and
the necessity for correction.
Second, we must remember that the Constitution can make no
man nor nation good; it is not a moral code. It does not give us a
2. Congressional Research Service, The Constitution of the United States of
America: Analysis and Interpretation; Annotations of Cases Decided by the Supreme
Court of the United States to June 29, 1972, ed. Lester S. Jayson (Washington, DC;
U.S. Government Printing Office, 1973), 35556.
27
substantive morality, but it does reflect a procedural morality. For

a substantive morality, Americans once assumed that the Bible was
the source: it provided the law whereby men and courts operated.
Procedural morality is also set forth in Scripture, in the law of
witnesses, judges, trials, and more. Some procedural morality is
given in the Constitution, but the Constitution in and of itself
provides no moral code.
Third, the Constitution can thus be fully and more or less
faithfully operative with evil results when the people are sinful.
Forrest McDonald, in A Constitutional History of the United States,
titles his last {23} chapter, Breakdown. He holds that, in the era
from the late 1950s to the 1980s, the federal government has
grown so large and complex that it has all but lost the ability to
function. It can no longer provide the assurances of the Preamble
to the Constitution, which declares that the purpose of the Union
is to
establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the
common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the
Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity....3
McDonald holds that the encouragement by the federal
government of all kinds of special interest groups has led to general
lawlessness as well as to bigger and more unwieldy central power.
But the special interest groups were there and they controlled votes.
This breakdown is contributing to the breakdown of the private
sector. Thus, General Motors, the nations largest corporation, has
22,300 full-time employees filling in government forms. It takes 5
percent of the federal budget to process all the forms the federal
government mandates.4
In the 1895 Sugar Trust case, Chief Justice Fuller may have
been wrong in his dissent, but he was right in his comment: Our
form of government may remain notwithstanding legislation or
decision, but, as long ago observed, it is with governments, as with
religions, the form may survive the substance of the faith.5
3. Forrest McDonald and Ellen S. McDonald, A Constitutional History of the
United States (New York, NY.: Franklin Watts, 1982), 22930.
4. Ibid., 237.
5. Archibald Cox, The Court and the Constitution (Boston, MA: Houghton,
Mifflin, 1987), 143.
28
The Constitution is not a mechanism which guarantees us justice

or freedom. Too many people have believed that constitutions can
save a country, whereas only the godly faith and action of a people
can do so.
Fourth, when a people change religiously, they change morally.
Both Arminianism and humanism are man-centered, with very
serious results. Accordingly, as Walter Berns has noted, the goal of
legislative and court action today is to have ones interests declared
a right.6 We now have people trying to have incest declared a right,
even as abortion and homosexuality already have been. Sodomy is
now a fundamental right.7 Currently, a great many groups are
working to further expand the definition of rights: the rights of
various perverts, of animals, of trees, and so on.
Fifth, neither the state nor the Constitution can create society.
Society is an expression of faith, of religion in action. Before the
Norman Conquest in 1066, the Apostles Creed, where we read,
The communion of saints, was, Of the saints the society. Society
is an act of religious communion. Where that communion wanes,
society begins {24} to disappear and is replaced by the power
state. Social financing must be provided. Christians, among other
things, once provided health, education, and welfare. Hospitals
have abandoned these societal services through Pietism and a
withdrawal from the world, and the state has taken over. The result
is an overgrown and a growing civil government. It is impossible
to have a limited civil government when a people has no justice
or charity, and an antinomian church cannot foster just and
charitable peoples. The basic government is the self-government of
the Christian man. With such a central government, the Christian
man, a godly social order is possible, and the U.S. Constitution is
most serviceable.
Eidsmoe is right: the secularization of the United States is a legal
fact, and its repercussions are far-reaching. A great deal is being
said by saying nothing about God and religion. The situation
cannot be changed, as far as Americas legal and political system
6. Walter Berns, Taking the Constitution Seriously (New York, NY: Simon and
Schuster, 1987), 224.
7. Ibid., 237.
29
are concerned, without a massive transfusion of Christian blood.8

A return to the Constitution means nothing, unless there is
first and last a return to Jesus Christ as King, Priest, and Prophet,
and to Gods law as the only word of truth and justice.
In 1985, Howard Phillips reported the exportation of
Mozambican children to Communist Eastern Europe:
To repay the huge debts Mr. Machel owes his Soviet brethren,
12,000 Mozambican children 8 to 18 years old are now in East
Germany with their passports confiscated and enduring slave labor
in various mines and factories.9
Like use was also made of youths from southeast Asia. There
has been no great welling of indignation. Justice no longer is
a passion with most of us; even more, our national self-interest
goes neglected. In Solomons words, Where there is no vision
[no prophetic ministry] the people run wild: but happy is he who
keeps the law (Prov. 29:18, Berkeley Version).
2. The Presupposition of the Constitution

To understand the intent and meaning of the Constitution, it
is necessary to recognize its presuppositions. The constitutional
convention met because at least some of its members felt a sense
of urgency. The various states ratified the new federal union
because, in varying degrees, they felt some sense of urgency or at
the least a need for a stronger {25} union. According to McDonald,
the framers had four sets of considerations: First, to provide
protection for the lives, liberty, and property of the people. (This
was a very personal concern, and, we can add, that, although it
is not commonly noted, this was the reason why the Preamble
began with We the people, not, We the states. Responsible men
like Washington felt that something must be done to preserve the
United States from dissolution.)
Second, these men were committed to republicanism. Third, the
men at the convention were concerned with history; they were
8. John Eidsmoe, Christianity and the Constitution (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker
Book House, 1987), 406.
9. Howard Phillips, Moscows Challenge to the U.S. Vital Interests in Southern
Africa (Vienna, VA: Policy Analysis, 1987), 33.
30
familiar with the rise and decline of countries, and their concern
was to forestall the tendency towards corruption and decay. Fourth,
the framers were well read in political theories, both ancient and
modern.10
Without disagreeing with McDonald, perhaps the ablest
constitutional scholar, let us look at some more basic matters, the
presuppositions of the Constitution.
First, there was a very legitimate and pressing concern,
to preserve the United States and liberty. The Articles of
Confederation had not provided a stable civil authority in time of
war and were providing even less a one in peace. The various states
were peripherally concerned with the United States and more with
themselves. Even then, the United States was an economic power,
both as a source of raw materials and as a sea-going trading power.
Interference by European powers was not unlikely, especially
through commercial arrangements and loans to particular states,
to link them to foreign powers and interests. Thus, preserving the
Union and American liberty were urgent concerns.
Second, there was a need to reestablish and maintain law.
This was a pressing concern. All too many Americans who were
neither Tories nor adherents of independence welcomed the
war and delighted in it. Debts to England needed not to be paid,
since the normal collection methods were suspended by war.
Debts to Americans could be repaid by depreciating Continental
dollars. John Adams recorded his dismay at a conversation with
a horse-jockey whose attorney he had sometimes been. The man
was delighted with the war because it meant escape from legal
processes and debt collections. There were all too many such men.
Adams wrote,
If the power of the country should get into such hands, and there
is great danger that it will, to what purpose have we sacrificed our
time, health, and everything else? Surely we must guard against
this spirit and these {26} principles, or we shall repent of all our
conduct.11
One of the reasons for Shays Rebellion, an armed uprising
10. Forrest McDonald, Novus Ordo Seclorum: The Intellectual Origins of the
Constitution (Lawrence: University of Kansas Press, 1985), 37.
11. John Adams, Works, vol. 2 (Boston, MA: Little, Brown, 1865), 42021.
31
against Massachusetts, was related to this temper. The rebellion

protested against what it held to be excessive taxation. Orderly
civil authority was not wanted by many. Shays Rebellion provided
more incentive for the constitutional convention. McDonald uses
the word terrified to describe the reaction of Congress to the
Massachusetts uprising.12
In the state conventions for ratification of the Constitution,
many objections were raised against the gold and silver clauses;
there was a considerable element in the country favoring paper
money as a means of evading obligations by paying off good debts
with bad money. Many maintained the policy of non-payment
of foreign debts. With an ocean between the United States and
Europe, it was easy to adopt a policy of non-payment in the face
of crises. Many investors in Europe who helped make American
states and corporations a success never collected loans made in
the nineteenth century.
The framers of the Constitution were aware of these tendencies.
They tried to guard against this evil by various provisions. During
the war, the state legislatures had been irresponsible: they had
overturned private contracts, reneged on public debts, interfered
with the courts, violated treaties, and had taxed heavily. People
were less secure in their lives, liberty, and property than they had
been under royal authority.13 Wars usually enable lawlessness to
thrive.
Article I, section 10, paragraph 1, of the Constitution reads:
No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant
letters of marque and reprisal; coin money, emit bills of credit;
make anything but gold and silver a tender in payment of debts;
pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the
obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility.
The Declaration of Independence gives us a long and accurate
catalog of the administrative sins of the officers of the British
crown; indirectly, the Constitution can be read as a catalog of the
sins of the American states and of Congress. In the above section,
only the granting of titles of nobility had been missed by the states
and Congress. The war years had given too many people an appetite
12. McDonald and McDonald, Constitutional History, 26.
13. Ibid., 24.
32
for anarchy. The frontier in the nineteenth century maintained

that temper. At the same time, there was a parallel demand for
free services and free land. The Constitution was by no means able
to end this appetite for anarchy with services, but it did help {27}
create impediments to it.
Some leftist historians have charged the founding fathers with
a conspiracy to protect property. This is nonsense. Their concern
was more basic, i.e., to establish and maintain those social concerns
which alone make civility and society possible.
Third, Eidsmoe has shown that the founding fathers were
thoroughly Christian in their culture, and, in most cases, in their
faith as well.14 For these men, the basic government was Christian
self-government under God.
Because of this Christian character, the words sovereign
and sovereignty are omitted from the U.S. Constitution. John
Quincy Adams, on the fiftieth anniversary of the Constitution,
spoke with grief at the return of the concept in the various claims
to state sovereignty; he held that sovereignty is an attribute which
belongs to God alone. Tocqueville noted that [i]n the United
States the sovereign authority is religious.15 Tocqueville also found
noteworthy the many private associations in America, governing
members and various spheres in terms of certain convictions.16
The United States had thousands of tithe agencies, each governing
a particular sphere of moral reform, education, welfare, and
health. As a result, civil government was severely limited. It is
important to remember that the legislatures of states met briefly
every second year, and that the federal Congress and Supreme
Court also met briefly. Judges and congressmen stayed at boarding
houses; their wives and children usually stayed in the home state.
In between sessions, there was no bureaucracy to govern, only a
small handful of clerks. The basic government was Christian selfgovernment and Christian agencies to meet societys problems.
The community was thus a more basic and powerful government
than the states or the federal government.
14. Eidsmoe, Christianity and the Constitution.
15. Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, 2 vols., 4th ed. (New York,
NY: Langley, 1841), vol. 1, 332.
16. Ibid., vol. 2, 11718.
33
There is a fourth and very much neglected factor, the Scottish

peoples in America. Our basic American historiography is Harvard
and Unitarian influenced and has some serious weaknesses. It
reflects a New England, English, and Unitarian perspective, and,
as a result, a warping of some facets of American history. Lorraine
Boettner has reminded us of an important fact:
It is estimated that of the 3,000,000 Americans at the time of the
American Revolution, 900,000 were of Scotch or Scotch-Irish
origin, 600,000 were Puritan English, and 400,000 were German or
Dutch Reformed.17
With this in mind, we can understand why a British agent described
the {28} War of Independence as a Scotch-Irish Presbyterian
rebellion.
The Scots were not popular with the English in Great Britain,
nor with the English in America. They were regarded as being wild
and ungovernable, more often dominated by clan loyalties and
family blood feuds than by civil government. Their blood feuds
in some parts of the border states and the South survived into the
twentieth century. (It was and is an axiom that a Scot never forgets
a wrong, and never forgives.)18
At the same time, it was the Scots who brought the same
intensity to conquering the frontier, and to planting churches.
Most of the colleges and universities of the United States were
founded by Scots.
The Scottish factor was present in the influence of men like John
Witherspoon, who had a powerful influence through his teachings
and writings. His pupils included men of future importance:
a president, vice president, ten cabinet members, twenty-one
senators, thirty-nine congressmen, twelve governors, many
pastors, and other public leaders. The United States began with
a strongly Scottish influence and character; it was a late and post
mortem work of John Knox; the Constitution bore the marks of a
Scottish heritage.
Fifth, the Constitution, in Article II, section 1, clause 8, requires
an oath of office. The federal Annotations of Cases says of this oath,
17. Loraine Boettner, The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination (Grand Rapids,
MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, [1932] 1951), 382.
18. McDonald, Novus Ordo Seclorum, 157ff. McDonald is of Scottish ancestry.
34
That the oath the President is required to take might be considered

to add anything to the powers of the President, because of his
obligation to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution,
might appear to be a rather fanciful idea. But in President Jacksons
message announcing his veto of the act renewing the Bank of the
United States there is language which suggests that the President
has the right to refuse to enforce both statutes and judicial decisions
on his own independent decision that they were unwarranted by
the Constitution. The idea next turns up in a message by President
Lincoln justifying his suspension of the writ of habeus corpus
without obtaining congressional authorization. And counsel to
President Johnson during his impeachment trial adverted to the
theory but only in passing. Beyond these isolated instances, it does
not appear to be seriously contended that the oath adds anything to
the Presidents powers.19
To the contrary, however, it must be said that most presidents

from Washington through Andrew Johnson believed that the oath
required them to judge the constitutionality of congressional acts
placed before them.
There is, nevertheless, a more important consideration. An
oath today is meaningless for most people. An oath to the men
who wrote {29} the Constitution was a biblical fact and a social
necessity. An oath was taken on an open Bible, usually opened to
Deuteronomy 28. The blessings of God were invoked for obedience
to His law, and curses for disobedience. Because an oath to us often
no longer poses the same promise and the same threat, we fail to
see this constitutional requirement as an important religious act.
It does tell us, however, of an important biblical presupposition of
the U.S. Constitution.
3. The Constitution: Original Intent

The controversies concerning the meaning of the Constitution
are many. Some have called for strict construction as against
loose construction, or non-interpretive review rather than
interpretive review. Some have argued that many legal terms used
in the Constitution are used loosely and require interpretation by
the courts because the original meaning was not clear. Thus, it is
19. Congressional Research Service, Constitution of the United States, 448.
35
said that as early as Washingtons first administration, questions

arose as to the meaning of particular sections of the Constitution.
That there were early controversies about the meaning of the
Constitution is very true, but this does not necessarily mean
ambiguities in the law. Ambiguities give quick and easy license to
various practices, whereas unpopular clarities create controversy.
We must remember that the United States began its history with
certain moral handicaps. First, the country had been in a long war,
from 1775 to 1781. One of the consequences of the war was the
destruction of many churches. The British recognized the role of
the churches in American resistance, and many of the military men
had an Enlightenment contempt for Christianity. The reprisals
against the churches were many. At the same time, the war served
to destroy morality in many ways. The mercenary troops were not
known for their morality; American women feared their approach.
Moreover, the war was often profitable: selling supplies to British
troops for gold and silver enriched many. For all too many, the end
of the war was the end of a bonanza.
Second, the war years and prewar years had fostered lawlessness.
British regulation on trade had been routinely violated before the
war because those rules meant economic ruin for Americans in
order to benefit some in England. Thus, for some years Americans
had grown accustomed to disregarding or circumventing the laws.
These two factors, a religious and moral decline together with
a habit of civil disobedience, had left a climate of noncompliance.
Thus, {30} the constitutional problems which developed very early
were less a matter of, how shall we understand and obey the law?
but rather, how can we reinterpret and circumvent the law?
Thus, the basic problem was not an intellectual one, i.e., a
question of understanding the Constitution, but rather a moral
one: how can we circumvent the law in the name of the law? The
Supreme Court was ready to supply some answers.
A famous incident pinpoints this clearly. The justices of the
Supreme Court boarded together, and, every Saturday, they had
a consultation day at the Capitol. There was some talk about the
men drinking too much, so John Marshall asked that the Court
abstain from drinking except on rainy days. After a dry week, on
Saturday and consultation day, Marshall asked Story to look out
and see if there were any signs of rain. Story reported that there
36
was not the slightest sign of rain, whereat Marshall said,

Justice Story, I think that is the shallowest and most illogical
opinion I have ever heard you deliver; you forget our jurisdiction
is as broad as the Republic, and by the laws of nature, it must be
raining some place in our jurisdiction. Waiter, bring on the rum.20
There was also a light-hearted casualness at times in using the law,
coupled with a confidence that the country could prosper one and
all.
Eidsmoe has given excellent reasons for the validity of original
intent. While he recognizes that at times original intent may be
difficult to understand, it is both necessary to attempt such an
understanding, and the materials are usually there to make it
possible. This is thus the first argument, namely, that the intent
can be known and determined to a large extent. Eidsmoe calls
attention to the fact that the usual opinion that the Constitution
is a bundle of compromises is not true. There were compromises
on representation and slavery, but on most issues there was a
discussion until a true agreement was reached.
Second, as Eidsmoe points out, a jurisprudence of original
intent does not preclude flexibility. The premises remain, but
application can vary with differing cases.
Third, to affirm original intent is not to infer infallibility. The
Constitution recognizes the need for improvement and change by
providing for amendments to it. There is thus a legitimate means
for change. It is a slow process because it requires deliberation,
which is clearly an asset. Fourth, the plain meaning of the wording
is basic to other fields of {31} law. What security would there be
in wills, trusts, and contracts if social circumstances could dictate
new meanings?
Fifth, the Constitution is not only a law but also a contract or
covenant. There is thus even more at stake in maintaining its
integrity than some other forms of law.
Sixth, the founding fathers for the most part held the Protestant
view of the Bible and its interpretation: they rejected tradition and
20. Reported by Albert Beveridge, Maryland, Marshall, and the Constitution,
in Proceedings of the Maryland State Bar Association for 1920, 274, and cited by
Richard Shenkman and Kurt Reiger, One-Night Stands with American History
(New York, NY: William Morrow, 1980), 48.
37
held to the binding force of Scripture only. Their view of law was
similar: legal tradition could not supplement the Constitution
nor create a new form of interpretation. This is a key point. The
methods of Protestant biblical exegesis carried over into the
exegesis of civil laws.
Seventh, the opponents of original intent still rely on the text
and quote it to suit themselves. They still rely on its authority.
Eighth, some assume a continual growth upward in history, so
that more wisdom is now available to reinterpret the Constitution.
Eidsmoe disposes of this argument with telling power.21
The force of original intent eroded in American history because
the force of original intent eroded in the churches with respect
to the Bible. Modernism replaced the Bibles original intent
with humanisms reinterpretations. Pietism, Arminianism, and
antinomianism insisted on the reinterpretation and the limitation
of biblical texts in terms of their presuppositions. We should
not be surprised that the same technique was applied to the
Constitution. If the Bibles original intent can be set aside, why not
the Constitutions?
The road to recovery must therefore begin with Christians and
their churches. The state cannot be stronger than the Christians
within it.
4. Changing Intent
In the modern age, revolutions have become an important
aspect of history. The historians have given extensive attention
to revolution, but insufficient attention to war as revolution. In
modern warfare, the losers usually face a revolution at home, a
political and social upheaval. The winners, however, also face a
revolution, not as violent and dramatic a one as the losers, but a
revolution all the same. The wars waged by Great Britain in the
past two centuries altered that country, and World Wars I and II
were social revolutions at home.
Wars shatter the normal life of a country; they lead to a
weakening of morality and of authority. A state at war with another
state must {32} organize its resources for war; this usually means
inflation and the weakening of the middle class. A war economy
21. Eidsmoe, Christianity and the Constitution, 388406.
38
replaces a consumer economy. The stability of society is altered by

the social upheavals of war.
Otto Scott has called attention to a key aspect of war as
revolution: it weakens the power of the old aristocracy because
new leaders and new forces emerge in a war. It may well be that
the old aristocracy needed replacing or that its practices were
not conformable to justice. The usual result is that the new ruling
class which emerges is even worse; it has gained power without a
tradition of responsibility. However bad we may believe the old
regime to have been in France before the Revolution, the new
regime was far worse and was efficient primarily in evil.
In the United States, the old Christian aristocracy was destroyed
by the War of Independence. The old authorities gave way to
the new. The Federalists were to a limited degree the rallying
point for the old order, but they soon gave way to Jefferson, and
the Jeffersonians to Jackson. However good Andrew Jacksons
monetary policies were, his administration marked a major
step in de-Christianizing society and limited Christianity to the
church. The Civil War, unpopular in both the North and the South
until after the war, when both sides romanticized it, was also a
revolution. It shattered the Southern aristocracy and led to the rise
of venal politicians. World Wars I and II were powerful as social
revolutions in the United States.
This does not mean that either the Yankee or the Southern
aristocracies were necessarily good, but rather that the
revolutionary transitions created by wars brought forward men
who coveted power more than justice, and who hated the men
they replaced far more than they loved the country or the people.
John Adams had seen the problem during the war, and he
became a victim of the new temper. Both he and Washington were
the constant objects of scurrilous attacks which still linger in our
history books. The media of their day sought to be offensive, not
accurate, a temper which is still with us.
At the same time, within the the churches various doctrines
arose: Arminianism, Unitarianism, antinomianism, and then
modernism. Modernism has become not only a religious force
with its capture of churches but a cultural force. It transfers
authority from God to man, and infallibility to the spirit of the age.
Octavius Brooks Frothingham, in {33} The Religion of Humanity
39
(1873), wrote:
The interior spirit of any age is the spirit of God; and no faith can
be living that has that spirit against it; no church can be strong
except in that alliance. The life of the time appoints the creed of the
time and modifies the establishment of the time.22
For Frothingham, first, the spirit of God, the force in creation, is
manifested in the interior spirit of any age. It is not a word from
heaven, nor even a word from mans past, which has authority:
it is the spirit of the age. Second, each era has a new truth and a
new creed: The life of the time appoints the creed of the time and
modifies the establishment of the time. This is an early form of
existentialism. Third, every faith and every church which is not in
tune with the spirit of the age cannot, for Frothingham, prevail.
We must thus discard yesterdays faith and creed, and yesterdays
Constitution, for new ones. Not surprisingly, the Abolitionists
who shared this faith opposed both the Bible and the Constitution.
Such views seeped into all the churches often in modified or
disguised forms such as dispensationalism, with its differing
word for different eras. When the church would not take seriously
the whole word of God, it was not likely that men would take
the Constitution literally. It is very important to remember that
when the church becomes lax and cavalier in its interpretation of
Scripture, it cannot expect men to treat mans word seriously.
An early aberration in law was to see the law as logic. The
culture of the modern era has placed great emphasis on mans
rationality. This culminated in Hegels doctrine that the rational is
the real. This meant that the law could not be revelation; the law as
revelation means that it is the expression of Gods mind and being,
whereas the law as logic expresses mans mind. The law as logic
was thus a concept which expressed the philosophy of the modern
age and of Hegel.
At the same time, however, because Hegel stressed the primacy
of the spirit of history and of the natural order as a developing and
self-incarnating force, the concept of the law as experience was
developed, also on Hegelian roots. In American history, the key
statement of this doctrine of law as experience was Oliver Wendell
22. O.B. Frothingham, The Religion of Humanity, 3rd ed. (New York, NY: G.P.
Putnams Sons, 1875), 7ff.
40
Holmes Jr.s The Common Law (1881).

Law as experience means social experience. It should not
surprise us, therefore, that the law has regularly enthroned social
experience. {34} Thus, racial segregation meant the rule of social
experience in the relationship of the races, just as since the 1950s,
with the appeal to the egalitarian consensual values that Gunnar
Myrdal called the American Creed, we have been ruled by
sociology rather than law.23
The combination of false exegesis with respect to the Bible,
and legal humanism in the forms of viewing the law as logic or as
experience, has served to reduce constitutional law to nonsense.
The Constitution is now what the Court says it is in its most recent
decision.
All legal documents are thus increasingly open to interpretations
which frustrate their plain meaning. Consider what this means for
wills: the man who makes a will may have no assurance that it will
accomplish what he purposes. In every area of life, the meanings
of words are eroded because of the current legal philosophy. The
root cause remains this, however: when Gods word is depreciated,
mans word soon means nothing.
Changing intent has far-reaching implications. Consider, for
example, Article VI, paragraph 2, concerning treaties, which now
has meanings once unimagined:
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall
be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which
shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be
the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be
bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any state to
the contrary notwithstanding.
Writing in 1949 Wormser commented:
At Yalta, Roosevelt and Churchill agreed that prisoners of war
might be used as human reparations to restore war damages, and
there are still, at this writing, legions of war prisoners slaving in
Russia, and hundreds of thousands slaved in France and in England
for years. We have no enslaved prisoners ourselves....
23. David Tyack, Thomas James and Aaron Benavot, Law and the Shaping of
Public Education, 17851954 (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1987),
196.
41
We read about human slavery in Russia and are aghast. Yet we have
consented to that slavery, in so many words, and we have done
more than that. We have taken hundreds of thousands of German
troops which we captured and turned them over to our allies,
principally to the French, to permit their use as slaves....
The New York Times quotes ex-President Hoover as saying that,
under the name of reparations, men are being seized and prisoners
are being worked under conditions reminiscent of Roman
Slavery, and that so habituated to brutality have we become that
this condition is tolerated with little protest. And indeed, Mr.
Hoover commented, our own army {35} officers are required to
take part in that policy.24
This was some forty years ago. We can wonder if the men still
unaccounted for in Vietnam are not such slaves. We had better
be concerned also about what the Yalta treaty may do at some
future date to the Constitutional Amendments 1315 on slavery.
We should remember also that those amendments prohibited the
private ownership of slaves, not federal ownership. Such slavery
can be introduced by due process of law, and as a punishment
for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted.
Meanwhile, the concept of justice has been eroded by humanism
in law. From Gods justice as revealed in His law, men turned to
natural law, law as inherent in nature. Because nature is fallen, such
a doctrine is a fallacious one. Philosophically, Kant undermined
the natural law doctrine and replaced it with the logic of mans
mind. There was thus a transition from God to nature to man.
Some legal scholars saw legal logic as closely related to the logic of
physics: they thus posited a hard core of logical justice comparable
to the truths of Newtonian physics. Physics, however, has
changed in the twentieth century. As Roscoe Pound noted:
Nothing has been so upsetting to political and juristic thinking as
the growth of the idea of contingency in physics. It has taken away
the analogy from which philosophers had reached the very idea of
law. It has deprived political and juristic thought of the pattern to
which they had conceived of government and law as set up. Physics
had been the rock on which they had built. When physicists began
24. Rene A. Wormser, The Law (New York, NY: Simon and Schuster, 1949),
55859. The New York Times citation is from the issue of October 14, 1945.
42
to play with the idea of jumps and breaks in natural phenomena

instead of the orderly sequence of cause and effect and inexorably
operating laws which had governed nineteenth-century positivist
physics, the effect was bewildering.25
Pound himself had no adequate doctrine of law. He defined it

thus:
Law, as the term in any of its meanings had been understood
until the new realism, presupposes ability to control the primitive
tendencies in men who exercise power. It presupposes the
possibility of pointing out to them the path to uniform, objective,
impartial decision, by formulating in advance precepts expressing
experience developed by reason and reason verified and tempered
by experience.26
Whose reason and experience should then govern? That of
philosopher-kings after Platos pattern? All that Marxists would
have to do to find Pounds statement acceptable would be to qualify
reason and experience {36} as Marxist. Such a view of law tells us
why legislators and judges are increasingly closer to Marxism than
to Christianity, not because they accept Marxism, but because they
share in some common presuppositions.
Pound noted that law is disappearing because it is superseded by
an omnicompetent administration.27 Bureaucracies are replacing
the courts because law is eroding and controls are increasing.
Thus, the intent of the law is not important to those who deny
Gods law. Change and chance then replace God as the governing
factors in the universe. Justice then has less and less meaning, and
the control of change and chance becomes a central concern.
5. The Christian, Society, and the Constitution

The U.S. Constitution gives us no substantive morality, only a
procedural one. It does not claim to be a moral code; rather, it
presupposes faith and morality on the part of the people. What
this means is that the defense of the republic is not primarily legal
25. Roscoe Pound, Contemporary Juristic Theory (Claremont, CA: Claremont
College, 1940), 34.
26. Ibid., 18.
27. Ibid.
43
and constitutional but rather religious. If the people lack Christian

faith and morality, the Constitution becomes meaningless.
Nathan Glazer has correctly and aptly noted, that major changes
have been under way in recent years: the schools have been
stripped of the nominal forces of Christianity (Bible readings
and prayer); abortion has been legalized, and also homosexuality,
male and female; student rights against school disciplines
have triumphed; and euthanasia is close to official recognition.
Meanwhile, evangelical Christianity is witnessing a strong revival.
As a result, a true kulturkampf now rages in the United States, and
the Constitution offers no guidance as to how it may be resolved.28
It is possible to appeal to the original intent of the Constitution.
It was created by a people who then and for generations later were
used to a minimal county, state, and federal government. Most
civil bodies met briefly in a year, or every other year. The major
tasks of civil government were most of the time inconsequential
ones. Society, the family, church, school, and the communitys
independent agencies provided most of the government. The
concept of a bureaucratic and all-compassing state was alien to the
United States. Government meant a variety of agencies, of which
civil government was only one. The churches were an important
part of the existing governmental structure of society. Laurence
Tribe has observed, At least some evidence {37} exists that, for the
framers, the establishment clause was intended largely to protect
state establishments from national displacement.29 Since then, all
this has changed. As Moynihan so tellingly puts it:
Can we agree, then, that the great object of the constitutional
arrangements we thereupon put in place was that the government
should leave the citizen alone? Thus the thundering prohibitions of
the Bill of Rights: Congress shall make no law; No soldier shall;
no Warrant shall.... Fair enough. That was the problem then. The
problem now is that citizens wont leave government alone. They
now plunder the State as the State once thought to plunder them.30
28. Nathan Glazer, The Constitution and American Diversity, Public

Interest, no. 86 (Winter 1987): 17.
29. Cited in ibid., 11.
30. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, The New Science of Politics and the Old Art
of Government, Public Interest, no. 86 (Winter 1987): 2728.
44
One result of this change has been the Sixteenth Amendment,

1913, which reads thus:
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes,
from whatever sources derived, without apportionment among the
several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
First of all, this is a remarkable law because it has no restricting
clause and no limitation on the percentage of income which can be
taxed. We have seen some modern states tax over 100 percent of
the taxpayers annual income in order to break up landed estates,
destroy independent wealth, and equalize society. There is nothing
in the Sixteenth Amendment to prevent this. The amendment
gave to the federal government the power of unlimited income
taxation. We have not yet seen the worst.
Second, the opinion of some conservatives notwithstanding, the
Sixteenth Amendment was a popular one. There was a strongly
socialistic temper in the United States in 1913, and the amendment
was seen as a soak the rich measure.
Third, a very serious error on the part of Christian conservatives
is to read the Constitution like the Bible, i.e., as though it has
an unchanging meaning. The original intent and meaning of
Scripture always prevails. The original intent of the Constitution
prevails until an amendment alters it. The Constitution can be
compared to a will; the contents of a will are to be governed by the
most recent codicil added to it; that last codicil then determines
the meaning of whatever precedes it. It is now argued by some
powerful political and legal authorities, for example, that the
Sixteenth Amendment invalidates the First, because no immunity
from taxation is granted by the Sixteenth to {38} churches and other
religious establishments. It is held that their tax-exempt status is
thus only statutory and not constitutional. However questionable
we may believe this argument to be, the fact still remains that in
law the later laws govern the earlier ones. The various amendments
govern the meaning of the Constitution, and the later amendments
govern the meaning of the earlier ones. For better or worse, an
equalitarian and levelling trend is apparent in them.
Fourth, this means that the various amendments, and the
uses made of them, are more important in practice than the
original Constitution itself. It was in the mid 1930s that Justice
45
James McReynolds, in a dissenting opinion, wrote, As for the

Constitution, it does not seem too much to say that it is gone.31
If this is true, it is because the people themselves are gone. To put
ones hopes in law among a lawless people is folly.
As we have seen, the Yalta treaty legalized slavery. We can add,
fifth, that the Sixteenth Amendment does also. Slavery means the
ownership in the labor of others; it is involuntary servitude. The
requirement that we provide freely to the Internal Revenue Service
our services in keeping books on employees and on income is
involuntary servitude, and Amendment 13 reads plainly:
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude except as a punishment
for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted,
shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their
jurisdiction.
Congress shall have power by appropriate legislation to enforce the
provisions of this article.
Because of Amendment 16, this is now invalid, because unrestricted

power is given to Congress to lay and collect taxes on incomes.
This is not all. Because of the unrestricted powers granted by
this amendment, we are compelled to testify against ourselves and
to supply all demanded records to the Internal Revenue Service.
This is a development which invalidates the Fifth Amendment
provision that no person shall be compelled, in any criminal
case to be a witness against himself. This is also invalidated by
Congress, which in its hearings compels witnesses to testify
against themselves. Similar developments are apparent in some
grand jury hearings.
What this tells us is that many tax protestors, in appealing to
the Constitution are appealing to the original, not the present,
document. They are assuming a line of defense which is imaginary
and hence {39} dangerous.
What we need instead is an appeal to the church to be Christian,
to be faithful to the whole word of God, and to begin again its task
of dominion by training men to work to bring every area of life
and thought into submission, not to the church nor the state, but
to Christ.
31. McDonald and McDonald, Constitutional History, 195.
46
On the surface, Christianity is at a unique high in its importance

in the United States. Surveys tell us that 86 percent of Americans
declare that their religious beliefs are very important or fairly
important to them. Europe shows much lower percentages.
Added to this is the fact that 77 percent of Americans declare that
they believe in the full authority of the Bible. However, only 42
percent can name the four gospels or identify the author of the
Sermon on the Mount.32 Hence, the impotence of the churches
here and elsewhere.
Roscoe Pound in 1940 spoke of the growing disappearance
from law of the moral concept of what-ought-to-be. Freudian
psychology, relativism, economic determinism, and other like
concepts have replaced the moral mandate.33 Since 1940, the
erosion has been very dramatic.
As stated at the beginning, the Constitution gives us no
substantive morality, only a procedural one. The substantive
morality of the United States, from its earliest years, has come
from the Bible. The Bible had a place in the courts: it was law. It
governed men and the courts.
Moreover, as Pound saw, although not in Christian terms, In
jurisprudence we are dealing ultimately with what ought to be.34 If
Christians do not provide the moral imperative of Gods law, the
humanists will apply the imperative of relativism, such as abortion
and homosexuality. Thus, the basic battle of our time is to overcome
the antinomianism of the churches. The procedural morality of
the Constitution gives us the terms of office, the conduct of courts,
of arrests, of bailment, and so on. It does not define the meaning
of life, the use of sexuality, the nature of the family, the character
of education, and so on. All the elements of life and society which
alone provide the good life are deprived from religion, from the
Bible. The Constitution can restore nothing, nor can it make the
courts or the people just.
The Constitution is a remarkable document, a major event in
history. It was only so because it was formed by a people who,
32. Jeremy Rabkin, Disestablished Religion in America, Public Interest, no. 86
(Winter 1987): 124n.
33. Pound, Contemporary Juristic Theory, 3637.
34. Ibid., 54.
47
however sinful, were to a degree governed by the word of God and

the Holy Spirit. If tomorrow the Constitution in its original intent
were made the governing and supreme law of hell, hell would not
be changed a bit, nor {40} its congress, courts, administration, or
people improved an iota. Whether in hell or the United States, a
return to the Constitution per se is meaningless.
Except Jehovah build the house, they labor in vain that build it (Ps.
127:1).
6. The Constitution and the People

In discussing change, it is important to note that, in ontology, it
means potency. In Aristotle, power is the source of change and the
capacity to perform. According to Scripture,
God hath spoken once; twice have I heard this; that power
belongeth unto God. (Ps. 62:11)
Thus, both Aristotle and Scripture agree on the ultimacy and
importance of power: they differ as to its location. For Aristotle, it
is not in a personal God, whereas for Scripture power belongs to
God and can only be exercised legitimately if exercised under the
law of God.
By creating man in His image (Gen. 1:2628), God has given
great creaturely powers to man which fallen man misuses. Power
within mankind does not disappear when men fail to use it: it
merely accrues to some other person or agency. If I do not work
and provide for myself and my family, then I will either starve, in
which case someone else takes over my property and duties, or
my powers, or else the state will give me charity and become the
power in my life. Societies are constantly marked by the transfer of
power as persons, groups, and institutions, by default or by design,
grasp at power.
In the modern world, vast powers have accrued to the state. Let
us remember Moynihans statement that men today systematically
plunder the state, i.e., seek benefits and subsidies from it.35 People
want social security, medical care, job insurance and security,
free education, and much, much more. They gain the benefits by
35. Moynihan, New Science, 2728.
48
trading power for them. Complaints against big government are

usually hypocritical; people want the benefits, but not the taxes,
which is a contradiction. I find myself regularly criticized by
evangelical churchmen for insisting on the necessity of Christian
schooling for Christian children, for criticizing social security,
and so on. As a result, we have today an ineffectual church; its
members are content to live on the terms of a humanistic world
six days a week, and they fail to see how offensive they are to God
Almighty. {41} Power thus has been extensively transferred by the
people to the state. The present civil order has been voted in by the
people.
Rourke has called attention to another transfer, one which the
courts have gradually sanctioned. This has been the transfer from
our elected representatives to bureaucracies. Complaints against
civil bureaucracies are routine, abundant, and commonplace,
but they are also empty and meaningless. Bureaucracies exist
in churches, businesses, and other areas of the so-called private
sector, and their powers are very great. Virtually all churches
have become highly bureaucratic; this is not a necessity of size,
because very small denominations of 5,000 and 10,000 members
are also very bureaucratic. It is a part of the surrender of power.
The bureaucracy is supposedly made up of experts who hold that
power is only exercised in a legitimate way in the United States
when it rests on a consensus among a variety of elites including
the higher civil service.36 In other words, power is exercised easily
if it has legitimacy in the eyes of the people, and today the trend
is towards elite experts in the higher civil service and elsewhere.
Let us consider again the fact of complaints and resentments
against the bureaucracy. They are essentially meaningless, as
we have seen, because they come from a people eager for more
benefits. Even more, it is a trait of slaves and impotent peoples to
complain rather than to exercise power.
As power is surrendered to an elite created by default, two things
follow, according to Justice Macklin Fleming. First, universal
coverage and a transcendental application is claimed by the state
and its courts. We see this currently in the fact that all kinds of
36. Francis E. Rourke, Bureaucracy in the American Constitutional Order,
Political Science Quarterly 102, no. 2 (Summer 1987): 232.
49
trifling matters since 1950 have been decided by the courts, such
as childrens rights to wear bizarre clothing and to have even
more bizarre hair styles in state schools. The assumption by the
state is that it has universal jurisdiction. Second, this results in
trivialization.
Trivialization sets in when the language of fundamental
constitutional right begins to be routinely used by the courts
to justify judicial regulation as administrative decisions of the
smallest momentwith the consequence that a sort of Greshams
Law operates under which bad judicial decisions drive good ones
from public notice. The result, as with the boy who cried wolf too
often, is to give the entire body of constitutional law a somewhat
inconsequential and frivolous cast.37
Trivialization is common in all spheres. Church government is
{42} mainly concerned with trifles; heresy, unbelief, and immorality
get less attention than offending the church leaders. I heard

recently from a young man who organized in his home a sizable
Bible study group for other young men. The Bible-believing
pastor ordered him to cease and desist. When the young man
offered to have the assistant pastor conduct the class, stating the
group simply had an eagerness to learn, he was told that only
the church authorities could initiate activities, and he was asked
to leave the church. This is by no means an unusual incident but
rather a common one. It represents the universal coverage of
Christian life by the church bureaucracy, and the trivialization of
the church and of Christianity. A trifling church means a trifling
nation.
Clearly, there must be a change, beginning in the Christian
community rather than the church, i.e., from among the people of
faith rather than the church leaders. The early church, a persecuted
and illegal body, established courts for the settlement of disputes
in every sphere. It established also places of lodging for passing
strangers, refugees, exiles, and pilgrims. It created hospitals for
the sick. It established orphanages and provided education. It also
provided infirmaries for the aged without families.
Christians, by the use of their tithes and offerings, created a
37. Macklin Fleming, The Price of Perfect Justice (New York, NY: Basic Books,
1974), 129.
50
shadow government which became more powerful than Rome.

Let us remember that, according to Numbers 18:2526, a tenth
of the tithe went to the priests, i.e., for worship; perhaps another
tenth went to the musicians; this means that most of the first
tithe, as well as all of the poor tithe, went to provide a variety of
governmental social services. Social services must be provided,
if not by Christians, then by the state. It is immoral to complain
about taxes and then fail to tithe and to help create and support
Christian agencies in the spheres of health, welfare, and education.
Power means the power to change men and society. This power
belongs only to God, and to men in Christ. It has been surrendered
to the state, and it has been surrendered by antinomian and pietistic
churchianity. The result is an all-power and omnicompetent
state. As Fleming said in 1974,
Our first step, then, is to recognize the existence in the Supreme
Court of absolute power in oligarchical corporate form, power the
court exercises without any effective restraint. Initial recognition
may prove difficult, for we are trained to a form of government
decked out with the finery and trappings of a written Constitution,
and we tend to delude ourselves {43} that absolute power, or
sovereignty, has somehow been abolished by the adoption of a
written Constitution. In point of fact, absolute power is lodged in
the Supreme Court, which has the power to restrain executive and
legislative action and to declare the meaning of the words of the
Constitution free from the fetters of law. The power of a sovereign,
according to Austin, is incapable of legal limitation, for only a
higher sovereign could enforce the limitation. Supreme power
limited by positive law, is a flat contradiction in terms, for the
power of the higher sovereign would still remain free from the
legal restrains of positive law.38
The word sovereign is not in the Constitution; as John Quincy
Adams made clear later, it was held to belong to God alone.
Sovereignty means, as Justice Fleming pointed out, absolute power,
total control. Having denied the sovereignty and predestinating
power of the triune God, we have willingly placed ourselves under
false gods. The Constitution is no defense against idolatry; only
a faith in the sovereign and triune God, and an obedience to His
38. Ibid., 16162. The quotation is from John Austin, The Province of
Jurisprudence Determined, 2nd ed. (London: John Murray, 1861), 225.
51
law-word, can deliver us. Men cannot live by bread alone, nor by
constitutions, nor by election victories, nor by tax revolts, but only
by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God (Matt. 4:4).
52
The Legend of
the Constitution
Otto Scott
The Puritans were people of the Book. Since the Bible contained
the irrevocable Word of God, the Puritans believed that truly
important matters should be written. They wrote their compact on
the Mayflower en route to these shores. Later their descendants,
although far from being as Calvinistic, nevertheless believed that
the United States could be united only by means of a written
document; a constitution. A compact, in other words, between the
government and the people, to be altered only with the consent of
the governed, and in a united, orderly manner.
This expectation, as we know, did not anticipate a United States
governed as we are today governedaccording to the whims of
pressure groups and of any individual seated on a federal bench.
The founders did not expect federal judges to rule according
to penumbras not stated in the Constitution, according to
implied powers discerned by individuals with supernal sight, or
according to majority rule as interpreted by journalists.
They did not anticipate a Supreme Court that would decide,
after over a century and a half, that all laws against abortion,
common to the entire West until a few decades ago, would be
ruled unconstitutional in this land. They did not anticipate
that the Supreme Court would decide that to teach elementary
schoolchildren in public schools that many of our leading
scientists believe that a Supreme Being created all {46} life would
be unconstitutional.
Such sweeping decisions, obeyed by our government in all its
tens of thousands of branches, are presumed to be based upon
a document held in awe by the courts and people alike. No
document has been more fulsomely praised, more often held aloft,
more often cited, more often described as a work of genius, as a
53
masterpiece emerging from a group of wonderful men, as a marvel

of the ages, worthy of admiration for all time.
Yet six of our leading historians, men who hold high academic
posts in leading universities, in a recent combined work titled
The Great Republic: A History of the American People,1 held the
Constitution and the founding generation up to scorn.
In the opinion of these modern American historians, the
Constitution was an effort by the gentry to maintain control of
the new nation. Hence through the Constitution, wrote Bailyn,
Davis, Donald, Thomas, Wiebe, and Wood, the Federalists hoped
to restore traditional gentry dominance of government and to
escape the confusion and instability created by the wrong sort of
people exercising political power in the state legislatures during
the 1780s.2
This is, of course, the Marxist theory of history: the class struggle
explanation, in which men act only to protect their class position,
and in its defense. It is today expressed by recognized American
historians and academics using well-worn phrases from modern
liberal ideology, published by an old and recognized house. It
matches the charges of Pravda.
The disdain of these professors for the founding generation was
clear when they wrote:
Like the self-molded, impenetrable character of George
Washington, who was the first President [178996] and more a
monument than a person, the entire Federalist era seems to be a
sheer act of will in the face of contrary social developments. Because
the Federalists stood in the way of democracy as it was emerging
in the United States, they have become heretics in the story of the
developing faith.... They thought they were creating a classically
heroic state and they attempted everywhere to symbolize these
classical aims, but they left only a legacy of indecipherable icons,
unread poetry, and a proliferation of Greek and Roman temples.
They despised political parties, yet parties nonetheless emerged,
shattering the remarkable harmony of 1790 and fomenting one of
the most divisive and passionate eras in American history.... By the
1. Bernard Bailyn, David Brion Davis, David Herbert Donald, John L.
Thomas, Robert H. Wiebe, and Gordon S. Wood, The Great Republic (Boston:
Little, Brown and Co., 1977).
2. Ibid., 340.
54
early nineteenth century Alexander Hamilton, the brilliant leader

of the Federalists... was not alone in his despairing conclusion that
this American world was not {47} made for me.3
This gloating over Hamiltons disappointment, this ridicule of

Washington, this scornful description of the original Constitution
as indecipherable icons, unread poetry, and a proliferation of
Greek and Roman temples, is not what the average American
thinks that Ivy League schools teachand certainly not in keeping
with the public myth about the Constitution.
If we were told the facts of American history, however, we would
not be surprised to find ourselves where we are: on the edge of a
totalitarian society. If we had been taught the facts of our national
history, we would not now be on the rim of the precipice. If we
knew our real past better, we would more easily recognize our
present danger.
The Constitution, with its twenty-six amendments, coupled with
the decisions of the Supreme Court, reflects the changes of our
national history. If the Courts contemporary decisions horrify us,
let it be remembered that this situation is not new, and has grown
to its present dimensions through the lethargy, ignorance, and
illusions of the Christian community, which watched unheeding
while our liberties have been progressively enchained.
The professors disdain the original Constitution because the
men at Philadelphia deliberately rejected the idea of democracy.
Their educations, based upon studies of ancient Greece and Rome,
had shown them how previous republics had collapsed under the
pressures of special interests and the subsequent rise of tyrants.
They determined to create a structure that would avoid these
historical failures. Therefore, they worked with two images
in mind: history and the English experience with both kings
and Commons. In their view, as in the view of their Calvinist
forebears, both needed to have authority, but limited authority.
They distrusted both kings and the mob, believing, as did the
ancient Greek, that there is no essential difference between being
devoured by a single lion, or nibbled to death by a hundred mice.
The Calvinists put the same issue in larger terms. They believed
that no man or men, no government, should have complete and
3. Ibid., 342.
55
total sovereign power on earth, since that already belonged to

God. For men to claim or use such power put them into conflict
with God and was blasphemous. A people that allowed such a
usurpation would, therefore, suffer from both such a tyrantand
from God.
The Federalists also had, in the society in which they lived,
spectacular {48} evidence of human limitations. The confederation
the colonies created to fight against Great Britain left the thirteen
states free to issue paper money to pay war debts. This led to a flood
of paper totaling nearly $400 million by the early 1780s, counting
both congressional and state issues. In addition to this financial
disarray, the former colonists had developed a deep distrust of all
governments; all officialdom.
The war had resulted in confiscations and arbitrary official
behavior on both sides, and it left a residue of lost property and
worthless money, crippled veterans, and a people accustomed to
violence. Some responded by pressing state and local legislators
and officials toward obedience instead of governance; others to
the creation of special, extra-official committees and groups to
manage public affairs outside official channels. Various actions,
such as those of Colonel Lynch of Virginia against Tories and
outlaws (from which the term lynch law arose), disrupted
orderly processes. Extra-legal bodies appeared to handle all sorts
of problems. One result was that parts of western Massachusetts
were in turmoil from 1774 through the 1780s, as moblike
committees of debtor farmers periodically closed the courts to
protect themselves from creditors.
If the authors of the Constitution distrusted democracy,
therefore, they had both historical and contemporary reasons.
Being Englishmen, steeped in English history, they also knew the
origin of English liberties, and how hard they had been won.
With these examples in mind, they created a remarkably succinct
document and governmental structure. They decided upon a
strong executive who would not be selected by the people, but by
officials elected solely for the purpose by the people: electors who
were not members of existing governmental bodies.
This executive officer, a president, would not even be encumbered
by an executive council, excepting of his own choosing. He would
be supreme commander of the armed forces, would make all
56
appointments to both the executive and judicial branches, would

serve for four years, and would be eligible for reelection as long as
he lived. Patrick Henry, no admirer of the Constitution, observed
that this official could easily become a king. He was right: the
founders thought of the president as an elected king. They could
not conceive of a society worthy of the name that did not have an
executive.
To ensure, however, that the peoples representatives would
determine who held this power, the Constitutions authors
decided that the {49} number of electors would equal the combined
representatives and senators from each state. If the electors failed
to reach a majority, a final selection from the top five candidates
would be made by the House of Representatives, with each state
having only one vote. Thats a long way from a plebescite.
Nevertheless, it was decided that the members of the House
should be chosen on the basis of population, and not on property
or landed wealth. In the determination of population, slaves (for
the first time in all recorded history) were to be listed, though
only as three-fifths of a free citizen. It is clear that the founders
also foresaw the inevitable end of slavery, by their later provision
that the importation of slaves should be ended. In other respects,
they saw the House as the equivalent of Commonswithout the
unlimited power of Commons.
The Senate resembled the House of Lords, in having longer
terms and being composed of men selected by state legislatures,
and not directly by the people. Some of the Philadelphia delegates
thought even this gave too much power to the states, but they were
unable to convince the majority.
There was, in contrast, no argument against an independent
judiciary, nor against having the judges insulated from pressure
by unlimited terms during good behavior. When the subject
of whether the federal Court could set aside acts of Congress,
Madison said in 1788 that such a power would make the Judiciary
Department paramount in fact to the Legislature, which was never
intended and can never be proper.
On the other hand, they assumed the Constitution might be
changed in the future, and created machinery for such changes
peacefully to be made. Amendments, they wrote, would be
submitted to specially elected state legislatures for ratification, and
57
accomplished by a majority of nine out of the thirteen states.

Objections arose from anti-Federalists, later known as
Republicans, against the Constitution. The gist of their arguments
was that the president had too much power, and that a national
government would, inevitably, override state and local authorities.
They prophesied the rise of a vast federal bureaucracy that would
absorb all authority.
These arguments, as we now know, were eminently logical. They
were based at the time, in the terms with which the Enlightenment
generation was familiar, as part of the logic of sovereigntya
principle of eighteenth-century political reasoning often used
against the colonies with great effect by Britain. This was the
belief that no state {50} could long possess two legislatures, but
must inevitably have one final, illimitable, indivisible lawmaking
authority.
This debate should be taught in every American school: so far
as I know, it is not taught in any. The authors of the Constitution,
as we all know, won the debate. They had more skill in argument
(having rehearsed all the arguments pro and con at Philadelphia),
employed the rhetoric of liberty, were the most prominent and
famous men in the nationthe natural aristocrats, so to speak
and had nearly all but a handful of the newspapers on their side.
The most effective arguments mountedthat numerous rights
were not enumeratedwere met by acceptance of that demand.
The result was that Madison drew up the first ten amendments.
After that, ratification was rapid, amid general enthusiasm.
But the ink was hardly dry when great efforts arose to break the
limits of the Constitution.
Not financially. Hamiltons efforts to straighten out the tangle
of American finances succeeded, though they are outside the
province of this essay to describe. We are, in celebration of the
Constitution, concerned with what happened to it in terms of
political liberty and Christian principles. Let it suffice to say that
the Constitution expressly limited the currency of the United States
to coin, and gave the federal government a monopoly in creating
coins.
Anti-Federalists, or Republicans, as they came to be called
in the 1790s, resented Hamiltons ideas and argued against his
creation of a federal debt. They also resented the tone and elegance
58
of the Federalists, the effort to introduce pageantry into the

presidency, the growth of taxes, the aristocracy of the Senate, and
the distancing of pressure groups inherent in the federal structure.
Passionate disputes raged over foreign policy, over the Federalist
reconciliation with Great Britain, and whether or not to support
revolutionary France. In this period, Hamilton secretly passed
information about the plans of the American government to
London; Jefferson and several later ministers to France sought to
undermine the Federalists by feeding information to the French.
The Federalists, confronted with demands that the new
government be dismantled, that its authority be reduced, and
alarmed at the increasing coarseness of political argument, linked
this to arguments floated by the French Revolution. They enacted
the Alien and Sedition Acts, which lengthened the period of
naturalization, gave the president {51} extraordinary powers to
deal with aliens, and provided the government with authority to
punish as sedition libels against federal officials.
In response, the Republicans in control of the legislatures of
Virginia and Kentucky drew up resolutions, drawn by Madison
and Jefferson respectively, proclaiming the right of the states
to judge the constitutionality of federal acts, and to interpose
themselves between the citizenry and the unconstitutional actions
of the federal government.4
During the administrations of Washington and Adams, the
Federalists made all judicial appointments. They appointed
Federalist justices; not a single Republican justice occupied
a bench. This set up a clamor in the Republican party press,
claiming that the Federalist judges abused the sedition actions and
favored special interests. After the Federalists lost the election of
1800, the lame-duck Federalist Congress passed a new Judiciary
Act creating a system of federal circuit courts and broadening the
jurisdiction of the federal courts. This was the first of what would
be a series of efforts to control, in one or another form, the federal
judiciary.
Before leaving office, therefore, President John Adams hastily
appointed a number of judges, including John Marshall as chief
justice of the United States.
4. Ibid., 35960.
59
Jefferson, in 1801, was convinced that the remains of federalism

had retired into the judiciary as a stronghold... and from that
battery all the works of republicanism are to be beaten down and
erased. This view was communicated to the new Congress, which
repealed the Federalist Judiciary Act of 1801. This destroyed the
circuit courts and, for the first and only time in American history,
abrogated the tenure of some federal judges.
Some members of Congress wanted to add a constitutional
amendment to control the judiciary. But Congress as a whole
finally settled upon impeachment as a means of removing judges
for high crimes and misdemeanors. Then, as if to show that
this threat was real, the Republicans in the House proceeded to
impeach and the Senate to convict and remove John Pickering
from the federal District Court of New Hampshire, though he had
committed neither crimes nor misdemeanors.5
Next the Republicans turned against Justice Samuel Chase
of the Supreme Court. Chase had committed no crimes, but
was overbearing and haughty. Impeached by the House, he was
convicted by the Senatebut not by the necessary two-thirds
majority. {52} This made it clear to the federal judiciary that it could
be injured. It also made it clear that men in positions of power
were pushing against limits, written or not.
John Marshall, therefore, walked cautiously, but, nevertheless,
steadily advanced the power of the Supreme Court. Instead of
confronting Congress by declaring the repeal of the Judiciary
Act of 1801 to be unconstitutional, Marshall achieved the point
obliquely by saying that since the American people regarded the
written Constitution as the fundamental and paramount law of
the nation, it followed that a law repugnant to the constitution,
such as part of the Judiciary Act of 1789, is void; and that courts,
as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.
John Marshall later openly declared that the Supreme Court had
a right to declare acts of Congress unconstitutional. That right,
asserted in Marbury v. Madison, was not challenged at the time. It
is interesting to note, however, that although Marshall remained
chief justice through five administrations, he never again asserted
the Courts right to make such a determination.
5. He was alcoholic and insane.
60
Under Marshall the Court expanded its authority over the

states in a series of decisions. Martin v. Hunters Lessee (1816) and
Cohens v. Virginia (1812) established the Courts right to review
and reverse decisions of state courts that involved interpretations
of federal law and the Constitution.
In other cases the Supreme Court nullified state law on the
grounds that it violated the Constitution.
President Jefferson did not think that the Supreme Court was
superior to the executive branch. Throughout his life, he denied
the exclusive authority of the judiciary to decide which laws
were unconstitutional. Such a monopoly, he said in 1804, would
make the judiciary a despotic branch.
In defending the Constitution in The Federalist (paper no. 78,
Hamilton wrote that the judiciarys role as reviewer did not by
any means suppose a superiority of the judicial to the legislative
power. It only supposes that the power of the people is superior
to both; and that where the will of the legislature declared in its
statutes, stands in opposition to that of the people, declared in
the constitution, the judges... ought to regulate their decisions
by the fundamental laws, rather than by those which are not
fundamental.
Yet when Marshall placed the Court on record as having the
power {53} to set aside legislative acts, there was no clamor against
his ruling. Perhaps the claim of the courts of Kentucky and Virginia
to have similar power had reduced the heat of the argument, or
inured many minds to it. Or perhaps it was taken for granted that
such a power would not be lightly used. Certainly no American
citizen in the early nineteenth century could have anticipated a
time when the Supreme Court of the United States would express
an animus against Christianity.
Long before our present situation, however, Congress, the
president and the courts struggled for preeminence. The tides of
power wavered, depending on the mood of the country and the
skill of the contenders. A dispassionate review of these collisions
simply underscores the fact that men determine how rules are
applied on earth.
All the agitation of the Abolitionists, for instance, did not deter
Chief Justice Roger Taney from coming to the conclusion, on
behalf of a Supreme Court dominated by Southerners, that the
61
Supreme Court would not declare the institution of slavery invalid.

To assume that the Taney decision led to the Civil War is,
however, a simplification. What is more to the point is that during
that war President Lincoln decided the nation could not both
conduct a war and obey the Constitution.
Lincoln suspended the right of habeus corpus, curtailed the
freedom of the press, refused citizens the right to appeal to the
courts and had them tried, convicted, and imprisoned by army
court-martials without counsel. The Supreme Court in that period,
finding that its orders were ignored, retired for the duration of the
conflict.
Lincoln had, of course, the rationale that treason was rampant,
that he was atop a powder keg in the North, that the emergency
justified extreme measures. But the failure to analyze how the
nations liberties were lost during that emergency seriously distorts
the average understanding of Abraham Lincolns character and
determination.
This lack of historical analysis, in which Lincolns refusal to
emancipate the slaves of the North (his proclamation freed only
slaves held by the resistant Confederacy) is generally glossed
in our textbooks, is only part of the shading of our history that
has given rise to so much misunderstanding. Many Northerners
continued to have slaves during the Civil War, including General
Grant. Meanwhile, the Confederacy reached the point where it
drafted black soldiers.
Such contrasts between myth and reality run throughout our
history, as throughout all humanity. They appeared in remarkable
behavior {54} shortly after the end of the Civil War, in the wake of
the Lincoln assassination.
The president was not popular in Abolitionist circles, and his
violent death propelled Andrew Johnson, a Southerner, into the
executive power. Congress was controlled by Abolitionists, whom
the historians have renamed Radical Republicans.
These were convinced that Lincoln was murdered as part of
a Southern conspiracy to revenge the results of the war. Putting
such conspiracy theories aside, the surface facts are that Booth
and his companions planned to murder the president, Secretary of
State Seward, and, possibly, Secretary of War Stanton. In the event,
attacks were mounted upon only Lincoln and Seward. Lincoln was
62
killed but Seward only wounded.

Seven men and one woman were tried for these crimes. The trial
was in the flavor of the times, which had been coarsened by a great
and brutal war. The defendants were denied counsel and held
in solitary confinement in dark cells, and forced to wear leather
hoods that covered their heads and faces. They were tried inside
the grounds of the Washington Arsenal Penitentiary only twentytwo days after the arrest of Mrs. Surrat, whose crime seems to have
been to operate a boardinghouse where the men roomed.
During the trial the male defendants werein their hoods
handcuffed to a metal bar. The judges were three major generals,
four brigadiers. and several lesser officers. None had any legal
background or training. Of the three prosecutors, one had
experience in wartime prosecutions of persons accused of being
Southern sympathizers. One was John Bingham of Ohio, described
as a master of partisan speech, clever retort and loose rhetoric,
who later played a large role in the prosecution of President
Andrew Johnson.
The trial was well underway when, in answer to many protests,
defense counsel was allowed. Reverdy Johnson, a prominent
attorney from Maryland, attempted to defend Mrs. Surrat but was
subjected to such insults from the judges that he withdrew. In the
end, two of the men and Mrs. Surrat were convicted and hanged;
three men received life at hard labor, and one received six years.
If any constitutional rights existed at that time, they did not
seem to apply to these defendants.
After that the Abolitionists in Congress really began to roll.
Their program was to disfranchise the white citizens of the
South and {55} enfranchise their former slaves. Southern whites
were to be removed from all positions of authority, large estates
to be confiscated and redistributed to blacks, and black-ruled
governments to be installed in Southern states.
When President Johnson opposed this policy he encountered
serious opposition in Congress and in his cabinet. Secretary of War
Stanton, who had supervised the trial and treatment of the Lincoln
assassins, played an especially duplicitous role by conniving with
the congressional claque behind the presidents back.
The power of this claque was enhanced by its victory in the
elections of 1866, and was focused by Thaddeus Stevens, a
63
most remarkable demagogue sadly neglected by his intellectual

heirs in the American Historical Association. Stevens is worthy
of concentrated study as an examplar of racism in the name of
antiracism.
Congress, under Stevens, enacted a Tenure in Office Act, which
forbade the president to dismiss, without the consent of Congress,
any executive-branch official appointed with the consent of
Congress. Then, assuming that his new expansion of congressional
authority might be challenged in Court, Congress passed several
bills affecting the judiciary. One would expand the number of
justices on the Supreme Court; another forbade the Court to make
a constitutional ruling with less than a majority of the justices.
That set the stage to trap the president. Johnson, discovering
Stantons duplicity, sprung the trap by dismissing the secretary
of war. Stanton then appealed to the Senate against that which he
said was a violation of the law by the president, and barricaded
himself in his office.
While Stanton enjoyed restaurant meals sent into his office,
the House proceeded to impeach the president for violating the
Tenure in Office law. The Senate then sat in judgment. After
long harangues, the issue came to a vote and the president was
convicted, but by one vote short of a two-thirds majority. Hence
he was not removed from office, and Ben Wadewhom the
Abolitionists had selected to succeed to the officewas deeply
disappointed.
But to deny that the Radical Republicans won the battle would be
impossible. For although Johnson remained in office, his authority
was deeply undercut, and the Radicals proceeded to their program
of humiliating and occupying the South. That program, ironically
called Reconstruction, sowed the seeds of dissension for decades
to come.
More than that, it revealed the ease with which a demagogic
faction could set aside the Constitution. In fact, while they were in
control, the {56} Radicals pushed through two amendments to the
Constitution in the absence of the Southern states granting rights to
newly liberated slaves that are now the basis for the expansion of
federal authority into every crevice and nook of the nation.
Major alterations of the Constitution quickened during the
twentieth century. Of these, the Sixteenth Amendment may be
64
the most significant. Rushdoony once compared amendments of

the Constitution to codicils in a will that alter the entire meaning
of the preceding text. For example, the original purpose of the
Constitution was to establish a nation in which all citizens would
be equal under law. To tax one citizen more than another is to
upend that principle, to make it legal to treat citizens unequally.
The Sixteenth Amendment, popularized in the name of soaking
the rich, has now been expanded to soak all but the very poor.
Furthermore, it is the basis of inquiries into private life once held
inviolate, and is now the charter for the most feared governmental
agency in the land.
In this same area, Congress created a Federal Reserve System
with more power than either of the two Banks of the United
States; authorized to create paper money divorced from intrinsic
value, convertible to nothing. Paper money, the major reason for
the Philadelphia Convention, is back as our currency. That we
have returned to such a state despite armies of economists and
historians is a testament to the enduring nature of folly.
If it can be said that the founders would have been appalled by
the Sixteenth Amendment, what can be said about the fact that the
Supreme Court that ruled the income tax unconstitutional is the
same Court that later ruled it constitutional?
The Seventh Amendment, which provides for the direct election
of United States senators, accomplished what not even the Civil
War could achieve: the reduction of the states to mere localities.
As long as state legislatures could elect senators, Congress was
careful to treat the states as powers worthy of respect. The senators
were, in effect, ambassadors from the states. The Seventeenth
Amendment reduced them to another branch of the Commons,
and the character of senators changed accordingly.
The most far-reaching and continuous constitutional changes
came, however, with administrations from Theodore Roosevelt
through Franklin Roosevelt. Through these years, both Congress
and the executive created agencies authorized to combine the
powers the {57} founders once deliberately held separate: the power
to enact laws, to administer laws, and to adjudicate laws.
Of course, regulatory agencies do not claim to be enacting laws:
they simply issue regulations. But the regulations have the force of
law, and the agencies that issue such regulations have the authority
65
to oversee their application, and to punish violations. The citizens

can, they are told, appeal to the courts if they believe the agency
has overstepped its authority or made a mistake. But the courts
do not ordinarily hear such appeals until the agencys internal
labyrinth is first completelyand expensivelytraversed.
These agencies today license, regulate, and administrate all the
activities of the American people. The courts have determined that
these agencies are constitutional. Thus, bureaucrats rule through
a fourth, centralized branch of government, from offices whose
powers are centralized, while we are still told that our government
consists of divided powers.
This fourth, bureaucratic branch of government has
accomplished, without constitutional amendments, without
disturbing the facade of our original government, what the
founders believed they had permanently barred from the land;
and what they fought a war against.
There is also the rather terrible point that the courts no longer
keep to their own decisions. They shift according to the pressures
placed upon them. The Constitution has become a true marvel
of the world, for it is now elasticized, and can be stretched or
contracted to cover or not to cover whatever the federal courts
decide. The fact that the courts need not be consistent allows, of
course, infinite whim.
No right, no procedure, no citizen or group of citizens can
predict the outcome of any court case in our judiciary. Nothing in
the Constitution is what it seems to be; nothing is fixed, nothing
is sure.
The Fifth Amendment, for instance, says that no citizen can be
forced to testify against himself. But the courts have decided that
the Fifth Amendment can only protect a defendant who refuses
to answer all questions. To attempt to use the Fifth Amendment
selectively is to lose the right. What sort of right can be lost?
Surely a very shaky one.
If a witness stubbornly insists upon his Fifth Amendment right,
the courts have handed prosecutors a weapon to force testimony:
immunity from prosecution. Such a witness can admit any
crime, including multiple murders, and go free, if he names his
accomplices. {58} Congress has refined the immunity concept even
further. A witness may be offered limited immunity. That means
66
he cannot be indicted on the basis of his own testimony, unless

corroboration is discovered through a means he has not described.
Whether this applies to evidence gathered as an indirect result of
his testimony is yet to be made clear.
At one time Americans knew about the High Commission of
England in the reigns of the Tudors and the early Stuarts. Witnesses
were summoned, and had to appear. They were ordered to take
an oath to answer all questions truthfully, and if they demanded
to know the scope and nature of such questions in advance, were
held in contempt and sent to prison. This was one of the causes
of the English Revolution under Cromwell; it is now a common
practice before our Congress.
Witnesses before the High Commission were not allowed
counsel, for the Commission said it was not holding a trial. Our
Congress says the same, and calls it an inquiry, or a hearing.
The High Commission argued that it did not apply capital
punishment; neither does Congress. The Commission said it was
not a court; so does our Congress. But it can humiliate, disgrace,
and ruin. The Christians once knew the names of the martyrs
who appeared before the High Commission, and their arguments.
Americans no longer recall the period, and have lost sight of the
reasons as well as the history of the Fifth Amendment.
Of course, we still have a Constitution. But we are beginning to
learn or relearn what the framers of the Constitution knew when
they wrote it: that parchment barriersas Madison termed
themare poor protections against overbearing majorities. Even
an absolute constitutional prohibition can dissolve in the event of
an emergency or public alarm.6
Even the Reverend Samuel Stillman, defending the Constitution
during the debates on ratification, admitted such fears were
realistic. Who are the Congress? he asked. They are ourselves,
the men of our choice. But he admitted that a constitution could
not, by itself, protect a nation against tyranny. Nothing could
safeguard the liberties of the people unless they watch their own
liberties, he said. Nothing written on paper can do this.
Many Americans do not seem to know that. They expect their
6. Leonard Levy, The Origins of the Fifth Amendment (New York: Oxford
University Press, n.d.) 413.
67
liberties to be guarded for them, as though officialdom plays the

role of parents and the people are children.
To a great extent I think these illusions have been fostered by a
sloganized history that glides smoothly over all harsh facts. The
Bible, as {59} every Christian knows, contains the history of an
ancient people without disguise. Their sins of pride, envy, lust, of
all the cardinal sins, are plainly stated. Yet that history, suffused
with the Presence and the Majesty of God, has lifted the hearts and
enlarged the minds of this civilization and energized it to a high
peak in the long, painful annals of the human race.
If the history of the American people were as simply and
honestly narrated, it would have the same effect. For the Hand of
God is with us, as surely as it was with the ancient Hebrews. His
Presence is eternal; in no part of the world is it absent.
The history of the Constitution of the United States, like all other
aspects of our national history, reflects the changes in American
society and government through the years. To understand these
changes it is essential to understand that history as it was, and
ourselves as we are. Yet we have as a nation failed to confront the
truth of our history in many important respects.
To acknowledge truth requires recognition that original sin
exists in us all, and that all discoverable facts must be confronted
in all circumstances. This should not lead to recriminations or
condemnation; everyone is fallible, and all men err. God allows
error. Men should not deny to one another what God allows.
Recognition of error is, after all, the first step in its repair.
The present decline of the United States, visible on all sides and
blared throughout the world, can only be checked and reversed if
Christianity is restored to its early prominence among us. Let us,
therefore, abandon the legend that the Constitution is intact, and
set about the task of Christian Reconstructionand constitutional
restoration.
68
2.
POLITICAL THEOLOGY
AND ACTION
The New Christian Right
69

and the Ideology of
Counter-Secularism
Daniel Dreisbach
The rise and success of the new religious political right as a potent
political phenomenon in America has been the subject of a
growing body of academic literature and intense media attention.
Its political leadership and organization have been extensively
scrutinized; however, such investigations have neglected a study of
the ideological, and related theological, contours of the movement.
The latter is significant since, as a pervasively religious movement,
theology is an essential ingredient in their ideology.
This coalition of fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals,
with old right politicians, is characterized by little organizational
unity, although its detractors erroneously perceive it as a
monolithic force. The various interest groups and political action
committees of the American Right compete for a limited market of
potential members and sources of revenue among their collective
constituency. The religious leaders are often strong personalities
who begrudge sharing their platform with less faithful or
persuasive voices. The representative denominations and churches
dogmatically advocate varying doctrinal positions on which
there is little latitude for compromise. Indeed, it has been noted
by scholars such as James Barr1 that inherent in the Protestant
fundamentalist dogma and doctrine, which undoubtedly
constitutes the largest {61} religious element of the coalition, are
forces perpetuating a fragmentation of their congregations. Given
these forces of disunity, the Christian Right has found concurrent
interests and sources of consistent cooperation in a shared
1. See James Barr, Fundamentalism (London: SCM Press, 1977), 187.
70
ideology based on a common perception of the role of church and

state in society.
Review of Existing Literature

In the last five years there has been a phenomenal proliferation
of literature on the New Christian Right in America. Some of
this work has been highly impressionistic, while other studies
have sought to be more academic and biographical. Much of
the scholarship on the Christian Right has been adequate and
accurate as far as describing the organization and management of
this political coalition and identifying its political leadership and
constituency; however, there have been large differences in the
theories advanced to account for the rise of this religious/political
movement. And there has been even less success in analyzing the
ideology of this political phenomenon. Indeed, beyond political
conservatism and biblical inerrancy, the unifying political and
theological ideology of the Christian Political Action Movement
(CPAM) has been largely ignored.
By way of review and example, it will be necessary to look
briefly at the themes of the critical literature on the CPAM. These
seem to fall into a number of categories. First, a popular theme is
to compare the movement to the McCarthyism of the 50s and the
fervour of the Goldwater campaign of 1964. One critical newsletter
headlined its content by asking: Is it the Second Comingof
McCarthy?1 Professor Daniel C. Maguire, founder of Moral
Alternatives, described the legislative agenda of the coalition as
a Blueprint for a Fascist Family.2 Less histrionic analyses of this
type have utilized the late Richard Hofstadters model outlined
in The Paranoid Style in American Politics.3 Characteristic of this
genre, anticommunist rhetoric of the Old Right is compared
with the literature of the New Christian Right which has largely
substituted the communist threat with a more encompassing
bogeymansecular humanism. While Professor Hofstadters
1. Is It the Second Coming of McCarthy? Interchange 4, no. 3.
2. Daniel C. Maguire, The New Subversives (New York: Continuous Publishing
Co., 1982).
3. Richard Hofstadter, The Paranoid Style in American Politics (London:
Jonathan Cape, 1964).
71
comments on the paranoid style are suggestive references, as

Hofstadter concedes, this model is necessarily and calculatingly
biased in its pejorative implications. Moreover, there is a
strong tendency to dismiss summarily the intellectual merits of
a movements programs or rationale if it has been characterized
as paranoid. A further limitation of this presentation is that {62}
it sees such a movements agenda, described as overheated, oversuspicious, overaggressive, grandiose, and apocalyptic,4 as wholly
incompatible with other established movements and ideologies.
This also ignores the Christian Rights ambitious programs to
reconstruct American society.
A second theoretical line has sought to describe the Christian
Right as a measured response to the increasingly politically active
mainline Protestant denominations. The reactionary politics of
the CPAM is seen as a counterstrategy to the liberation theology
morally and financially supported by the World Council of
Churches and its American affiliates. This reasoning is credible
given that theological conservatives such as Francis Schaeffer and
Rousas John Rushdoony have asserted that liberal theology is
only humanism in its theological terms.5 Since humanism is seen
by the Christian Right as an antithetical worldview to Christian
theism, this is a substantial basis for a countermovement. Related
to this theme is the Christian Rights strong denunciation of those
advocating a secularization of society and the church, such as
Harvey Cox in The Secular City,6 or organizations, such as the
American Civil Liberties Union, proposing a strict separation of
religious influences and the state.
A third theory is ably argued by Robert Webber in The Moral
Majority: Right or Wrong? Dr. Webber, of Wheaton College,
contends that the Moral Majority, and presumably the Christian
Right generally, is calling for, perhaps unknowingly, ...a
restoration of civil religion.7 That is a blending of the Christian
4. Ibid., 4.
5. Francis A. Schaeffer, A Christian Manifesto (Westchester, IL: Crossway
Books, 1981), 50.
6. Harvey Cox, The Secular City (New York: MacMillan, 1966).
7. Robert Webber, The Moral Majority: Right or Wrong? (Westchester, IL:
Crossway Books, 1981), 39.
72
faith with national goals and destiny which blurs the distinction
between the church and the nation and shifts faith toward a
religion of nationalism.8 In this analysis, the Christian Right is
simply seeking to utilize the political system, and allowing the state
to use religion, for a return to a moralism which does not involve
a radical commitment to Jesus Christ and his church.9 Webber
and fellow students embracing this view draw largely from the
scholarly foundations laid by Linder and Pierard in Twilight of the
Saints: Biblical Christianity and Civil Religion in America.10 In this
and other volumes, Linder and Pierard painstakingly document
the American tendency toward civil religiosity from the nations
founding to the rise of the Christian Right in the last decade.
A fourth theme is typified by Conway and Siegleman in Holy
Terror, which describes the Christian Right as a cult phenomenon
(a claim which inevitably engenders paranoia in all sectors of
society) bent on subversive tactics to further its own political
ends.11 This highly vitriolic {63} approach characterizes the
Christian Right as a movement purposefully fostering a climate
of repression, chaos, and intimidation in order to subvert social
stability through the pursuit of unprecedented power in the
hands of a small group of fundamentalist preachers and political
strategists. Implicit (and at times explicit) in this approach is a
linking of the growth of conservative Protestantism in America and
the concurrent rise of fundamentalist sects in other global regions,
such as Shiite fanatacism in Khomeinis Iran, ultraorthodox
Judaism in Israel, and Sikh separatists on the Indian subcontinent.
Americas fundamentalist right, argues Conway and Siegleman,
is integrally linked to this new imperialist threat.12
And finally, there is the argument that the movement is
motivated by what psychology describes as projection. This
theory suggests that fear of latent perverse sexual tendencies, or,
8. Ibid., 38.
9. Ibid., 51.
10. Richard V. Pierard and Robert D. Linder, Twilight of the Saints: Biblical
Christianity and Civil Religion in America (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity
Press, 1978).
11. See Flo Conway and Jim Siegelman, Holy Terror (Garden City, NY:
Doubleday Co., 1982).
12. Ibid., 314.
73
worse still, the actual practice of these perversities has motivated

the CPAM leadership. The inordinate attention paid by the
Christian Right to issues such as homosexuality and lesbianism,
pornography, prostitution, womens rights, and related issues is
produced as evidence to support this view. Perry Deane Young,
a homosexual journalist, in Gods Bullies, notes that several
prominent leaders of the Christian Right have been dramatically
exposed as hypocritical in their denunciation of homosexuality.13
As noted previously, conspicuously absent from existing
literature is a serious examination of the sources of ideological
unity within the CPAM, and the union of that ideology with the
Christian Rights extensive agenda. The religious factors evident in
the movements platform have been minimally explored, leaving
analysis of the coalition varying little from that of secular rightwing movements of the past three decades. Given the religious
content of the movements literature and constituent interests,
omission of its pervasively religious character can only handicap
analysis of the movement. Moreover, little has been written on the
Christian Rights views on church and state, which is surprising,
given the often-voiced criticism that the movement seeks to
alter the status quo. This essay seeks to address these questions
remaining unanswered in existing literature.
The view advocated in this essay, while not totally in opposition
to elements of the first theories described above, is that the CPAM
is a coalition of diverse interest groups which are loosely bound
by a unifying ideology of counter-secularism. While there are
numerous contributing factors to the rise and apparent success of
the movement, ideological {64} consistency is found in a commonly
held and advocated doctrine of constitutional (First and Fourteenth
Amendments) revisionism. This approach seeks to restore what
the Christian Right perceives to be the historic role of theism in
government and society. The revisionist theme is crucial to the
maintenance and perpetuation of the Christian Right coalition
in that it defines in important legal, political, and public policy
terms their primary objective of redressing the ascendancy of
secularism and its attendant social and political values. Moreover,
13. See Perry Deane Young, Gods Bullies: Power Politics and Religious Tyranny
(New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1982).
74
this theme maximizes the basis for political unity within the
alliance, while minimizing other theological considerations upon
which the diverse constituent members in the religious coalition
may disagree. This analysis, while not ignoring the socioeconomic
factors which have played a contributing role in the movements
success, seeks to explore the ideological sources of unity and
consistency.
As plausible explanations of the Christian Right phenomenon,
the initial theories presented above have been largely inadequate
in that they have failed to account for or reveal the ideological
consistency, which the theory based on constitutional revisionism
affords. The revisionist ideology, which will be identified and
advanced in the remainder of the essay, accommodates for the
diverse planks manifest in the Christian Rights platform and
legislative agenda. Other theories of the movement inevitably
break down when they strive to account for their diverse agenda,
or they fail to show their political, legal (constitutional), and social
objection and refutation of secular humanism, which all observers
agree is the Christian Rights greatest dread.
One of the few statements conceding ideological unity within
the coalition is put forward by one critical, yet sympathetic,
observer:
Yet the New Right is materializing as one of the few political
phenomena in recent American history which originates in a
coherent, comprehensive, rich theory of ideological perceptions. It
has an intellectual framework, and it presents a complex structure
of social sentiments. It cannot be taken lightlynot only because
of its political impact, but also because of its spiritual components.
However, its location in the American political spectrum may
constitute its most significant uniqueness. It is the first rightwing formulation in a long time to substitute thinking for cheap
emotionalism and ratiocination for flimsy sloganeering.14

Before making any serious analysis of the New Christian Right,
it is {65} essential to formulate a minimum working definition of
14. Editorial Note, Rockford Papers 5, no. 5, The New Right (November
1980).
75
the political movement which is to be scrutinized. The Christian

Right is a significant segment of the more encompassing New
Right coalition which ostensibly advocates limited constitutional
government, strong national defense, individual liberty, freeenterprise economics, fiscal responsibility and restraint, a foreign
policy structured around a virulent anticommunist posture, and
the incorporation and perpetuation of traditional Judeo-Christian
theism and its attendant moral systems in American life and
society. As the appellation implies, the Christian Right is largely an
alliance of Christian political action committees, special interest
pressure groups, legislative education and lobbyist organizations,
religious broadcasters, political think tanks and foundations,
churches, and a various assortment of other organizational
bodies primarily religious in character and secondarily intent
on influencing the political management of American life and
government.
The coalition is predominantly, though not exclusively,
Protestant evangelical and fundamentalist in content. Conservative
Catholics, Mormons, and Orthodox Jews have entered cautiously
into the Christian Right alliance unevenly across the United States,
with varying degrees of enthusiasm; however, it has been left to the
Protestants to sustain and perpetuate the movement. That is not to
suggest that these latter groups do not have general sympathies
with Christian Right positionsindeed, conservative Roman
Catholics have contributed greatly to the New Right leadership and
may have preceded most fundamentalists to the counter-humanist
and pro-life debates. The Mormonsnotably Brigham Young
University Law Schoolhave recently contributed enormously
to Christian Right counter-secularist scholarship. The Orthodox
Jewish community, perhaps the weakest link in the coalition, has
been much less vocal. What this does indicate is that the minority
groups in the coalition demonstrate greater flexibility in opting in
or out of the alliance on specific issues depending on the strength
of their convictions. For example, many conservative Roman
Catholics who represented the backbone of the pro-life movement
have demonstrated little reticence in following the Roman Catholic
bishops in supporting the nuclear freeze movement, much to
the dismay of hard-line national defense proponents in the New
Right. This clearly illustrates the potential instability and fragility
76
of the entire Christian Right coalition. The relative dominance of

Protestant fundamentalists and evangelicals in the New Christian
Right is perhaps due to their greater {66} willingness to organize
through their congregations and church ministriespromoting
their agenda from the pulpit.
The New Christian Right has a recognizable identity created by
a common style of organization and promotion. Firstly, member
groups often use the same style of organization and operating
machinery, such as direct mailing, political action committees, and
television promotion ministries. Secondly, the network of political
action committees and interest groups share a common perception
of themselves as a viable and influential political movement. This
perception (or misperception) is further generated by the mass
news media which have exploited the strength of the coalition
to the mutual benefit of both institutions. (Some critics have
argued that the media have wildly exaggerated the influence of
the movement, thus giving it an undeserved status in political
analysis.) Thirdly, many of the constituent organizations have a
common leadership and potential membership pool. The latter
is a likely source of conflict and friction within the alliance, as
fledgling Christian PACs compete for numerical and financial
support, many operating on shoe-string budgets. And finally, most
members of the network unequivocally advocate a similar agenda
and platform, utilizing the same rhetoric in their public relations
and literature. All these similarities of Christian Right groups
generate a public perception of a unified political movement
with common objectives, strategies, and constituents. It is worth
noting, however, that while the various groups in the New Right
Network have displayed remarkable cooperation for the common
good and have voluntarily agreed to allocations of function, each
retains its autonomy, meets regularly, and raises its own funds.15
In the two decades leading up to the emergence of the New
Christian Right in America, there were a number of specific
events and developments which created an environment ripe
for the rise of the movement. In terms that can be described as
15. Milton Ellerin and Alisa H. Kesten, The New Right: An Emerging Force
on the Political Scene, in Trends Analyses Report (New York: American Jewish
Committee, 1980), 2.
77
generators and facilitators, it shall be shown how the former

inspired individuals to political action and the latter provided a
general environment in which the movement could flourish.
Firstly, there are a number of long-term developments which
have facilitated the extension of the Christian Right. Initially,
there was the general conservative trend in America, increasingly
apparent since the Johnson administration. This trend was
prophesied in Kevin Phillipss seminal study, The Emerging
Republican Majority,16 and, some would say, consummated in the
1980 election of Ronald Reagan. Crucial to this {67} development
was the emergence of the secular New Right which has created the
umbrella under which the CPAM has been able to organize and
operate.
Secondly, there was a growing sophistication in right-wing
camps in the use of modern electioneering technology. This is
clearly illustrated in the mastery of direct mail technology by the
Richard Viguerie Company, the technological centerpiece of the
New Right. This technological facility has not only been useful
in raising financial support but has also assisted the PACs in
disseminating their political message.
A third facilitator was the passage of post-Watergate election
laws and regulations affecting the structure and financing of
political campaigns. Emerging from the amendments to the
1974 Federal Election Campaign Act were a new breed of more
aggressive political action committees which were customdesigned for the intentions of special interest groups and the
mobilization of political novices who filled the pews of Protestant
churches.
Fourthly, there was a proliferation of highly visible television
ministries of politically concerned fundamentalist evangelists. The
medium of Gospel television, pioneered by Rex Humbard, Oral
Roberts, and Billy Graham, found new, enthusiastic faces and
highly technical programming bursting onto the small screen in
the persons of Jerry Falwell and The Old Time Gospel Hour, Pat
Robertson and The 700 Club, Jim Bakker and The PTL Club, and
16. Kevin Phillips, The Emerging Republican Majority (New Rochelle, NY:
Arlington House, 1969).
78
James Robison and his various television specials.17 These men

found television both an explosive instrument by which they
could daily educate and expose their audience to pressing issues
and concerns and a means to raise substantial sums of financial
revenue to support political advertising, lobbying, and election
financing.
A fifth facilitator was a switch in right-wing strategy of the late
60s and early 70s from one which encouraged the formation and
participation in a third Independent American political party to
one which encouraged a mass migration to the Republican Party.
Almost immediately this infiltration was felt, with many local
parties experiencing a swift turnover in leadership. The injection
of right-wing support was recognized at the national level when
by the 1980 National Convention the New Right/Christian Right
had wrested substantial control of the influential GOP platform
committee from other segments of the party. This shift gave
right-wing enthusiasts a viable and reputable base from which
to disseminate their ideology. It bears mentioning, despite the
Republican base of many New Rightists, that most adherents still
preferred {68} ideological purity to strict party loyalty, and they
have refused to support candidates simply because they were
Republicans.18
Finally, a sixth facilitator was the campaign and election of
Jimmy Carter. In more than most recent presidential campaigns,
candidate Carter drew attention to his born-again status and
religious affiliation with the conservative Southern Baptist
Convention.19 Many fundamentalist churchgoers who had for
decades shunned politics were recruited into supporting a fellow
17. For more information on the role of the television ministries in the
Christian Right coalition see Erling Jorstad, The Politics of Moralism (Minneapolis,
MN: Augsburg Publishing House, 1981); Ben Armstrong, The Electric Church
(Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 1979); Jeffrey Hadden and Charles E. Swann,
Prime-time Preachers: The Rising Power of Televangelism (Reading, MA: AddisonWesley, 1981); and George Vecsey, Militant Television Preachers Try to Wield
Fundamentalist Christians Political Power, New York Times, January 21, 1980,
21.
18. Ellerin and Kesten, The New Right, 3.
19. For more on Jimmy Carter and his religious faith see David Kucharsky,
The Man from Plains: The Mind and Spirit of Jimmy Carter (London: William
Collins Sons, 1976).
79
evangelical, although the Carter presidency was to prove a bitter

betrayal for many fundamentalists convictions. The result was a
hostile backlash which assured his 1980 electoral defeat just as
surely as it had won it for him four years earlier. Nevertheless, the
cycle of nonparticipation was broken, and many evangelicals were
brought into the political foray for the first time.20
Mass participation in the New Christian Right has been
generated by a handful of major issues and a host of minor
frustrations which have crossed the American political stage
in the last generation. Generally, these have been enormously
controversial issues which have inspired an intensely hostile
reaction among conservative Protestants and the general public
as a whole. The first of these generators to be considered is the
family of school prayer decisions, beginning with Engle v. Vitale
(1962),21 handed down by the Supreme Court in the early 60s.
These opinions, effectively banning affirmative religious exercise
in the public-school classroom, convinced most American
Christians that the Supreme Court was using the Constitution to
favor irreligion over traditional theism, thereby establishing a
religion of secular humanism. Hostility towards these decisions
was immediately recognized and has been sustained by the public
for the past two decades.
A second Supreme Court ruling which inspired greater political
action among conservative Protestants and Catholics was the
1973 decision of Roe v. Wade22 conditionally affirming the right
of women to terminate a pregnancy. For conservative Protestants
and Roman Catholics who doctrinally teach that life begins at the
moment of conception, this opinion was tantamount to legalized
murder. The right-to-life movement, which burgeoned in the
wake of the decision, laid a solid institutional framework and
conducted the initial mobilization that the Moral Majority and
Christian Voice could capture for their broader political vision.23
20. This argument is made by Perry Deane Young in Gods Bullies, 19-35.
21. Engle v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962); see also Abington Township School
District v. Schempp and Murray v. Curlett, 374 U.S. 203 (1963).
22. Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973).
23. Robert Zwier, Born-Again Politics: The New Christian Right in America
(Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1982), 25.
80
A third generator was the proposed Equal Rights Amendment

(ERA) to be Constitution. The ERA seriously challenged the
tradition {69} ally understood biblical role of women as taught in
fundamentalist and many evangelical churches. Phyllis Schlaflys
Stop-ERA Committee was instrumental in involving many
Christians in the political process for the first time, including a
substantial corps of volunteer women who have traditionally
provided the core of political campaign volunteers.
A variety of legislation seeking to extend official minority status
to homosexuals, thus institutionalizing preferred legal protection,
was the basis of a fourth generator. Special referendums in Dade
County, Florida, and in California, in 1977 and 1978 respectively,
were widely publicized test cases for the strength of both gayrights activists and conservative fundamentalist opposition. The
apparent success of the Christian opposition clearly encouraged
New Right political strategists that a potential political army in
conservative Protestant camps was ready for mobilization.
A fifth generator was revealed when the Internal Revenue Service
announced that it was considering revoking the tax-exempt status
of private schools that failed to meet certain standards of racial
integration. Intended to urge the racial integration of the socalled white-flight schools which blossomed in the American
South following the 1954 desegregation ruling in Brown v. Board
of Education,24 the IRSs decision released an unprecedented
storm of protest among fundamentalists whose extensive and
expanding Christian day-school movement would have been
seriously threatened by the implementation of the measures.
The IRS, under congressional pressure, was forced to back down,
and in December 1978, it held three days of highly publicized
public hearings in Washington, DC, on the proposals.25 For the
Christian Right it demonstrated above all ... that the government
would respond to a mass protest and that such a protest could
be stimulated through the mass mailing techniques and clergy
24. Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954).

25. See Martin Claussen and Evelyn B. Claussen, eds., The Voice of Christian
and Jewish Dissenters in America: U.S. Internal Revenue Service on Proposed
Discrimination Tax Controls over Christian, Jewish, and Secular Private Schools,
December 5, 6, 7, 8, 1978 (Washington, DC: Piedmont Press, 1982).
81
appeals they were increasingly employing.26

Among the host of minor ongoing frustrations which
unquestionably inspired Protestant political activities were the
failure of creation science equal-time legislation, sex education
in public schools, school busing for racial integration, and the
alleged moves by the Federal Communications Commission to
regulate religious broadcasting. Common in all these generators
was the fear that each event marked a serious departure from the
conventional wisdom and practice of Christian theism previously
ascendant in American life and culture and signaled a precarious
descent into the antithetical dogmas of secularism. Obviously, {70}
each perceived affirmation of a secularist position threatened the
once-favored status of Christian theism and sounded an ominous
warning for the politically inactive Christian community. The
potential political strength of the community was not unnoticed
by those strategists who sought to mobilize the parishioners by
appealing to their instincts for religious survival.
As indicated above, members of the New Christian Right share
a common agenda and platform. It is understandable, given
it is a loose coalition, that its constitutent groups sometimes
work together and at other times choose to work separately on
specific issues.27 Nevertheless, specific planks in the Christian
Right platform can be categorized under three headings: family
and moral issues, economic issues, and foreign relations issues.
Briefly, the family issues are best summed up in the thirty-eight
provisions of the Family Protection Act which include the denial
of federal funds for states that proscribe prayer in public buildings,
the teaching of value clarification and behavior modification
courses, tax exemption and tuition tax credits for private schools
and their pupils respectively, restraint on federal regulation of
churches and religious institutions, and a restriction on Legal
Services Corporation funds being used in litigation in defense of
abortion rights, school desegregation, divorce proceedings, and
homosexual rights. The most prominent economic issues include
promotion of a free-enterprise economy, a balanced federal budget
26. Zwier, Born-Again Politics, 26.
27. Virginia Armstrong, In Defense of the New Right, Christian Legal
Society Quarterly 3, nos. 1 and 2 (1982): 22.
82
(and debt reduction), limited government regulation of business

and industry, severe limitations on social welfare programs, and
a restraint on labor union activity. The foreign affairs planks of
greatest concern to the Christian Right are a strong national
defense posture (as the best deterrent to war28), an unequivocal
containment of communism and communist regimes, and support
for the independent state of Israel.
Ideology of Counter-Secularism
It is the contention of this essay that the Christian Rights
political unity of purpose and action is itself based on a common
set of ideas, in particular on a common interpretation of the
relationship between the institutions of church and state in
America. The Christian Right is unanimous in its disdain and
denunciation of the recent legal and constitutional doctrines on
the separation of church and state as embodied and applied in the
First and Fourteenth Amendments. In response to the secularist
view, the theological and political leadership of American {71}
right-wing thinkers has promulgated a revisionist theory of
the separation doctrine. This interpretation, which reflects the
movements own intellectual heritage and constituent interests, is
substantially based on a reinterpretation of the First Amendment.
Central to the Religious Rights ideological perception and
intellectual framework is a common abhorrence (or paranoia)
of a worldview which they call secular humanism. Writes Kevin
Phillips:
...[B]efore turning to the significance of the Religious Rights
political involvement, it may be useful to summarize the groups two
major philosophic thrusts-cum-complaints. First, they perceive,
and deplore, humanism gaining force in society. The essence of
that credo...is to assert that the human being is the measure of value,
with man occupying the center of his own universe. Thus morals,
being man-made, become malleable, not absolutes grounded in the
divine authority of the Bible.
The second fundamentalist complaint is against secularism,
against the trend toward a godless society given to political
28. Jerry Falwell, ed., with Ed Dobson and Ed Hindson, The Fundamentalist
Phenomenon (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1981), 190.
83
relativism and divorced from any system containing clear moral

purpose.29
What Kevin Phillips and others have neglected to explain is how this
dread of humanism and secularismcollectively known as secular
humanismis seen by the Christian Right as a philosophical coup
perpetrated on American society and culture. This is believed to
be accomplished through the careful, yet subtle, manipulation of
the intentions of the First Amendment and through a denial of the
Christian character of the American people and the institutions
upon which the republic was founded.
It is essential to expand on the Christian Rights definition of
secular humanism since it is so crucial to understanding their
ideology. One of the most important definitions of secular
humanism, in terms of influence in conservative Christian
literature, is that put forward by Whitehead and Conlan in their
Texas Tech Law Review article, The Establishment of the Religion
of Secular Humanism and Its First Amendment Implications.30
They present their definition in calculated contrast to their
interpretation of Christian theism.
Secularism is a doctrinal belief that morality is based solely in
regard to the temporal well-being of mankind to the exclusion of
all belief in God, a supreme being, or a future eternity. Humanism
is a philosophy or attitude that is concerned with human beings,
their achievement and interests, and the condition or quality of
being human, rather than with the abstract beings and problems of
theology. {72} Secularism is nontheistic and humanism is secular
because it excludes the basic tenets of theism. Therefore, Secular
Humanism is nontheistic. However, while Secular Humanism is
nontheistic, it is religious because it directs itself toward religious
beliefs and practices that are in active opposition to traditional
theism. Humanism is a doctrine centered solely on human
interests or values. Therefore, humanism deifies Man collectively
and individually, whereas theism worships God. Moreover, while
humanism draws its values and absolutes from the finite reasoning
29. Kevin Phillips, Post-Conservative America (New York: Random House,
1982), 185.
30. John Whitehead and John Conlan, The Establishment of the Religion
of Secular Humanism and Its First Amendment Implications, Texas Tech Law
Review 10, no. 1 (1978).
84
of relativistic Man, theism has received its values and absolutes

through the revelation of the infinite Deity or Creator.31
They proceed to identify the central tenets of the secular humanist

religion as, firstly, a denial of the relevance of deity or supernatural
agencies; secondly, belief in the supremacy of human reason;
thirdly, belief in the inevitability of progress; fourthly, belief in
science as the guide to human progress and the ultimate provider
of an alternative to both religion and morals; fifthly, belief in the
self-sufficiency and centrality of man; and sixthly, belief in the
absolutism of evolution.
As a religious movement, the Christian Right could seek to
define, and ultimately confront, the antithetical worldview of
secularism, with its obvious moral and religious underpinning,
in terms of theology, sociology, politics, or any combination
thereof. Conservative Christianity has undertaken to articulate
a theological response which is increasiningly becoming a
central theme in its literature and seminary curriculum. Socially,
conservative Christianitys strategy of confronting secular
humanism is demonstrated in their aggressive evangelism and
the phenomenal growth of fundamentalist and evangelical
denominations, and their congregations and related ministries,
such as the Christian day school.32 First Amendment revisionism,
expanded below, provides the political response needed by the
CPAM to confront secularism similarly in political and legal
terms.
First Amendment
The First Amendment religion clauses and its articulation of
church-state separation are perhaps the most innovative, if not
most original, asset of the American Constitution. Writes Robert
L. Cord, Separation of Church and State is probably the most
distinctive concept that the American constitutional system has
contributed to the body of political ideas.33 To be sure, the idea of
31. Ibid., 2930.
32. See Dean M. Kelley, Why Conservative Churches are Growing (New York:
Harper and Row, 1977).
33. Robert L. Cord, Separation of Church and State: Historical Fact and
Current Fiction, intro. William F. Buckley Jr. (New York: Lambeth Press, 1982),
85
free exercise of ones faith apart from the coercive pressure of the
state had been developing in the minds of men since the Protestant
Reformation; however, the United {73} States Constitution was the
first significant political document of its kind to institutionalize
such a concept. It represented a radical departure from the
European practice of State support and control of religion.34
Generally attributed to the pen of James Madison, the two
religious clauses of the First Amendment read:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof....
While the language may be simple and concise, its meaning has
not been altogether clear for the successive generations of judges,
scholars, and laymen who have sought to apply the amendment
to public policy and practice. The last half century, following
the nationalization of the amendment under the Fourteenth
Amendment, has seen the controversy over its correct interpretation
heat up into one of the most volatile debates in constitutional and
public policy circles. The phrase First Amendment, observes
William F. Buckley Jr., has acquired an incantatory power wholly
independent of its historical provenance, or even its plain language.
In liberal rhetoric it represents the center of gravity of the entire
Constitution.... The First Amendment has become less a safeguard
against religion than a religion in itself.35
Central to the discussion is the question, does the amendment
embody a doctrine of strict church-state separation? If so, how
is one accurately to interpret and apply that doctrine? When
one speaks of the separation of church and state in the context
of American tradition and law, one speaks of the American
Constitutions First Amendment religion clauses, although one
does not read the precise terminology of separation. Nevertheless,
such is the language which many have seen to encapsulate the
letter and spirit of the religion clauses. Stated simply, two distinct
and opposite interpretations of the clauses have emerged from the
xiii.
34. J. Marcellus Kik, Church and State (New York: Thomas Nelson and Sons,
1963), 103.
35. William F. Buckley Jr., intro. to Cord, Separation of Church and State (New
York: Lambeth Press, 1982), ix.
86
last two centuries of experience.
Pfeffer School
First, there is the broad application of the clauses which asserts,
as do constitutional lawyer Leo Pfeffer and the Supreme Court
justice Hugo L. Black in the 1947 Everson bus transportation case,
that:
...the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the
Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws
which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over
another. Neither can {74} force nor influence a person to go to or to
remain away from church against his will or force him to profess
a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished
for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for
church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount,
large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or
institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they
may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the
Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the
affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In
the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion
by law was intended to erect a wall of separation between church
and state.36
Advocates of strict separation have heartily embraced Jeffersons
metaphoric phrase, A Wall of Separation,37 in their contention
that the First Amendment rests upon the premise that both
religion and government can best work to achieve their lofty aims
if each is left free from the other within its respective sphere.38
The dean of the separationist school, Leo Pfeffer, former general

consul to the American Jewish Congress and an American Civil
Liberties Union advisory consul, has participated in most church-
36. Leo Pfeffer, Church, State, and Freedom, rev. ed. (Boston: Beacon Press,
1967), 14950; see also Justice Blacks opinion of the Court in Everson v. Board of
Education, 330 U.S. 1, at 15, 16 (1947).
37. See Thomas Jeffersons letter of January 1, 1802, to the Danbury Baptist
Association, Connecticut.
38. McCollum v. Board of Education, 333 U.S. 203 (1948).
87
state litigation reaching the Supreme Court since the 1950s.39

Through his numerous books, tracts, and legal counsel, Pfeffer has
unflaggingly campaigned for a secular state enforcing an absolute
separation of church and state. Predictably, Pfeffers concept of
separation rejects, among other things, voluntary participation
in prayer, Bible reading, or religious instruction in public schools
during or outside class time, posting of the Ten Commandments
on public school walls, equal time instruction for creation-science
and evolution-science, tuition tax credits for parents of private
school pupils, tax exemption for religious institutions, the use
of a Christian definition of life (beginning at the moment of
conception) in anti-abortion litigation or statutes, and Christian
Right opposition to minority status for homosexuals.40 Since 1947,
Pfeffers view, given his reputation both with the Supreme Court
and in legal circles and the weight attached to the seminal Everson
opinion, has enjoyed greater currency in the nations courts and
law schools.
Revisionist School
Alternatively, there is the revisionist school which holds a
narrow interpretation. (The descriptive term revisionist, like
the word fundamentalist, should in no way be construed as
pejorative. In times when progress is prized as the greatest of
attributes, revisionism refers to {75} an earlier, if not original,
positionwhile it is not necessarily to be seen as outdated as its
detractors might indicate.) Constitutional revisionism, which is a
characteristic view of the Christian Right, asserts that:
...the First Amendment [religion clauses] was intended to
accomplish three purposes. First, it was intended to prevent the
establishment of a national church or religion, or the giving of any
religious sect or denomination a preferred status. Second, it was
designed to safeguard the right of freedom of conscience in religious
beliefs against invasion solely by the national Government. Third,
39. For more on the career of Leo Pfeffer see Frank Sorauf, The Wall of
Separation: The Constitutional Politics of Church and State (Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press, 1976), 15862.
40. See Leo Pfeffer, The Separation of Church and State, in Speak Out against
the New Right, ed. Herbert F. Vetter (Boston: Beacon Press, 1982), 7582.
88
it was so constructed in order to allow the States, unimpeded, to

deal with religious establishments and aid to religious institutions
as they saw fit. There appears to be no historical evidence that the
First Amendment was intended to preclude Federal governmental
aid to religion when it was provided on a nondiscriminatory
basis. Nor does there appear to be any historical evidence that the
First Amendment was intended to provide an absolute separation
or independence of religion and the national state. The actions
of the early Congresses and Presidents, in fact, suggest quite the
opposite.41
The emphasis was initially on a separation of the federal

government and any specific church, but it was not extended in
intention or design to a separation of the church and the various
state governments. Indeed, a majority of the states ratifying the
amendment had an established church, and representatives of the
Constitutional Convention rejected a proposal seeking to apply a
nonestablishment clause to the various states. The disestablishment
of state churches, writes historian Rousas John Rushdoony, was
a necessary consequence of the Amendment, but it was not its
stated and primary purpose.42 The design of the amendment was
to proscribe the establishment of a specific church by the national
legislature; moreover, it was the consensus in the new republic
that general Christian principles, which constituted the basic
ethos of the American people, were to form the basic foundation
to American government and society. A leading constitutional
expert of his day and Supreme Court justice, Joseph Story (1779
1845), wrote in his seminal Commentaries on the Constitution of
the United States:
Probably at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, and of the
[first] amendment to it...the general if not the universal sentiment
in America was, that Christianity ought to receive encouragement
from the state so far as was not incompatible with the private rights
of conscience and the freedom of religious worship. An attempt to
level all religions, and to make it a matter of state policy to hold all
in utter indifference, would have created universal disapprobation,
41. Cord, Separation of Church and State, 15.

42. Rushdoony, The Freedom of the Church, Chalcedon Position Paper, no.
16.
89
if not universal indignation....43 {76}
This sentiment, argues the Christian Right, contradicts the

now common misperception that the First Amendment was
inserted into the Bill of Rights to pave the way for a secular state.
This concept, responds the Christian Right, would have been
unthinkable to those who framed the First Amendment. Writes
Schaeffer, It is, therefore, totally foreign to the basic nature of
America at the time of the writing of the Constitution to argue a
separation doctrine that implies a secular state.44
The ominous consequences of this secularist interpretation of
the Amendment, according to the Christian revisionists, is that the
separation doctrine is used to silence the church.45 It is used,
writes Franky Schaeffer, as an easily identifiable rallying point, to
subdue the opinions of that vast body of citizens who represent
those with religious convictions.46 However, rightly interpreted,
the separation, as noted above, is a limited legal provision, not a
moral nor a spiritual separation.47
In a humanist political system where the state (rather than God)
is sovereign, argues the Christian Right, not only is religion
in addition to the churchseparated from the state, but it is
deliberately attaching the state to the church.48 This is a complete
reverse from the First Amendments initial intentions which sought
to provide freedom for religion, not freedom from religion.49
In contrast to the humanist state system, writes Whitehead, The
separation of church and state, however, properly understood,
is a strong basis for urging that the state has no authority over
43. Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, vol. 2,
2nd ed. (1851), 59395.
44. Schaeffer, Christian Manifesto, 34; see also Buckley Jr., intro. to Cord,
Separation of Church and State, xi.
45. Schaeffer, Christian Manifesto, 36.
46. Franky Schaeffer V, Plan for Action (Old Tappan, NJ: Revell Co., 1980),
3637.
47. Kik, Church and State, 116.
48. Clayton L. Nuttall, The Conflict: The Separation of Church and State
(Schaumburg, IL: Regular Baptist Press, 1980), 123.
49. John Whitehead, The Separation Illusion (Milford, MI: Mott Media, 1977),
91; see also R.J. Rushdoony, The Nature of the American System (Fairfax, VA:
Thoburn Press, 1978), 4.
90
Christian schools50 and other religious ministries. This contention

is supported by the second of the two religion clauses which
asserts the right of freedom of conscience and the free exercise of
ones faith.
The notion that religion and religious principles can be
separated from the state, or that the state can maintain religious
neutrality, affirms Rushdoony, is not only impossible, but it is a
dangerous myth. The very nature of government and its reliance
on laws and morality, which in turn are expressions of religion, of
ultimate concern, of a faith in what constitutes true and ultimate
order, precludes the religious neutrality of the modern state and
its supporting systems. Thus, it is meaningless to contend that the
state can or should be religiously neutral. People who indulge
in such talk are either ignorant of the nature of law and state
systems, or they are then working quietly to supplant one kind of
religion with another, to replace one doctrine of law and morality
with another doctrine derived from an alien religion.51 Implicit in
this {77} accusation is that strict separationists and their supposed
neutrality with respect to the claims of all religions [serve] to
mask an allegiance to another religion, humanism, which is the
new established religion of states, courts, and state schools of the
modern age.52
It is this latter alternative, the Christian Right contends, that
is the focal point of the current struggle in American legal and
social life. The conflict is evident in controversies such as abortion,
homosexual rights, creation science, and sex education where the
arguments rely on essentially moral and ethical propositions (and
their attendant religious dogmas). In short, the CPAM agenda,
specifically designed to rebut secularist ascendancy, is prefaced by
a constitutional refutation of the strict separationist interpretation
of the First Amendment and its nationalization under the
Fourteenth Amendment.
Illustrative of the frustration felt by the Christian Right, one
50. John Whitehead, The New Tyranny (Ft. Lauderdale, FL: Coral Ridge
Ministries, 1982), 33.
51. R.J. Rushdoony, Religion and the State, Chalcedon Report, no. 152 (April
1978).
52. R.J. Rushdoony, Wealth and the City, Chalcedon Position Paper, no. 28.
91
proponent of the movement writes:

The prevailing doctrine of the First Amendment, the one tirelessly
put forth by the anti-religious, is that religion should be excluded
entirely from public life unless it supports purely secularist
positions. This doctrine forever leaves the last word with the
secularists....[R]eligious opposition is excluded from the outset,
and for no other reason than that it is religious....Catholics would
be effectively disenfranchised whenever their political positions
could be shown to be distinctively Catholic.53
While the revisionists narrow interpretation has been largely
eclipsed by Pfeffer and Blacks pronouncements, constitutional
revisionism has lately enjoyed a revival of sorts. Numerous
polemical as well as scholarly analyses of the position have been
released in the last half decade. Judicially, this was heralded by
federal district judge W. Brevard Hands opinion in an Alabama
school prayer case, Jaffree v. Board of Commissioners of Mobile
County (decided January 14, 1983).54
This revisionist argument is presented for Christian political
activists with varying degrees of lucidity by a number of young
writers such as attorneys John W. Whitehead and Wendell Bird,
Christian school leader Alan Grover, and the Reverends Wallis
C. Metts, Kent Kelly, and Clayton Nuttall.55 Most acknowledge,
as does Whitehead in the preface to his tract, The New Tyranny,
that they draw inspiration primarily from two men who are the
fathers of many of the thoughts in this book, Dr. Francis Schaeffer
53. Joseph Sobran, Beyond the Moral Majority, Christian Legal Society
Quarterly 3, nos. 1 and 2 (1982): 20.
54. This opinion has been reprinted in the Congressional Record on the
request of Senator Jesse Helms (RNC), a leading congressional proponent of
constitutional revisionism. See Congressional Record (January 25, 1983): S 13949. The opinion has since been overturned.
55. See Whitehead, Separation Illusion; John Whitehead, The Second American
Revolution (Elgin, IL: David C. Cook, 1982); Whitehead, The New Tyranny;
Wendell Bird, Freedom from Establishment and Unneutrality in Public School
Instruction and Religious School Regulation, Harvard Journal of Law and Social
Policy 2 (1979); Wendell Bird, Freedom of Religion and Science Instruction in
Public Schools, Yale Law Journal 87, no. 3 (1978); Alan Grover, Ohios Trojan
Horse (Greenville, SC: Bob Jones University Press, 1977); Wallis C. Metts, Your
Faith on Trial (Greenville, SC: Bob Jones University Press, 1979); Kent Kelly, The
Separation of Church and Freedom (Southern Pines, NC: Calvary Press, 1980);
and Nuttall, The Conflict.
92
and Dr. Rousas John Rushdoony.56 Both men have consistently

stressed the Lordship of Christ in their widespread {78} ministries
and have written extensively on church-state issues. Additionally,
the thought and leadership of Roman Catholic attorney William
Bentley Ball, a lawyer who has successfully argued a number of
cases before the U.S. Supreme Court, is credited by a number of
New Rightists as seminal in the presentation of First Amendment
revisionism.57 While the above-named individuals may not be
directly associated with the CPAM, all have expressed sympathy
with the cause, and their works and ideas have surfaced in
the literature of prominent and more visible Christian Right
organizers and interest groups such as Jerry Falwell, Tim LaHaye,
Rus Walton, D. James Kennedy, and Pat Robertson. Supporting
evidence for the technical, legal, and historical arguments for
revisionism is frequently borrowed from the treatises of secular
scholars such as Michael Malbin, James McClellan, Charles Rice,
and Robert Cord.58 It is noteworthy that several of these men are
admirers of the New Right, if not outright supporters.
Proponents of this school, following the implication of
revisionism, adamantly claim authority for their position from
the authors of the Constitution and the prevailing legal opinion
prior to the nationalization of the First Amendment under the
due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment in Cantwell
v. Connecticut.59 Not surprisingly, those of the Pfeffer school argue
that theirs is an equally long and well-founded tradition.
56. Whitehead, New Tyranny, i.
57. For more on the career of William Bentley Ball see Sorauf, Wall of
Separation, 187.
58. See Michael J. Malbin, Religion and Politics: The Intentions of the Authors
of the First Amendment (Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute for
Public Policy Research, 1978); James McClellan, Joseph Story and the American
Constitution (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1971); Charles Rice,
Beyond Abortion: The Theory and Practice of the Secular State (Chicago: Franciscan
Herald, 1979); Cord, Separation of Church and State; and Cord, Understanding
the First Amendment, National Review, January 22, 1982, 2632.
59. Cantwell v Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296 (1940).
93
Role of Revisionism in Christian Right Ideology

At the risk of stating the obvious, the application and
enforcement of these antithetical interpretations will inevitably
have vastly different political and public-policy consequences.
Adherents of the broad application argue that their position
gives civil government a role of neutrality in its dealings with
all religions. This condition, so runs the argument, is essential
if the free exercise of ones conscience is to be respected by civil
authorities. The constitutional revisionist, on the other hand,
suggests that the broad interpretation not only separates the civil
government from the church, but effectively evicts religion (and its
moral base and values) from the state. We are a religious people
whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being, wrote Justice
Douglas,60 and to make such a bilateral separation not only denies
that heritage but, more dangerously, promotes a secularist society
devoid of divine blessing and positive moral influence.
The Christian Right has been sensitive to the accusation that
since {79} many of the leaders of the movement are ordained
ministers and lay-ministers of the church (representative of
various denominations), their incursions into the political arena
constitute a breach of the time-honored doctrine of separation of
church and state. Perhaps sensing vulnerability on this point, most,
if not all, of the major organizational members of the coalition
have sought to define themselves not as a religious organization
although they would not deny they are a religious peoplebut as
a non-partisan, special interest group.61
Likewise, they have seen it essential that the advent and
ascendancy of secular humanism be described and combatted in
the political arena, not only in theological terms, but in its legal
and political context as it relates to the American system. Hence,
the Christian Right has endeavored to illustrate how secular
humanism has been established by the secular manipulation
and domination of the First Amendment and its attendant,
60. Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U.S. 306 (1952).
61. For example, see An Interview with the Lone Ranger of American
Fundamentalism, Christianity Today, September 4, 1981, 24. Jerry Falwell
asserts that the Moral Majority is a political organization. Youre not going to
hear doctrine there. We are not goint to try to witness to you there.
94
constitutional pronouncements. Moreover, to counter on the

political front through political activism, the CPAM has felt it
essential to explain the establishment of secular humanism as the
de facto state religion. This establishment is demonstrated through
the secularization of the First Amendment by a subtle manipulation
by the courts, the law (sociological law), and the public education
system. It follows that if their assertions are correct, a refutation
and confrontation of secularist aims is politically accomplished
through a revisionist interpretation of the First Amendment.
Furthermore, if secularism has been encouraged (indeed
established) by the broad interpretation of the nonestablishment
clause which has sought to neutralize Protestant influence and
hegemony in American society, as is argued by the Christian
Right, then their political counteroffensive quite reasonably rests
on a revisionist interpretation of the same clause. Obviously, a
religious movement will support its agenda with theological and
moral arguments, but given the denominational and doctrinal
diversity of the coalition and the ideological inflexibility of
its members, it is perhaps a pragmatic function that shifts the
weight of logically supporting the movements agenda to First
Amendment revisionism where theological differences are not so
evident. Herein lies the source of ideological consistency genuinely
embraced by the diverse interests represented in the coalition.
One would be inclined to concede that while revisionism
is ubiquitous in Christian Right literature, it is not necessarily
understood by the grassroots members, nor indeed by the
entire highly visible leadership {80} as the source of ideological
consistency. Nevertheless, it is quite clear that the philosophical,
legal, and theological leaders of the movement hold this as the
central premise from which follow their social, legal, and political
arguments. It stands to reason, therefore, that the revival and
acceptance of the revisionist interpretation is vital to a sustained
reversal of secular trends. Quite simply, it is observed that the use
of law and civil authority to resist secularization (and the humanist
agenda) is rendered impotent as long as religious persuasion is
restrained in public institutions and society by the Pfeffer and
Black broad interpretation of the religion clauses.
It follows from this perspective that: firstly, if the secularization
of society and the establishment of secular humanism through
95
the law are to be thwarted, it will be accomplished by a revisionist

interpretation and application of the First Amendment religion
clauses; and secondly, if secular humanism is established, then it
cannot tolerate an education system antithetical to humanist ends
(i.e., Christiay day schools), hence the states harrassment of the
Christian schools.
One may reasonably interpret the Christian Right phenomenon
as a concerted strategy by the involved sects to reverse the
secularization of American law, government, society, and
education. Political activism in pursuit of this end, the thwarting
of secularist hegemony, is in part justified by reasoning which
suggests that law and politics undeniably share the same religious
(theological) underpinnings.62 Given these underpinnings, it
would seem to the Christian Right that it is not only correct for
Christians to preserve and perpetuate their religious persuasion in
these matters, but it is their duty and obligation. Indeed, part of the
Christians sanctification involves his or her vigilance in resisting
secularist hegemony. It is the view of the CPAM that only through
political activism and constitutional revisionismso necessary in
the logical refutation of secular humanismcan Christians begin
to see a reconstruction of the nations original theistic premise in
law, government, social order, and education. It is important that a
revisionist constitutional justification attacking the establishment
of secularism accompany the specific political agenda designed to
thwart humanist encroachments; otherwise, the Christian Rights
attempts to accomplish this end are seen as simply attacking a
symptom and not the disease.
By way of illustration, the restoration of public school prayer
as an issue is, for the ideologically consistent revisionist, not
necessarily a primary objective. The invocation of God in the
secularist public education {81} institution is a meaningless, if not
dangerous, exercise. A few astute observers on the Right have
argued convincingly, even if largely ignored, that Christianity is
disadvantaged if the humanist is given the prerogative to construct
the prayers of the theistic participants.63 Therefore, Christian
62. See Armstrong, In Defense of the New Right, 23, 70-71.
63. See Howard F. Ahmanson, Prayer in Public Schools: Does God Really
Want It? Chalcedon Report, no. 199 (March 1982).
96
Right First Amendment revisionists have turned their primary

attention towards pressing two more fundamental arguments.
First, the Constitution and its authors, as Justice Story asserted,
presupposed a Christian basis to American law and society.
Given this, the First Amendment could in no way be justifiably
read to preclude the affirmative right to invoke Gods blessing in
a public institution. Second, it is erroneous to assume that society
and its attendant values in law and education can proceed within
a vacuum devoid of religious biases. If this premise is accepted,
as it is by the Christian Right revisionists, then action which
disadvantages one religious persuasion necessarily advantages
another. If humanism is the antithesis of theism, as is argued by
the Christian Right, and if the expulsion of prayer from the public
classroom disadvantages the theists interests, then humanism
has been advantaged, indeed established, by the school prayer
decisions and the general disestablishment of Protestant theism.
Such an advantage (and establishment) is indisputably in conflict
with the First Amendment.
In the school prayer example, we see instances where the
revisionist logic is central to the Christian Right ideology and
strategy. First, if school prayer is to be returned to the state schools,
to the satisfaction of the ideologically consistent proponent of the
CPAM, humanism as a worldview (religion) must be rejected
where it is established in the public schools on the grounds
that it is a breach of the nonestablishment clause. Obviously,
the implications and ramifications of such a claim would have a
much wider range of consequences than the reversal of the Courts
ruling on school prayer twenty years ago. Second, a revisionist
reading of the religion clauses would not proscribe prayer in
the schools as long as one Christian sect was not preferred over
another in their composition and presentation, or all individuals
voluntarily participated or refrained from the devotional exercise.
So we see how the revisionist perspective can drastically alter the
policy considerations of one issue such as prayer in the public
schools. The Christian Right has applied similar reasoning to a
host of controversial issues ranging from tuition tax credits for the
parents of parochial school pupils to the issue of abortion. {82}
97
The Shift towards Secularism

The central concern of the Christian Right has been what they
perceive to be a growing activism of the state and the courts in
the lives of individual citizens. This development coincides with
a secular shift in the basis of law from higher, absolute law to
humanist/sociological law.64 The modern judiciary, it is argued,
has slipped into positivist law which has no stable mooring in the
unchanging law of God; rather, it upholds the supremacy of the
judiciary and the wisdom of its relativistic judgments. The concept
of non-interpretivisim that judges can draw their constitutional
rulings from outside the document (Constitution)65undermines
the very basic notion that this country is governed by laws and
not by men.66
In recent years the courts have taken on an increasiningly active
posture in deciding what policy ought to be when the legislative
and executive [have] failed to act.67 In place of a formerly passive
role, the non-interpretivist courts have actively participated in
the construction and development of legal doctrine, especially
as it relates to new public-policy directives, many with moral
overtones. Whitehead has argued, The written Constitution has
little value except as a shibboleth used by the courts to justify their
intrusions into the lives of the people.68
Particularly worrisome to the Christian Right is the increasingly
apparent legal positivist direction of American jurisprudence
which denies any higher, transcendent legal authority than
the state. That which state authority determines to be just
and moral is synonymous with its legal pronouncements.
Therefore, questions of right and wrong are resolved, in the
64. For a conservative evangelical definition of sociological law see
Schaeffer, Christian Manifesto, 41; see also Francis Schaeffer, The Price We
Pay for Negligence, Rutherford Institute 1, no. 1 (November/December 1983);
Armstrong, In Defense of the New Right, 71.
65. Robert Bork, The Struggle over the Role of the Court, National Review,
September 17, 1982, 137.
66. Jaffree v. Board of School Commissioners of Mobile County, 45.
67. Raoul Berger, Government by Judiciary (Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press, 1977), 305.
68. Whitehead, Second American Revolution, 58.
98
legisprudential view, by the political process.69 For example, when

the justices ruled that abortion-on-demand was a qualified right,
in many circles its legality was recognized as morally acceptable.
Whitehead sums up the concern when he writes that, given the
humanist courts, many are concerned that the United States
is coming perilously close to enacting a federal judicial policy
that is antagonistic toward Judeo-Christian theism as a whole.70
Moreover, the inability to influence immediately the ideological
make-up of the court, due to lifetime appointment of federal
judges, perpetuates the perception that the judiciary is above the
will of the people and the constraints of popular control.
Of concern to the Christian Right is the claim by the state that
it, rather than God, is sovereign. Citing constitutional scholar
A.F. Pollard {83} and John Quincy Adams, Rushdoony argues
that the early American republic denied any claim to sovereignty
since [t]his claim places the state on a collision course with the
church, and even more, with God, the only sovereign.71 The
denial of theistic sovereignty, asserts Whitehead, necessarily leads
to the secularization of government.72 Acting in the interest of
the people, the modern humanist state has taken upon itself the
messianic role of saving its subjects, physically with cradle-tograve social security, and spiritually through public education
and claims of religious neutrality. As discussed above, the CPAM
contends that religious neutrality is a dangerous myth creating
a subtle cover under which Christian theism is supplanted by
secularism.73 The modern messianic state, it is suggested, is
in fact the establishment of a religion of the state.74 It demands
allegiance to its objectives and perpetuates its power by invoking
the authority to act as it desires in the name of compelling state
69. Ibid., 88.

70. Ibid., 66.
71. R.J. Rushdoony, Conflict with the State, Chalcedon Position Paper (1978).
72. Whitehead, Second American Revolution, 58.
73. Rushdoony, Religion and the State.
74. See R. J. Rushdoony, The State as an Establishment of Religion, in
Freedom and Education: Pierce v. Society of Sisters Reconsidered, ed. Donald
Kommers and Michael J. Wahoske (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame
Law School, 1978).
99
interest or the doctrines of reason of state.75 As the law of the

land, the United States Constitution of 1787 has been nullified and
has been replaced by the public policy of a sovereign state which
recognizes no higher law.76
Of direct consequence to the free exercise of ones faith, the
CPAM argues that the religious freedom envisioned by the
founding fathers in the First Amendment has been replaced by
religious toleration. This was accomplished by the sovereign
secular state which has justified this shift by public and compelling
state interest. As illustrated by the recent Bob Jones University77
opinion handed down by the Supreme Court, and a host of
litigation involving licensure, minimum education standards,
accreditation, and tax exemption for churches and church schools,
the state has assumed the position of tolerating the free exercise
of religious dissenters and nonconformists as long as their actions
do not conflict with compelling state interest and public policy.
European model religious toleration, if not an opposite concept
to religious freedom,78 is certainly a half-measure.79 Religious
toleration presupposes a totalitarian power (sovereign state) which
grants the right and terms of existence to religious organizations
it chooses to tolerate. It stands to reason that intolerance is
precariously restrained only by state benevolence and may be
capriciously unleashed if the granting authority of the state is not
respected or the tolerated group acts contrary to compelling state
interest.
Of crucial concern to First Amendment privileges is the modern
courts changing definition of religion. Obviously, an appropriate
definition {84} is essential when the court rules on religion,
which constitutionally may not be established or the free exercise
75. See William Bentley Ball, Secularism: Tidal Wave of Repression, in
Freedom and Faith: The Impact of Law on Religious Liberty, ed. Lynn R. Buzzard
(Westchester, IL: Crossway Books, 1982), 5053.
76. R.J. Rushdoony, The New Sovereign or God, Chalcedon Alert, no. 3.
77. Bob Jones University v. United States, decided May 24, 1983.
78. See Mark Wyndham, The Historical Background to the Issue of Religious
Liberty in the Revolutionary Era, Journal of Christian Reconstruction 3, no. 1
(Summer 1976): 152.
79. The phrase half-measure of toleration appears in Henry F. May, The
Enlightenment of America (New York: Oxford University Press, 1976), 97.
100
of which is constitutionally protected. The Christian Right has

argued that the concept of religion embraced by the amendments
authors was implicitly that of traditional Christian theism; indeed,
this interpretation was explicitly sustained by the court as recently
as United States v. Macintosh (1931).80 However, by 1965 the Court
had radically altered and broadened its definition of religion in
free-exercise litigation to include theistic as well as nontheistic
beliefs, or in the phrase borrowed from theologian Paul Tillich,
any ultimate concern.81 Belief in a Supreme Being, ruled the
court, could be substituted by a sincere and meaningful belief
which occupies in the life of its possessor a place parallel to that
filled by the God....82 Furthermore, the shift from a content-based
to a psychological function-based definition of religion placed
emphasis not on the tenets of a creed, but the sincerity with which
a belief is held.83 Hence, the adherent was the only one judged
competent to decide whether a belief was in fact religious. This,
argue Whitehead and Conlan, affirmed a humanist concept of the
centrality of man in deciding the validity of religious dogma.84
Confronted with the dilemma of having to rule that any action,
statute, or symbol found to be remotely related to ones ultimate
concern or values as violative of the nonestablishment clause,
the Court chose to apply a dual definition of religion in First
Amendment cases. While respecting its broadened definition
of religion by extending free-exercise protection to a host of
believing and nonbelieving claimants (including humanists), the
Court applied a much narrower definition, specifically traditional
theism, when considering nonestablishment litigation. This
has discriminated against traditional theists by disestablishing
manifestations of their faith. On the other hand, free-exercise
privileges of non-Christian religions have been extended without
80. United States v. Macintosh, 283 U.S. 605 (1931). Mr. Justice Sutherland
wrote: We are a Christian people according to one another the equal right of
religious freedom, and acknowledging with reverence the duty of obedience to
the will of God.
81. United States v. Seeger, 380 U.S. 163 (1965); the phrase ultimate concern
comes from Paul Tillichs Dynamics of Faith (1958).
82. United States v. Seeger, 380 U.S. 163, at 176.
83. United States v. Ballard, 322 U.S. 78 (1944).
84. See Whitehead and Conlan, Establishment, 12.
101
a corresponding restraint on the establishments of their faiths.

This has extended a distinct advantage to, if not established, nontheistic faiths.85
The increasing centralization of power in the hands of the federal
government, under the guise of democratization, is cited by the
Christian Right as indicative of the secularist shift in American
government. To begin with, this undermines the republican
nature of the Constitution, which was specifically designed
through checks and balances and separation of powers to prevent
the unrestrained power of popular sovereignty. Moreover, a
national democracy, it is argued, detracts from {85} more localized
community and state governments which the Right contends are
more responsive and sympathetic to the needs and wishes of the
people.
Specifically repudiated is the modern courts nationalization
of the Bill of Rights under the Fourteenth Amendments due
process clause. Embracing the arguments of Professors Fairman
and Berger,86 the Right contends that not only has the court
misread the Fourteenth Amendments intentions, but the doctrine
of incorporation is unconstitutional and militates against the
federal and republican system of government. Moreover, they fear
incorporation has become the great well-spring of federal judicial
power in modern America87 which has facilitated the dangerous
supremacy of the judiciary and rule by judicial fiat. By way of
illustration, when the Court nationalized the free-exercise and
nonestalishment clauses, in Cantwell v. Connecticut88 and Everson
85. For more on the problems of defining religion see Whitehead, Second
American Revolution, 10114; Note, Toward a Constitutional Definition of
Religion, Harvard Law Review 91 (1978); Robert Rabin, When is a Religious
Belief Religious: United States v. Seeger and the Scope of Free Exercise, Cornell
Law Quarterly 51 (1966); Boyan, Defining Religion in Operational and
Institutional Terms, University of Pennsylvania Law Review 116 (1968); and
Moore, The Supreme Court and the Relationship Between the Establishment
and Free Exercise Clauses, Texas Law Review 42 (1963).
86. See Charles Fairman, Does the Fourteenth Amendment Incorporate the
Bill of Rights? Stanford Law Review 2, no. 5 (1949); and Berger, Government by
Judiciary.
87. Senator Jesse Helms, Alabama Prayer Case: A Profile in Courage,
Congressional Record (January 26, 1983): S 140.
88. Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296 (1940).
102
v. Board of Education,89 respectively, it acted unquestionably

contrary to the framers intentions, which were to preclude federal
jurisdiction in religious matters. Writes James McClellan, the
doctrine of incorporation nullif[ied] the very purpose of the Bill
of Rights, which was to guarantee to the individual and to the states
that the federal government would have no voice in the general
area of civil liberties, except as stipulated in the Constitution
itself....90 Indeed, the first Congress specifically rejected proposals
to apply portions of the Bill of Rights to the states, and again,
in 1833, Chief Justice John Marshall in the Barron91 decision
underlined the assertion that the Bill of Rights only restricted the
national government. The result of recent judicial activism is that
ultimate authority to determine the nature and extent of civil
liberties enjoyed by Americans has been vested in the Supreme
Court, whereas before, this awesome power was distributed amont
the various state judiciaries.92
As already indicated, the Christian Right holds that the
noninterpretivist, humanist courts have used the religion clauses
to isolate and contain traditional theism and its influence in
society, while the nontheistic faiths have been unbridled in both
access and influence. It has been Christian prayers and rituals
which the courts have declared unconstitutional, while other
beliefs and theories dependent on religious-like faith and steeped
in religious symbolism and value systems, such as transcendental
meditation, eastern martial arts, and evolution origin theories,
are unrestrained as disciplines and clubs in both secondary
schools and state universities. To many Christians, this is seen as
a disenfranchisement of their free exercise of conscience, while
those same {86} rights are extended to competing faiths.
Conclusion
In assessing the revisionist ideology of the Christian Right, what
are some of the general comments one can make regarding their
assertions? As in any broadly based political movement there
89.
90.
91.
92.
Everson v. Board of Education of Ewing Township, 330 U.S. 1(1947).

McClellan, Joseph Story, 145.
Barron v. Baltimore, 7 Peters 243 (1833).
McClellan, Joseph Story, 144.
103
are constituent members and practices which do not conform

to the general intention of the movement as a whole, but these
aberrations are not the concern of this conclusion. Likewise, there
are several blatant contradictions within their agenda, such as
a willingness to employ the expansive and coercive arm of civil
government to correct perceived deficiencies in national defense
or to alter abortion statutes, while concurrently embracing a
reduced and limited role for government. There are several
balanced assessments of the Christian Right which consider these
and other criticisms.93 The concerns briefly considered below are
the more general historical arguments employed by the revisionist
and the Christian Right. This is not insignificant since no other
constitutional debate has relied so extensively on historical
evidence and interpretation as has First Amendment churchstate litigation.94 There is substantial scholarship from both
conservative Christian95 and secular academic96 sources to support
the revisionist claims; however, there are certain tendencies to
misuse this evidence with detrimental results.
First of all, there is an inclination to over-romanticize
the Christian basis of American history and the Christian
commitment of the founding fathers. That is not to deny the
pervasive Christian character of the nations founding, but to warn
those intent on minimizing the influence of non-Christian and
Enlightenment philosophies in the colonies and early republic.97
93. See, for example, Richard Mouw, Assessing the Moral Majority, Reformed
Journal (June 1981): 1315; Robert Zwier and Richard Smith, Christian Politics
and the New Right, Christian Century, October 8, 1980, 93741; Zwier, BornAgain Politics; and William Willoughby, Do We Need the Moral Majority?
(Plainfield, NJ: Logos, 1981).
94. See Cord, Separation of Church and State, 214, 231.
95. See, for example, Whitehead, Separation Illusion; Whitehead, Second
American Revolution; Kik, Church and State; Rushdoony, Nature of the American
System; and Rushdoony, This Independent Republic (Fairfax, VA: Thoburn Press,
1964).
96. See, for example, Cord, Separation of Church and State; Malbin, Religion
and Politics; McClellan, Joseph Story; and Walter Berns, The First Amendment and
the Future of American Democracy (New York: Basic Books, 1976), 132.
97. For the influence of Enlightenment philosophies in the colonies and
early republic see May, The Enlightenment in America. Contrast this view with
R. J. Rushdoony, The Myth of an American Enlightenment, Journal of Christian
Reconstruction 3, no. 1 (Summer 1976): 6973.
104
Furthermore, there is a general disregard for the outright and

inadvertent Protestant contributions to the secularization
of American government and society and the rise of secular
humanism. For example, many Protestants actively campaigned
for the establishment of secular public education, especially
in an era when Protestantism was recognized as the de facto
established religion, thereby laying the foundations for much of
secularist influence today.
Additionally, a romanticized version of American history can
lead to the establishment of a culturally significant, yet spiritually
impotent, civil religion. The Christian Right has not been vigilant
in preventing the consensus of Christian Right historical assertions
from being used by the civil government to further secular political
purposes. This is not biblical Christianity; moreover, it minimizes
the centrality of Jesus Christ and {87} the biblical role of the church
in affecting change in society. One does well to recall the advice
of Francis Schaeffer, We must not confuse the Kingdom of God
with our country. To say it another way: We should not wrap
Christianity in our national flag.98
And finally, while one may find the revisionist interpretation
of the initial intentions of the First Amendment persuasive, the
Christian Right neglects an accommodation of contemporary
religious pluralism, unanticipated when the Constitution was
drafted, in their vision of a correctly applied First Amendment.
Revisionist literature fails to define the extent of free-exercise
privileges, if any, afforded non-Christian citizens under the
revisionist model.
To recapitulate, the central argument of this essay is twofold.
First, the main thrust of the CPAM is a measured political
response to the growth and cultural hegemony of a worldview
which they have called secular humanism; and second, the
Christian Right has consciously sought to describe and explain
the political and social ascendancy of secular humanism because
of a secularist interpretation of the American Constitutions
First Amendment religion clauses, which are widely accepted to
encapsulate the American doctrine of separation of church and
state. The Christian Right has adopted a revisionist interpretation
105
of the First Amendment to refute the secularist concept of an

absolute separation of church and state. The revisionist bases of
Christian Right ideology are vital in maximizing their political
unity in action and agenda and minimizing their many theological
differences which could potentially undermine the mission of the
Christian Right coalition.
In conclusion, if this analysisthat the legal and political
presuppositions of American law and society have shiftedis
correct or is logically valid, it must necessarily serve as a basis from
which the real grievances and concerns expressed by the highly
visible and vocal Christian Right must be addressed. This should
come not only from the obvious opponents and detractors of the
Right, but by scholars in the legal and social-science disciplines
as well. If it is not correct, an understanding of revisionism must,
nevertheless, precede an appropriate response to the Christian
Right movement, especially if the movements adherents are to
listen and be persuaded. {88}
106
Federalism and
Republican Government
An Application of Biblically Derived
Cultural Ethos to Political Economy
Tommy W. Rogers
Ideas, as Professor Richard Weaver expressed it some years ago in

a book of like title, have consequences. History, to a large degree,
is the outworking, the denouement, of the values and beliefs by
which men live. The application of Scripture has consequence in all
areas of life. Michael Novak, in The Spirit of Democratic Capitalism
(Simon & Schuster, 1982), calls attention to the cultural, moral, and
ethical differences which created the disparity in living standards
and productive cultural enterprise distinguishing North America
from Latin America. The difference, in essence, is the relative
influence of Reformation doctrines in North American life as
contrasted with that of Latin America. The democratic capitalism
of the Western world, wherein there has been comparitive personal
liberty and economic prosperity, requires a definite moral cultural
base.
While Scripture does not specifically tell us all things, it does
give us the light in which to view all things. Government is an
ordination of God. While Scripture is universal, and speaks
definitively to people in all social systems, the application of
Scripture has specific social, cultural, and political results. For
example, politically, it trims the reach of arbitrary power, and
seeks the maintenance of systems commensurate with biblical
revelation. It is just such application that resulted in the federal
government of the United States. {93}
107
1. The Philosophical Basis of Free Government

Sovereignty, or ultimate lawmaking authority, resides only in God.
Although the serpent persuaded Eve that she should herself realize
her own potential and become as god by determining for herself
what is good and evil, Eves error was to believe a lie. Similarly,
efforts of modern man to be his own god (his own determinant
of good and evil and the values by which he should live) is to
orchestrate himself and his culture toward death. Rebellion against
Gods revealed knowledge, against His standards of good and evil,
brings forth to modern man the same penalty it brought to Eve
that he shall surely die. Many of the problems facing the American
Republicdecades of inflation as deliberate government policy,
rampant criminality without effective deterrent or restitution,
public policy as the basis for legisjurisprudence in deviation
from the Constitution or from other enacted and written laware
signs of, or specific results of, a loss of mooring to a biblical base
for government and law. They are signs of a states becoming of a
law unto itself, as if the state were the ultimant determiner of good
and evil.
Because man is sinful, imposed order and restraint is requisite
to preclude anarchy and tyranny. Therefore, civil government has
been ordained for mans good. However, without restraint on the
imposed order, freedom and liberty is precluded. Free government
means freedom exercisable by men apart from any permission or
grace of the governing entity. Free government is possible only
through recognition of and submission to the Sovereign Rights of
the Creating God and the ordering of temporal affairs accordingly
and in that light. The dilemma of liberty is that imposed order and
restraint are requisite for liberty (freedom from imposed order) to
exist. Christian Scripture, which provides the absolutes by which
human institutions are to be judged, establishes the base for a
balance of form and freedom wherein the freedoms characteristic
of Western civilization can be implemented without degenerating
into lawless tyranny or into lawless anarchy.
The system of government of the United States as it evolved
in Anglican communal experience in England and America
is explicitly based on the Christian world- and life-view.
Reformational or biblical Christianity may be said to have
108
generated constitutional public law, from its own fundamental

idea.1 Noted American historian George Bancroft stated the view
reaffirmed by many: The fanatic for Calvinism was a fanatic for
liberty, for in the moral warfare for freedom, his creed {94} was
... his most faithful ally in the battle.2 Pat Brooks more recently
wrote: Calvin and his colleagues personally trained the leaders of
the Puritan and Presbyterian movement which ... became the basis
for the republic in America....3
Good government must operate within biblical law or limitation
on its jurisdiction. It must respect the Higher Law of God. In
the Christian view as it developed out of the Reformational
application of Scripture to the totality of life, took root in the
colonies, and birthed the independence of the republics which
became the United States via the constitutional compact in 1789,
the institution of government, rather than sovereign unto itself,
was recognized to be under Higher Law. It is the Christian faith
which provided the philosophical basis for the constitutional
system by which the states sought to govern themselves. Specific
themes included:
1) Innate dignity of the human being. Man, being made in the
image of God, thereby acquires inalienable rights (such as liberty
of conscience, freedom of worship apart from state license,
establishment, hindrance, or control) which are derived from a
source higher than any human expression. Thus, men are vested
with position and purpose higher than a chattel of value merely as
a resource or instrument for accomplishment of purposes of the
state.
2) No human institution is totally sovereign. Therefore, no human
institution, including government, is entitled to become a law unto
itself. The Christian world- and life-view thereby) expressly limits
the rightful claims of the state, and b) establishes a standard of law.
3) Any government which exercises the presumption of becoming a
law unto itself in derrogation of Higher Law is exercising lawlessness.
1. Abraham Kuyper, Christianity as a Life-System: The Witness of a Worldview
(Memphis, TN: Christian Studies Center, 1980), 35.
2. George Bancroft, History of the United States of America, vol. 1 (1854), 464,
cited in ibid., 27.
3. Pat Brooks, The Return of the Puritans (Whittaker House, 1976), 2829.
109
Where human government seeks to compel disobedience to

Higher Law, resistance is required.4 (This was the Christian theory
of civil resistance forming the theoretical perspective by which the
American republics were inspired to achieve independence from
England).
4) Christian theory on republican self-government as practiced in
the independent and autonomous local churches promoted selfgovernment in the area of civil government and provided practical
modeling and experience in its exercise. Christianity favors
dispersed rather than monolithic exercise of power whether by
civil government or by the ecclesia.
5) Provided a theological basis for an ethic of pluralistic freedom
rather {95} than a socially imposed vision of good.5 God, who loves
freedom to the extent that Jesus was the propitiation for mans
iniquity, does not force men to accept the spiritual liberty wherein
Christ has made us free from bondage to sin and death. God did not
make salvation coercive. Neither is morality coercive. Rather, God
designed the human being as a creature suitable for the exercise
of liberty in an arena of freedom.6 Establishment of a biblical lifesystem forbids Christians (or others) from exercising a command
system. Punishing sin is not a role delegated to civil government,
and civil government has no rightful authority to exceed scriptural
limits on its jurisdiction.
In summary, the Christian world- and life-view expressly limits

the legitimate claims of the state and establishes a standard of law
against which the state and its exercise of civil jurisdiction are
4. There is no biblically-based theory of resistance for social reasons, to gain
social rights, to oppose obnoxious requirements, to force oneself or ones group
on others, or to make a claim on what are often called civil rights, but only
against lawlessness. Note, too, there is a distinction between opposition and
resistance. Most civil rights activity to establish a social privilege against nonfavored groups through the politics of theft and redistribution via government
largesse, has been lawless in concept and demonstration and in implementation.
5. Any theocratic nation, excepting ancient Israel, is a humanistic derivation.
No men are to be trusted with the power to impell a Christian America
anymore than they are entitled to impose a humanistic America. This very
freedom requires a biblical rather than an humanistic base.
6. The importance of environmental and biological factors notwithstanding,
man, as Dr. Albert Hobbs has pointed out, is moral choice. The societal effect of
this and the contrary view that man is response to conditioning is poignantly set
forth in Dr. Hobbss book, Man is Moral Choice (Arlington House, 1979).
110
rightfully measured. The theoretical rationale and the underlying

moral-cultural ethos of the colonial movement for independence
were to a significant degree expressly derived from the influence
of the Christian world- and life-view and its standard of resistance
to tyranny. The summary of Edwin Hall, The Puritans and their
Influence, (1856), is indicative: The tendency of the true Gospel
principles is to bring the most absolute despotism under the limits
of the law; to involve limited monarchies more and more with
the spirit of popular institutions, to prepare the people to govern
themselves; and finally to establish everywhere the spirit and the
liberty, if not the very forms of a republic.7
2. American versus French Revolution:

Constrasts in Social Evolution
The differential outworking of the world- and life-view which
places sovereignty in man and the biblical life system, as each is
implemented in political economy and society, are contrasted in
the American and French Revolutions. The French Revolution
(17891799) represented the flowering and fruition of the social
doctrines of the positivists who believed that man, through his
own reason, should be the determiner of the values by which
he should live. Rather than ordering life, behavior, standards,
and judgments according to the revealed Truth of Scripture, the
positivists were spokesmen for liberation of mankind from the
truths and restraints of divine revelation.
The positivists felt that man, freed from the impediments and
limitations to his realization of himself, free to achieve glory
without grace, would then emerge as the perfect, noble being he
naturally is except for the corrupting influences of religion, family,
tradition, and inherited normative {96} restraints. Perfect man in
utopia, living by standards of his own determination and with the
power to compel others into conformity with this perfect good,
was the motivating vision.
The positivists were successful in breaking the iron mold of
civilization in France. The result, rather than utopia, was such
7. Quoted in V. Hall, The Christian History of the Constitution of the United
States of America (San Francisco, CA: Foundation for American Christian
Education, 1978).
111
tyranny, terror, excess, and anarchy that the French Revolution

has become synonymous with the reign of terror and the spectre
of mobocracy. The revolutionists managed to achieve a radical
break which destroyed the social fabric and rent asunder the social
bonds which make civilization possible. The reign of terror ended
only with the assumption of dictatorship by Napoleon.
The American and French Revolutions reflect the contrasting
ideas on which they were based. Whereas the French Revolution
involved a radical break with the past, the American experience
involved no reign of terror nor wholesale destructive anarchy.
Rather than an attempt to dethrone God and replace Him with a
collective expression of mankind as truth, the American evolution
was distinctly Christian in origin.
The Reformation resulted from the application of Scripture to
the totality of life, including government. Reformational political
thought as developed by Puritans such as Samuel Rutherford,
author of Lex Rex (1644), laid the theoretical basis for American
independence. Rutherford argued that the king, rather than
being the author of law, is himself subject to the law of God; and
citizens, rather than being chattels of the king, have the duty to
rebel against rulers who lawlessly refuse to be subject to the law of
God and who become ministers of evil and agents of oppression.
Rutherfords influence in the colonies through John Locke and
Rev. John Witherspoon provided a theoretical rationale for
colonial opposition to what the colonists regarded as King Georges
violation of their organically derived rights as Englishmen.
The Christian faith brought recognition that sovereignty is
an attribute belonging only to God. The state might rightfully
exercise such civil lawmaking authority as was consistent with this
recognition of the authority of Higher Law. The civil state, rather
than the source of law, was seen as itself under law. The Christian
world- and life-view so permeated the social and political
philosophy of the colonial era that it set the tone of the culture
(or provided its zeitgeist and weltanschauung) even for persons
who were not themselves Christians in the evangelical sense.8
8. Since human events are to a large degree the result of the ideas by which
men live, it is to the benefit of society to have men in authority who are Christian
or at least, if not ostensibly declaratory Christians, allow their thought-form
to be shaped by the Christian world- and life-view. It is a detriment to have
112
The state, then, in the Anglican sense, was necessarily limited in

its ministrations. {97} The colonists did not assault and conduct
warfare against the basic social fabric. They were not in conflict
with and rebellion against what were, in Edmund Burkes diction,9
the basic inns and nesting places of human nature. They did not
seek to overthrow the mold of civilization. To the contrary, the
colonists, as a whole and in ethos and ethic, were quite content to
recognize the Creator and the hand of Providence. The structure
of their government was the best adjustment to man as he is they
could devise. There was no humanist vision of innate human
goodness, nor was there rebellion against scriptural truth on the
nature of God and man and the place of each in the scheme of
things. The American experience was not destructive in intent.
The American Revolution which achieved indepdendence from
England for the several states was regarded by many colonials as
restorative rather than as a radical departure from the past or as
an overthrow of civilization. The colonists felt that King George
was violating his protective responsibilities by contravening their
communally derived, organically evolved rights as Englishmen.
The rationale underlying the American Revolution was that
independence was to be accomplished under, not against, the
Sovereignty of the living Creator God.
Whitehead notes that to deny Gods sovereignty is to transfer
Sovereignty from God to man, or mans state.10
Making the state or the civil order the god or sovereign, freed
of any higher authority to which it was responsible, the French
Revolution quiet logically affirmed its intrinsic totalitarianism.
Because of its religious base, the French Revolution reflected the
emergence of the secular state as a full-fledged entity with reason
in authority humanists who may claim to be born again but who are not
redeemed in thought-form or lifestyle and whose policy decisions and goals, and
whose philosophical perspective, is derived from humanism even though it may
be expressed in religious terminology.
9. Edmund Burke, a member of the British parliament, was a friend of the
colonies. Burke was the author of Reflections on the French Revolution, an early
work which highlighted the distinctions between the American and French
Revolutions. As Burke well understood, these two events were not the products
of a similar libertarian spirit.
10. John Whitehead, The New Tyranny (Ft. Lauderdale, FL: Coral Ridge
Ministries, 1982), 50.
113
enthroned as its god.
3. Anglican versus Gaulican Liberty

The American Founding Fathers distrusted the potential
for unrestrained power, no matter how enlightened or socially
conscious its proponents or administrators might be. In Jeffersons
words, the fathers sought to bind the individual who might have
the functional exercise of political power by the chains of the
Constitution. Because they sought to build protective cushions
between the citizen and the exercise of authority upon him,
they devised a government republican in form, and wherein
cooperation among the several states was obtained by ceding
certain of their individual powers to the central government
formed by the constitutional compact which became effective in
1789. Rather than a hierarchical system of power imposed from
the outside onto the citizens {98} in their localities, the Founding
Fathers sought a government which was not only limited in its
reach, and which was calibrated by checks and balances, but which
was locally centered. The power to be exercised by government
at any level flowed from the locality upward. In contrast to the
Gaulican or Jacobin model which emphasizes the prerogatives of
government, the Anglican view of liberty emphasizes the rule of
law to which even the government (and especially the government)
is subject.11
Further, the founding generation of the United States
recognized that all governments exercise derivative powers only.
All instruments of human government, including the ultimate
or pinnacle of state power, are under the Higher Sovereignty
of the Law of God. Thus, governmental authority is limited by
transcendentally bestowed rights whose political recognition
emerged in the organic evolution of Anglican liberty. In the
Anglican view, there exists areas of individual autonomy against
which a government of free men in a free society may not trespass
without violating the essence of legitimacy upon which the
11. A. V. Dicey, Study of the Law of the Constitution, reprint of 1885 ed.
(Indianapolis, IN: Liberty Classics, 1982).
114
government rests.12
Gaulican or Jacobin liberty, by contrast, seeks ultimate power to
do ultimate good. To do ultimate good requires ultimate powers
of compulsion. Limits upon the sovereigns claim to ultimate
jurisdiction and authority over all matters in which the government
may wish to exert an interest is seen as undesirable because it
places limitations upon the ability of positive government to
achieve ultimate social good.13 Anglican liberty, in contrast to
the Gaulican liberty without restraint on ultimate power, subjects
government itself to the rule of law. The basis for the rule of law,
the only foundation adequate to balance freedom and form and
preclude tyranny or anarchy, is that of Higher Law, which must
be found in God and His revelation of Himself. Such law and
revelation precludes total sovereignty in any civil jurisdiction.
A federal republic is based on a covenant relationship between
citizens and the state. A Jacobin democracy is unchecked
hierarchial rule in the name of the general will. Continual tension
exists between the requisites of the first and the expediences of the
latter. Whereas the former offers a path to free decision-making
with built-in roadblocks which force those trodding it to balance
their desires with others whose interests are at stake, Jacobinism,
by freeing the ruling elite to exercise whatever dominion it may
wish to exert, is more efficient for the unhindered exercise of
compulsion. {99}
Bifurcated civil authority, and structural checks and balances
which restrain central will, reserve some leeway for normative
structure, institutional practice, and expression of cultural ethos
which central power is structurally prevented from contravening.
Therefore, persons enamored by the messianic state often see
both the enabling form (the federal principle) or the wilful
12. For implications, see Whitehead, New Tyranny, and The Second American
Revolution (Elgin, IL: David C. Cook, 1982).
13. This is one of the reasons many monopoly capitalists and the enterprises
they control and/or represent and reflect often support centralization of power
domestically and abroad. Socialism is a scheme whereby the elite seek to make
servants of the entirety of the population, a scheme whereby business seeks to
use the machine of government in the interests of business. Good discussions
are found in Gary Allen, None Dare Call It Conspiracy (Concord Press, 1971)
and Anthony Sutton, Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution (Arlington House,
1973).
115
exercise of self-restraint (i.e., as by a federal court) as evils to be

overcome because they are limitations on the power to do good.14
They are likely to feel that such evils should be overcome by
whatever executive initiative, statutory accretion, or ingenious
construction of the Constitution which may be adaptable to that
purpose. Therefore, political liberals are likely to view limits on
the central State, such as those embodied in the doctrine of states
rights, less than favorably.
Elazars exhortation is apt that in a federal republic self-restraint,
particularly on the part of those who hold power, is requisite:
It is impatience with this self-restraint that breeds Jacobins in every
generation ... in most of the world Jacobinism in variant forms has
become synonymous with democracy... only clear understanding
and articulation of ... federal principles will make it possible to
perpetuate them in the public mind and in the American system
....15
A federal system would be alien to the purpose of Gaulican
liberty. By contrast, the federal principle, governing structures
of limited reach and jurisdiction, bifurcated civil authority
incorporating checks and balances, limitation and apportioning
of civil lawmaking authority subject to the rule of law, obligation
14. Sometimes the public cacaphony exerts strong pressure to disregard the
rule of law and constitutional principle. In one notable instance, the Supreme
Court, being subject to great public and political pressure and ridicule, recanted
from its position of upholding the Constitution as intended by its adopters in
order to justify the Roosevelt New Deal. More recently, in accommodation
to its own desires and notions of political and social desideratum, the Court
played a promotive role of social rights only by disregard of fundamental law.
In achieving social rights in the 1954-1970 era, the Court often demonstrated
itself to be a center of lawlessness. See, for example, John Denton Carter, States
Rights: The Law of the Land (Altanta, GA: Harrison, 1958); John Denton Carter,
The Warren Court and the Constitution (Pelican, 1968); and Brent Bozell, The
Warren Revolution. Not only did the courts violate the historic meaning of the
Constitution to achieve desired social purposes, but they used the opportunity
provided by their own decision to reach far beyond any justification set forth
in those decisions, and they turned provisions of written law against themselves
in their zeal to control the behavior of the citizenry and make them pay the
consequences of the Courts notions of desirable policy. See, for example, Lino
Graglia, Disaster by Decree: Supreme Court Decisions and the Schools (Ithaca, NY:
Cornell University Press, 1976).
15. Daniel Elazar, American Federalism: A View from the States (Thomas
Crowell, 1976), 226.
116
on the government to prove the lawfulness of the authority by

which it acts, and recognized subjection of the government itself
to the Higher Law of God are the natural results and institutional
expression of Anglican liberty.
4. Intent of the Constitutional Compact

The founding generation of the United States had no vision of
utopia. They sought a system of law to limit law, of fundamental
law to limit civil law. They sought to protect what is rather than
implement a system of what ought to be. The general welfare was
to protect the independence of the republics which the delegates
to the constitutional convention represented. Rather than a vision
of good to be accomplished through a command society, they sought
a governmental structure suitable to preserve a system of natural
liberty.
The architects of the U.S. Constitution were under no illusions
{100} about the nature or perfectability of mankind. Knowing
utopia to be impossible, they sought a system suited for man
as he is. Most of all they feared the potential for tyranny, or the
illegitimate role of a temporal sovereign freed from the restraints
of limiting temporary or secondary law, or from subjection to
Higher Law. As Madison urged in The Federalist,16 it was vital to
erect governmental barriers against a rage for paper money... , for
an equal division of property, or for any other improper or wicked
object.17
16. The Federalist, a composite work by Alexander Hamilton, James
Madison, and John Jay, was a classic interpretation and defense of the proposed
constitutional system published between October 1787 and May 1788. The
Federalist sought to allay objection that a consolidating or unifying governmental
structure was being established. The Federalist is regarded as an authoritative
exposition of the intended meaning of the Constitution.
17. Louis H. Pollack, The Constitution and the Supreme Court (Cleveland,
OH: World Publishing Co., 1966), 115. Todays paper money system, issued
by a coercive banking monopoly, has no basis in the Constitution. Biblically,
money is gold or silver, which are intrinsically valuable. Initially, printed paper
money was redeemable in specie. Currently, printed money is not redeemable,
but is declared to be valuable or is legal tender by government fiat. However,
money has only such value as people have trust in it. The dollar was worth only
circa one-third in 1980 what it was worth in 1970 in terms of command over
goods and services. For the framers of the Constitution, money was a weight of
precious metal, not a piece of paper with green ink on it. Trustworthy money is
117
Costanzo has observed that the very men who guided the
colonist to independence within the Christian tradition of natural
law doctrine were generally those same men who either participated
in the momentous discussions of the Federal Convention or
helped advance the ratification of the Constitution in their several
States.18 Doctrinal presupposition of the distinction between and
the necessary relation of human application of civil law and Divine
Law entered into the very fabric of the federal Constitution. As
Costanzo observes,
... American sovereignty is not that of totalitarian democracy,
nor the unrestricted sovereignty espoused in Rousseaus19 Contrat
Social which, instead of presupposing natural law, holds itself to be
the original source of morality.... A government of limited powers
specified in a written constitution is wholly in accord with the
sovereignty of God over states as well as over individual persons.
Plenary but not absolute, derivative and not original, American
popular sovereignty is under God, from whom all power descends.
It does not, as with Rousseau, reside ultimately and inalienably in
the people.20
The federal Constitution of the United States sets forth an
institutional structure of limitations and restraints on each of
the contracting political sovereignties (the several states on the
one hand and federal government on the other). There is no
more striking feature of the American system than its expressed
recognition that the government is one of limited powers, not
because power corrupts but because power by reason of its divine
required in a moral society. This requires that all paper money be redeemable in a
specific amount or definition of something of real worth. A productive economy
is impossible, and an inflationary economy is inevitable, when fiat money and
legal tender laws become the instrumentality by which politicians and money
managers have the power to create money. For implications historically and
prescriptively, see Ron Paul and Lewis Lehrman, The Case for Gold (CATO
Institute, 1982).
18. Joe Constanzo, This Nation Under God (New York: Herder and Herder,
1964), 38.
19. Jean Jacques Rosseau (17121778) was among the most influential of the
French philosophers whose writings provided the philosophical framework of
the French Revolution. His best known work is The Social Contract.
20. Constanzo, This Nation Under God, 39.
118
descent is limited to the very purposes of the divine grant.21 The

Constitution seeks to restrict the potential for tyrannical exercise
of power, both by the underlying affirmation of Higher Law (of
which the state is not the oracle) and by institutional provisions
which seek juridically to secure those freedoms which the divinely
endowed spiritual nature of man demands.
Government, as George Washington expressed it, is not reason,
it is not eloquence; it is force. The Founding Fathers sought to
establish a {101} system of self-government that would minimize
the potential for even enlightened despotism. Government of
the federal republic was designed to be a limited government
with structural checks, balances, reservations, and a dispersed
sensorium of effective power.
Therefore, the founders sought to fractionalize and subdivide
governmental power. They were careful to avoid subjecting their
countries (the independent states) into a position of servitude to
any collective body which could exert civil jurisdiction over their
reserved internal affairs. As Allen explains:
The Founding Fathers believed that each branch of the government,
whether at the federal, state or local level, would be jealous of its
powers and would never surrender them to centralized control.
Also, many phases of our lives (such as charity and education)
were put totally, or almost totally, out of the grasp of politicians.
Under this system you could not have a dictatorship. No segment
of government could possibly amass enough power to form a
dictatorship. In order to have a dictatorship one must have a single
branch holding most of the reins of power. Once you have this,
dictatorship is inevitable.22
5. The Meaning of Federalsim

The men of the constitutional generation were familiar with
government in unitary states. It was the genius of the Founding
Fatherstheir knowledge of history and human experience, their
rejection of any claim by state or ruler to total hegemony over the
individual, their distrust of human nature, their recognition of
the corrupting effect of power even on the best and most well21. Ibid., 43.
22. Allen, None Dare Call It Conspiracy, 33.
119
intentioned of men, their knowledge of political theory and

affairsthat resulted in the American federal system.
Each American state, as politically sovereign and independent
as any European kingdom, entered into a covenantal compact (the
federal Constitution) with past and future generations to delegate
certain aspects of their civil jurisdiction to a central but carefully
circumscribed and limited government in Washington which
could present a united front vis-a-vis foreign powers and which
could provide a forum and a mechanism for resolution of certain
aspects of the interrelationship of the states among themselves.
The objective of the Constitution was less to create a singular
nation than it was to achieve a cooperative unity of independent
republics. Thus, until after the War for Southern Independence,
it was common practice to say the United States are...,23 {102} to
indicate the plural arrangment of the United States.
In keeping with the view of the founding generation that no
human institution (whether parliament and/or king) is totally
sovereign, political sovereignty (the jurisdiction[s] of civil
government) was carefully divided and apportioned. The states are
governments of reserved powers, meaning that each state retained
for itself all powers of civil government not expressly delegated to the
federal government. The federal government, on the other hand, is a
government of enumerated or delegated powers, rightfully exercising
only those powers specifically delegated to it by the states. The
states (or the people of the states acting as citizens of politically
sovereign states and not in national referendum) entered into
a constitutional compact in which they delegated only a few,
specificially enumerated powers to the federal government, very
few of which touched the citizen in his daily affairs. The states then
amended into the Constitution the common understanding, lest
future generations should forget its intent, a Bill of Rights which
prevented the federal government from specified atrocities against
the citizens of the several states.24
23. R. J. Rushdoony, This Independent Republic (Thoburn Press, 1978), 21;
Whitehead, Second American Revolution, 205.
24. It is only through subsequent perversion by the courts that the federal
Bill of Rights has become applicable against the states. Actually, most states had
equally strong bills of rights with respect to relations with their citizens. There
are times when federal courts, on the basis of imputed incorporation of certain
120
The federal Constitution is appropriately seen as political law

in the sense of fundamental law to limit law rather than as local
law designed to restrain the citizen in his own community. The
constitutional covenant whereby the colonial republics entered
into a limited mutual union in the form of a national government
represented the application of political law to limit government
within a strictly federal separation of powers.
Professor A. V. Dicey, revered English doctor of constitutional
law (Vinerian Professor of Law at Oxford), in contrasting
parliamentary sovereignty with federalism in his classic
comparative study (1885), noted that the essential character of
federalism is the effort to reconcile national unity and power with
the maintenance of state rights .... Federalism attempts to reconcile
the apparently inconsistent claims of national sovereignty and of
state sovereignty [by] the formation of a constitution under which
the ordinary powers of sovereignty [legal jurisdiction or ultimate
civil lawmaking authority] are elaborately divided between the
provisions of the federal Bill of Rights as applicable against the states, does reach
decisions that are in accord with desirable legislative wisdom, that is, the federal
courts require, on the basis of the Bill of Rights, that a state commit itself to a
more desirable public policy than that to which the states own legislature and/or
courts would have committed it. For example, it is conceivable that a meritorious
Court could interdict a state practice which unduly intruded on the fundamental
educational and parental rights of Christians to educate their little ones in
schools conducted as part of the ministry of a local church, on First Amendment
grounds. However, for the most part, the federal courts have interdicted state
laws they did not like on the basis of alleged church or religious influence. The
possibly questionable legislative wisdom of school prayer or mandated teaching
of creationism notwithstanding, such questions of state or local district policy are
not any business of a federal court. The following points should be noted with
respect to the First Amendment, which only allegedly provides for separation
of church and state.
(1) The intent of the amendment was not to interfere with or touch in any
manner the provisions of any state with respect to establishment of religion or
any provisions relating to religious institutions. Actually, at the time, some states
had established churches, and some states had specifically religious qualifications
for office holders; (2) The purpose of the First Amendment was to preclude
the federal government from establishing a state church or violating liberty of
conscience and the free exercise of religious worship; (3) There was no intent to
prevent religious influence on the tenor of government, outcome of elections,
or determination of governmental policy. The state is not to be free from the
perspective, instruction, and cultural ethos of religious ministry; rather, the
federal state is not to interfere with the exercise of religion.
121
common or national government and the separate states.25

The aim of federalism, Dicey observed, requires a rigid or
inexpansive Constitution in the sense that its terms may be
rightfully altered only by the amending process set forth in the
contract. It may {103} not be altered merely by the assessment of
any branch of the national government of the mood of the nation
or of the propriety of changing constitutional policy because of
failure of the people to do so through the amending process.
Professor Dicey further noted that the legal sovereignty of the
United States resides in the states governments as forming one
aggregate body represented by three-fourths of the several states
at any time belonging to the Union. By legal sovereignty Dicey
meant the process by which the fundamental government law
of the Constitution may be changed. constitutional amendment
requires ascent of three-fourths of the states acting through their
legislature or by convention. Thus, neither the federal Congress
nor the courts alone can lawfully change the Constitution. Only
the states legally have this power.
The distribution of powers is an essential feature of federalism....
The powers given to the nation form in effect so many limitations
upon the authority of the separate States, and as it is not intended
that the central government should have the opportunity of
encroaching upon the rights retained by the States, its sphere of
action necessarily becomes the object of rigorous definition.
The Constitution of the United States delegates special and
closely defined powers to the executive, to the legislature, and to
the judiciary of the Union ... whilst it provides that powers not
delegated to the United States by the Constitution nor prohibited by
it to the States are reserved to States respectively or to the people.26
The federal government is not an entity of aggregate legal
jurisdiction. The states, in their constitutional status, are not
mere administrative subdivisions of the federal government,
although many nationally formulated policies and programs,
recognizing tradition and existing administrative structures and
the remaining realities of the federal system, are cooperatively or
state administered. States do not stand in a similar relationship to
25. A. V. Dicey, Law of the Constitution, 7677.
26. Ibid., 83.
122
the central government as do counties and municipalities to their

state governments. Local governments are revokable delegations
of state political jurisdiction or power. They do not possess any
political sovereignty, but exist and exert only such civil jurisdiction
as is granted by their state government.
The relationship of the states to the central government, as
intended by the founding generation that adopted the U.S.
Constitution, was well stated in the Kentucky and Virginia
Resolutions of 1798:
The several States ... are not united on the principle of unlimited
submission to their General Government.... The Government
created by {104} this compact (ratification of the Constitution)
was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of powers
delegated ... seizing the rights of States and consolidating them in
the hands of the General Government with power to bid the States
(not merely in cases federal) but in all cases whatsoever, by laws
made, not with consent, but by others against their consent ...
would be to surrender the form of Government we have chosen,
and to live under a government deriving its powers from its own
will....27
27. As self-restraint and regard for God rapidly diminish under the
assault of secular humanism, a new rule of law has been emerging. Judges are
less inclined to make decisions based on the Bible, the Constitution, natural
law, or precedent. Instead, they often impose as a rule of law whatever seems
sociologically [socially] expedient or whatever reflects the prevailing sentiment
of the ruling elite ... a trend in which a government based on mens opinions
would supersede a government based on law. Lawlessness has thus come a long
way. Pat Robertson, The Secret Kingdom (Thomas Nelson, 1982), 31. As the
Supreme Court embraced assertion of national and imperial supremacy there
began the courts recession from its conception of America as a Christian country
and its development of the thesis of a unitary state ... so it established national
sovereignty and absolutism as a corollary to its denial of higher law(37). The
basis of this change ... in constitutional theory is a sociological approach to the
Constitution. Its original intent is replaced by present demands ... [w]e are less
and less under the Constitution and increasingly under the Supreme Court ....
The Constitution still stands ... and its character has changed little in the last
fifty years. The interpretation thereof has changed, reflecting a now deeply
rooted revolution in American faith and life. The outcome of the struggle
between the older faith and the newer approach will be settled first of all in
the religious decisions of men. Inescapably, history is the outworking of religious
commitments. Rushdoony, This Independent Republic, 15859.
123
6. Sociological Jurisprudence and the Reign of Lawlessness

Rather than binding government by its restraints, the
Constitution, with increasing frequency, has been turned against
itself in the interest of accomplishing social good. Antislavery
abolitionists charged that the Constitution was a compact with
hell; the Warren Courts proponents of social rights for favored
groups similarly demonstrated disrespect for and disregard of
the Constitution as an intended contrivance to limit central
power. They prevailed upon the Court to transform itself into a
supralegislature functioning to promote social good and declare
public policy. The Warren Court was not without precedent in its
departures from the provisions of the Constitution and the dual
political sovereignties that compact set forth. But it managed to
usher in heretofore unprecedented assault against the meaning
of that document as understood at the times of its adoption and
amendment. The Courts activism included the rewriting of
federal and state legislation, declaration of public policy at all
levels of the government, and amendment of the Constitution
itself in disregard of the process provided in that document for
its amendment. Much in its decisions sanctified federal intrusions
as grievous as those of King George of which the colonists
complained. The Court enabled federal functionaries (particularly
lower court functionaries in judicial robes in the federal court
system) to become administrative overseers of state institutions
if not the corpus of the states themselves. As much as any other
ingredient, this reflected a shift in the basis of law and government
from that derived from biblical revelation to a positivistic or
humanistic foundation.
Dr. Schaeffer points out that [a]s the new sociological law
has moved away from the original base of the Creator giving the
inalienable rights, etc., it has been natural that this sociological
law has then also moved away from the Constitution.28 The
moral-cultural ethos which permitted both freedom and form in
government and {105} law and in the distinct liberties experienced
in Western civilization and in the American Republic has been
increasingly supplanted by humanistic rationalism. The shift away
28. Francis A. Schaeffer, A Christian Manifesto (Westchester, IL: Crossway
Books, 1982), 42.
124
from the Judeo-Christian basis for law and away from the restraints
of the Constitution and the displacement of the Christian worldand life-view are central underlying factors in the deification of
the massive state.
Professor Dicey, writing nearly a century ago, pointed to the
legitimate function of the Supreme Court and lower courts in
the federal system as protectors of the federal compact, and
the validity of that compact is, in the long run, the guarantee for
the rights of the separate States. Dicey, expecting the courts to
function as forums of law, felt that as long as the people of the
United States wish to keep up the balanced system of federalism,
they will ultimately compel the central government to support the
authority of the federal Courts.29 However, if the courts violate
this trust and become legiscourts in disregard of the Constitution,
... this use of judicial power can deteriorate into an awful form
of tyranny. It does no good to write words down so that the
Constitutional limitations may be remembered, when judges
claim the power to change the meaning of the written words. The
absolute preservation of constitutional supremacy is essential to
the protection of the liberties of people now living and those yet
to come.30
Initially and historically for successive generations, federalism in
theory and practice was a basic reality in the operational system of
institutions, norms, practices, and beliefs which constituted life in
the republic. Respect for the federal system is respect for lawfulness.
Government sui generis needs to be restricted to tasks appropriate
to its sphere. Thus reversal of the Jacobin hierarchization of power
is strategically necessary because power has increasingly gravitated
in the federal colossus, particularly in the hands of the federal
executive and judiciary. For socialists, who wish to make servants
of the entire population through the instrument of government,
so that the energies of all will be directed in the interest of the
controlling elite, this concentration of power is a desirable
objective. Control of the pinnacle of power in a command society
is more expedient than is the effort to control every overlapping
29. Dicey, Law of the Constitution, 102.
30. Carroll D. Kilgore, Judicial Tyranny (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson,
1977), 71.
125
jurisdiction in every city hall, statehouse, and courthouse.31 {106}
7. Viability of Federalism:
A Continuing Requisite for Freedom
The founders of the American republic, in Whiteheads diction,
rose up and threw off the old tyranny of the French Revolution
mentality, and produced a Constitution to keep it off our backs.32
The humanist state, like imperial Rome, seeks to lay claim of total
jurisdiction.33 Being under no one, including God, the humanistic
state seeks to make itself the great umbrella under which all things
must fit. The state itself, then, is under no law except its own
public policy.
That a non-legislative entity (i.e., bureaucracy, IRS, court) can
declare public policy, and give that the force of law because it is
31. Allen, None Dare Call It Conspiracy, 34. This is one of the reasons
persons and organizations with the greatest disregard for either Christianity or
freemen (churchmen and prominent political figures included) were such ardent
supporters of the social rights movement and accompanying shift of power
over the life of citizenry which accompanied civil rights legislation.
32. Whitehead, New Tyranny, 32.
33. This effort may characterize any of the several states as well as the federal
state. Very frequently the federal state fosters, encourages, or requires this
expansiveness on the part of the several states. Much of the favor with which
states began to be viewed in the 1970s as respositories of political viability was
due to the fact that they had been brought into conformity with the ethos of
the modern messianic state. Further, some saw practicalities of scale and
manageability in administrative devolution in getting on with the business of
accomplishing nationally articulated objectives. The favorable point was that
the states, rather than centers of resistance, had co-opted or assimilated the
mission of positive government. Thus, the recognition of the viability of the
states in the 1970s was, as Elazar has observed, derived from a hierarchical
rather than a pluralistic base. Public education may be highlighted as one of the
arenas in which the state (at federal and/or state levels) seeks to effectuate social
sovereignty. Thus, secular humanist statism, the imperial Rome, has, in state after
state, moved with religious vehemence against Christian schools which, like the
early Christians in Rome, refuse to recognize illegitimate claims of the state to
approve (license) the content of their educational ministries. Since 1980, at the
national level, an administration has been in office which, at least at its highest
level, has sought to exercise a lawful rather than a lawless influence. Further, not
all changes in the tenor and balance of state-federal relations have been sinister
nor detrimental to the states. Some federal intervention has probably given
the states increased room in which to maneuver in dealing with enterprises of
transterritorial complexity within their boundaries. Well reasoned discussion is
presented in Daniel Elazars work.
126
that entitys notion of desirable policy, is foreign to the structures

of constitutional government and the rule of law intrinsic to
Anglican liberty. Rather, such illustrates a feature of government
more aligned with the objectives sought to be achieved by Gaulican
or Jacobin liberty. Anglican liberty seeks to limit the reach of the
state; Gaulican liberty seeks to free the state from hindrance and
limitation on its ability to declare and implement creedal notions
of good. Anglican liberty points toward decentralization, with
power moving from the locality and communal associations
upward. Law limits the government, and the government itself is
charged with protecting the integrity of locality and community.
Gaulican liberty, by contrast, is modeled from the top down.
As the moral-cultural ethos provided by the Christian worldand life-view has been increasingly eviscerated by humanism as
the basis for law, government, and public polity, We have reached
a place today which is violently opposed to what the Founding
Fathers of this country and those in the thirteen individual states
had in mind when they came together to form the union.34 The
implication, as set forth by Whitehead, is:
All authority has passed to a centralized federal bureaucracy
in which it is the interest of the state, not the law protecting the
individual, which is supreme. This is statism. The centralized state
has become in many ways the great provider as well as the arbiter of
what values ... should be provided to the masses. Self-government
by the people in the United States has literally been wrested from
them by a legislating judiciary. The door has been opened to the
massive federal machine, and it will continue to grow and enlarge
because its humanistic base philosophically cannot control it.
The door to statism cannot be controlled unless the foundation is
altered.35 {107}
In an era of sustained tendencies toward centralization and
deification of massive power fueled both by ideological and selfgenerating forces, the rationale for a nation of states under a
constitutional system with bifurcated political sovereignty or civil
jurisdiction and under rather than above God and Higher Law,
poses important considerations for contemporary Americans.
35. Whitehead, New Tyranny, 72.
127
Americans must carefully consider the degree to which they want

to acquiesce to alterations in the basic nature of their government.
They must ask whether these alterations are motivated by
ideological intent or are merely the result of natural but inevitable
solidifications of an intergovernmental structure intended to be
flexible in development of the great traditions of Anglican liberty.
As heretical as it may seem in an age of deification of central
government and the feeding of masses from the public trough,
there is no constitutional reason why the Tenth Amendment, the
underpinning of the Republic, should not be as viable a feature of
the several governments of the United States today as it was on
the date of its enactment. It states: The powers not delegated to the
United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states,
are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
8. The Bottom Line: Limitation and

Restriction of All Civil Government
There is a bottom-line importance to the question of preserving
the civil sovereignty of the states and their viability in providing a
cushion between their citizens and the exercise of naked central
power. However, it is even more important to recognize that
federalism is only a structural tool for recognizing that ultimate
sovereignty resides only in the Creator. It must be recognized
that civil government, at whatever level, has only limited sphere
authority.
The federal-state balance is to a large degree a matter of form.
Shall effective power operated by the collective be lawful as set
forth in the constitutional compact, or shall it be situational and
lawless? Proponents of humanistic lawlessness, for practical as
well as philosophical reasons, are oriented toward the good which
results, or which potentially results, from intensifying central
power and magnifying its exercise. As Dr. Schaeffer observes, the
... results of chaos and then Napoleons resulting authoritarian
regime with its network of administrative bureaucracy were the
very opposite of {108} that which was produced by the American
Revolution on its base which placed God above government....
But as the Judeo-Christian consensus in the United States has
weakened and all but disappeared, with lack of vision from a
128
pragmatic perspective, let alone principle, the United States federal

government has continually taken over the very power the original
government of the United States did its best to curtail, limit and
resist.36
Taming of the federal colossus is an essential component of any

return to constitutional government. This itself is a component of an
even larger issue. Structurally, certain actions which touch on the
individual are rightfully reserved to the states, and some are within
the province of the federal government by cessation of portions
of the political sovereignty of the states via the Constitution, but
the bottom line is that government sui generislocal, state, or
federalis itself restricted in its claims and responsibilities.
Perhaps the most fundamental requisite for realizing good
government is an understanding of the proper role and purpose
of government, and the comparatively very limited role civil
government may rightfully play in the life of the citizenry.
Government, assuming the pride and hubris of becoming all
embracing through its ministrations at all levels, has begun to
think of citizens as resources (chattles) whose purpose in life is
to serve as instruments of government policy. With no Higher
Law standard against which its exercise of hubris may be judged
and limited, government becomes totally messianic. Messianic
government, by its own momentum, becomes a legalized
criminal syndicate involved in matters removed from the rightful
jurisdiction of government.37
Other than functioning as minister of justice by punishing
crime and preserving natural liberty under written laws in a
republican system, government has no legitimate social policy
role. Government is not rightly a mechanism whereby some
citizens, including those with an imagined holy mandate to mind
the manners, morals, and behavior of others, make themselves a
party to or infringement upon the privacy, personal hegemony,
and personal decisioning of others.
37. Much government activity involves redistributionary theft in the interest
of those who need it least. Reference may be drawn, for example, to U.S.
agricultural policy (an excellent commentary on this subject is Dan van Gorder,
Ill Fares the Land [Belmont, MA: Western Islands, 1966]; cf. Peter Barnes, The
Peoples Land [Emmaus, PA: Rodale Press, 1975]).
129
Doubtless, apart from compelling uniform public policy, some

states will behave in ways which are not always in alignment with
articulated national consensus, and sometimes in ways which are
neither wise nor admirable. However, the tyranny of compelling
good through a command society is specifically a form of tyranny
which the founders sought to prevent. It is not the humanistic
command society capable of implementing {109} Baal worship (at
whatever level such philosophy of government is implemented)
which leads in the direction of freedom. As Dr. Schaeffer phrased
it:
... [T]he humanist world view with inevitable certainty leads in the
direction of statism .... Thus, if the United States is to move back
toward the original Reformational basis, this would mean severely
limiting the scope of Federal state authority.38
130
Historical Reality of the

Christian Cultural Consensus
in Europe and America
Jean-Marc Berthoud
The impact of the liberal humanist historiography on the schools

and the universities of our nations has been so thorough that
our whole culture suffers from historical amnesia. In communist
countries this transformation of history is undertaken by blatantly
suppressing all witness of the past which is contrary to the
ideological interpretation in favor amongst the ruling party elite.
In the West, the change in our historical self-consciousness has
been more gradual, but no less thorough. When I once undertook
some research on the de-Christianization of our local schools, I
was amazed to discover how great in fact had been the influence
of the Reformed Faith on the entire schooling of our canton
of Vaud, here in Switzerland. (Quel avenir pour nos enfants?
[Lausanne: AVPC, 1983]). We see this same historical amnesia in
the writings of the remarkable French Protestant historian, Pierre
Chaunu, who many consider to be one of the finest historians
in his generation and who in his writings on the Reformation
completely ignores the great historical writings of those Calvinist
giants of historiography, Agrippa dAubign (Histoire Universelle,
1626 [Droz, 1981 and forthcoming]), and J.H. Merle dAubign
(Histoire de la Reformation, 18351875). This subtle method of
stifling the witness of the past by silencing those who restore our
awareness of our Christian and national heritage is manifest in
the refusal to reedit {114} the writings of that greatest of French
Swiss historians, the Roman Catholic from Fribourg, Gonzague de
Reynold, who half a century ago was already fighting the battles
Chalcedon is now engaged in. (La dmocratie et la Suisse, 1934).
From a distance it would seem that this state of affairs is
Historical Reality of the Christian Cultural Consensus
131
changing for the better in the United States. For many years work
has quietly been going on to restore to the Church and nation the
memory of their past. Amongst other works, the historical writings
of Dr. R.J. Rushdoony (This Independent Republic, 1964, and The
Nature of the American System, 1965), those of Frederik Nymeyer
(contained in his First Principles of Morality and Economics, 6
volumes, 19551960), the reeditions of the exceptional historical
writings of Southern scholars such as Robert L. Dabneyof the
dAubigne family(Defense of Virginia and Life of Stonewall
Jackson [Sprinkle, 1977]), and the pioneering volumes by Verna M.
Hall and Rosalie J. Slater (The Christian History of the Constitution
of the U.S.A., 1960, and Teaching and Learning Americas Christian
History, 1965) have certainly contributed much to the revival of
awareness of Americas Christian past.
But whatever the lasting strength of these and other studies,
their influence has not been spectacular. The break through the
liberal historical blackout in fundamentalist and evangelical
circles undoubtedly has been due largely to the publication
of Francis Schaeffers books, and in particular his A Christian
Manifesto (1981), whose impact was very much heightened by
John H. Whiteheads The Second American Revolution (1982).
These last two books produced considerable debate, particularly
in evangelical circles previously impervious to such issues, both
in the United States and in Great Britain, and echo of these
discussions even reached us here in Switzerland.
It would seem to me that the basic controversy relates to two
fundamental questions: (1) What was the nature of the Christian
consensus at the time of the American War of Independence? and
(2) Were the arguments of the Founding Fathers not essentially
of a rationalist and humanist nature, being based on the Rights of
Man of the Enlightenment, and not on Scripture? These questions,
of course, raise the further question of the nature of the relation of
Christianity and society, of the Church and the State, of our Lord
and Savior Jesus Christ and human culture. Let us first, however,
briefly consider the origins of Christian civilization.
There is no doubt whatever that from the fourth century on,
the {115} institutions of the Roman Empire, and its very legal
system, were profoundly influenced and transformed by the
Gospel of Jesus Christ. As the evangelization of Europe developed,
132
this Christian influence on public affairs spread to the whole of

Europe, from Ireland and Iceland to Russia. In particular, the
Christian vision of the Law of God profoundly influenced the
common law and the public institutions of Medieval Christendom.
This Christian influence on European politics and law could
certainly be documented in great detail, but I shall limit myself
but to one example. The feudal bond between lord and vassal is
quite incomprehensible and cannot be accounted for, outside the
context of the biblical covenant. Michel Villey in his numerous
books and articles has documented this influence in detail. I would
recommend particularly his, La formation de la pense juridique
moderne ([Paris: Montchrestien, 1975], 718). The writings of
this author are particularly significant as he opposes any direct
influence of bibical revelation on public law, advocating, rather, a
return to a type of natural law on the Roman model.
With the revival of Roman law, the introduction of Aristotelian
politics by Thomas Aquinas, and more particularly with the
nominalism of his successorsMarsilius of Padua and Ockham
autonomous politics and an autonomous vision of law began to
gain ground. The story is a complex one, and I cannot enter into
it in detail here. According to Villeywhose view is confirmed
by Luther (in despite of the unfortunate nominalist and
antinomian aspects of some of his teachings), Bucer, Viret, and
Calvinthe Reformation countries saw a very strong revival of
biblical influence on public law. To a certain degree the CounterReformation went in a similar direction. This biblical influence
on public law seems to have been particularly strong in Puritan
New England and it would seem to me that a profound Christian
consensus prevailed in America up to the War of Independence
and beyond. It is important to remember that the American
Revolutionradically different from the French Revolutionwas
preceded by a great Christian revival under the preaching of such
men as Whitefield and Jonathan Edwards.
Such a consensus prevailed in Switzerland right into the
nineteenth century, in spite of the spiritual and theological
apostasy of the theologians and many pastors in our Reformed
cantons. But gradually influences foreign to the Bible began to
predominate the culture as a whole, and the legal system followed
this decline, though somewhat more slowly. This rationalistic
133
influence on our laws became much more marked with the

unification of our cantonal legal systems in the first part of this
century, {116} but even here the profound influence of Christianity
on our laws could still be very clearly discerned. The defenders
of our Christian legal heritage during this period came essentially
from the Catholic cantons, and their arguments were those of a
Christian natural-law type. Protestants were for the most part
silent, influenced as they were by the Kantian dualism on the
one hand, and a Pietist otherworldliness on the other. In France,
the Napoleonic Code, though still containing elements of the
Christian heritage, was based on a rationalistic philosophy. But
it is only recently that the fruit of this de-Christianization of our
legal system has been clearly discerned. Now laws are proposed,
with the approval of ostensibly Christian experts like Professor
Rumpf (a former member of the Free Church who taught ethics
for many years at the Theological Faculty of Lausanne after the
reunion of the Free and State Churches), and Catholic federal
councillors like Kurt Furgler, who are blatantly opposed to our
common Catholic and Reformed heritage.
Thus I think we can say that a Christian consensus is a clearly
documented historical reality both in Europe and in America. The
main theme of Western history for the last 250 years has been the
gradual erosion of the Christian base of our diverse societies. This
de-Christianization of the law is due essentially to a nominalist
current which culminated in the separation of society from all
transcendental influence, characteristic of the idealism of Kant
which has caused as much havoc in the legal sciences as it has
in theology, philosophy, and the natural sciences. The line of
secularization goes from Aquinas cultural humanism, Ockhams
nominalism, the stoic natural-law theories of the Renaissance (of
Grotius in particular), to Kant and modern purely subjectivist law.
Villey describes in a remarkable way this whole tragic history of
mans legal revolt against the Sovereign Legislator of the nations
of this world.
But I would now like to come to the second notion, namely that
the thinking of the American Founding Fathers was infected by
the rationalistic naturalism of the Enlightenment. Now, no one can
doubt that the Enlightenment did in fact exercise a considerable
influence on the thinking of some of the Founding Fathers. All, no
134
doubt, were in one way or another affected by it. Benjamin Franklin

and Thomas Jefferson are prime examples. But even these extreme
cases are to be understood within the Calvinistic framework, the
Christian consensus, which saw fallen man as basically inclined
to evil and hence affirmed the necessity for the division of the
powers within the state into separate executive, legislative, and
judiciary. The importance of maintaining the fragmentation {117}
of the colonies into so many confederate states was also part of
this basically pessimistic view of human nature which came out
of the Christian consensus then prevailing. Modern centralized
bureaucracy, on the other hand, is part of our now prevailing
optimistic, humanist consensus. The immense popularity of The
Federalist Papers is outstanding evidence for the existence of a
basically Christian consensus at the time. These federalist and
separatist principles also preside over our Swiss Confederation
and are the very opposite of the centralized, bureaucratic tradition
of the naive optimism of the French Revolution. Edmund Burke
had perfectly understood this fundamental opposition, and that
is why he could so strongly support the American Revolution and
at the same time oppose in such a determined fashion the French
revolutionary utopia.
Christian historians often seem naive in their appreciation
of serious, scholarly, talented thinkers working in an
Enlightenment framework. They do not seem to see that such
autonomous scholarship cannot avoid keeping historical truth the
captive of injustice. Historical facts cannot be separated from their
interpretative framework, and many historians seem quite unaware
of the great issues in the development of Western thought. One of
these is the ideology of the autonomous and bloated bureaucratic
state which devours all the independent institutions of society
in its obsessive desire to enslave mankind. To use the imagery of
the books of Revelation and Daniel, this is the bestial element in
history.
Historical writing requires the use of appropriate terminology.
The expression revolutionary ideology, for example, used by
historians indiscriminately to apply to both the American and
French Revolutions, in fact applies to theoretical, subjective,
systematic thinking irrespective of the realities of life or the limits
of biblical revelation. Ideology becomes abstract political theory
135
when it falls prey to the pride of contempt for the natural realities
of politics. One must govern here and now in the conditions
actually prevailing, not in the abstract vision of a Heavenly
Kingdom. As in experimental science, true politics is of a humble
nature, and we know that humility is a precondition for attaining
Truth, even biblical truth. Thus the expression revolutionary
ideology cannot be applied with justice to colonial America.
The same confusion is to be found in the use of the term
Whig in application to American political history. Perspicacious
observers of the American scene such as William Cobbett and
Alexis de Tocqueville {118} make it clear that America, at the end of
the eighteenth century and beginning of the nineteenth, was very
different from England and France of the same time. What had
disappeared from the England of Cobbetts day was the independent
yeomanry which had been the backbone of English liberties. This
type of independent farmer was to be found everywhere in the
United States. The colonies had not suffered from the destructive
influence of the Whig enclosures of the village commons and the
ensuing destruction of the yeomanry which Cobbett so bitterly
regretted. Henry VIIIs absolute monarchy had been inherited
by an even more absolute Parliament, which in the eighteenth
century pillaged rural England for the benefit of a class and in the
nineteenth bitterly oppressed the unprotected rural refugees in the
industrial cities. The American colonies were far less advanced on
this road of political and social disintegration than was England
at the same time. Their political, social, and spiritual situation was
that of England at the time of the Puritan Revolution. The War
of Independence was a legitimate revolt of independent farmers
against the tyrannical encroachments of a totalitarian Parliament
which had found little resistance to its appetites in England. Liberal
historians, whether evangelical or secular, make the American
War of Independence incomprehensible.
We find a similar dynamic of resistance to the abusive growth
of the centralized omnipotent state in the defense of the rights of
the sovereign states in the War of Secession. The resistance in our
century to the pretentions of the Hegelian state, whether German,
Soviet, or whatever, has the same base.
The doctrine of the Rights of Man, whose first public
formulation is found in the Declaration of the Rights of Man, is
136
a dangerous notion to use. It can only be used by Christians if

explicitly founded on the Rights of God and of man as they are
formulated by the Law of God. Even the so-called Right to Life
is not an abstract absolute. It must be bound to Gods explicit
teaching in Scripture so as not to put the innocent embryo and the
murderer who massacres him on the same level. Gods Law allows
for the death penalty, for legitimate defense, and for defensive war.
Some say that the theory of the rights of man came to Europe from
America to become a universal leverage for revolution. I think it
rather originated in the thought of the Enlightenment, particularly
in the groups of ideological fermentation so ably analyzed by
Augustin Cochin under the name of Socits de Pense.
Americans like Benjamin Franklin (a notorious Freemason),
having assimilated this notion whilst in France, {119} transplanted
it to the American colonies where it was amalgamated to a more
Christian political perspective. After the War of Independence,
Frenchmen like Lafayette brought the notion back to France
with the added aura of consecration in a successful revolution.
Burke was not fooled by this apparent identity. He sided with
the American colonies in defense of their historic rights against
the totalitarian usurpations of the British Crown. With quite
remarkable consistency, Burke took his stand against the ideology
of human rights of the French Revolution, where abstract rights
founded neither in history nor on the Law of God had become
the intellectual bludgeon of a bloody and tyrannical revolution.
Chesterton likewise more recently took his stand against Great
Britain in her imperialist war against the Boer Republics, and for
his own country against the racial German imperialism manifest
in the First World War. In both instances, his stand was explicitly
against the Hegelian state. It would seem to me that, at the
time of the War of Independence, the American consensus was
predominantly Christian with certain humanist elements, whilst
the consensus behind the French Revolutioneven in the clergy
and the aristocracywas essentially that of the humanism of the
Enlightenment. By 1789 the truly Christian heritage in politics
had become pretty well extinct in France. This was no doubt one
of the most bitter fruits of the revocation of the Edict of Nantes,
of the contempt for law and justice manifest in the raison dtat
which placed the monarchy above both the laws of the land and
137
the Law of God. The consequence of such divinization of the state

was the most savage persecution of the Christian Faith. We see
this tyrannical tradition today strongly furthered by President
Mitterand in pretty well all his policies. The general will, the voice
of the majority, is being placed over and above any transcendent
moral law, or even above the established laws of the land. This is a
sure sign of the self-divinization of Man.
But the argument must be taken one step further. Even the use
of the argument from natural law is not in itself inevitably invalid
from a Christian and biblical point of view. After all, even though it
is now in a state of corruption, nature still reflects many positive
aspects of Gods creation. The law of God is Gods law for His
creation, and in this sense it can quite legitimately be called a Law
of Nature. Although the autonomous rationalist tradition does
indeed start with Thomas Aquinasand in a sense nominalism
comes out of philosophical realism when the universals are no
longer those of God, those of ScriptureAquinas, in his complex
ambiguity, also fathered a tradition of {120} naturallaw thinking
in harmony with the Law of God. This is what our traditionalist
Roman Catholic friends call le droit naturel et chrtien. From this
tradition, a Swiss jurist, L. Bagi, in a remarkably able defense of
the legitimacy of property rights from a natural-law perspective,
could write:
We are convinced that the legitimacy and the truly obligatory
character of a judicial rule proceed from certain superior principles
of justice and from a conformity with the order established by the
Creator. We are firmly convinced of the obligatory force of the
prescriptions of natural law founded on a justice transcending the
will of man.1
Likewise, Jean Madiran, in the daily French paper Present,
attacks the refunding of abortion by the national Social Security
from a natural-law point of view by quoting explicitly the Sixth
Commandment. Jean de Siebenthal, editor of the monthly review
Finalits, in which he defends a natural-law perspective, quotes at
the beginning of each number:
Thy hands have made me and fashioned me; give me understanding,
1. Louis Bagi, La garantie constitutionnelle de la proprit (Lausanne: Nouvelle
bibliothque de droit et de jurisprudence, 1956), 11.
138
that I may learn thy commandments. (Ps. 119:73).
The Creation is Gods, therefore the law of Creation, the law of

reality, can only be Gods law. Gods law is the law of Creation,
and Creation is freed from vanity and corruption when that law
is observed by the children of God. General Revelation, though
in dire need of the precisions of Special Revelation, is never in
opposition to Special Revelation. Thus Burke, starting from a
natural-law standpoint radically opposed to the naturalism of the
Enlightenment, arrived at many positions which we as Christians
would defend from the Scriptures. Reason itself is not the enemy.
Aquinas did distinguish right reason from corrupt reason. Our
reasonthough marred by sin, with a tendency to error, and thus
not finally trustworthyis a God-given faculty whose legitimate
purpose is to know the Truth, in the same way our eyes are Gods
gift for us to see the light. Sin disturbs our use of reason, and our
unregenerate flesh refuses wilfully the evidence of our reason; but
sin does not abolish or destroy this God-given faculty. The stronger
our biblical framework the more readily shall we be able to show
forth rationally the witness of created reality to the Creator.
Now, I suspect that the debate with our evangelical brethren
is not, at bottom, of simply a historical nature. It is, rather, a
fundamental, theological disagreement. The question is not: Was
there a Christian consensus in the American colonies at the time of
the War of Indepen {121} dence? but rather: Has there ever been,
can there ever be in this wicked, fallen world, a Christian consensus
in a nation? These evangelicals no doubt will be found to oppose
the very idea of a Christian nation, that is, a nation influenced even
as to its political and judicial structures by the Christian faith. The
very concept of Christendom is to them completely unpalatable,
and to them what they call the Constantinian Church is just
about the worst of evils. This, of course, goes with a radically
individualistic notion of salvation and of society that ignores the
reality of Gods Covenant. The God of these Christians does not
seem to be the Lord of lords, the King of kings, the Sovereign Ruler
of the nations or the Creator and Sustainer of the universe. This
position has a distinctly Manichaean tang. Some have described it
as a kind of super-spirituality, a type of Christian Neoplatonism,
and even as having a fundamentally Gnostic nature. This upper-
139
story faith has a distinctively Kantian character. This is certainly

the main reason why these evangelical circles are so attracted by
Elluls Barthian-Marxist dichotomy, accepting as biblical Elluls
affirmation that there cannot in any way be any kind of specifically
Christian perspective on society, thus denying the very possibility
of economics, politics, law, or sociology based on the Law of
God. I have written a careful analysis of his position in the Revue
Rforme for December 1982. But, whatever men may say or do,
God remains the Sovereign Lord of all His creatures. Before His
faithful Church the gates of Hell, which today gape wide open
over all the nations of this world, will not prevail! The faith of the
believing, thinking, and obeying church will batter down these
portals of impiety, falsehood, and death and destroy those spiritual
citadels of Satan which hold Truth captive of injustice. It will bring
all thoughtincluding law, politics, science, and economicsto
submission to the Lord of all knowledge, our Savior Jesus Christ.
140
Theopolitics:
Theological Grounds
of Political Action
Bradley P. Hayton, Ph.D.
In the past forty years the people of the United States have
experienced a dramatic increase in their political selfconsciousness. From a once peripheral concern, politics has
grown into a force which touches most of the daily activities of all
Americans. Transcontinental railroads, airlines, and expressways,
nationwide business enterprises and labor unions, the current
ecological and food crises, and international obligations of myriad
kinds have made big government seem inevitable.
These changes in our democracy have made increasing demands
upon the individual Christian citizen. Men are asked to make the
choices upon which government policies are based and then give
their support to those policies when enacted into law. Both roles
demand an ability to relate personal values to political problems.
The more complex the problem the more necessary and difficult it
becomes for the individual to respond to it adequately as a moral
being. Thus the political implications of the Christian faith must
be explored, and a mature conception of Christian responsibility
and skill in politics must be developed. Christians must not
choose the political passivity that has often been the posture of
a culture-denying fundamentalism. Nor must they engage in the
mindless activism that has readily characterized the stance of
liberal worshipers at the alter of relevance. Both of these errors
can be {123} avoided if political involvement is firmly grounded in
submission to the Word of God in obedience to the Lord of the
church.
A system of theopolitics needs to be developed. It is a
theopolitics in which God can genuinely insert Himself into
141
the course of politics. Only after this is done can practical

suggestions be given for Christian involvement. But before this is
done, misconceptions about politics must be both discussed and
answered. Then reasons for Christian political involvement can be
given.
Misconceptions: Reasons for Christian Noninvolvement

The view that the God of the Church: He is not the God of
politics, says Warren, echoes as a murmuring sound of protest
from many places in the earth, indeed, wherever the church
has been content to separate what God has joined together....1
Christians often make the mistake of assuming that power can be
dissolved by ignoring it. Pretend it is not there and it will go away.2
Many Christians speak of politics as some distant machine run
by those politicians. Although many beg them to vote, to work in
a party, to join political action and political educational groups, to
support candidates, and to participate in displays of political unity,
apathy and hostility have run wild.3 The reasons for these attitudes
stem from many misconceptions on the part of Christians.
First, many believe that personal piety separates the Christian
from the world. Above all, the Christian life consists in perserving
in our faith and our moral life.4 Since the world is evil, there must
be a retreat into holiness away from the world.5 Such Christians
give the simple formula Christ is the answer to all the problems
of human existence. When someone is changed through new birth,
they believe that this person will naturally be concerned about the
needs of his fellow men. Problems such as racial discrimination,
1. Max Warren, The Christian Mission (London: SCM Press, 1951), 9, in Paul
L. Lehmann, Ethics in a Christian Context (New York: Harper and Row, 1963),
81.
2. William Muehl, Mixing Religion and Politics (New York: Association Press,
1958), 104.
3. Walfred H. Peterson, The Responsibility of the Christian Voter, in Protest
and Politics, ed. R.C. Clouse et al. (Greenwood, SC: Attic Press Inc., 1969), 23.
4. Philippe Maury, Politics and Evangelism (New York: Doubleday, 1958), 45.
5. Robert D. Linder and Richard V. Pierard, Politics: A Case for Christian
Action (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1973), 26.
142
poverty, and hatred among nations will take care of themselves.6 It

is therefore stated by such people that the the redemption of the
world doesnt hang on politics.7
Secondly, this attitude has led to the dichotomy of sacred and
secular.8 The nature of Gods work is spiritual, not worldly. It is said
that we ought not to identify our own specific political programs
with the will of God.9 Christianity is too sacred to be perverted
with politics.
This attitude has been caused by a third one, that politics
is dirty business. Politics is filled with graft, favoritism, and
influence pedaling. {124} Even at best, government seems to negate
the virtues of hard work, independence, and private business.10 It
bears the stigma of compromise, conflict, and corruption. In some
Central American languages, politics is translated argument,
quarreling, and fighting. Thus, politics is evil.11 Christians
cannot compromise their ideals. If they are to love the Lord with
all their heart, soul, strength, and mind, there is no room for
worldly allegiances.12 When Paul Geren ran unsuccessfully for the
U.S. Congress in 1946, he was told by members of the church of
which his father was pastor that he was a good boy, that the Lord
had a higher calling for him, and that his defeat at the polls was
evidence that Gods will prevailed.13 Many believe that Christianity
is motivated by love, whereas politics involves force and power.14
Therefore, the two should be separated.
6. Robert G. Clouse et al., The Cross and the Flag (IL: Creation House, 1972),
14-15; and Lee Nash, Evangelism and Social Concern, in ibid., 133.
7. Richard J. Mouw, Political Evangelism (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B.
Eerdmans, 1973), 23.
8. Mark O. Hatfield, Conflict and Conscience (Waco, TX: Word, 1971), 9.
9. Mouw, Political Evangelism, 25.
10. Donald A. Kruse, Evangelicals in Government, Christianity Today,
August 28, 1964, 13.
11. Henlee H. Barnette, Protestants and Political Responsibility, Review and
Expositor 68 (Summer 1968): 299.
12. Jerry Voorhis, The Christian in Politics (New York: Association Press,
1951), 27.
13. Paul Geren, The Layman as a Christian Statesman, Review and Expositor
60 (January 1963): 74.
14. Barnett, Protestants, 300.
143
Fourth, many argue that there are too many issues to vote on
intelligently. There is not enough time to be well informed about
the scores of candidates and issues.15 This, coupled with the feeling
that there is relatively little return in voting, produces much
apathy. After all, it is asked, What can one vote change? This may
take the form of a conscious decision to drop out, or it may mean
turning ones back on the worlds problems and concentrating on
earning money and raising a family in a quiet corner of suburbia.16
This naturally leads to a fifth misconception. Apathy and
indifference has lead to the acceptance of the status quo. Relating
this to social reform, Moberg states, By their refusal to participate
in social reform movements, they have placed their blessing upon
the selfishness and covetousness which lie at the core of much
modern economic and political life.17 Not all support the status quo
by their apathy, however. Some support it with active enthusiasm.
Many have sold out completely to the current socioeconomic
establishment and do not defend the poor and helpless elements
in our society.18 Many fundamentalists still support racism. Many
say that the poor are poor because they are sinful and do not work
hard enough. Often this is a true statement, but is still no excuse
for inaction on their behalf. They actively support the status quo,
putting aside the biblical commands of justice and love.
The sixth misconception is that of cementing together the
American philosophy of individualism and Christianity. A
philosophy that was developed in the Renaissance and was carried
through the Reformation to the very foundations of America,
individualism is equated with Christianity in many circles.19 The
philosophy of individualism has caused {125} many merely to seek
a personal salvation and a personal relationship with God. It has
caused many merely to strive to meet their own needs, as well as
their familys. These Christians have not only lost their sense of
15. Peterson, Responsibility, 24, 29.
16. Linder and Pierard, Politics, 31.
17. David O. Moberg, Inasmuch (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans,
1965), 21.
18. Clouse et al., The Cross and the Flag, 14.
19. Paul G. Elbrecht, Politics and Government (St. Louis, MO: Concordia,
1965), 45; Muehl, Mixing Religion and Politics, 3338.
144
community among other believers, but have lost their sense of

community with their next door neighbor as well.
This individualism is at the source of the seventh misconception.
Many do not involve themselves in politics because they believe
that laws cannot dictate morality. The outward can never change
or mold the inward. True reconciliation in our land will never be
accomplished by mere legislative acts of Congress.20 Again it is
said that only conversion or rebirth can change the individual and
therefore society.
Certain interpretations of eschatology have caused an eighth
misconception about political involvement. Since premillenialists
maintain that Christ is soon to return to earth, prophecies indicate
that conditions in the world will become increasingly worse until
He arrives. Thus, it is far better to concentrate on the spiritually
productive tasks of winning souls rather than reforming the world
through politics.21 It is not uncommon to hear a Christian refusing
to speak out against war and poverty since there will be wars and
rumors of wars in the last days.22
A ninth misconception that keeps Christians from political
involvement is that of distinguishing the political messages of
the Old Testament from the New Testament. It is said that Israel
was living under a theocracy at the time, whereas Christians
in the New Testament period live under secular governments.
Therefore, Christians should not speak out on social issues such as
big government, war, poverty, economics, and the like, but rather
should only perform individual acts of charity such as discussed
in the book of James.23
A tenth and last misconception is that of the role of divine
providence. Many believe that since God is in control, He will
remedy injustice and oppression according to His own timetable.
Since He has predetermined the future, He will work out
everything in accordance with His good pleasure anyway. All that
is left for the Christian to do is to pray, relying on God to change
the worlds conditions rather than trusting the arm of the flesh (2
20.
21.
22.
23.
Hatfield, Conflict and Conscience, 31.

Clouse et al., The Cross and the Flag, 18.
Mouw, Political Evangelism, 28.
Ibid., 30.
145
Chron. 32:8; Jer. 17:5).24
Misconceptions Answered
Although these reasons for noninvolvement in politics seem
persuasive in points, they are in reality inadequate rationalizations.
{126} Before going any further in developing a Christian concept of
politics, these ten common arguments need to be examined more
closely in the light of Gods Word, history, and political reality.
In answer to the pietist argument, Christians have been placed
in the world to minister to it, left to serve the world as salt and
light (Matt. 5:1316).25 Through their witness and actions, like
salt, they preserve the world from decay which is the result of evil.
Christians are called to give themselves in ministry to others by
feeding them, quenching their thirst, clothing and sheltering them,
and comforting them in loneliness and despair (Matt. 25:3145).
Servants of Christ are obligated to minister to the whole man,
meeting both his spiritual and material needs. Many times Jesus
rebuked the Pharisees for their shortcomings in this regard.26
Spiritual redemption does not always automatically change mans
basic attitude toward his fellows. There are still Christians who
engage in racist practices, do not contribute their time and money
to help the poor and needy, and who engage in many legal but
immoral business practices.
The argument that there is a dichotomy between sacred and
secular breaks down just as easily. God clearly indicates that
justice in mundane affairs is very important to Him (Amos 5:24).
He established the institution of human government so that
man could live in a just and orderly relationship with his fellows
(Rom. 13:17). Jesus never distinguished the religious from the
social. He fed the hungry, healed the sick, and raised the dead.
In fact, Jesus placed the needs of earthly men above religious
and ceremonial considerations, as exemplified by His defiance
of Sabbath customs (Mark 2:2328) and His treatment of the
woman taken in adultery (John 8:311). When John said not to
25. Paul S. Minear, Images of the Church in the New Testament (Philadelphia:
Westminster Press, 1960), 2930.
146
love the world (1 John 2:15), he was referring to the world system,
not people. Catherwood says, To try to improve society is not
worldliness but love. To wash your hands of society is not love but
worldliness.27
In the attempt to answer the third misconception, Grant offers
two reasons for this confused image of politics as dirty. First, the
work of politicians is conducted in full glare of the public eye while
other organizations much more corrupt carry on their business in
secrecy. Secondly, Americans hold a double standard of morality
for persons in politics. While questionable behavior is taken for
granted in other areas of life, the same behavior is condemned in
government officials.28
Politics seems dirty because it attempts to work in a sin-torn
world. Consequently, politics takes on many qualities that are
deemed offensive {127} in other vocations. Compromise is one of
these qualities. Compromise, rather than being seen as evil, is the
primary method of accomplishing desired ends in the political
realm, especially in a democracy. The opposite of compromise
is despotic, arbitrary tyranny. Competition is also essential
to politics. Dahrendorf, a German historian who supports
democracy, says, Competition keeps societies open to change
and prevents the dogmatization of error. Aversion to conflict is
a basic trait of authoritarian thought, which means in effect that
the government loses control of change, and the citizens lost their
freedom.29 God uses compromise and conflict to carry out His
purposes. If our entire society lies within Gods providence and
care, and He uses human beings to carry out His purposes, then
Christians should be active participants in the maintenance of an
orderly world. Linder and Pierard sum up these arguments against
the dirty politics thesis by stating:
To be sure, Jesus and his disciples never belonged to a political
party, sought positions in government, made political speeches or
advanced a specific action program. But neither did any of them
27. Frederick Catherwook, Reform or Revolution? in Is Revolution Change?
ed. Brian Griffiths (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1972), 66.
28. Daniel R. Grant, The Christian and Politics (Nashville, TN: Broadman
Press, 1968), 1213.
29. Ralph Dahrendorf, Society and Democracy in Germany (New York:
Doubleday, 1969), 184.
147
practice medicine or law, join a labor union, serve in the army or

operate a store, and yet Christians today do all these. For a believer
to neglect his political responsibilities represents not only poor
citizenship but also a faulty understanding of his role in the present
world.30
The objection that there are too many issues and that it does
not really make any difference anyway is just another political
rationalization. Multiplicity of issues should demonstrate to the
voter two things, says Peterson. First, it means that except in the
rarest cases it is folly to pass judgment on the candidate on the
basis of just a single issue. And secondly, many issues force the
voter to be content with a less than ideal candidate. In this world
that is not ideal all mans efforts fall short of perfection. Not only
do candidates fall short, but even the church itself. Instead of
responding in irresponsible apathy, Christians need to recognize
themselves as Gods instrument to carry out His purposes of
making His kingdom evident in this day.
Concerning the fifth misconception, Christians need not accept
the status quo. Although Christian interest does not lie in gaining
a position of power, it strives for a higher existence.31 Sanctioning
the status quo by refusing to work for the reformation of society is
the equivalent of saying either that society is already Christian,
God does not care about the needs of this world, or that the gospel
is powerless to change the world. Our society is not Christian, and
our all-powerful God {128} desires very much to minister the gospel
in the attempt to transform it.32 Those Christians who accept the
status quo are more attached to worldly values than they think. We
constantly need to be aware of our values and how they differ from
the values of our own American culture.
The sixth misconception, that of individualism, stems from
the same sources. Individualism is part of the foundations upon
which America was laid, rather than the foundations of the
church. The church is a people of God, an organism rather than an
31. Otto A. Piper, Christian Ethics (London: Nelson, 1970), 240.
32. Robert D. Linder and Richard V. Pierard, Twilight of the Saints: Biblical
Christianity and Civil Religion in America (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity
Press, 1978).
148
organization of individuals. Mouw writes,

It is the Church that calls men to turn from their evil ways; and it
calls them into fellowship with God by inviting them to become
engrafted into itself, the Body of Christ on earth, the body God
has chosen to be the community in which and through which he
makes his glory known among men.33
It is the Christians life together that demonstrates the triumphs
of Gods grace in human communal existence, demonstrating to
the world that life together is indeed possible. C. Freeman Sleeper
points out that distorted forms of power are characterized by the
presence of distrust, domination, alienation, and either a false
optimism or a premature despair. On the other hand, responsible
forms of power call for mutual responsibility and accountability:
freedom, not from institutional structures but for the shaping
and preserving of structures that promote mutual integrity; love,
which is manifested in sacrificial service, sharing, and mutual
support; and hope, which realistically assesses the potential for
future growth together.34 This sense of community corrects the
forms of unbiblical American individualism that influences all of
our lives.35
The belief that laws cannot dictate morality is just as faulty. On
the contrary, man learns a great deal about moral right and wrong
from governmental law. Peterson comments, Laws of the society
are passed and enforced not merely to control behavior but also
to shape beliefs. While it is true that law in part rests on a general
public morality, that morality in part rests on law.36 Moberg
admits that it is true that what is inside cannot already be changed
directly by legislation, but law does control outward conduct.
Laws establish and maintain order in society. They protect people
against immoral conduct like murder and theft. They thus help

34. C. Freeman Sleeper, Black Power and Christian Responsibility (New York:
Abingdon Press, 1969), chap. 8.
35. R. J. Rushdoony, The One and the Many (Fairfax, VA: Thoburn Press,
1978).
36. Walfred H. Peterson, Political Science, in Christianity and the Modern
Mind, ed. Robert W. Smith (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1972), 205.
149
to promote conduct which upholds human dignity and morality.37

Thus, it is not only the individual that can change society by his
behavior, but societys behavior can mold the individual.
In the eighth place, eschatological views that advocate
noninvolve {129} ment in politics are inadequate and unbiblical
in many ways. Those who hold this view imply that there are no
lasting solutions to the problems of war, poverty, and racial strife
until Christ comes again to earth. Besides, they say, these are
the last days and since there isnt enough time to change the world
socially, we must concentrate all of our efforts toward spiritual
transformation. In contrast, the Scriptures do not permit one
to think that there is ever a time when a concern for the poor
and oppressed is simply out of order. In fact, judgment comes
precisely because there is not concern for the needs of the poor
and oppressed. Vernon Grounds, a premillennialist, reminds us,
The Church must keep reminding us that God has his own program
mapped out for changing the world by the personal intervention of
Jesus Christ, who will return to establish the Kingdom of heaven
on earth. Yet simultaneously the Church must keep reminding us
that there is no biblical reason for concluding that enormous evils
cannot be significantly changed before our Lord comes back....
The Church must keep reminding us that we are Gods saboteurs
working to bring about a revolution of faith, hope, and love.38
Mouw uses the same logic, saying, The Christian is not called to
launch programs that are successful in terms of human criteria.
The Christian is called to be faithful to the heavenly vision.39
Rather than being used as an excuse for inaction, the coming
judgment of God should stimulate us to work even more for Christ
with spiritual and social concerns. We need to be found righteous
and ready at Christs coming, moment by moment doing our best
with the expectancy of Christs imminent return (1 John 2:28).
C.S. Lewis calls us to
[s]ober work for the future within the limits of ordinary morality
and prudence.... For what comes is judgment: happy are those
37. Moberg, Inasmuch, 128.
38. Vernon C. Grounds, Bombs or Bibles? Get Ready for Revolution!
Christianity Today, January 15, 1971, 6.
150
whom it finds laboring in their vocations, whether they are merely

going out to feed the pigs or laying good plans to deliver humanity
a hundred years hence from some great evil.40
Biblical prophecies concerning the future must also be seen as

contingent on human action. Repentance on the part of individuals
and nations in response to prophetic warnings can forestall or
even cancel predicted events. Two biblical examples of this are
King Hezekiah and the city of Ninevah. The consistent message
of the Scripture is to repent from our sins and to plead the causes
of righteousness, justice, and love within our own lives and within
our society.41
The use of these Old Testament examples leads us into the
ninth {130} misconception, that of distinguishing the political
messages of the Old Testament from the New Testament. First, a
simple observation of the texts of Amos and Isaiah will reveal that
they often stood in judgment not only of their own theocracy
but other secular nations as well. Secondly, the Old Testament
prophets plea with both Israel and secular nations was somewhat
the same. It was a call to humility, prayer, repentance, forgiveness,
and healing. In the same manner, if a Christian counseled an
unbeliever involved in an adulterous relationship, the advice given
about the ultimate solutions to his problem is not different from the
advice that would be offered to a believer in a similar situation.42
From a Christian perspective, there are not two different solutions
to a problem. The only difference is that the believer is called to
return to the way of faithfulness to God, whereas the unbeliever is
exhorted to enter into the way for the first time.43
The tenth and last misconception about Christian political
involvement is that Gods providence will take care of the worlds
problems while we are passive. This thesis is simply not found in
Scripture. While Gods providential care is emphasized throughout
Scripture, the biblical command to help the poor and oppressed is
40. C.S. Lewis, The Christian Hope, Eternity 5 (March 1954): 50.
41. Richard J. Mouw, quoting from Vernon Grounds, In Search of a Theology
of Politics, Christian Century, May 2, 1973, 502.
42. H. Norman Wright, notes from Premarital and Marital Counseling (La
Mirada, CA: Talbot Theological Seminary, 1974).
151
never downplayed (Matt. 7:21; 1 Pet. 2:15; Gal. 6:10; James 1:22
23, 27; 2:17, 26). Christians must care for orphans and widows,
show no partiality for the wealthy, and feed those who are hungry.
A corollary to this is that Christians must be taught how to do
good. As noted previously, the new birth does not automatically
change mans basic attitude toward his fellows; the Scriptures
teach that we need to make disciples of all men, teaching them the
whole counsel of God that they might be conformed to the image
of Christ in them.
Reasons for Political Involvement

After many of the misconceptions about politics have been
cleared, it is now possible to give positive reasons for Christian
political involvement that stand on their own merit.
First, Christians need to be involved politically since all people
are related to one another as members of the human race. Because
we are bound together as children of the first Adam, Christ exhorts
us to preach the gospel message to all sinners. We are to carry the
gospel message far and wide, to the uttermost parts of the earth.
In this context Maury writes, A church which ceases to evangelize
is not only {131} unfaithful to its Lord, but in fact ceases to be the
church of Jesus Christ.44 We preach the gospel to sinners because
we also are sinners, but we also preach the gospel because we have
a new relationship to Jesus Christ. Meuhl sums up this first point
well by saying,
What is this biblical view of mans relationship to God and other
men which seems, then, to be the proper basis for Protestant
social analysis? Without resorting to a parade of proof texts, one
significant generalization can be made. Throughout the Bible mans
relationship to God is inextricably bound up with his relationship
with other men. All humanity sprang from one seed. All men fell
in a single act. All are offered redemption in the death of Christ.45
Evangelizing involves serving in love: not domination but
assistance, not manipulation but self-effacing service that meets
44. Maury, Politics and Evangelism, 17.

45. Muehl, Mixing Religion and Politics, 94.
152
particular needs of particular people.46

A second reason for Christian political involvement is that
the message of Christ is not only for individuals but for society.
Hatfield states, If the message of the transforming power of God
in Christ is applicable to the individual being, then it must have
an effect upon social man and his community.47 Ellul states that
what is true in the individual sphere is also true in the social
sphere.48 Therefore, it seems logical to Piper that political life
offers to human beings a unique opportunity for taking part in the
realization of Gods redemptive purpose.49 The church consists
of a community of called out ones, but Christ has sent it back
into the world as ambassadors of a new and heavenly kingdom to
accomplish his redemptive purposes.50
A third major reason for entering into politics is that
Christianity offers absolutes in a relativistic society.51 Linder says
that there are three ways to look at politics.52 Viewing politics as
dirty says that politics is immoral. Politics viewed amorally says
that what is done in the name of the state is neither right nor
wrong because the state is an autonomous system of values
independent of any other source. A third position, however, is
that of traditional Christianity. This view states that all political
acts have moral content.53 John Calvin stated that the laws agreed
upon by the majority might indeed be vices.54 Carl Henry
agrees, saying that if the church fails to apply the central truths
46. Robert W. Bertrand, ed., The Churchs Ministry to People Who Differ on
Issues of National Policy, Concordia Theological Monthly 41 (March 1970): 153.
47. Mark O. Hatfield, How Can a Christian be in Politics? in Protest and
Politics, 130.
48. Jacques Ellul, The Presence of the Kingdom (New York: Seabury Press,
1967), 53.
49. Piper, Christian Ethics, 238.
50. Carl F. H. Henry, A Plea for Evangelical Demonstration (Grand Rapids, MI:
Baker Book House, 1971), 65; Maury, Politics and Evangelism, 40; cf. Watchman
Nee, Love Not the World (PA: Christian Literature Crusade, 1968).
51. Henry, Plea, 16.
52. Linder, The Christian and Political Involvement in Todays World, in
The Cross and the Flag, 3133.
53. Ibid., 33.
54. John Calvin, On God and Political Duty, ed. John T. McNeil (New York:
Liberal Arts Press, 1950), 16.
153
of the Christian religion to social problems correctly, someone

else will do so incorrectly.55 Positive neutrality is an illusion,
say Maury, Schaeffer, and Rushdoony.56 Long ago Edmund Burke
declared: For evil to triumph, it is only necessary for good men
to do nothing.57 Richard Niebuhr, {132} in his classic book, Christ
and Culture, shows that the role of the Christian is to transform
culture.58 Christians are a safeguard of the biblical function of the
state, freedom, and justice.59 Moral principles should be applied to
public politics.60 Christian revelation is a check on contemporary
political structures.61 The Christian is not only called to transform
society but to preserve society.62 In doing so, we must emulate
the method of God: He preserves it by saving it, and he saves
it by utilizing this preservation.63 Our government and society
desperately need this type of political involvement.
A fourth reason for Christian involvement in politics is that the
Bible stresses that we are judged with our nation.64 Sin is not only
viewed as an individual offense to God, but is seen collectively.
The sin of today is national in character and Christians are seen
as part of this nation. Christians must say along with Isaiah, Woe
is me! for I am undone; because I am a man of unclean lips, and I
dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips: for mine eyes have
seen the King, Jehovah of hosts (Isa. 6:5). Mark Hatfield writes,
We as evangelicals must regain sensitivity to the corporateness
of human lifewe must become sensitive to the issues of social
morality as well as issues of private morality. We must learn to
55. Carl F. Henry, Aspects of Christian Social Ethics (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm.
B. Eerdmans, 1964), 82.
56. Maury, Politics and Evangelism, 7879; Franky Schaeffer, A Time for
Anger: The Myth of Neutrality (Westchester, IL: Crossway Books, 1982).
57. Barnette, Protestants, 304.
58. Richard H. Niebuhr, Christ and Culture (New York: Harper and Row,
1951).
59. Henry, Aspects, 81.
60. Hermin U. Roop, Christian Ethics (New York: Fleming H. Revell, 1926),
382.
61. Ellul, Presence, 124; Peterson, Political Science, 2089.
63. Ellul, Presence, 27.
64. See, for example, Ps. 74.
154
repent of and respond to collective guilt as well as individual guilt.65
Concerning collective sin, Jacques Ellul summarizes,

We are involved in it because in spite of our faith we are and remain
sinners; we are also involved in the sin of humanity through the
various orders in life created by God, so that when a man of my
family, or of my nation, commits a sin, I am responsible before God
for this transgression.66
The fifth reason for involvement in politics is eschatological
in nature.67 Mouw states the view well by saying, Evangelism is
concerned to show forth the full glories of the Kingdom of God
among men, with an eye to the day when that Kingdom will reign
over the entire earth.68 To paraphrase Barth in The Christian
Community and the Civil Community, the state and its justice
must correspond to the Kingdom of God. The state must reflect
the truth and reality of the Kingdom of God that the Church
proclaims.69 Indeed, the Scriptures are full of such political terms
as law, liberty, slavery, and redemption.70 The Church and State
have a distinction here even though one is reflected in the other.71
The world needs a vision of a better society.72 The church should
be the model to the world of the Kingdom of God. The church
provides a {133} living example in her own ranks of what new life
in Christ provides.73 She becomes Christ incarnate, the working
65. Hatfield, Conflict and Conscience, 27.
67. See George E. Ladd, Crucial Questions about the Kingdom of God (Grand
Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1952); George E. Ladd, The Presence of the Future
(Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1974); Isaac C. Rottenbeerg, The Promise
and the Presence (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1980); Anthony A.
Hoekema, The Bible and the Future (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1979).
69. Karl Barth, The Christian Community and the Civil Community, in Maury,
Politics and Evangelism, 6364; I think Henry misinterprets Barth to say that
Christians are to bring in the Kingdom through political action (Henry, Aspects,
96).
70. Peterson, Political Science, 206.
72. Hatfield, Conflict and Conscience, 4041, 50ff.
, 73.
73. Henry, Plea, 67.
155
Body of Christ on earth.74 With victory in Christ already realized in

the Churchs life, she can then transform the worlds community.75
We act from victory to victory, knowing that the powers of this
world have been defeated by the death and resurrection of Christ
Jesus. Roop writes,
Only by the sincere efforts of Christian citizens can the social
customs be inspired, legislative halls be motivated, national
policies be dictated, the nations conscience be enlightened by the
great eternal principles of the Kingdom of Godrighteousness
and peace and gladness in the Holy Spirit.76
Towards a Theology of Theopolitics

Now that the misconceptions about Christian political
involvement have been answered and positive reasons have been
shown for political involvement, it is necessary to start developing
a theology of theopolitics. The Christian does not act like the
world when in politics. His life does not depend on the powers
in the world, but in God. Hence, the Christian must practice
theopolitics, letting God insert Himself into politics through His
Body, when in the human realm of politics.
The Kingdom of God is essential to this theology. Not only is
it a positive reason for involvement in politics, but it is central
to Christian involvement. The Christian must live in constant
tension with the world. To borrow a thought from Oscar Cullman
(and others), we are poised between the no longer of the rule
of Satan and the not yet of the fullness of the Kingdom.77 G.C.
Berkouwer puts it,
The church ... must be careful not to draw a direct conclusion from
the triumph of Christ to its own perfection, possible or real. On the
other hand, it must not, in an effort to ward off any tendencies to
perfectionism, elevate the not yet to the status of norm in its own
existence.78
74. Col. 1:1829.
76. Roop, Christian Ethics, 384.
78. G. C. Berkouwer, The Return of Christ (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B.
Eerdmans, 1972), 138.
156
Henry Pietersma emphasizes,

The Christian life certainly has a kind of unity that is important to
emphasize. The old and the new are not neutral to one another. It is
a unity in which acceptance of the old is tempered by detachment
or dissociation as a result of our faith in the new.... The unity of the
Christian life involves a tension that Christians should never cease
to feel.79
While only Christs redeeming work can make this world less
sinful, {134} it is impossible for us [Christians] to accept it as it
is....80 On the one hand the state may be seen as a divine institution
arising from the family,81 but on the other hand, Christians must
not have a false faith in the state.82 There must be involvement
in politics not arising out of a comprehensive social theory that
is developed apart from the Scriptures, but arising out of direct
obedience to God and genuine personal interest in neighbors.83
To do this, Christians need to be moral agents in society,
rebuilding and preserving it. Elbrecht makes the statement,
Christians in politics make good government.84 Although
present government may never be perfect, Christian morals and
ideals must awaken government. Unless there is the awakening
and expansion of vigorous moral sensibilities, responsible social
action will not occur.85 Hehir emphasizes this point, showing
that moral awareness or moral consciousness is a prerequisite
for serious moral analysis or action.86 Jesus was a loyal citizen of
an imperfect government, but He did not let this keep Him from
fulfilling His own purposes.87 He recognized that government
79. Henry Pietersma, The Unity of the Christian Life, Reformed Journal 21
(JulyAugust 1971): 15.
81. Roop, Christian Ethics, 376.
84. Elbrecht, Politics and Government, 91.
85. James M. Gustafson, Ethics and Faith in the Life of the Church, Perkins
School of Theology 26 (1972): 613.
86. J. Bryan Hehir, International Affairs and Ethics, Chicago Studies
(1972):197208.
87. Cf. John H. Yoder, The Politics of-Jesus (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B.
Eerdmans, 1972).
157
deserves prophetic, corrective censure when it violates Gods

standards. John the Baptist was beheaded for just such a practice.
The Old Testament prophets made known Gods commandments.
Injustice is not simply antihuman but anti-God. Concerning the
role of social critique, Ellul remarks,
Every Christian who has received the Holy Spirit is now a prophet
of the Return of Christ, and by this very fact he has a revolutionary
mission in politics: for the prophet is not one who confines himself
to foretelling ... he is one who already lives it, and already makes
it actual and present in his own environment.88
Dean W. R. Inge graphically states,
Our whole duty is to hold up the Christian view of life, the Christian
standard of values, steadily before the eyes of our generation ... to
live by that standard ourselves; to show that we are not ashamed of
it, that we find it works, that we are ready to defend it and justify it to
all questioners.... We are to use these convictions of ours in helping
to form public opinion, and in setting a standard to others.... There
is no such lever for moving as religious faith. It really moves society,
just because it alters the will and character of individuals.... I think
that we have the highest authority for believing that this is the best,
nay the only true method of social amelioration.89
Christians must be prophets of Gods Word because as Gordon
Clark {135} says, All the nontheistic systems assume that the
present condition of man is normal; the Christian system views
actual humanity as abnormal.90
It is this same quality of man that has affected mans organic
community.91 The church, however, must act as a model
community, an organism of people living interdependently. Mouw
calls political evangelism an outgrowth of our life together as
the people of God.92 Having roots in the individual experience
89. W.R. Inge, The Church and the Age (London: Logmans, Green, 1912),
8182, 88.
90. Gordon H. Clark, A Christian View of Man and Things (Grand Rapids,
MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1952), 138.
91. Mihajilo Mesarovic and Eduard Pestel, Man at the Turning Point (New
York: Readers Digest Press, 1974).
158
of peace with God, reconciliation with others whom God has

redeemed is realized in the church.93 The way each individual
functions in this body is determined by the gifts that the Spirit
has given him. Ellul relates, In other words, it is in receiving, and
in living the gospel that political, economic, and other questions
can be solved.94 Dispersion and infiltration of the Christian
community is the key in changing societal and political norms.95
As this gospel is spread and becomes effective within society, the
prophecies of doom that are contingent upon societys response of
repentance might be averted.
Nevertheless, the importance of Christian community and unity
must not be distorted into an assumption that all must agree about
the political and economic issues linked with social concerns.
There are honest and Christian reasons for differences of opinion
about the means to produce justice and mercy.96 To differ honestly
with a fellow Christian on a national policy issue is itself part of
a Christians ministry to his fellow believer.97 Differences on the
issues are the nutriment of the political process, writes Clark.98
Some opt for Christian parties such as the followers of the Dutch
philosopher Herman Dooyeweerd.99 Agreeing with Moberg,
Maury states, on the other hand, that a Christian political party
tends inevitably to identify the mission of the Church in the world
with the political struggle, and it soon becomes an evangelistic
liability by making economic critics of the party into critics of
the Church as well.100 Others believe the most effective strategy
is not a new political organization, but independent political
groups which seek to influence either party101 or loosely attach to
93. Ibid., 90.

95. Hatfield, Conflict and Conscience, 10, 49.
97. Bertrand, Churchs Ministry, 153.
98. Ramsey Clark, The New Yorker, Nov. 8, 1969, 88.
99. Mouw, In Search of a Theology of Politics, 502.
100. Maury, Politics and Evangelism, 8586.
101. United Christian Youth Movement, Christian Youth and Political
Responsibility (Chicago, 1948), 19.
159
already existing parties.102 Moberg suggests that the Christian tries

to conserve all that is true, honest, just, pure, lovely, and gracious
(Phil. 4:8) in society and yet tries to change the conditions of
society that violate those virtues.103
God is not partial to any form of government since they are all
divine institutions that Christians can work through. God does
not categorize peoples according to nationalistic, political, or
ideological labels.104 {136} Roop likewise suggests,
Christianity is committed to no particular form of government,
whether monarchy or democracy. But the principles of the
kingdom are to be informing, vitalizing principles of each and
every nation. The idea of the Kingdom of God supplies us with civil
and regulative principles the highest and noblest.105
Although some forms of government are obviously more conducive
to Christianity and the gospel than others, God shows no partiality.
Mouw goes on to say, The church of Jesus Christ is a community
conscious of its origins not in the designs and hopes of men but in
the electing mercies of God. The best form of government, then,
is that which enables the community most adequately to serve the
Lord who is the head of the church.106 Consequently, God blesses
the societies that adhere closer to His Word more than others.
If Christians are to be in politics but not of politics, the question
of ends and means comes to the forefront. Today, everything has
become means. Most of society, including the Christians, have not
examined the ends toward which they are living. Everything that
succeeds, everything in itself efficient, is justified. In contrast to
contemporary societys view about ends and means, the Scriptures
make no distinction between ends and means. The end is the
Kingdom which will come to perfection at the end of time, and
indeed, is already present when the divine means are present. This
is where the Christian ethic begins.107 In The Politics of God and
102. Nash, Evangelism, 152.
104. Hatfield, Conflict and Conscience, 45, 82.
105. Roop, Christian Ethics, 38081; cf. Vernard Eller, Jacques Ellul: The
Polymath Who Knows Only One Thing, Brethren Life 18 (Spring 1973): 82.
160
the Politics of Man, Ellul illustrates that Scripture continually

shows us that when Gods chosen people tries to find other means
apart from God to survive, to conquer, to protect itself, then it is
attacked and endangered by the very thing in which it trusts.108
The question naturally arises, What are Gods means? The
Christian must be especially aware that in theopolitics he must
not fall into the temptations of the world. C. Penrose St. Amant
has made this point well in noting that self-interest and sin affect
not only the structures but the estimates, judgments, and political
strategies of those who would modify them.109 Reinhold Niebuhr
remarks, The preservation of a democratic civilization requires
the wisdom of the serpent and the harmlessness of the dove.110
Indeed, Christians must be aware not to let selfishness be their
motive for political action.
The question still remains, What are Gods means for
political action? {137} This article will only briefly outline some
possibilities. Is civil disobedience right for the Christian? Most
current evangelicals support civil disobedience, described as a
public, nonviolent, submissive, and deliberate violation of law as a
form of protest, if justice has been severely violated.111 Whether or
not revolution is just and possible to the Christian has been, and
still is, hotly debated. From various Catholics to Melanchthon,112
from Bonhoeffer to Paul Ramsey,113 Christians have advocated it
if justice calls for it. Nevertheless, such men as Messner, Cullman,
108. Jacques Ellul, The Politics of God and the Politics of Man (Grand Rapids,
MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1972), 112, 148.
109. C. Penrose St. Amant, The Christian Ministry and Social Responsibility,
Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Bulletin 21 (1971): 315.
110. Reinhold Niebuhr quoted in John Warwick Montgomery, Demos and
Christos, Christianity Today, July 18, 1969, 11.
111. Cf. James Childress, Civil Disobedience and Political Action (New Haven,
CT: Yale University Press, 1971); Johannes Messner, Social Ethics (St. Louis,
MO: Herder Book Co., 1965), 35657; Henry, Aspects, 101; Calvin, On God and
Political Duty, 102.
112. Messner, Social Ethics, 600.
113. Vernon C. Grounds, Revolution and the Christian Faith (Philadelphia:
J.B. Lippincott, 1971), 126ff. An excellent book on revolution, including a good
summary of current beliefs.
161
and Henry emphatically state that revolution is non-justifiable.114

The debating is also hot over the churchs use of pressure groups
in government, such as lobbyists.115 Although these issues would
require too much space to discuss here, the words of Rufus W.
Weaver, long ago District of Columbia minister, discussing the
difference between the method of Christians and the method of
politics, must be remembered:
The government controls through an outward constraint; we control
through an inward restraint. The government uses coercion; we use
persuasion.... The government seeks to promote love of country for
the countrys sake.... The business of government is to make good
laws; our business is to make good citizens, who will gladly obey
these laws and continually demand better laws, embodying higher
ethical standards. The end of government administration is equal
justice under the law; the end of our endeavor is the establishment
of the will of God in the hearts and institutions of men.116
Suggested Strategies
Now that a theology of theopolitics has been developed,
strategies can be suggested for implementation. Dividing these
strategies into various categories is somewhat arbitrary since
much overlapping is indeed possible. Nevertheless, it is done
here in order that the reader might be more able to see possible
strategies in various settings.
1. Church Setting
Prayer must be at the heart of any search for the biblical means
of political action engaged in by the church. Hatfield remarks
that it is much easier for us to criticize and condemn our public
114. Messner, 600; Oscar Cullman, The State and the New Testament (New
York: Scribner, 1956), 1819; Henry, Plea, 45.
115. For varying views see Christian Youth, 14, 1617; Elbrecht, Politics and
Government, 7273; Henry, Aspects, 106; Elmer L. Towns, Should the Church
Lobby? Encounter 30 (Spring 1969): 13441; James L. Adams, How the
Churches Lobby, Christianity Today, May 26, 1967, 912; Maury, Politics and
Evangelism, 74f.
116. R.W. Weaver, The Christian Faith at the Nations Capital (Philadelphia:
Judson Press, 1936), 3940.
162
officials than it is for us to pray for them.117 But this is precisely

Gods order (1 Tim. 2:13). Ellul piercingly says, {138}
The world of the present day is reaping what Christians have sown;
confronted by a spiritual danger Christians called men to arms and
fought with material weapons. We have conquered on the material
level, but we have been spiritually defeated Christians who alone
could wage the spiritual conflict: they did not do so. They did not
play their part in the preservation of the world.118
Jean Danielou in his book, Prayer as a Political Problem, shows
that prayer cannot exist in a vacuum. Prayer is always the prayer
of an actual man living out an actual life.119 Prayer and action go
hand in hand, arm in arm. We cannot do one without the other.
Other than prayer, should the Church take part in state-related
functions? First, the role of the minister must be discussed.
Henriot proposes three models of priestly action: working
politically to change social structures, serving as an advocate
(not just arbitrator) in political disputes, and living a lifestyle that
has political effects both in its symbolic value and through its
sensitizing influence. Henriot also stresses that not every priest is
called by God to be a social-action priest.120 Bertrand suggests
four aspects of the entire churchs ministry, especially manifested
in the minister. They are kergymatic, reconciling men to God
and one another through the Gospel of forgiveness in word and
deed and sacrament; didactic, instructing men through the Word
of God as to the content of His will and the nature of His rule;
parenetic, describing for Christians the Gospels liberating power
in terms of specific contemporary possibilities for doing good
unto all men; and elenctic, calling men to account and judgment
by means of the Law and its twofold function: salvation and civic
righteousness and social well-being.121
Mouw states that the preacher of the Word has been selected by
the Christian community to provide guidance from Gods Word for
117.
118.
119.
120.
98.
121.

Ellul, Presence, 25.
Paul Lebeau, Prayer and Politics, Frontier 8 (Winter 1965): 25152.
Peter J. Henriot, Politics and the Priest, Commonweal 96 (1972): 495
Barnette, Protestants, 3034.
163
the life of His people. Therefore, the preacher has the authority to
speak on matters of political policy. This may either occur when the
preacher has very clear guidance from the Scriptures concerning
a specific political issue and takes a specific stand, or when he
must guide the people in their own personal decision-making
and struggle by calling their attention to the relevant biblical
principles and guidelines of an issue that is not clear.122 Pietersma
advises that the preached gospel should become as concrete as
life itself, but authoritative delivery of a message [should] be only
a part of this movement from the Bible to life.123 Each church can
urge its members to vote. Study courses and discussion groups
can be formed. A Christian citizenship committee can be {139}
established, dedicated to reading articles about politicians and
issues, reporting findings to the body that people might vote more
accurately. Church members must not only be taught to recognize
the government as Gods divine institution, to support the state
with taxes, to criticize the evils in government, to pray for rulers,
and to obey God rather than the state when they are in conflict,
but should be encouraged to serve in political positions.124 Church
resolutions and pronouncements might be drawn.125 Church or
denominational pressure groups might be formed.126 The churches
of a particular community might work together using the various
professions (architects, social workers, doctors, etc.) to devise and
set up counter-institutions in their community.127 Information
about the communitys pressing issues might be obtained through
membership in community organizations, someone hired for
research, or a college student enlisted to do an in-depth study on
a particular community issue. These could serve as models to the
surrounding community.
123. Henry Pietersma, Political Preaching, Reformed Journal 22 (September
1972): 67.
124. Barnette, Protestants, 3034.
125. For a complete discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of
Church resolutions see Moberg, Inasmuch, 124ff; Maury, Politics and Evangelism,
67; Carl F. Henry, The Church and Political Pronouncements, Christianity
Today, August 28, 1964, 2930.
126. For more discussion, see the previous section.
127. This is precisely what interests in Pittsburg have done.
164
2. Individual Setting
The first duty of the Christian who desires to be politically
involved is to become aware about himself and the world. Jacques
Ellul suggests,
The first duty of a Christian intellectual today is the duty of
awareness; that is to say the duty of understanding the world and
oneself, inseparably connected and inseparably condemned, in
their reality. This means the refusal to accept appearances at their
face value, and of information for informationss sake, the refusal of
abstract phenomenon, the refusal of the illusion given by present
means, the consoling situations and of men, by a sort of benevolent
fatalism of history.128
Christians must identify why a situation is wrong, when and
why it demands public confrontation, and precisely what the right
alternative is.129 They should first of all get this information from
unbiased sources if at all possible.130 A second area of awareness
is the will to find objective reality, to discover the facts of the life
of the people in the surrounding community. A third element
consists in the fact that this reality ought to be grasped on the
human level. In other words, we no longer think of men in
the abstract, but of my neighbor Mario.131 Fourth, it consists of
looking at present problems as profoundly as possible, to see them
as they are. Finally, awareness implies engagement, an act of
resolute committal.
This committal should first be practiced by joining a party
although {140} it may not perfectly express the individuals view.
A second step is that of paying dues. This demonstrates ones
committment and involvement to the party. Attend meetings when
time permits. In this way Christians can speak the Word of God
right to the basis of the political scene. Thirdly, democracy gives
the Christian free opportunity to express his values. Nonpolitical
affiliations of candidates should normally not determine how the
voter casts his ballet. If a candidate is a Baptist, for example, he
should not automatically receive the votes of Baptists. Decisions
128.
129.
130.
131.

Henry, Plea, 18.
Day-to-day events of Congress are reported in the Congressional Record.
165
lie in the stances of the candidate on certain issues.132

If the Christian is so called, he may even aspire to a political
vocation. Hatfield, from his perspective as U.S. senator, says that
there has never been a greater demand for positive, creative,
committed leadershipat every level, in every areathan today.
We need leadership that dominates change rather than one that
merely reacts to it.133 The Christian will choose a political
career not in spite of its difficulties but rather because of them.134
Moberg states that the labor movement, industry, and business
are not likely to adopt more humane practices unless Christians
influence them in a practical way through sound leadership.135
Hatfield describes such a political leader as a man of purpose,
power, perspective, peace, and servanthood. 136
3. College Setting
The college student can play somewhat different roles in
government. Linder and Pierard quote both Jerry Rubin and
Richard Nixon as saying that the great strength of the nation is
the young who give the nation new ideas, new direction, and new
energy. They are the heart of America.137 Thus the politically
minded Christian student has a great responsibility on his hands.
It is during the college days that most students make somewhat
of a political commitment that remains for the rest of their
lives.138 Today large numbers are looking for those who preach
and practice their ideals. The Christian student might contact
various political leaders and have them come to speak to groups
of students, Christian and non-Christian, about certain political
issues. In order to influence both the surrounding communities
and college campus, literature about candidates and issues might
be distributed that support biblical forms of justice and social
concern. A newspaper might even be published that presents
132.
133.
134.
135.
136.
137.
138.
Peterson, Responsibility, 2628.

Hatfield, How Can a Christian Be in Politics? 14.
Moberg, Inasmuch, 150.
Linder and Pierard, Politics, 89.
Roy Hoopes, Getting With Politics (New York: Dell, 1968), 88.
166
issues to the people. Christian groups might even want to form

street theatre groups.139
Christian groups could also send letters to their congressman
protesting {141} certain injustices, obscenity, etc., and supporting
various bills that are presented to the committees of the Congress.140
Christians could also attack the base of immorality by writing
and/or sending petitions to various industries protesting their use
of sexy or exposed women in advertisements, saying that until
these ads are changed the products will be boycotted. In this same
manner, letters can be written to certain industries that unjustly
treat their employees. Here the political process is working at its
base. The morality of industry, business firms, school systems, etc.,
is best changed at this base level. They respond best to the protest
of the people they serve.
Conclusion
In conclusion, perhaps the most important principle to
remember about Christian political action is that the Christian
should start where he is in order to change the world. Objections to
political action have been shown to be faulty, and indeed, there are
many reasons for becoming involved. God working through the
Christian, the essence of theopolitics, is truly Gods means for the
Christian to follow Christs injunction to teach men all that I have
commanded you. Action in politics is a vital element in taking
part in Gods redemptive process for the world.141 If Christians
refuse to become politically involved, the state will be deprived,
and indeed all of human society, of the services of a large body of
citizens whose personal relationship with the Creator gives them a
profound sense of His law for society.
139. Dieter T. Hessel, A Social Action Primer (Philadelphia: Westminster

Press, 1972), 100103.
140. For a primer on how political processes work, how bills are presented,
and who to write to, see Christian Youth, 1321.
141. Piper, Christian Ethics, 238.
Biblical Law as the Foundation
167
Biblical Law as
the Foundation
for Constitutional
Self-Government
David Dawn
Editors Note: The following is a condensation and

paraphrase of the introduction to The Institutes of Biblical
Law, the seminal and authoritative two-volume work on
biblical law, society, and sphere-government by Rousas John
Rushdoony. Because of its foundational importance and
relevance to the instant Symposium on the Constitution and
Political Theology, we are including this essay in the current
volume.
1. The Importance of Law

The premise of many English churchmen, perhaps going back to
the Lollards, has been, concerning the English Bible, This Bible
is for the government of the people, by the people, and for the
people. The belief that law should be Gods law did not cause
any surprise. This conviction was held by allin theory anyway.
But this statement did show that in one important point many
disagreed with the accepted point of view. Such men, beginning
with Wyclif s Lollards, felt that the people themselves should not
only be led by Gods law but also exercise leadership according
to it. This was revolutionary! Rather than being fully taken up
with the problems of church or state, their main concern was with
government according to the law of God.
Brin has said that the Hebrew social order was different from
all the others because it was believed to be based upon the law of
168
God. It was {147} ruled by a law given to them by God for that very
purpose.1 In the same way, Christendom believed itself to be Gods
Kingdom because it submitted to the law of God as set forth in the
Bible. It is true that it did not obey Gods law perfectly. But for all
that, it believed that it was the new Israel of God and just as duty
bound to obey His law as was Old Testament Israel.
When the Puritan settlers came to New England, they set out
to govern themselves according to Gods law. By doing this, they
were returning both to the Bible and to Europes past Christian
traditions. It was a new beginning built on old foundations. This
was not an easy thing to do. Many of the servants who came
with the Puritans were not Christians and would not accept the
Christian Gospel or Gods law for the community.2 But, still, it was
a determined return to the basic teaching of true Christianity. The
New Haven Colony records show that the law of God was made
the law of the colony:
March 2, 1641/2: And according to the fundamental agreem(en)
t, made and published by full and gen(e)r(a)ll consent, when the
plantation began and government was settled, that the judiciall
law of God given by Moses and expounded in other parts of
Scripture, so far as itt is a hedg and a fence to the moral law, and
neither ceremoniall nor typical nor had any reference to Canaan,
hath an everlasting equity in itt, and should be the rule of their
proceedings.3
April 3, 1644: It was ordered that the judiciall laws of God, as
they were delivered by Moses... be a rule to all the courts in this
jurisdiction in their proceeding against offenders....4
What all this says is that the law courts of the New Haven Colony
were to use the law as God gave it to Moses to be their guide in
judging the cases before them.
It would be very wrong to believe that these opinions were
1. Joseph G. Brin, The Social Order under Hebrew Law, Law Society Journal
7, no. 3 (August 1936): 38387.
2. Henry Bamford Parkes, Morals and Law Enforcement in Colonial
England, The New England Quarterly 5 (July 1932): 43152.
3. Charles Hoadly, ed., Records of the Colony and Plantation of New Haven
from 1638 to 1649 (Hartford, CT: for the editor, 1857), 69.
4. Ibid., 130.
169
just queer ideas held by a handful of Puritans. We must see their

practice as not only biblical but as vital to the life of Christendom.
It is a heresy to believe that Gods law means nothing to us today.
Christians thinking this are like evolutionists who think we
came from apes. Only worse. They believe that God is evolving,
developing into someone different than who He was. They believe
that after God gave His law, He changed and decided that
mankind didnt need it after all. So He invented grace. Who knows
what comes next? Their theory is that God treats man differently
in different periods of time. But the Bible says that {148} Gods
grace and law will remain the same in every age. They remain the
same because God does not change. He says, For I am the Lord, I
do not change (Mal. 3:6). As Christians, we are strong because we
have a God we can rely on.
If we study Scripture without studying Gods law, we are
throwing out a fair sized portion of Gods Word. In the same way,
if we study the history of the Western world without considering
how it was influenced by biblical law, we wont get a true picture.
To ignore biblical law is to disregard centuries of progress in the
Western world. It is to take the glory from God and to give it to
man.
2. The Validity of Biblical Law

One of the most significant teachings in the churches today
is antinomianism. Anti means against, and nomos is the Greek
word for law. Therefore, an antinomian is one who is anti-law.
The antinomian believes that his faith in Christ makes him dead
to the law, i.e., freeing him from his duty to obey it. The Bible does
not teach this. It is true that the expression dead to the law is
in Scripture (Rom. 7:4; Gal. 2:19, A.V.). But what this phrase is
referring to is the way a Christian is saved from the death penalty
the law demands for his sin. Because Christ died for the believers
sin, he is free, or dead, from the laws demand that he suffer in
hell for his wrongdoings. But the Christian is still alive to the law
as instructions from God telling him how he must live his life.
The purpose of Christ taking our punishment was to restore us
to the roll of those who keep His law. He gives us the power to
keep His law by freeing us from the law of sin and death (Rom.
170
8:2), that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled

in us (Rom. 8:4). We see the law playing three major parts in
our salvation. First, it plays a major part in our condemnation by
demanding that we die for our sins. Second, the law plays a major
part in our redemption because Jesus perfectly kept the law to be
holy enough to die for our sins. Third, the law plays a major part in
making us holy. As we grow in grace, we grow in law-keeping; the
law is the way of holiness.
Because man is a covenant-breaker, he is in enmity against
God (Rom. 8:7) and is a slave to the law of sin and death (Rom.
8:2). On the other hand, the believer is under the law of the Spirit
of life in Christ Jesus (Rom. 8:2). There is only one law: the law
of God. When Gods law brings judgment upon His enemies, it is
death. But for the redeemed law-abiding, the care and blessings
of the law are the way of life. {149} When God created man, He
ordered him to subdue the earth and exercise dominion over it
(Gen. 1:28). This command is generally called The Creation, or
Cultural, Mandate. When man attempted to subdue the earth
and rule it by himself without God (Gen. 3:5), he fell into sin and
death. In order to reestablish His Kingdom, God called Abraham,
and then Israel, to be His people. They were called to subdue the
earth and to rule it under God. The law God gave through Moses
established the foundation for a godly society where men, as they
obeyed God, could develop. The prophets kept encouraging Israel
to fulfill this mission.
The purpose of Christs coming to earth was bound up with this
original mission given to mankind in Genesis 1:28. Christ as the
new Adam (1 Cor. 15:45) kept the law perfectly. As the sin-bearer
of the elect, Christ died to pay the punishment due for their sins;
this is the atonement. Having had their sins atoned for, believers
are returned to mans original position of righteousness under
God. The redeemed are called back to the original purpose of
man. This purpose, in brief, is to exercise dominion under Gods
authority, to be covenant-keepers, and to observe the righteous
requirement of the law (Rom. 8:4). The law is at the center of
Gods purpose. Believers, through Christ, have been restored to
Gods original purpose and position. Mans justification is by the
grace of God; mans sanctification is by the law of God.
As Gods new chosen people, Christians are commanded to
171
succeed in the same mission in which Adam in Eden and Israel

in Canaan failed. The very same covenant, under differing
administrations, still rules. Man is called to the task of creating the
society God demands. The direction and goal of man and society
is for God to determine. Our role is to do everything possible to
carry out the law which God has given to us. To be spiritually
minded is life and peace (Rom. 8:6). To be spiritually minded
does not mean to have ones head in the clouds; it means to seek
the guidance of the Spirit in applying the commands written in
Gods Word to this world.
Lawless Christianity is a contradiction in terms and really antiChristian. Grace gives man the power to keep Gods law. God
takes His law so seriously that it took the death of Jesus Christ, His
only begotten Son, to make atonement for mans sin. This being
true, it seems strange that God would then proceed to abandon
His law! The law was not made to give us the power to live without
it. Neither is grace given so we can ignore the law of the One who
died for our sins. If the churches {150} are careless about Gods law,
wont the public be careless about civil law? You cant separate the
two, because biblical law concerns itself with every area of life:
church, society, school, family, etc. The society that rejects Gods
law is asking for anarchy and is marked for Gods judgment.
3. The Law as Revelation and Treaty

There are five basic facts which must be understood when
studying biblically based law.
First, law is, by nature, religious. Any societys law declares
the meaning of justice and righteousness as held by that group.
Because law establishes the ultimate concerns of a culture, it must
be religious.
Second, whatever a cultures law is based on is the god of that
society. If a societys law is based on mans reason, then mans
reason is the god of that society. Modern humanism holds that the
source and foundation of law is the state. This means that the state,
orperhapsthe people organized as a state, becomes the god
of modern humanism. We see this in the words of Mao Tse-Tung,
172
Our God is none other than the masses of the Chinese people.1
In Western culture, law is more and more being identified with the
people or the state, and less and less with God. Sadly, the West is
thus turning away from its source of power and life.
Third, in any society, any change of law is a clear or implied
change of religion. In fact, there is no clearer sign that a religious
change has taken place than a radical change in its laws. We see, for
instance, religious changes reflected in new laws about abortion,
homosexuality, and divorce.
Fourth, no abolition of religion as such is possible in any society.
True, a church can be abolished. One systematic religion can be
substituted for another. But these acts simply alter the societys
religion without destroying it. Since the foundations of law are
religious, no society exists without a religious foundation. A
societys law system is really a statement of faith. It is a statement
of the morality, the standards of right and wrong, of that society.
Fifth, there can be no tolerance in a system of law for another
religion. Revolutionaries who want to replace the existing system
with their own will demand tolerance. But it is only a trick. As
soon as the new system is in place, toleration will disappear.
Although humanism has claimed to be an open system, its
hostility to biblical law has been {151} savage. Every system of law
survives by being hostile to all other law systems and their religious
foundations. To fail to do this is to be wide open to attack; it is a
form of suicide.
In analyzing the nature of biblical law, it is important to note
three general characteristics.
First, God gave His law to us by revelation. The Hebrew word for
law is torah, which means instruction, authoritative direction.2 By
law, the Bible means more than the legal code God gave through
Moses. The Hebrew word torah is used by the prophets to refer to
their own inspired statements (Isa. 8:16; 30:910; Lam. 2:9; Ezek.
7:26). The factor which decides if a statement is law is not the
use of legal language. A statement need only be inspired by God
1. Mao Tse-Tung, The Foolish Old Man Who Removed Mountains (Peking,
China: Foreign Languages Press, 1966), 3.
2. Ernest F. Kevan, The Moral Law (Jenkintown, PA: Sovereign Grace, 1963),
56; S. R. Driver, Law (in Old Testament), in James Hastings, ed., A Dictionary
of the Bible, vol. 3 (New York: Charles Scribners Sons, 1919), 64.
173
and have His authority in order to be law. This term applies to the
entire inspired Word of God and to nothing else.3
The law reveals God and His righteousness. There is no support
in Scripture for disregarding the law. Neither can the law be
limited to the Old Testament and grace to the New:
The time-honored distinction between the OT as a book of law and
the NT as a book of divine grace is without grounds or justification.
Divine grace and mercy are the presupposition of law in the OT;
and the grace and love of God displayed in the NT events issue in
the legal obligations of the New Covenant. Furthermore, the OT
contains evidence of a long history of legal developments which
must be assessed before the place of law is adequately understood.
Pauls polemics against the law in Galatians and Romans are
directed against an understanding of law which is by no means
characteristic of the OT as a whole.4
There is no contradiction between law and grace. The question in
Jamess epistle is faith and works, not faith and law. Judaism had
made law the mediator between God and man, and between God
and the world. It was this view of law, not the law itself, which Jesus
attacked.
Jesus, the true Mediator, rejected the law as mediator. He did
this to restore the law to its God-given role as the way of holiness.
He established the law by giving full support to it as the word
which convicts mankind as sinners. He then went on, in His role
as law-giver, to provide forgiveness for sinners. Moreover,
We are not entitled to gather from the teaching of Jesus in the
Gospels that He made any formal distinction between the Law of
Moses and the Law of God. His mission being not to destroy but
to fulfill the Law and the Prophets (Mt. 5:17), so far from saying
anything in disparagement of the {152} Law of Moses or from
encouraging His disciples to assume an attitude of independence
with regard to it, He expressly recognized the authority of the Law
of Moses as such, and of the Pharisees as its official interpreters
3. Hermann Kleinknecht and W. Gutbrod, Law (London: Adam and Charles

Black, 1962), 44.
4. W.J. Harrelson, Law in the OT, in The Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible,
vol. 3 (New York: Abingdon Press, 1962), 77.
174
(Mt. 23: 13).5
With the completion of Christs work, the role of the Pharisees

as interpreters ended, but the authority of the law went on. In the
New Testament age, only divine revelation given to the apostles
was adequate authority for any change in the law. The authority of
the law remained unchanged.
St. Peter, e.g., required a special revelation before he would enter the
house of the uncircumcised Cornelius and admit the first Gentile
convert into the Church by baptism (Acts 10: 148)a step which
did not fail to arouse opposition on the part of those who were of
the circumcision (cf. 11:118).6
Second, biblical law is a treaty or covenant. Kline has listed
many characteristics which point to the fact that the law is a
treaty established by God with His people. These include the form
of the giving of the law, the language of the text, the historical
introduction, the demand of exclusive obedience to the Sovereign
Lord, the announcement of cursings and blessings, and much
more. Indeed, the revelation committed to the two tables was
rather a suzerainity treaty or covenant (i.e., a treaty or covenant
made with ones Sovereign) than a legal code.7 The summary of
the covenant, the Ten Commandments, was engraved on the two
tables of stone. There was one copy of the treaty for each party in
the agreement: God and Israel.8
There is probably no clearer direction afforded the biblical
theologian for defining with biblical emphasis the type of covenant
God adopted to formalize his relationship to his people than
that given in the covenant he gave Israel to perform, even the
ten commandments. Such a covenant is a declaration of Gods
lordship, consecrating a people to himself in a sovereignly dictated
order of life.9
5. Hugh H. Currie, Law of God, in James Hastings, ed., A Dictionary of
Christ and the Gospels, vol. 2 (New York: Charles Scribners Sons, 1908), 15.
6. Olaf Moe, Law, in James Hastings, ed., Dictionary of the Apostolic Church,
vol. 1 (New York: Charles Scribners Sons, 1919), 685.
7. Meredith G. Kline, Treaty of the Great King: The Covenant Structure of
Deuteronomy; Studies and Commentary (Grand Rapids: Wm B. Eerdmans, 1963),
16.
8. Ibid., 19.
9. Ibid., 17.
175
This last phrase needs underlining: the covenant is a sovereignly

dictated order of life. God, as the Sovereign Lord and Creator,
gives his law to man as an act of sovereign grace. It is an act of
election and of grace (Deut. 7:78; 8:17; 9:46, etc.).
The God to whom the earth belongs will have Israel for His own
property, Ex. xix.5. It is only on the ground of the gracious election
and guidance of God that the divine commands to the people are
given, and therefore the {153} Decalogue, Ex. xx.2, places at its
forefront the fact of election.10
In the law, the total life of man is disciplined; there is no primary
distinction between the inner and the outer life; the holy calling of
the people must be realized in both.11
Third, biblical law is a plan for dominion of the earth while in
submission to God. God commanded Adam to rule creation
according to His law (Gen. 1:26ff.; 2:1517). This same command,
after the fall, wasgiven to his godly descendants. It was renewed
to Noah (Gen. 9:117). The command was again renewed with
Abraham, Jacob, and the nation Israel, represented by Moses. It
was renewed to Joshua, David, and Solomon (whose Proverbs
echo the law). We can go on down the line through Hezekiah and
Josiah, and finally end with the last renewal which was with Jesus
Christ.
The sacrament of the Lords Supper is the renewal of the
covenant: This is my blood of the new testament (or covenant).
This means that the sacrament itself reestablishes the law, this time
with a new chosen people (Matt. 26:28; Mark 14:24; Luke 22:20; 1
Cor. 11:25). The people of the law are now the people of Christ. They
are redeemed by His atoning blood and called by His sovereign
election. Gods plan, which commanded Adam to exercise
dominion over the earth, continues to be the grand purpose of
the covenant. When men are converted, they are commanded to
return to this great work.
So we see that the law is for Christian men and society. Nothing
is more deadly than the idea that the Christian can choose the
kind of law he wishes to live by. At this point, humanism got
10. Gustave Friedrich Oehler, Theology of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids,
MI: Zondervan, 1883), 177.
11. Ibid., 182.
176
the better of Calvin. He said: For some deny that a state is well
constituted, which neglects the polity of Moses, and is governed
by the common laws of nations. The dangerous and seditious
nature of this opinion I leave to the examination of others; it will
be sufficient for me to have evinced it to be false and foolish.12
These ideas are common in Calvinistic and Lutheran circles.
Indeed, they are held by almost every church. But they are still
heretical nonsense. Calvin favored the common laws of nations.
In his day, the common law of nations was basically biblical
lawthough greatly weakened by Roman law. This gives Calvin
a bit of an excuse. But even then, this common laws of nations
was turning to a new religion: humanism. Calvin wanted the
establishment of the Christian religion. What he did not recognize
was that Christianity could not survive in Genevaor anywhere
without biblical law.
Two Reformed scholars, in writing of the state, admit, It is to
be {154} Gods servant, for our welfare. It must exercise justice,
and it has the power of the sword.13 But they go on to say, A
static legislation valid for all times is an impossibility.14 But what
about you shall not murder and you shall not steal? Werent
they supposed to be valid for all time and in every society? If the
state must exercise justice but legislation valid for all time is an
impossibility, who makes the rules? These Protestant theologians
who give up biblical law wind up with no standards of right and
wrong for the state to follow.
Not one of mans theories of law can reflect more than sin and
apostasy. Law, as revealed by God, is the need of society. God has
met the need. Only by Gods law can man fulfill the task God set
for him. If man is not under Gods revealed law, he must be in
rebellion against Him.
12. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, bk. 4, chap. 20, par. 14;
from the John Allen translation (Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Christian
Education, 1936), vol. 2, 78788.
13. H. de Jongste and M. van Krimpen, The Bible and the Life of the Christian
(Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1968), 73.
14. Ibid., 75.
177
4. The Direction of the Law

In order to understand biblical law, one must be familiar with
three basic facts about it.
First, it gives us certain broad principles of basic law to live by.
They are found in the Ten Commandments. For this reason, the
Ten Commandments are more than just one of a number of lists
of rules to be followed. The Ten Commandments are basic laws;
other laws apply the Ten Commandments to specific situations.
Lets take an example of a basic commandment found in Exodus
20:15 (Deut. 5:19), You shall not steal.
A. In studying this commandment, we see that, positively, the
right to private property is confirmed. Also, negatively, crimes
against property are punished. Our example shows us how a basic
area of life is established and protected by the commandment.
B. We see that the right to private property comes from God and
not man or the state. All the commandments were given to us by
God.
C. Since God gave the law, any crime against it is a crime against
God. We can think of issues of property, family, or anything else;
the basis of law is in God. David, confessing his sins of adultery
and murder, realized that it was God who had been wronged. He
wrote in Psalm 51:4, Against You, You only, have I sinned, And
done this evil in Your sight.
D. This, in turn, means that lawlessness is sin against God. To
break the law of God concerning any area of life is a religious
crime.
Second, the major part of the law is what we call case law. By
case {155} law we mean illustrations of how the basic principles of
the law are applied to particular situations. These cases often show
how far a law is supposed to go. By using an insignificant case as
an example, the law shows how it must be applied to unimportant
matters. For example, the Bible gives us a case law for You shall
not steal and an application of this law from St. Paul.
A. The basic principle: You shall not steal (Ex. 20:15).
B. The case law: You shall not muzzle an ox while it treads out
the grain (Deut. 25:4).
C. St. Pauls application: For it is written in the law of Moses,
You shall not muzzle an ox while it treads out the grain. Is it
178
oxen God is concerned about? Or does He say it altogether for

our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written, that he who
plows should plow in hope, and he who threshes in hope should
be partaker of his hope.... Even so the Lord has commanded that
those who preach the gospel should live from the gospel (1 Cor.
9:910, 14; the entire passage, 9:114, is an interpretation of this
law). And again: For the Scripture says, You shall not muzzle
an ox while it treads out the grain, and, The laborer is worthy of
his wages (1 Tim. 5:18; cf. v. 17). (The illustration is to support
the command to give honor or double honor or double pay to
presbyters or elders, i.e., pastors of the church.)
These two passages illustrate the command, You shall not
steal, in terms of a particular case law. This case law shows the
great lengths to which the application of this law must go. If it is
a sin to cheat an ox of its reward, then it must be a sin to cheat a
man of his wages. It is theft in both cases. If God is concerned with
stealing from an ox, how much more concerned will He be over
cheating Gods minister? Going further, how much more serious is
it to steal from God? Malachi is very clear on this point:
Will a man rob God? Yet you have robbed Me! But you say, In
what way have we robbed You? In tithes and offerings. You are
cursed with a curse, For you have robbed Me, Even this whole
nation. Bring all the tithes into the storehouse, That there may be
food in My house, And prove Me now in this, Says the Lord of
hosts, If I will not open for you the windows of heaven And pour
out for you such blessing That there will not be room enough to
receive it. And I will rebuke the devourer for your sakes, So that
he will not destroy the fruit of your ground, Nor shall the vine fail
to bear fruit for you in the field, Says the Lord of hosts; And all
nations will call you blessed, For you will be a delightful land, Says
the Lord of hosts (Malachi 3:812). {156}
This example of case law shows us not only its meaning, but also
its necessity. Without case law, all the Ten Commandments would
soon be narrowed down to a very small area of meaning. If you
accept only the Ten Commandments, you are going to have a very
limited idea of what God meant by You shall not steal. Case law
shows us how far reaching Gods commandment against theft is.
Third, the laws purpose is to restore Gods law and order to this
world. This is why the law gives us principles to live by and case
179
laws to apply them to every area of life.

Restoration, or restitution, involves two things. Firstly, the
restoration of Gods law and order is the basic aim. Secondly,
restitution by a criminal to his victim is demanded. A criminal is
to be forced to restore whatever loss he has caused to his victim.
This last point is important. For Gods law to restore godliness to
a society, godliness must also be restored by individuals. Wrongs
must be put right. We must see three things about restitution in
the law of God:
A. Restitution is to be demanded by courts of law from all
criminals.
B. The whole purpose of the law is the restoration of Gods
law and order. This will result in a glorious creation, serving its
Creator.
C. Gods law, by demanding restitution from all lawbreakers,
curses disobedience. It restrains the challenge of evil to Gods
order, blessing those who seek to restore it to this world. We see
this in Malachis rebuke to those who do not tithe. They are cursed
with a curse for robbing God of His tithes. On the other hand, if
they obey God, He will flood his people with blessing. The word
flood is appropriate. It reminds us of Gods promise in Malachi
3:10 to open the windows of heaven in blessing. It also reminds
us of the mighty flood in Genesis 7; there we are told (v. 11) that
the windows of heaven were openedbut in judgment. Yet even
the curse of Noahs flood had restoration as its aim. It prevented
evil men from taking full control. The flood also left Noah and his
family free to restore Gods order on earth.
Returning to our example, You shall not steal, we see in the
New Testament how restitution for theft should work. Zacchaeus,
the dishonest tax collector, was declared by Jesus to be a saved
man after promising to return the money he had cheated from
his victims. Restitution is also clearly seen in the Sermon on the
Mount (Matt. 5:2326). One scholar gives us another example:
In Eph. iv. 28, St. Paul shows how the principle of restitution was to
be extended. He who had been a robber must not only cease from
theft, but {157} must labor with his hands that he might restore
what he had wrongfully taken away, but in case those whom he
had wronged could not be found, restitution should be made to
180
the poor.15
Restoration of the world to God takes places in three ways:

First, preaching restores Gods law to the life of Gods people.
This was true of St. John the Baptist. As Jesus said, Elijah truly is
coming first and will restore all things. But I say to you that Elijah
has come already, and they did not know him (Matt. 17:1112).
Only as the law is preached can we expect Christians to know how
to obey it.
Second, Gods law is restored as Christians work to conquer
all things for Christ, setting up a godly social order in the world
(Matt. 28:1820; 2 Cor. 10:5; Rev. 11:15, etc.).
Third, when Jesus comes again there will be the final restoration
of all things to God. All history is moving towards this event. But
we must realize that the second coming is just the climaxthe
completionof the times of restoration of all things (Acts 3:21).
The times of restoration are right now! God does not expect us
to wait for the Second Coming; we are supposed to be getting on
with the job!
Gods covenant with Adam demanded that he have dominion
over the earth and conquer it (Gen. 1:26ff.). This is to be done for
God and in obedience to His law. This relationship of man to God
was a covenant (Hosea 6:7). The restoration of that covenant was
the work of Christ. The fulfillment of that covenant is commanded
in the Great Commission. The Christians are called upon to take
the world for the Savior and His law.
This is the command given in Genesis 1:26ff. The command was
never withdrawn. In fact, the Bible demands that it be fulfilled. If
we really believe the Scripture cannot be broken (John 10:35),
then we must accept our mission and go on the attack. Those who
attempt to break the command of Scripture will themselves be
broken.
15. John Henry Blunt, ed., Dictionary of Doctrinal and Historical Theology
(London: Longmans, Green, 1891), 645.
181
God, Caesar, and

the Constitution
Position Paper of Gospel Assembly Church,
Des Moines, Iowa
Editors NoteThe following position paper was developed by
the pastors, elders, and trustees of Gospel Assembly Church
in Des Moines, Iowa, USA, in response to an attempt by
the Iowa Department of Revenue to audit the entire body
of church records for the avowed purpose of determining
tax liability. In addition to this position paper, the church
filed a lawsuit seeking a declaratory judgment finding the
government action unconstitutional. The case, which began
in 1983, was settled principally in the churchs favor, that
is, no audit or inspection of records was made, although
the church voluntarily provided certain restricted financial
documents to department agents for limited purposes. The
document represents the views of its authors and may or may
not in its entirely coincide with the positions of Chalcedon.
The position paper is included in this special edition of the
Journal of Christian Reconstruction because of its pertinence
to the constitutional debate and scriptural principles
concerning church and state.
We, the undersigned, Pastors and Trustees of the Gospel Assembly

Church of 7135 Meredith Drive, Des Moines, Iowa, do this day
set forth our position on the separation of church and state as
spelled out in the Word of God and set forth in the United States
Constitution and the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the
Constitution. This document proposes to examine and answer
the classic statement and words of our Lord Jesus Christ when He
said, Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesars; and unto
God the things that are Gods (Matt. 22:21). {160}
182
1.
In answer to every man who would examine our intentions,
may it be known to all that we, as children of God, and members
of the church of Jesus Christ, and citizens of the United States of
America, are a peaceable and reasonable and law-abiding people,
and as such are not seeking any conflict with the state. We are well
aware of the Scripture in 1 Peter 2:1314, Submit yourselves to
every ordinance of man for the Lords sake; whether it be to the king,
as supreme; or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him.
The Word of God teaches us that Gods people are to submit to
all duly and legitimately exercised authority. But there are times
that governmental authority has been resisted by the people of
God. There is, and we must never be allowed to forget it, a higher
law in the universe than that of the state: the higher law of God.
There is (only) one lawgiver. God! James 4:12. And God expects
all nations and all people to submit to and obey His law! In fact,
God has pronounced specific blessings upon the nation that
faithfully incorporates His stipulations into the law of the land.
Deut. 28:113; 29:915, 29.
In Exodus 1:1521 we find where the midwives disobeyed the
king, and in so doing were blessed of God.
In Joshua 2:16 we find where Rahab disobeyed and held back
pertinent information from the agents of the king and by so doing
was blessed by God. Even the Apostle Paul makes reference to the
nobility of Rahab and her conduct in Hebrews 11:31.
Even the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ disobeyed and by so
doing were consequently blessed of God, from the classic example
given in Acts 5:2629.
We would not assume to take or defend a position which rejects
all law-affecting churches. We believe in law (1 Tim. 1:8). Our
position, given in the First Amendment as the right to petition the
government for a redress of grievances, is the right to challenge
in court any law or exercise of governmental power which would
go too far in its entanglement and restraint of, or violate the free
exercise of religion. Some regulation ... but a rejection of those
police powers of the state which go too far, beyond those spelled
out in the First Amendment. Government does have a legitimate
compelling interest in many areas concerning the well-being of its
183
citizens. The legal and biblical authority of civil {161} government

is not being questioned, as the right, for instance, to license drivers
or to issue a marriage license or to concern itself with fire and
health inspections. Whether it is a drivers license, for example, or
a license issued attesting to the safety of and the right to operate a
boiler in the church basement, these all are issued under narrowly
drawn statutes, which clearly limit the power of government to
a public safety function and in no way infringe upon or into the
operation of the church under the free exercise clause of the First
Amendment.
Our concern is, does a particular state statute or action produce
excessive government entanglement with religion, specifically
prohibited by the First Amendment. The U.S. Supreme Court has
on different occasions permitted certain actions by government
with certain specified prohibitions. In 1905 the court said in
Jacobson v. Mass. (197 U.S. 11, 25),
[A] local enactment or regulation, even if based on the
acknowledged police powers of a State, must always yield in case
of conflict with the ... Constitution, or with any right which that
instrument gives or secures.
In other words, any law which conflicts with the United States
Constitution and its attendant Bill of Rights is no law at aggregate.
2.
When Jesus made the statement in Matthew 22:21, Render
unto Caesar the things which are Caesars; and unto God the things
that are Gods, the question then becomes, does the church belong
to God or to Caesar? If the church belongs to Caesar, then the
church and all of its operations are subject to Caesarin a manner
of speaking, the state.
However, if the church was established by Jesus Christ (Matt.
16:18) and thus belongs to God, then Caesar is not lord over the
church. Who is lord over the church? Who must the church
submit tothe state or Christ? We maintain the church is subject
to Christ by divine right, since the Scripture itself declares that
only Jesus Christ is Lord, or head of the church (Col. 1:18; Eph.
1:22). God forbid that we would ever acquiesce to the apostasy of
the first century with the humanist creed, We have no king but
184
Caesar (John 19:15).

Who is Caesar? In America is Caesar the state? We have, here in
America, the unusual but beautiful situation that the state, per se,
is not Caesar! The Caesar of the United States is the United States
Constitution and its attendant Bill of Rights! From the Declaration
of Independence to the drafting of the United States Constitution,
state leaders {162} began to contemplate within their minds that
a national government was a necessity in order to establish the
union of the people. The people of Massachusetts spoke of a
government of laws and not of men. While the state leaders were
not intent on giving up state powers, yet they saw a need for
national cohesion, and the instrument to accomplish this was the
United States Constitution.
Under the Constitution, the states united to establish a national
authority. By ratifying the Constitution and subsequently its
attendant Bill of Rights, the individual states gave up certain rights
in exchange for national unity. Each state now became limited in
that it was first of all subservient to the United States Constitution.
Thus, we the people vested in the United States Constitution and
its attendant Bill of Rights a philosophy of government that was to
be a government of laws and not of men.
We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more
perfect union, have placed full governmental authority in the
United States Constitution and its attendant Bill of Rights. Thus,
in contrast with the classic Caesar of Scripture, in America,
Caesar is not any man or group of men; it is the Constitution
of the United States! All officials and officers of the state, from
the president through Congress through governors to the local
bureaucracy, all are subject to the American Caesar in the same
manner as any other citizen. Our United States Constitution,
the American Caesar, is the ultimate law of the land. The United
States Constitution demands that the state with its officers,
representatives, and lawmakers who are the visible expression of
Caesar, must all be subject to the absolute edicts of the United
States Constitution. The United States Constitution is law, and
government officials sworn to uphold the Constitution have
frequently ignored or misunderstood that document as they
continue to legislate, regulate, and even to vacillate.
In America, we the people established the American Caesar
185
the U.S. Constitution and its attendant Bill of Rights, as one that
speaks protective of the church. Today, we the people must see
to it that Caesars decrees toward the church are not being nullified
by an overly ambitious and aggressive state.
As citizens of this nation, when we challenge any law, regulation
or government official on a constitutional question, we are simply
following the Apostle Paul in his classic Appeal unto Caesar as
found in Acts 25:11. {163}
In America it is not really the fundamental churches that pose a
threat to the citizens of this nation; it is the government itself that,
by its excessive regulation and entanglement, is taking away and
destroying the right of its citizens to life, liberty and the pursuit
of happiness...as was endowed to them by their Creator. We do
not need to be protected from the churches nearly so much as we
need to be protected from excessive government regulation and
entanglement!
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Douglas, with whom Justice Black
concurred, put it very well in Poulos v. New Hampshire (345 U.S.
395, 1953), a religious liberty case:
When a legislature undertakes to proscribe the exercise of a
citizens constitutional rights... it acts lawlessly; and the citizen can
take matters into his own hands and proceed on the basis that such
a law is no law at all. (at 423)
The reason is the preferred position granted freedom of speech,
freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, and freedom of religion
by the First Amendment. (at 423)
The command of the First Amendment is that there shall be NO
law which abridges those civil rights. The matter is beyond the
power of the legislature to regulate, control or condition. The
case is therefore quite different from a legislative program in the
field of business, labor, housing and the like where regulation is
permissible. (at 423)
Those who wrote the First Amendment conceived of (First
Amendment rights) as wholly independent of the prior restraint
of anyone. The judiciary was not granted a privilege of restraint
withheld from other officials. For history proved that judges too
were sometimes tyrants. (at 426)
In these United States of America, to render unto Caesar
186
the things which are Caesars means that we must have a good
understanding of the United States Constitution and its attendant
Bill of Rights. Only in this manner, can we here in America render
unto Caesar that which is Caesars.
The First and the Fourteenth Amendments to the United States
Constitution state that Congress (and subsequently the states)
shall make no law (1) respecting an establishment of religion or
(2) prohibiting the free exercise thereof.... Therefore, as the word
of Caesar in Bible times was the source and supreme law of the
land and this law was implemented by agencies of government,
so in America the United States Constitution is the source and
supreme law of our land and is to be implemented by agencies
of our federal and state governments. In this sense the United
States Constitution is the American Caesar. {164} The ultimate
source of law in this land, the authority of the highest source is the
American Caesar, the United States Constitution and its attendant
Bill of Rights. The administration of this law has been given to the
American judicial system where we have state and federal judges
holding court throughout these fifty states.
3.
Now we have been given notice that the state desires to audit the
churchs books, purporting to see if the church has paid all of the
sales and use tax demanded by the state. It has been said that the
power to tax is the power to destroy. As we have now been made
very much aware, the power to taxwith such an innocuous
thing as a sales and use taxbrings now with it an invasion and
intrusion by the state into the church, which has been expressly
prohibited by the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Are we
justified in wanting to know what the statement invasion of ...
privacy means?
Here now, we see the state as the proverbial camel getting its
head into the tent. Our church has been here in the city of Des
Moines for some twenty years now, and this is the first time the
state has approached us in this manner. Are we right to sense an
increasing harrassment by the state against the church at this time?
When state agents can go on a fishing expedition examining the
records and activities of the church, First Amendment freedoms in
187
America are gone. Not even the state itself can violate the United
States Constitution and its attendant Bill of Rights. No wonder
church leaders across America today see government intrusion
into church affairs as a transgression of the constitutional
guarantee of religious liberty. They have a right to feel uneasy.
If government agents and investigators believe they are free to
scrutinize records and activities of church groups, then freedom
of religion is a delusion.
Our church has nothing to hide, for since its inception in 1963,
a complete set of books has been kept and an annual financial
accounting made to the members of this assembly. However,
even as the confession of a parishioner to his clergyman is an
inviolable and sacred trust, we feel in a manner of speaking, the
church finances are a sacred trust also, and must be protected as
such. We are reasonable, peaceable, and law-abiding citizens. We
are not against reasonable regulations by the state. We understand
perfectly that the Scripture teaches us to respect legitimate state
authority, but only up to the point that excessive and unnecessary
{165} governmental regulation and intrusion into the internal
affairs and records of the church begins. The Establishment
Clause of the First Amendment precludes the states intrusion
into this area of the church. As Thomas Jefferson so well said of
this amendment, building a wall of separation between church
and state. It is here that the American Caesar, as embodied in
the Constitution, gives us the right to contest and block the states
entanglement with the church!
It is excessive government entanglement with religion that we
are against. For instance, no one could believe in sound mental
health more than the child of God. But if, and when, the state
would tell us that the preaching of the doctrine of sin and the
necessity of repentance on the part of the sinner for his forgiveness
from Christ and subsequent peace of mind is detrimental to the
well-being of the citizens of the statepossibly then wanting
to examine recorded tapes of messages preachedhere again is
where we would have to draw the line. Because here we would
have a violation of the Free Exercise Clause as provided by the
First Amendment. Because of this and other moral questions, we
are concerned over any fishing expedition made by the state into
the books, records, and activities of the church.
188
Can the church, Gods agency of mercy, be used by the state to

harrass others? Can the state audit the books of the church, and
through this audit secure the names of businessmen who may, or
may not, have collected sales or use tax from the church for the
state, and then the state use this information for the subsequent
harrassment or intimidation of others? Would Rahab have
revealed such information to the agents of the state?
4.
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution provides
for separation of church and state. The Supreme Court declared in
Marbury v. Madison (1 Cranch 137, 1802) that (a) the Constitution
is the supreme law of the land, (b) the Supreme Court is the final
interpreter of the Constitution, and therefore (c) the Supreme Court
may declare unconstitutional and inoperative any law contrary to
the Constitution. This establishment of Judicial Review prohibits
the Congress or the state legislatures from passing or enforcing
any law that is unconstitutional.
The Court, having taken upon itself the authority to affirm or
negate any legislative or state action, carries with it the assumption
that religious {166} liberty now resides in the hands of the chief
justice and eight venerable justices of the U.S. Supreme Court. If
there was ever a time to pray for these men of authority, it is now
(1 Tim. 2:14)! Because the U.S. Constitution is now what the U.S.
Supreme Court says it is.
Consider these words from Abraham Lincoln: I do not forget
the position assumed by some, that constitutional questions are to
be decided by the Supreme Court.... At the same time, the candid
citizen must confess that if the policy of the government upon vital
questions affecting the whole people is to be made irrevocably
fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court the instant they are
made.... The people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having
to that extent practically resigned their government into the hands
of that eminent tribunal.
The authority and wishes of we the people have now passed
to the control of that eminent body of the judiciary. Because of
the cost of litigation, the decision rendered in individual cases
becomes, for all practical purposes, the law of the land.
189
In general, the Supreme Court has held that the rights guaranteed
by the Constitution, and especially in the First Amendment, are
not absolute but are relative, depending on specific circumstances.
In the case of Schenck v. United States (1919), the clear and
present danger doctrine was developed. Basically stated, this
doctrine means that the freedoms protected by the First Amendment
can anly be violated when there is a clear and present danger to the
American government and people.
Further, the Supreme Court held in West Virginia State Board
of Education v. Barnette (1943) that no law can infringe on the
freedom of religion if the exercise of that religion does not constitute
a clear and present danger.
Therefore, government has the authority to make health and
fire inspections of religious institutions, because the violation of
health or fire codes can constitute a clear and present danger
to the people. This was so rendered by the U.S. Supreme Court
in 1905, Jacobson v. Mass. (197 U.S. 11). However, the court has
specified that any such action of government must be severely
limited to those areas dealing with legitimate concerns for health,
safety, and order.
The authority of the State to enact this statute is to be referred to
what is commonly called the police power. Although this Court
has refrained from any attempts to define the limits of that power,
yet it has distinctly recognized the authority of a State to enact
quarantine laws and health laws of {167} every description. (at 25)
According to settled principles the police power of a State must be
held to embrace, at least, such reasonable regulations established
directly by legislative enactment as will protect the public health
and the public safety. (at 25)
A local enactment or regulation, even if based on the acknowledged
police powers of a State, must always yield in case of conflict with
the... Constitution, or with any right which that instrument gives
or secures. (at 25)
However, government has no right to intrude into the fiscal

operations of a religious institution. These are matters inherent
in the function of any religious institution and within themselves
certainly cannot present a clear and present danger to the people.
There are freedoms protected by the First Amendment. In the
190
absence of a clearly demonstrable and imminent danger to the

people, government cannot infringe on any operation of a religious
institution!
Furthermore, a religious institution should be free from taxation
from the state. The First Amendment recognizes the distinction
between church and state as two separate, yet equal institutions.
Church and state each possess a limited sovereignty. The state
is sovereignsubject to the limitations of the Constitution
prohibiting the violation of the freedoms of the people. The church
is also sovereignsubject only to the limitations prohibiting
actions which pose a clear and present danger.
In a landmark case, the Supreme Court declared in McCulloch
v. Maryland (1819) that the power to tax involves the power to
destroy. Since the state cannot destroy the church, neither can it
levy taxes against the church. To concede that the state can tax a
religious institution is tantamount to conceding to the state the
power to destroy a religious institution. Invasion certainly follows
taxation.
Yet the church is not a creation of the state. The state did not
create the church; therefore, neither can the state destroy the
church. Vis-a-vis, the church is not vested with the authority to
create or destroy the state. The First Amendment guarantees that
church and state are to remain separate. No intermeddling!
Over the past three decades, the U.S. Supreme Court has been
saying that laws which put government and churches into too close
a relationship are laws respecting an establishment of religion
and are therefore forbidden. Starting in 1970, the Supreme Court
became very specific on this. In Walz v. Tax Commission (397
U.S. 664, 1970) a {168} church tax exemption case, it first employed
the term entanglement, holding that, while some relationships
between government and churches are not forbidden by the
Constitution, many sorts of relationships are forbidden. Those
forbidden are referred to as excessive entanglements. In cases
it now decided over the next ten years, the Court spelled out
some of those government-church relationships which, it said,
are absolutely barred by the Constitution. The Supreme Court
has said that government may NOT engage in the following
entanglements (from Walz v. Commission, in which the Court
upheld the principles of church tax exemption and freedom from
191
state surveillance, 397 U.S. 675):

1. Carry out legislation or regulations which create situations readily
leading to confrontation and conflicts between government and
churches. In fact, in State of New York v. Cathedral Academy (434
U.S. 125, 1977) the Supreme Court said, The prospect of church
and state litigating about what does and does not have a religious
meaning touches the very core of of the constitutional guarantee
against religious establishments.
2. Have programs whose very nature is apt to entangle the state in
details of administration.
3. Have sustained and detailed relationships (with church
institutions) for enforcement of statutory and administrative
standards.
4. Engage in inspection of church institutional records.
5. Carry out legislation or regulations which create situations
requiring negotiations between church institutions and
government.
6. Have relationships with church institutions which have even the
potential for the foregoing entanglements.
Congress shall make NO law RESPECTING an establishment

of religion! Respecting in regards to, concerning, pertaining
to, interfering with, in reference to, nor notice with attention
Webster. As we understand the First Amendment, Congress
and subsequently the states shall make NO law in regards to or
pertaining to the churchan establishment of religion! NO law
whether in regards to taxation, examination of records, or, for that
matter, the certification of church school teachers! The church
is exempt from civil-legislative meddling! As it pertains to the
church, when there it is no clear and present danger, the command
of the First Amendment is that the matter is beyond the power of
the legislature to regulate, control or condition.
Religion was already well established in the colonies when the
original thirteen states ratified the U.S. Constitution! What the
framers of
{169} this document wanted was NO federal meddling in religion.
By saying, Congress shall make no law respecting AN establishment
192
of religion, the framers were in effect saying, We recognize that

we already have religious establishments set up and functioning
in the several statesand for that reasonwe want no laws from
Congress (and subsequently the states) that would interfere with an
establishment of religion! This would certainly exclude taxation of
the church by the state under the Establishment Clause which
deals with the separation of church and state. The beliefs and
practices of the church would come under the Free Exercise
Clause of the First Amendment and has been dealt with earlier
in this paper.
5.
The increasing entanglement of the state into the affairs of the
church, is not only alarming but it is prohibited by the First and
Fourteenth Amendments. The state has at its disposal other means
of recourse in monitoring the church in relation to state sales and
use tax than to intrude into and examine the records and activities
of the church. (That is, if this would indeed be a legitimate activity
of the state, possibly precluded and in violation of its own Code
442:45(I)(3), religion being implied. But if churches are not
included, then by simple legislative action in the state House,
adding the word churches in (7) with the other exempt groups,
would bring the Iowa Code in line with the First Amendment.)
Audits of the books of legitimate businesses will tell the state if
sales and use tax are being collected from the church on the items
it purchased. As the state audits the books of legitimate secular
businesses, which are always open to the state, if for instance it
be found that a firm failed to collect state sales or use tax from
the church, let the firm pay that tax at the request of the state
and subsequently bill the church for the legitimate uncollected
amount. The church, as it has done on occasions in the past, when
so notified, will then pay it, if it is indeed a legitimate constitutional
burden to be borne by the church.
Tax exemption of the church (and this would certainly include
sales and use tax) and its attendant ministries has long been
recognized by the state. Ezra 7:24. If the state feels that is has power
to levy taxes against the church and then subsequently invade the
church for an audit of its records, do we not have here a violation
193
of the First Amendment by the state itself? Is not the church in

Iowa protected from taxation and subsequent {170} invasion by
the state into its records and activities (as has been determined in
other states by a refusal to charge the church state sales and use
tax) by the First Amendment?
The church is NOT a public charitable trust answerable to the
state! But rather the church was established by Jesus Christ, and
as such is subject to the Lordship of Christ! Separation of church
and state as embodied in the First Amendment and extended to the
states in the Fourteenth Amendment, is a separation based on the
doctrine that he who can regulate and tax is superior to the regulated
and taxed. The First Amendment recognizes that the church and the
state are to coexist equally without the one interfering with the other.
That is, churches and their related ministries are not regulated nor
taxed. Church freedom from regulation and church tax exemption is
not a grant from the government, but a recognition that the state is
not superior to the church! We see now in this potential action by
the state, against the church, potential mischief and harassment
into the internal affairs of all churches.
However, the courts are now addressing themselves to this issue.
On March 23, 1979, in Chattanooga, Tennessee, Judge Thrasher
laid down the following opinion:
Now the Court is of the opinion... that the church is headed by Jesus
Christ and that to allow a tax or the state to impose a tax would,
in essence, be regulating the church and controlling the church.
Therefore it would not be under the head of Jesus Christ, but under
the head of the state. The court takes it a step further. The court
embraces the words of Thomas Jefferson. Thomas Jefferson said,
The best government is the government which governs least....
If the state persists in pursuing this matter, then we have no
other recourse than to take the classic example of the Apostle
Paul and make our appeal unto Caesar! Our stand will be upon
our constitutional grounds. Then through the courts, under the
Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, we will want the
following questions resolved:
(1) Do the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States
Constitution prohibit the state from prying into the records and
activites of the church when there, is no clear and present danger
inherent?
194
(2) Do the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States

Constitution prohibit the state from taxing the church, and taxing
it in such a way that it subsequently necessitates and involves state
intrusion, examination, and scrutiny of the records and activities
of the church?{171}
We think the State of Iowa has erred in these areas, and if

necessary, through the courts, must be reminded not to overstep
the edicts of the American Caesar, the U.S. Constitution. There
could be no more evident violation of the First Amendment, that
is, government control of the church, than to see agents of the state
snooping into the affairs of every church in America, examining
their records and monitoring their affairs. If and when this is
permitted to happen, freedom of religion in this country has been
effectively circumvented. Therefore, at this time, we make our
appeal unto Caesar.
We have, before God, examined the Scriptures, our conscience,
and our duty to God in exalting the Lordship of Jesus Christ
over the churchgiving unto God the things that are Gods
and submitting to that supreme document of our land, the U.S.
Constitutionthe American Caesar, wanting its decrees to
remain inviolatethus rendering unto Caesar the things that are
Caesars. We therefore implore Gods continued merciful and
gracious guidance upon our lives as we dedicate ourselves in all
humility to the continued service of our Lord Jesus Christ, His
church, our families, and to all mankind. May God help us.
Appendix:
Petition in Equity in the Iowa District Court
in and for the County of Polk
Gospel Assembly Church, Plaintiff,
V.
Iowa Department of Revenue, and
Gerald Bair, Director of
Iowa Department of Revenue, Defendants.
195
I. Nature of Action
1. This is a First Amendment case involving (a) excessive
entanglement between the Iowa Department of Revenue and
a Church in violation of the establishment clause of the First
Amendment of the United States Constitution, and of the
corresponding provision of the Iowa Constitution, because of
the extremely broad and unnecessary range of Church records
demanded by that Department (First Cause of Action). This
case also involves (b) abridgement of the free association and
free religious exercise clauses of the First Amendment and the
Iowa Constitution by intrusion into Church records (Second
Cause of Action), (c&d) abridgement of the First Amendment
and the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
by imposition of sales and use taxes against churches and other
religious ministries but not against educational institutions and
state-agency nonprofit organizations (Third and Fourth Causes of
Action), and (e) abridgement of the constitutional privacy right
and the Ninth Amendment by intrusion into Church records not
involving the Churchs tax liability (Fifth Cause of Action).
2. The Church records that the Iowa Department of Revenue
demands and threatens to subpoena are not only those narrow
records necessary to determine any use tax liability of the Church
or any sales tax liability of any particular retail seller, which the
Church is ready and willing to provide along with any tax the
Church may owe (Paragraphs 2425 herein), but all books and
records of the Church (Paragraphs 1423 herein), which produces
excessive entanglement and the other constitutional violations.
II. Jurisdiction
3. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to Iowa law, for causes of
action under the First, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the
United States Constitution, 42 United States Code Section 1983,
Article I of the Iowa Constitution, and Iowa law.
III. Parties
4. Defendant IOWA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE (hereinafter
the Department), has its principal place of business in Polk
County, Iowa, at Hoover State Office Building, Des Moines, Iowa
50319, where it may be served with process.
196
5. The Department, through its Sales and Use Tax Division,

is responsible for collection of sales and use taxes that are due,
pursuant to Iowa Code Sections 422.42 et seq. and 423.1 et. seq.
6. Defendant GERALD BAIR, who is sued in his official capacity
as Iowa Director of Revenue (hereinafter the Director), has
his official place of business in Polk County at the Department,
Hoover State Office Building, Des Moines, Iowa 50319, where he
may be served with process. {173}
7. The Director is responsible for collection of sales and use tax
that is due, under Iowa Code Chapters 422 and 423.
8. Each Defendant acted and continues to act under color of
state law, including the Iowa Constitution, statutes, ordinances,
regulations, custom, or usage, at all times relevant hereto.
9. Plaintiff GOSPEL ASSEMBLY CHURCH (hereinafter the
Church), a nonprofit religious organization that is tax exempt
under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, has its
principal place of business in Polk County at 7135 Meredith Drive,
Des Moines, Iowa 50324. The Senior Pastor of the Church is Rev.
Lloyd L. Goodwin.
IV. Statement of Facts
10. The Plaintiff Church is an Evangelical Christian church
that is a pervasively religious ministry (a) having a recognized
creed and form of worship; (b) having ordained Ministers (or
Pastors), Deacons, and Trustees; (c) holding regular worship
services for Bible teaching, evangelism, prayer, sacred music,
and thanksgiving; (d) having an Evangelical Christian statement
of faith and doctrine; (e) having a regular congregation of
Evangelical Christian members; (f) requiring spiritual training
and preparation for its Ministers; and (g) otherwise carrying on a
pervasively religious ministry.
11. The religious ministry of the Church, its Ministers, and its
congregation is sincere, bona fide, and religious.
12. The Church constructed and furnished a building for
worship and related activities beginning on or about May 1979
and ending on or about August 1980.
13. In constructing and furnishing this building, the Church
purchased certain materials and other items from within and
without Iowa.
197
14. The Department has demanded, and presently demands,

under threat of subpoena, that the Church provide it with all
books and records of the Church, as more fully set forth in
Paragraphs 1523.
15. Maynard Gaarder, an agent of the Sales and Use Tax Division
of the Department, in the presence of Dave M. Swomley, an auditor
and an agent of the Field Services Division of the Department,
stated to a representative of the Church, on or about January 18,
1983, that the Department intended to conduct an audit of all
books and records of the Church from January 1, 1977, through
December 31, 1982.
16. The Department, through agent Maynard Gaardner or agent
Dave M. Swomley, stated to a representative of the Church, on or
about January 18, 1983, that the Department would subpoena all
books and records of the Church from January 1, 1977, through
December 31, 1982, if the Church did not voluntarily provide
all such Church books and records.
17. The Department has a present intention, and at all relevant
times has had an intention, of seeking and enforcing a subpoena
against all Church books and records, if the Church does not
produce them.
18. Dave M. Swomley stated in a letter to a representative of the
Church dated February 1, 1983, that the Department intended
to begin a sales and use tax audit for Gospel Assembly Church
covering January 1, 1978 through December 31, 1982, for which
the Department requested the following records be available:
(1) Purchase invoices, purchase orders and check registers.
(2) General ledgers and journals.

(3) Memoranda and other documents related to purchases.
(4) Contracts and agreements related to acquisitions of
equipment, fixtures, supplies and construction of the
physical properties.
Said letter also stated that [a]dditional records necessary will be
requested when needed. Said letter is attached hereto as EXHIBIT
I and is incorporated herein as if set out in full.
19. The Church asked for clarification of the records demanded,
by a letter from the Churchs representative to Dave M. Swomley at
198
the Department dated March 24, 1983, which stated: {174}

A point of clarification is necessary in order that my client can
formulate its position regarding the audit request by the Iowa
Department of Revenue. Based upon the oral representations made
at our meeting some months ago, it is my understanding that the
department is seeking a review of all financial books, records and
documents of the church, whether or not related specifically to the
construction of the new building or the collection and payment of
use and sales tax.
Further, it is our understanding that not only are you attempting
to determine what use tax should have been paid by the church
for the five-year period in question, but you are also attempting to
identify those businesses which have failed to charge Iowa sales tax
to churches.
I would appreciate it if you would provide me with a letter of
clarification concerning these points.
Said letter is attached hereto as EXHIBIT II and is incorporated

herein as if set out in full.
20. The Department, through agent Dave M. Swomley, replied
in a letter dated March 29, 1983, that did not specifically address
the Churchs questions or provided the requested clarification, but
instead simply attached another copy of the Departments letter of
February 1, 1983 (which is EXHIBIT I). Said letter dated March
29, 1983, is attached hereto as EXHIBIT III and is incorporated
21. The Church made another request to the Department for
clarification by letter dated April 4, 1983, which stated:
I apologize for writing again for clarification of what documents
you need from Gospel Assembly Church, but these are my final
areas of uncertainty that your March 29, 1983, letter does not
address. It is a little difficult to translate the general document
categories, mentioned in your February 1, 1983, letter, into the
particular documents that churches typically have.
(1) Am I correct in assuming that purchase invoices and purchase
orders in your February 1, 1983, letter are not just limited to
those invoices and purchase orders related to construction and
furnishing of the building or physical property? That memoranda
and other documents related to the purchases are not just limited
199
to those related to construction, furnishing of the building or

physical property?
(2)Am I correct in assuming that the document categories in your
February 1, 1983, letter essentially amount to all books and records
of the church as I recall Mr. Maynard Gaarder stated in our January
18, 1983, meeting with him? If not, what books or records of the
church would not be included in the document categories in your
February 1, 1983, letter?
(3)Am I correct in assuming that the purpose for documents
involving non-Iowa sellers is to deter mine use tax and the
purpose for documents involving Iowa sellers is to determine
sales tax?
I do hate to burden you with these specific questions, but need to
know more clearly what the church needs to provide.
Said letter is attached hereto as EXHIBIT IV and is incorporated

22. The Department, through its agent Dave M. Swomley,
replied by undated letter postmarked April 6, 1983, that indicated
the extremely broad scope of the Departments request for the
Churchs books and records by handwritten comments in the
margin of the Churchs letter of April 4, 1983 (which is EXHIBIT
IV). These handwritten comments consisted of yes beside
each question, except that not applicable was written beside
what books or records of the church would not be included in
the document categories in your February 1, 1983, letter? Said
undated letter postmarked April 6, 1983, is attached hereto as
EXHIBIT V and is incorporated herein as if set out in full.
23. The Churchs books and records and general ledgers and
journals involve all aspects of the Churchs pervasively religious
ministry including but not limited to the following: (a) records
of checks and other expenditures for compensation of ministers,
contributions to missionaries, contributions to other religious
ministries, payment of utilities for worship facilities, and other
items for religious worship; (b) bank statements regarding the
same; (c) records of contributions from each member of the
congregation and other donors; (d) bank statements and deposit
slips regarding the same; (e) annual and interim budgets of the
200
Church and reports thereon by the Church treasurer involving

compensation of Ministers, contributions to missionaries,
contributions {175} to other religious ministries, amounts for
utilities for worship facilities, and other items related to this
religious ministry; (f) minutes of meetings of Deacons, Ministers,
Trustees, and committees regarding doctrinal issues, candidates for
membership, future religious speakers, future worship programs
and revivals, religious programs for the youth and senior citizens,
discussion of ministers compensation, discussion of missionary
contributions, discussion of other Church contributions paid,
discussion of possible Church discipline of erring members,
discussion of spiritual qualifications of prospective Deacons,
discussion of spiritual qualifications of prospective Church school
teachers, discussion of spiritual qualifications of other prospective
Church officers, and related items; (g) minutes of meetings of
congregation members involving discussion of consideration
of the same; (h) correspondence by the Church Ministers about
spiritual problems of congregation members, about future plans
for worship activities, and about other matters; (i) appointment
records of Church Ministers regarding spiritual counseling
sessions, meetings with Church officers, or other activities of
the Ministers; (j) doctrinal statements of position and doctrinal
and evangelistic brochures prepared by and for the Church;
(k) regular Church bulletins, Church newsletters, and Church
magazine issues regarding Church religious activities; (l) notes or
outlines for the Ministers sermons and worship service liturgy;
(m) cassette tapes of worship services or sermons; (n) information
forms filled out by candidates for membership involving personal
information, church affiliation, doctrinal beliefs, and desired areas
of service; etc.
24. (a) The Church is ready, willing, and able to provide
purchase invoices, purchase orders, and cancelled checks, receipts,
memoranda and other documents, and contracts and agreements,
to the extent they are reasonably necessary to determination of
the Churchs liability (if any) for use tax through their involving
transactions with sellers outside of Iowa. (b) The Churchs
objection on the basis of excessive entanglement is not to paying
use tax (if any is due) or to providing the said documents that are
reasonably necessary to determine its use tax liability. The Church
201
instead alleges that excessive entanglement results from the much

broader intrusion by the Department into all of the Churchs books
and records generally (described in Paragrahs 14 and 23 herein).
25. (a) The Church is ready, willing, and able to provide purchase
invoices, purchase orders, cancelled checks, memoranda and
other documents, and contracts and agreements, to the extent that
they are reasonably necessary to sales tax administration through
their relating to purchases from particular sellers within Iowa
whom the Department specifically identifies or against whom
the Department has an existing audit. (b) The Churchs objection
on the basis of excessive entanglement is not to paying sales tax
to sellers (if any is due) or to providing the said documents that
are reasonably necessary to sales tax administration. The Church
instead alleges that excessive entanglement results from the much
broader intrusion by the Department into all of the Churchs books
and records (described in Paragraphs 14 and 23 herein), and also
from the fishing expedition into Church records to unearth alleged
retail sellers who may have failed to collect sales tax (the Church is
not legally responsible to remit sales tax).
26. The Iowa Code and the Departments Regulations that govern
sales tax do not impose any responsibility for the Church or other
purchasers to collect and remit such sales tax to the Department,
but instead impose that responsibility solely on the sellers. Iowa
Code Section 422.51 passim & Regulations thereunder.
27. The Iowa Code and the Departments Regulations governing
sales and use taxes apply such taxes to churches and other religious
ministries, but exempt educational institutions and nonprofit
hospitals and other state-agency nonprofit organizations. Iowa
Code Sections 422e45(7)-(8) passim.
V. First Cause of Action: Establishment Clause
28. The Plaintiff repeats and realleges Paragraphs 127 herein.
29. The Departments broad demands for the Churchs books
and records abridge the establishment clause of the First and
Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution, 42
United States Code section 1983, and the similar provision of
Article I of the Iowa Constitution, by {176} producing excessive
entanglement between the state and the Church and by having a
primary effect of hostility toward religion.
202
30. A casual connection exists between the alleged injury to

Plaintiff and the conduct of the Defendants challenged under the
establishment clause.
31. The Departments threat to subpoena all Church books and
records, which the Department has a present intention of carrying
out and has had at all relevant times, constitutes a distinct and
palpable injury to the Churchs constitutional rights and produces
a burdensome chilling effect on the Churchs exercise of such
rights.
A. Excessive Entanglement
32. The Departments broad demands produce excessive
administrative entanglement by intruding into Church records
beyond those necessary for determining any Church tax liability,
gathering information beyond that necessary for determining
any Church tax liability, threatening further invasions of Church
records of this and other churches, and having a potential for
further regulation. Under the Departments demands, all of the
Churchs books and records will be examined, may be made
public, and may result in further governmental involvement.
doctrinal entanglement by involving the state in purely religious
matters contained in Church records, intruding into Church
records beyond those necessary for determining any Church
tax liability and making surveillance of records that involve the
Churchs sensitive relations with its Ministers, the individual
donation records of its members, the worship activities of the
Church, records of the ministers counseling sessions, etc.
entanglement by political divisiveness by intruding into the Church
records of some religious organizations but not of others.
35. The Department has not met and cannot meet its burden of
showing that excessive entanglement will not result from its broad
demands.
36. The Department in its broad demands has not met and
cannot meet its burden of showing, in relation to any use tax
liability of the Church from its transactions with sellers outside
Iowa, that other than for those records that the Church is ready
and willing to provide pursuant to Paragraph 24 herein: (1) it
203
has a legitimate purpose for the investigation, (2) it is necessary

to inquire into such records, (3) it does not possess the required
information already, and (4) all proper administrative steps have
previously been taken.
37. The Department in its broad demands has not met its burden
of showing, in relation to any sales tax liability of the Church from
its transactions with sellers within Iowa, that other than for those
records that the Church is ready and willing to provide pursuant
to Paragraph 25 herein: (1) it has a legitimate purpose for the
investigation, (2) it is necessary to inquire into such records, (3)
it does not possess the required information already, and (4) all
proper administrative steps have previously been taken.
38. The Department effectively is attempting a fishing
expedition in the Churchs books and records, for the purpose of
determining any sales tax liability of sellers to the Church (the
Church is not legally responsible to collect sales tax or remit it to
the Department); and such a fishing expedition in Church files is
not necessary to determine the sales tax liability of sellers.
B. Primary Effect
39. The Departments broad demands have a primary effect
of hostility, opposition, hindrance, and interference toward
the Churchs religious ministry through intrusion into Church
records not necessary for determining any Church tax liability,
surveillance of and interference with the Churchs records and
activities, gathering of information beyond that necessary for
determining any Church tax liability, and posing a potential for
regulation.
40. In the alternative to Paragraph 39, the Departments broad
demands have the primary effect of intruding into the Church
records of some religious organizations but not of others, thereby
violating the establishment clause by politicizing religion and by
other consequences. {177}
VI. Second Cause of Action: First Amendment Freedoms and Free
Religious Exercise
and records abridge the associational freedom provision and free
204
religious exercise clause of the First and Fourteenth Amendments

of the United States Constitution, 42 United States Code Section
1983, and Article I of the Iowa Constitution, by invading such
constitutionally sensitive items as the Churchs membership lists,
contribution lists, employment arrangements with Ministers,
minutes of meetings of Ministers and Deacons and members,
and other items; and also by having a chilling effect on these
associational freedoms and free religious exercise.
43. (a) There is no compelling state interest that the Department
has shown, or can meet its burden of showing, to justify this
burden on associational freedom and free religious exercise; (b)
and even if there were, the least burdensome means have not
been, and cannot be shown by the Department to be, employed in
serving any such compelling state interest.
VII. Third Cause of Action: First Amendment Generally
44. The Plaintiff repeats and alleges Paragraphs 143 herein.
45. The Iowa sales and use taxes abridge the First and Fourteenth
Amendments of the United States Constitution, 42 United States
Code Section 1983, and Article I of the Iowa Constitution,
through taxing Churches and other religious ministries and some
other nonprofit charitable organizations, while not applying to
educational institutions and nonprofit hospitals and other stateagency nonprofit organizations.
burden on First Amendment rights; (b) and even if there were, the
least burdensome means have not been, and cannot be shown by
the Department to be, employed in serving any such compelling
state interest.
VIII. Fourth Cause of Action: Equal Protection
48. The Iowa sales and use taxes abridge the equal protection
clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States
Constitution, 42 United States Code Section 1983, and the similar
provision of Article I of the Iowa Constitution, by taxing churches
and other religious ministries, while not applying to educational
institutions and nonprofit hospitals and many other state-agency
205
nonprofit organizations.
49. The Iowa sales and use taxes, as applied, also abridge the
equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, 42 United
States Code Section 1983, and the similar provision of Article I
of the Iowa Constitution, by singling out the Church for a fishing
expedition to locate any sellers who have not charged sales tax
while not investigating the records of all buyers (who are not
responsible for collecting and remitting sales tax).
unequal protection involving fundamental freedoms and
First Amendment rights; (b) and even if there were, the least
burdensome means have not been, and cannot be shown by the
Department to be, employed in serving any such compelling state
interest.
IX. Fifth Cause of Action: Privacy Rights and Ninth Amendment
{178}

and records abridge the constitutional privacy right and the
Ninth Amendment of the United States Constitution, 42 United
States Code Section 1983, and the similar provisions of Article I
of the Iowa Constitution, by intruding into Church records not
necessary to determine any Church tax liability, and invading such
constitutionally sensitive items as church membership lists and
contribution lists, employment terms with Ministers, minutes of
meetings of Pastors and Deacons and Members, and other Church
records.
abridgement of privacy and Ninth Amendment rights; (b) and
even if there were, the least burdensome means have not been, and
cannot be shown by the Department to be, employed in serving
any such compelling state interest.
X. Relief:
54. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff Church respectfully requests
that:
206
(a)The Court enter a declaratory judgment that the Defendants

broad demands are unconstitutional under the First, Ninth, and
Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, and
under Article I of the Iowa Constitution, and have deprived the
Plaintiff under color of state law of rights, privileges, or immunities
secured thereunder in violation of 42 United States Code Section
1983, by (1) producing excessive entanglement between the state
and the Church and having a primary effect of hostility toward
the Churchs religious mission, (2) abridging associational
freedoms and free religious exercise, (3) singling out churches
and other religious ministries but not educational institutions
and many other nonprofit organizations for sales and use taxes,
(4) abridging the equal protection clause by this discrimination,
and (5) abridging constitutional privacy rights and the Ninth
Amendment;
(b)The Court enter temporary and permanent injunctions
against (1) the Defendants demanding or seeking to obtain any
Church books and records beyond those described in Paragraphs
24 and 25 herein, and (2) the Defendants collecting use tax from
churches and other religious entities and collecting sales tax
from persons selling to churches and other religious entities, the
Churchs remedy at law being inadequate;
(c)The Court award the Churchs costs and expenses of this
litigation, including its attorneys fees, with interest thereon, to be
paid by the Defendants, pursuant to 42 United States Code Section
1988 and Iowa law; and
(d)The Court grant such other and further relief as the Court
deems just and proper.
WHITFIELD, MUSGRAVE, SELVY, KELLY & EDDY
1300 United Central Bank Budding
Des Moines, Iowa 50309
(515) 2886041
By: David L. Phipps
By: Kenneth W. Biermacher
WARE, PARKER, JOHNSON, COOK & DUNLEVIE
200 Candler Building
127 Peachtree Street, Northeast
207
Atlanta, Georgia 30303

(404) 6581105
By: Wendell R. Bird
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF GOSPEL ASSEMBLY CHURCH
208
The Political Theology

of John Witherspoon
Covenanting in America
Roger Schultz
Introduction
At the time of the American Revolution, English Prime Minister
Walpole said, Cousin America has run off with a Presbyterian
parson [John Witherspoon].1 When Adam Ferguson visited
America in 1778 as secretary of a British peace expedition, he
described Witherspoons involvement in the Revolution:
It is the fashion to say we have lost America.... I am in great hopes
that nothing will be lost, not even the continent of North America.
We have 1,200 miles of territory occupied by 300,000 people of
which there are about 150,000, with Johnny Witherspoon at their
head, against usand the rest for us. I am not sure that if proper
measures were taken but we should reduce Johnny Witherspoon to
the small support of Franklin, Adams, and two or three more of the
most abandoned villains in the world, but I tremble at the thought
of their cunning and determination against us.2
As one of the most visible Presbyterians in the colonies, and as
head of the most radical college, he was seen as the chief architect
of the colonial revolt. Although Walpole and Shaftesbury probably
overestimated Witherspoons influence, they revealed a frequent
British sentiment, {180} that Witherspoon was one of the main
1. Loraine Boettner, The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination (Phillipsburg,
NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1932), 383.
2. James Smylie, Introduction, Journal of Presbyterian History 54 (Spring
1976):5.
209
figures of the Revolution.

Though overrated by the British, Witherspoon was very active
in the Revolution. The only clergyman to sign the Declaration of
Independence, he served in Congress from 17761782, sitting
on more than 200 committees, including vital ones on war and
foreign affairs.3 His influence can also be seen in his students.
Among his graduates were a President and Vice-President of
the United States, 9 cabinet officers, 21 U.S. Senators, 39 U.S.
Representatives, 3 justices of the U.S. Supreme Court, 12 governors
of states, 6 members of the Continental Congress and 33 judges....
Thirteen became presidents of colleges in eight states of the Union.4
Witherspoon has received relatively little attention, however,
and much of his career and thought remains unexplored and
misunderstood.
The purpose of this thesis is to evaluate the political thought of
John Witherspoon. The operating thesis of this paper is that the
political theology of Witherspoon developed from the Scottish
covenanting tradition and is consistently expounded by him, in
both Scotland and America. The covenanting tradition, begun in
Scotland in 1648, is one where Christian men covenanted together
to protect religious and civil liberties. We will explore the ways in
which Witherspoons theology may have affected his theological
outlook, and areas in which his political thought might have
changed his theology.
In developing this thesis, attention will be given to four related
questions and issues. First, how did Witherspoon perceive himself?
It is easy to force an historical figure into current interpretative
molds, thus ignoring distinctive elements of his or her work. The
first step in approaching an individual, however, is to see how that
individual may have defined and understood his life and work.5
3. Douglas Sloan, The Scottish Enlightenment (New York: Columbia
University, Teachers College Press, 1971).
4. Varnum Lansing Collins, Princeton (New York: Oxford University Press,
1914), 46.
5. Such an approach has been helpful in gaining a better understanding of
the work of others. For example, on Luther, see Walter Bense, intro. to What Did
Luther Understand by Religion, by Karl Holl, ed. James Luther Adams and Walter
Bense, trans. Fred W. Menser and Walter Wietzke (Philadelphia: Fortress Press,
1977), 2.
210
Secondly, consideration will be given to the continuity in

Witherspoons thought between Scotland and America. Some
have argued that there is a shift in Witherspoons political thought
after coming to the colonies which enabled him to support
the Revolution. On the other hand, Witherspoons support for
the Revolution could be ascribed to a basic theological and
philosophical framework he developed in Scotland. In focusing
on events in both settings which deal with similar themes of
submission and tyranny, this study will evaluate the continuity of
Witherspoons thought.
Third, building upon recent historical analysis, this paper
will evaluate the degree to which Witherspoon espoused the
sacred cause of {181} liberty. Nathan Hatch has argued that the
revolutionary climate of the colonies produced a major shift in
the opinions of the New England clergy, seen in their more ready
acceptance of a civil millennialism.6 In a recent work, Mark Noll
has extended this thesis to Witherspoon.7 Since a good portion of
Witherspoons career was in Scotland, a study of his views there
will serve as a control in exploring the idea of a civil millennium.
This study will examine the way Witherspoon the Scot viewed
Divine Providence in Americas development, and will seek to
determine if there was any change of outlook in his American
career.
The final and most complex consideration will be the roots
of Witherspoons thought. Through a study of the different
worldviews present in Witherspoons day, our paper will attempt
to see if Witherspoons ideas proceed from a covenantal or
Enlightenment foundation.
In order to begin to approach these questions, the first and
second sections of this study will lay out relevant biographical
and bibliographical material on Witherspoon and the Revolution,
in order to delineate a general chronology and interpretive
sketch of his life. These sections will also work with interpretive
models of the Revolution, and current philosophical and political
6. Nathan Hatch, The Sacred Cause of Liberty: Republican Thought and
Millenialism in Revolutionary New England (New Haven, CT: Yale University
Press, 1977), 22.
7. Mark Noll, Christians in the American Revolution (Washington, DC:
Christian University Press, 1977), 6568, 154.
211
systems to see how clergy and religious factors have been treated
generally. Our particular interest is to find a pattern from which to
evaluate Witherspoon. The third and fourth sections will focus on
Witherspoons thought in Scotland and America respectively. The
final section will seek to evaluate the consistency of Witherspoons
ideas in Scotland and America.
This study will be limited mainly to the published works of John
Witherspoon. Other primary sources are not readily available.8
The study will also concentrate on Witherspoons sermon material
rather than the more philosophical Lectures in Moral Philosophy.9
The ideas of providence, tyranny, and liberty of conscience are
frequently found in Witherspoons writings. Since these terms are
important in the study of Witherspoons thought, careful effort
will be given to define them. While the implications of Hatchs
thesis will be discussed later, his definitional criteria will be helpful
in charting the nature of Witherspoons thought. For example,
Hatch argues that there developed a new sense of national calling
in the colonies leading to the idea of Americans as the people
of God.10 There was also a shift in biblical metaphors, in that
political expressions came to characterize Christianity, rather than
Christian metaphors defining political concepts.11 Indeed, {182}
there was a marked shift from religion to politics so that history
became primarily civic, with a tremendous emphasis placed on
British liberties and political tradition.12 In a reapplication of the
past, clergymen began to emphasize the motivations of freedom
in the earlier forefathers, creating a hagiography of liberty.13 The
concept of sin and repentance also became identified with liberty
and political corruption.14 Finally, history became apocalyptic,
especially with the French wars and British oppression. In the
8. See app. 1: Sources.
9. For the rationale for this approach to Witherspoon, see app. 2: Approach
to the Sources.
10. Hatch, Sacred Cause of Liberty, 5860.
11. Ibid., 62.
12. Ibid., 70, 81.
13. Ibid., 46, 78. See also Bernard Bailyn, The Ideological Origins of the
American Revolution (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1967), vivii.
212
process, America was perceived as lying at the center of Gods

redemptive program.15 These criteria will be used to evaluate
Witherspoons thought in Scotland and America.
Witherspoon is a difficult man to evaluate because his career
was divided between the British Isles and the colonies. Yet, this can
serve as a control for various interpretations of American history.
As we trace his beliefs in light of Hatchs thesis, we can attempt to
discern whether an identical shift occurs in Witherspoons ideas
about the new developing American nation, or whether, in fact,
ideas which have been said to develop later and independently in
America with respect to its millennial role, were already a part of
Witherspoons outlook. Such a study as this, then, gives insight
into the beliefs and emphases of a leader who was neither born in
this country, nor was a participant in the Great Awakening. One
who, nevertheless, was central to its developing political ethos. It
is hoped that this study will enhance understanding of the history
of the Church in America, its conception of itself and the national
purpose, as well as the life of John Witherspoon.
1. Witherspoons Life and Background

Life in Scotland
John Witherspoon was born in 1723 in the village of Gifford,
about fourteen miles from Edinburgh. His father, James
Witherspoon, was a minister of Yester parish, was active in the
General Assembly, and served as royal chaplain.16 On his mothers
side, Witherspoon came from a long line of ministers, perhaps
even John Knox.17 He grew up in a deeply religious household,
and there is reason to believe that [Witherspoon] experienced the
15. Ibid., 41, 88.
16. Background information on Witherspoon, though not totally reliable, can
be found in Alexander Carlyle, The Autobiography of Alexander Carlyle, 3rd ed.
(Edinburgh: Blackwood and Sons, 1861).
17. Martha Lou Lemmon Stohlman, John Witherspoon (Philadelphia:
Westminster Press, 1976), 18; Varnum Lansing Collins, President Witherspoon,
2 vols. (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1925; reprint ed., New York:
Arno Press/New York Times, 1969), 1:12; Ashabel Green, The Life of the Rev. John
Witherspoon (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1973), 12.
213
renewing grace of God at a very early period of his life....18

Witherspoon studied at the University of Edinburgh and in
1739, at the age of sixteen, defended an M.A. thesis on De Mentis
Immortalitate (The Immortality of the Mind). He was ordained
in 1745, and accepted a {183} call to the parish of Beith.
The arrival in Scotland of the Young Pretender, Bonnie
Prince Charles, opened another important, if brief, chapter in
Witherspoons life. Many Scots, especially the Highlanders, were
hopeful that under Charles the country would be returned to
Stuart rule. Witherspoon supported the only rightful and lawful
sovereign, King George, and raised a militia from Beith.19 He was
captured in the Battle of Falkirk, and was imprisoned from January
1725, 1746. Though Witherspoon never made the connection,
the imprisonment seemed to have had an adverse affect on his
nerves.20
After a couple of years in Beith, Witherspoon married Elizabeth
Montgomery. They had ten children. Their life seemed touched
with grief, as five children died in childhood, and two during war.21
The Popular-Moderate controversy was probably the turning
point in Witherspoons career. The Moderate Party, led by
Robertson and leaning toward Enlightenment figures like Smith,
Reid, Hutcheson, and Furgeson, boasted 100,000 adherents
controlling 1,200 churches and by 1765 had gained control of
the General Assembly.22 Witherspoon emerged as the leader
of the orthodox Popular Party. His greatest contribution in this
controversy was a work of satire, Ecclesiastical Characteristics,
published in 1753. Rated by some in a class with Swift, the
Ecclesiastical Characteristics went through seven editions and nine
reprints reaching England, Holland, and America.23 His call to the
college at Princeton came in part because of the books popularity
and the way it had established Witherspoon as a Popular leader.
He also wrote The Effects of the Stage, directed at a Moderate
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
Green, Life of Witherspoon, 29.

Collins, President Witherspoon, 1:2122.
Green, Life of Witherspoon, 37, 39.
Collins, President Witherspoon, 1:25.
Ibid., 32.
Stohlman, John Witherspoon, 25.
214
minister who had written a play for the theater.

In 1757, Witherspoon accepted a call to Paisley. During his
ministry there, he continued to write, publishing sermons, essays
on justification and regeneration, and further satire, such as A
History of a Corporation of Servants. He was also tarnished in the
Snodgrass Affair. After some townsmen had conducted a mock
communion service and Presbytery did little to discipline them,
Witherspoon brought out a biting pamphlet. He was sued for libel,
and the plaintiffs were given a partial settlement. This might have
damaged Witherspoons image somewhat before his departure for
America.
Life in America
Witherspoons call to Princeton revolved around a different form
of {184} political battle within the colonial Presbyterian Church.
Both factions of the church were orthodox, but they were split
over the issue of Great Awakening enthusiasm. The New Side,
which had begun the work at Princeton, embraced the emphasis
in the Awakening on conversion, while the Old Side, fearful of
enthusiasm, were less comfortable with the revival. Princeton
needed a president who could draw both factions together. The
school also needed someone who could offer stability, as there
had been five presidents in the preceding twenty years: Jonathan
Dickinson, Aaron Burr, Samuel Davies, Jonathan Edwards, and
Samuel Finley. Princeton elected Witherspoon as president in
1766, only to have him decline because of his wifes reluctance to
move. After urgings by George Whitefield24 and Benjamin Rush,
Witherspoon came to America in 1768.25
Witherspoon found the colonies deeply aroused by the Stamp Act,
which he later called the first-born of American oppressions....26
24. Collins, President Witherspoon, 1:98.
25. Lyman Henry Butterfield, John Witherspoon Comes to America (Princeton,
NJ: Princeton University Press, 1953). This work contains previously unpublished
correspondence between Witherspoon and Rush, pertinent to Witherspoons
coming to America.
26. John Witherspoon, On Conducting the American Controversy, in The
Works of John Witherspoon, D.D., 9 vols. (Edinburgh: J. Ogle, 1815), 9:98. All
references to Witherspoons Works will be from this edition, unless otherwise
noted.
215
The same spirit was at Princeton, which has been called the chief
center of agitation for the colonial cause.27 Wertenbacher has
pointed to the growth of the revolutionary fervor at Princeton.
In 1765, the students wore American cloth to protest the Stamp
Act. In 1766, there were spirited debates on liberty, and by 1774,
the students conducted their own tea party and burned Governor
Hutchinson in effigy.28 In 1765, two of Princetons three honorary
degrees went to John Dickinson and John Hancock, leaders in the
revolutionary cause.29 In 1770, Witherspoons son defended a prorevolutionary thesis in the presence of Royal Governor Franklin,
arguing that [s]ubjects were bound to resist their king and defend
their liberties if he ignored the laws of the state, or treated his
subjects cruelly.30 At one point in 1772, a letter to the editor in
the Pennsylvania Chronicle complained about the [Princeton]
graduating class discussing the most perplexing political topics
which they solved with a jerk.31 Witherspoon was personally
involved in the agitation. From 17691776, when it disbanded,
Witherspoon was involved in the Society of Dissenters, a body
composed of representative Congregational lists and Presbyterians
for the purpose of preventing the establishment of an Anglican
episcopate on American soil.32
Witherspoon came out strongly in favor of the colonial cause
in 1774 in Thoughts on American Liberty.33 This followed a New
Brunswick meeting where the delegates expressed loyalty to the
king, but also resolved to support the just rights of the kings
27. James Nicols, John Witherspoon on Church and State, in Calvinism and
the Political Order, ed. G. L. Hunt (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1965), 130.
28. Thomas Jefferson Wertenbacher, Princeton, 17461896 (Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press, 1946), 5657. See also Collins, Princeton.
30. Ibid., 1:73. See also Ralph Ketcham, James Madison at Princeton,
Princeton University Library Chronicle 28 (Autumn 1966):38.
31. Stohlman, John Witherspoon, 80.
32. L. Gordon Talt, John Witherspoon: The Making of a Patriot, 17681776,
Ohio Journal of Religious Studies 4 (October 1976):56. See also Carl Bridenbaugh,
Mitre and Sceptre: Transatlantic Faiths, Ideas, Personalities and Politics (New
York: Oxford University Press, 1962); and James L. McAllister Jr., Francis Alison
and John Witherspoon: Political Philosophers and Revolutionaries, Journal of
Presbyterian History 54 (Spring 1976):3360.
33. Witherspoon, Thoughts on American Liberty, 7387.
216
subjects in America.34 {185} In the Thoughts, Witherspoon declares

his loyalty to the crown, but also says he prefers war to slavery.
Practical suggestions are: a union of the colonies until the rights
and privileges of the Massachusetts Bay Colony are restored, a
nonimportation and nonconsumption agreement, promotion
of colonial immigration and industry abroad, militia from each
colony, an address to the British army and navy on the rights of
Britons, and a plan for union for the common defense.35
In the Pastoral Letter of 1775, Witherspoon says that if the
British ministry shall continue to enforce their claim by violence,
a lasting and bloody conflict must be expected.36 Witherspoon
urges the people to show attachment and respect to the king, to
maintain union, morality, public peace, and mercy, and to continue
in prayer. The direction of his thought, however, is evident as
he points to the revolutionary principles which brought the
royal family to the throne, and asks for an equitable and lasting
settlement on constitutional principle....37
In 1776, Witherspoon brought out two more essays in favor of the
Revolution. The Letter to Natives of Scotland Residing in America
defended the ancient rights of British subjects.38 The Dominion of
Providence over the Passions of Men was his first sermon in favor
of the Revolution. It was dedicated to John Hancock, president of
the Continental Congress, and was delivered in May 1776, as a
fast-day sermon. He pointed out that, while it was the first time
he had introduced politics into the pulpit, it was now necessary,
because the cause in which America is now in arms, is the
cause of justice, of liberty, and of human nature.39 Witherspoon
35. Ibid., 1:16263.
36. John Witherspoon, A Pastoral Letter, in Works, 5:169. We do not know
how much of the letter Witherspoon wrote. He was chairman of the task force
drafting the work, and the Letter bears every mark of Witherspoons authorship.
See Leonard J. Kramer, Presbyterians Approach the Revolution: Part II, Journal
of the Presbyterian Historical Society 31 (September 1953):77.
37. Witherspoon, Pastoral Letter, 171, 175.
38. John Witherspoon, Letter to the Natives of Scotland Residing in America,
in Works, 5:21736.
39. John Witherspoon, Dominion of Providence over the Passions of Men, in
Works, 5:202.
217
concluded the sermon by saying, God grant that in America true

religion and civil liberty may be inseparable and that the unjust
attempts to destroy the one, may in the issue tend to the support
and establishment of both.40
Witherspoon was elected to the New Jersey Assembly in 1776.
He was then elected to the Continental Congress where he was a
signer of the Declaration of Independence, the only clergyman to
do so. Legend has it that Witherspoon, at the head of the New Jersey
delegation which had ridden all night, came to the deadlocked
Congress with a rousing speech in favor of the Revolution.41 He
continued to be involved in Congress throughout the war, serving
on many important committees.
Witherspoon would be interested in the cause of liberty for the
rest of his life. He continued to serve in Congress through 1782.
He was very pleased at the ratification of the Constitution and
the more efficient {186} government it brought. His confidence in
the future of the country was so great that he once remarked to
Ashabel Green, Dont be surprised if you see a turnpike all the
way to the Pacific Ocean in your lifetime.42
The war was a costly one for Witherspoon. It took the lives of
two of his sons. Princeton was occupied, ransacked, and very
nearly destroyed, as was his own home. The schools library,
organ, facilities, and equipment were either missing or damaged
at the end of the war. The school continued to suffer from the
war because of its investment in war bonds which were devalued
during the devastating inflation of the Continental Congress.
It is very difficult to evaluate the career of Witherspoon because
of his involvement in so many things. He was an important leader
in his party in Scotland. His political influence in the colonies was
extensive. He also touched the religious life of the colonies, both in
his work as a college president and as an organizer of the General
Assembly. Furthermore, he is an important figure in philosophy.
He is usually cited as being responsible for bringing Thomas Reid
and Scottish Realism to America. Witherspoon himself believed
that he preceded Reid in expressing the tenets of the Common
40. Ibid., 5:215.
42. Green, Life of Witherspoon, 173.
218
Sense philosophy in his response to Lord Kaimes.43 Because of this

multifarious career, it will be necessary to evaluate the Scottish
and American background and present the various interpretations
of Witherspoon in each area.
Background of the Scottish Church

Most scholars see Witherspoons work in Scotland as
foundational, in some respect, for his support of the American
Revolution. Collins, for instance, sees a prerevolutionary
sentiment in Witherspoons struggle for individual freedom
against the powerful Moderate Party.44 Stohlman echoes this in a
discussion of Witherspoons support of the Revolution.
This position rested upon a respect for personal liberty, popular
government and honest expression, whose roots were implanted in
him in Scotland. This was the man who had vehemently protested
the Moderates suppression of a congregations freedom of choice
and their imposition of a minister chosen by the patron. This is the
man who had warned a young minister that good men follow their
own conscience and are charged with sedition and faction.45
Ralph Ketcham further develops this theme, arguing that when
Witherspoon came to America, he had a reputation {187} as a foe
of ecclesiastical hierarchy. For years in Scotland, Witherspoon
fought the power of the Synods of the Presbyterian Kirk over
individual congregations. He developed habits and doctrines of
resistance to authority which, as many New England clergymen
also demonstrated, needed but little translation to be used against
political authority.46
One recent work has focused entirely on this question. Gordon
Talt introduces his article on John Witherspoon: The Making of a
Patriot by saying that
the thesis of this article is that there are reasons enough in the
Reverend Mr. Witherspoons Scottish and Reformed heritage
44. Ibid., 1:32. See Ernst Thompson, Presbyterians in the South, 16071861, 3
vols. (Richmond, VA: John Knox Press, 1963), 97.
46. Ketcham, Madison at Princeton, 40.
219
to explain his decision to support the Colonists in their struggle

against Great Britain.47
The main question in trying to evaluate Witherspoon concerns

the genesis of this Scottish and Reformed tradition. Some have
seen it in the very origins of the Scottish church.
According to Knox himself, the Scottish Reformation of Religion,
a reformation of the manners and abuses in religion, was a
battle for religious and civil liberty. To the end that ... all ... may
understand how... unjustly we are persecuted by France and their
portion ... [and to] seek nothing but Christ Jesus, his glorious
Evangel to be preached, his holy sacraments to be administered,
superstition, tyranny, and idolatry to be suppressed in this realm;
and, finally, the liberty of our own native country to remain free
from the bondage and tyranny of strangers. this underlying
principle of liberty persisted through the age of the Calvinistic
Reformation in Scotland to the age in which Witherspoon lived.48
Thomas Brown held that the whole history of the Scottish
church must be seen in terms of a struggle for independence. He
introduced his work, somewhat of a polemic for the Free Church
movement, by saying, our aim in these lectures will be to show
that all along spiritual independence has proved itself to be a
power in the land.49
For the purposes of this paper, the history of the Scottish
church can be broken into three periods of conflict.50 Though
these periods cannot be covered exhaustively, it is necessary to
introduce them, since Witherspoon referred to events during these
periods in his writings. The first period, beginning with the Scots
Confession of 1560, covers the formative years through 1592. The
47. Talt, The Making of a Patriot, 56.
48. Wayne Witte, John Witherspoon: Servant of LibertyA Study in
Doctrinal History and Political Calvinism (Ph.D. diss., Princeton Theological
Seminary, 1954).
49. Thomas Brown, Church and State in Scotland (Edinburgh: Macniven and
Wallace, 1892), 3.
50. Ibid. Brown saw six periods of Scottish church history marked by struggle
and success. Different evaluations of the history of the church in Scotland could
be used. Browns overview has been used because it has the greatest affinity with
Witherspoon. The purpose of this section is not to give a definitive analysis of the
Scottish kirk, but to introduce its history as Witherspoon probably understood it.
220
first major conflict is with Mary, and is concluded by 1567 with the
ratification of the Confession of Faith.51 A second major struggle
revolved around the Black Acts of 1584 which emphasized royal
supremacy and the episcopacy, and was concluded in 1592 with
the Presbyterian charter.{188}
The second major period deals with the Covenanters. This
period began in 1592 with the conflicts between the Kirk and the
episcopacy. In 1618, for instance, James had the Perth Articles
ratified establishing a more Roman form of worship.52 Other
major events were the imposition of the Book of Canons in 1635,
which subverted the Presbyterian system, overthrowing the
purity of worship, and the adaptation of Lauds liturgy in 1637.53
In February and March of 1638, Presbyterians joined together
in the Solemn League and Covenant, resolving to stand against
this tyranny. In 1647, the Westminster standards were adopted,
wedding Scotch Presbyterianism and English Puritanism and
producing a Second Reformation.54 Though the struggle continued
after the Restoration, the Presbyterians received a settlement after
the Glorious Revolution. From 168890, Parliament outlawed the
more objectionable acts, restored the Act of 1592, and abolished
the Patronage system.55
Background of the Moderate Controversy

The final and most important period revolved around to
Moderates and the Patronage system. The first step toward this
conflict was the Act of Union in 1707, which raised fears about the
loss of church privileges and set a precedent for the Greenshield
case, the restoration of patronage, and the Oath of Abjuration.56
Eugene Rich claims that the Act of Union was one of the major
51. Ibid., 55.

52. William Law Mathieson, Politics and Religion in Scotland, 15501695, 2
vols. (Glasgow: Maclehose and Sons, 1902), 1:318.
53. Brown, Church and State, 111.
54. Witte, John Witherspoon, 49.
55. Brown, Church and State, 111.
56. Hume Brown, History of Scotland, 3 vols. (Cambridge: University Press,
1911), 3:188.
221
influences in Witherspoons life.57 The Patronage Act in 1712

overturned many of the rights secured by the Glorious Revolution.
While the Act of 1690 had given the right of presentation to
representative parishes rather than the ancient patrons, in 1712,
an act was passed by the British Parliament restoring presentation
to the ancient patrons.58 Although the issue lay dormant until the
1730s, a precedent had been set granting the power to approve
ministers to the patrons rather than the congregations.
In 1732, a disputed Act of Assembly gave greater power to
the patrons.59 In protest, Ebenezer Erskine, an evangelical, left
the church in the Great Secession of 1733.60 The Seceders saw
themselves as the guardians of the faith, and as standing in the
tradition of the Covenanters.61
When the Secession was an accomplished fact, they did not lose
much time in taking steps to pledge themselves to the covenantal
position of their fathers of the previous century. This they did to
conserve or safeguard the {189} attainments in the Reformation
of earlier days. They drew up a bond ... ,[and] in it they pledged
themselves to carrying into effect the ends that their forefathers
aimed at in the days of Charles I.62
Increasingly, the Popular Party became aligned with the
concerns of the congregations, and the Moderate Party with
those of the patrons. Rich argues that this should be seen from a
covenanting perspective:
By emphasizing the rights of the congregations to have the final
decision in the selection of their own ministers, the Popular Party
attempted to carry on the spirit of the covenanting tradition still
cherished by the masses; the party held that the church should
57. Eugene Rich, John Witherspoon: His Scottish Intellectual Background,
(Ph.D. diss., Syracuse University, 1964), 90.
58. Ibid., 72. See Green, Life of Witherspoon, 45; Hume Brown, History of
Scotland, 3:118; and William Law Mathieson, Scotland and the Union, 16951747
(Glasgow: Maclehose and Sons, 1905), 209.
59. Matheson, Scotland and the Union, 242.
61. George Grub, An Ecclesiastical History of Scotland, 4 vols. (Edinburgh:
Edmonston and Douglas, 1861), 3:61.
62. John Macleod, In the Early Days of the Secession, Scottish Church
History Society 8, no. 1 (1942):3.
222
protect and promote the rights of individual communicants.63
This alignment rested upon two cases in the 1750s. In the

Torphichen case, Lord Torphichen presented a Mr. Watson,
chosen by the church from the list that the lord had submitted.
The majority of the heritors, elders, and almost all the family
heads, however, wanted a Mr. Trumbull whose name had not
been offered on the leet. In fact, only five or six people out of
1,000 adults agreed to call Mr. Watson.64 The Synod ruled in favor
of Watson in 1749, 1750, and 1751. The Presbytery was finally
rebuked for failing to ordain Watson, and a Synodical committee
was appointed to do so. At the time, the Popular Party argued
that this was to introduce despotism into the church .... God alone
is Lord of the conscience. He who sins against his conscience sins
against God; and no order of a superior court can make good evil
or evil good. No man, no Christian can resign the right of judging
for himself.65
The Inverkeithing case was also a major cause of realignment.
The Presbytery of Dunfermline, in deference to the people of
Inverkeithing, was slow to induct as minister a Mr. Richardson,
who had been presented by the patron. Though the Synod
approved the call, Presbytery refused to act. On Monday, May 18,
1752, the General Assembly ordered the Presbytery to meet on
Thursday to admit Richardson, raising the quorum of ministers
from three, the number it was known could be obtained, to five,
and requiring every clerical member to appear on Friday at the
bar to answer for his conduct.66 Because only three ministers
from Presbytery appeared at Inverkeithing, the General Assembly
selected a dissenter, the Reverend Gillespie, and he was deposed
on May 23, 1752.67
The argument of the dissenters was that the General Assembly
was requiring them to act contrary to church law and their own
63. Rich, John Witherspoon, 7273.
64. John Cunningham, Church History of Scotland, 2 vols. (Edinburgh: Thin,
1882), 2:339.
65. Ibid., 340.
66. William Law Mathieson, The Awakening of Scotland, 17471779 (Glasgow:
Maclehose, 1910), 154.
67. Green, Life of Witherspoon, 60n.
223
conscience. {190} Gillespie showed that in participating in forcing

a minister on a congregation, he was forced to violate the decision
of the General Assembly of 1736. In its reversal of the Act of 1732,
it had said, It is, and has been since the Reformation, the principle
of this church that no minister shall be inducted into any parish,
contrary to the will of the congregation.68 The Relief Church,
which Gillespie later founded, emphasized the concept of freedom
of conscience. In the ordination examination, for instance,
there was a definite qualification as to the power of the civil
magistrate to interfere in religious concerns, and there was a
question to this effect: Do you regard patronage as an invasion of
the rights of Christian people, and do you engage to maintain and
defend their liberties against all encroachment?69
Commenting on the position of the Relief Church, Hugh Watt
said,
To yield an unquestioning and an active obedience to any human
authority, civil or ecclesiastical is to be guilty of real idolatry
offering to a creature the very highest and most excellent sacrifice
that the Creator Himself is capable of receiving from us.70
These events were a watershed for Witherspoon. He
thought that freedom of conscience was basic to Presbyterianism
and favorably responded to [Gillespies] appeal issued on the basis
of the disruptive effect of the Assemblys decision. But Robertson
was advocating strict adherence to the law and the authority of the
Assembly.71
The Popular party responded to Robertsons Reasons for Dissent
with Answers to the Reasons for Dissent from the Sentence of the
Commission in the Case of Inverkeithing, March 11, 1752, which,
in emphasizing the liberty of conscience, became the Manifesto
of the Popular Party.72 Witherspoon said, furthermore, that these
68. Ibid.
69. Robert J. Drummond, Traditions and Reminiscences of the Relief
Church, Scottish Church History Society 8, no. 1 (1942):50.
70. Hugh Watt, Thomas Gillespie, Scottish Church History Society 15 (2,
1964):101.
71. Rich, John Witherspoon, 79.
72. Ibid., 7980.
224
events prompted him to write the Ecclesiastical Characteristics.

In The Serious Apology, noting the Torphichen and Inverkeithing
cases, Witherspoon said that
[i]n entering upon this task, I take the liberty to affirm, that what
first induced me to write, was a deep concern for the declining
interest of religion in the church of Scotland, mixed with some
indignation at what appeared to me a strange abuse of church
authority in the years 1751 and 1752.73
The Scottish church, then, had a long struggle for religious
freedom. At least, that is how the Covenanters saw themselves. The
evangelical {191} church viewed itself in the same way, in a fight for
individual freedoms and the liberty of conscience. Witherspoon,
as a leader of the Popular Party, demonstrated a deep concern for
the legal rights of congregations and the necessity of protecting the
liberty of conscience. Most importantly, he showed a willingness
to stand against ordained authorities to insure the continuance of
these rights.
2. Witherspoon and the Revolution:

Interpretations
Religious Interpretations of the Revolution
The American Revolution has been seen in many different lights,
religious and secular, depending on prevailing interpretative
models.74 These models will be examined to see which might best
explain Witherspoons involvement in the Revolution. In some
respects, Witherspoon will serve as a control on these theories,
since, as an immigrant, he entered America just prior to the
73. John Witherspoon, A Serious Apology for the Ecclesiastical
Characteristics, in Works, 6:233.
74. Jack Greene, The Reappraisal of the American Revolution in Recent
Historical Literature (American Historical Association, 1967); Edmund S.
Morgan, The American Revolution: A Review of Changing Interpretations
(Washington, DC: Service Center for Teachers of History, 1958); Edmund
S. Morgan, ed., The American Revolution: Two Centuries of Interpretation
(Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1965); Ronald Gephart, Periodic Literature
on the American Revolution: Historical Research and Changing Interpretations,
18951970 (Washington, DC: Library of Congress, 1971).
225
Revolution, and was not exposed to all the colonial influences,

such as the Great Awakening.
One of the earliest religious interpretations of the Revolution
is that it grew out of Puritanism.75 Brauer holds that the central
symbols and values which had upheld New England society were
transformed into rebellion against England. The most important
symbol or value in the Puritan cultural system was the idea
of the covenant, which was initiated by God, conditional, and
was concerned, not so much with individual salvation as the
creation of a people.76 Second was the necessity of consent.77 A
third feature of the Puritan system was the rule and necessity of
fundamental law, to which no person was superior.78 Finally, the
Puritans believed in an organic society ordained by God, [with]
Parliament as the guardian and repository of English liberties and
responsibilities.79
The Puritan commonwealth is frequently seen as foundational to
the emerging nation. In Puritanism and Democracy, Ralph Barton
Perry argues that Puritanism was responsible for shaping much of
the national ethos.80 Lord Bryce in his American Commonwealth
points out that
[t]here is a hearty Puritanism in the view of human nature
which pervades the instrument of 1787.... It is the work of men
who believed in original sin, and were resolved to leave open for
transgressors no door which they could possibly shut. Compare
this spirit with the enthusiastic {192} optimism of the Frenchman of
1789. It is not merely a difference of race and temperaments, it is a
difference of fundamental ideas.81
75. Jerald C. Brauer, Puritanism, Revivalism and the Revolution, in Religion
and the American Revolution, ed. Jerald Brauer (Philadelphia: Fortress Press,
1976), 1.
76. Ibid., 78.
77. Ibid., 89. See Perry Miller, Errand into the Wilderness (Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press, 1950), 39, 14752.
78. Brauer, Religion and the American Revolution, 1011.
79. Ibid., 11.
80. Ralph Barton Perry, Puritanism and Democracy (New York: Vanguard
Press, 1944); and Edmund S. Morgan, ed., Puritan Political Ideas (Indianapolis,
IN: Bobbs-Merrill, 1965).
81. Lord Bryce, American Commonwealth, quoted in Winthrop S. Hudson,
Theological Convictions and Democratic Government, in Puritanism and the
226
Cushing Strout, though critical of an overly Whiggish interpretation

of the Puritans, begins his study of civil religion in America by
saying:
Yet it was fateful for America that politics and religion were first
profoundly linked by a movement that emphasized voluntary
association for chosen impersonal ends, resting on consent in
church and state, put legal limits on all power, envisioned a
necessary political life for saints, and carefully distinguished
between the realms of church and state.82
The Puritans also saw their community in typological and
eschatological terms, frequently growing out of their millennial
expectations. Robert Middlekauff has called attention to the
changing yet intregal function eschatology had in the Puritan
system.83 The Puritans saw themselves as the chosen people, and
thus adopted for their experiment biblical designation, metaphors,
and prophecies.84 The underlying power of the Puritan movement,
imagination, and society was its millennial fervor.85 Many have
argued that this millennialism, modified by the civil religion,
provided the vision for the American Revolution and national
experiment.86
Sacvan Bercovitch pointed out, in his study of Puritan rhetoric,
that the American jeremiad was characteristic of both Old and
New World Puritans.
American Experience, ed. Michael McGiffert (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley,
1969), 227.
82. Cushing Strout, The New Heavens and the New Earth: Political Religion in
America (New York: Harper and Row, 1975), 12.
83. Robert Middlekauff, The Mothers: Three Generations of Puritan
Intellectuals, 15961728 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1971).
84. Sacvan Bercovitch, The American Jeremiad (Madison: University of
Wisconsin Press, 1978).
85. David D. Hall, Understanding the Puritans, in Religion in American
History: Interpretive Essays, ed. John Mulder and John F. Wilson (Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1978), 10.
86. See James McLear, The Republic and the Millenium, in Religion in
American History, 18198; Ernst Lee Tuveson, Millenium and Utopia (Berkeley:
University of California Press, 1949); Ernst Tuveson, Redeemer Nation (Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1968); Cushing Strout, The New Heavens and the
New Earth; James Davidson, The Logic of Millennial Thought (New Haven, CT:
Yale University Press, 1977); and H. Richard Niebuhr, The Kingdom of God in
America (New York: Harper and Row, 1937).
227
[It] helped sustain a national dream through two hundred years

of turbulence and change. [It] was a ritual designed to join social
criticism to spiritual renewal, public to private identity, the shifting
signs of the times to certain traditional metaphors, themes and
symbols.... [It] has played a major role in fashioning the myth of
America .... The American jeremiad was born in an effort to impose
metaphor upon reality.87
He also argued that the jeremiad was political sermon, serving

both sacred and profane functions, since in their church-state,
theology was wedded to politics and politics to the progress of the
kingdom of God.88 The jeremiad first lamented the ways of the
world, bemoaning the sins of the people, whether a community, a
nation, a civilization, or mankind in general.89 Secondly, it stressed
the peculiarity of the people and their holy mission in the world.90
Third, the jeremiad drew heavily upon Scripture figures, especially
in describing its errand into the wilderness and in prophetic
references to destiny.91 Finally, the jeremiad concentrated on
anxiety, and crisis became the social norm they sought {193} to
inculcate.92
During the Revolution, the colonists built upon the structure
of the jeremiad, especially in appealing to the example of the Bay
Planters and the idea of an American errand.93 Yet the jeremiad
was adapted and extended during the Revolution.
The Puritan jeremiad set out the sacred history of the New World;
the eighteenth-century jeremiad established the typology of
American mission.... [T]he Puritans were careful to make Scripture
the basis of their figuralism. They always rooted their exegesis
(however strained) in biblical texts, and appealed (even as they
departed from) a common tradition of Reformed hermeneutics.
Because they believed the Reformation was reaching its fulfillment
in America, and because they identified themselves primarily in
87.
88.
89.
90.
91.
92.
93.
Bercovitch, American Jeremiad, xi, 62.

Ibid., xiv.
Ibid., 7.
Ibid., 710.
Ibid., 1216.
Ibid., 2325.
Ibid., 12223.
228
religious terms, they found it necessary to include all the standard

landmarks of Protestant historiography. Their Yankee heirs felt
relatively free from such constraints. During the eighteenth century,
the meaning of Protestant identity became increasingly vague;
typology took on the hazy significance of metaphor, image, and
symbol; what passed for the divine plan lost its strict grounding in
the Scripture; providence itself was shaken loose from its religious
framework to become part of the belief in human progress. The
Yankee Jeremiahs took advantage of this movement from sacred
to profane to shift the focus of figural authority. In effect, they
incorporated Bible history into the American experiencethey
substituted a regional for a biblical past, consecrated the American
present as a movement from promise to fulfillment, and translated
fulfillment from its meaning within the closed system of sacred
history into a metaphor for limitless secular improvement.94
If Witherspoon is seen as applying biblical metaphors and

concepts to the Revolution, it should be noted that there was a
precedent for it. The Puritans dignified their work with Scripture
references. The argument of the sacred cause of liberty, however,
is that this tendency became more pronounced and exaggerated
during the Revolution. This study will attempt to determine if
Witherspoons use of biblical imagery moved beyond the Puritan
use of metaphor.
Others have argued that the Great Awakening was the religious
movement paving the way for the Revolution.95 During the
Awakening, as in Puritan thought, there was an application of
biblical themes, metaphors, and prophecy to American history.
Jonathan Edwards, reflecting on the Awakening, said,
It is not unlikely that this work of Gods, so extraordinary and
wonderful, {194} in the dawning, or, at least, a prelude of that
glorious work of God so often foretold in Scripture, which, in the
progress and issue of it, shall renew the world of mankind.... [W]e
cannot reasonably think otherwise, than that the beginning of this
great work of God must be near. And there are many things that
make it probable that this work will begin in America....
God has made as it were two worlds here below, two great habitable
94. Ibid., 9394.
95. Alan Heimert, Religion and the American Mind: From the Great Awakening
to the Revolution (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1966).
229
continents, far separated one from another: the latter is as it were

now but newly created; it has been, till of late, wholly the possession
of Satan, the church of God having never been in it .... The new
world is probably now discovered, that the new and most glorious
state of Gods church on earth might commence there; that God
might in it begin a new world in a spiritual respect, when He
creates the new heavens and the new earth.... And, if these things
be so, it gives us more abundant reason to hope that what is now
seen in America and especially in New England, may prove the
dawn of that glorious day: and the very uncommon and wonderful
circumstances and events of this work, seem to me strongly to argue
that God intends it as the beginning or forerunner of something
great.96
As with the Puritans, then, in examining the Scriptures, Edwards

saw a special calling for America in Gods plan in history.
Others believe that the Awakening precipitated the Revolution
in the way it transformed older Puritan structures. The revival
emphasis of the Awakening led to a greater individualism since
it was assumed that each person had direct access to God. This
democratizing impulse challenged the existing power structures;
ecclesiastical, at first, but carrying over to civil authorities as well.
Richard Bushman, commenting on this phenomenon, has
argued that the Great Awakening transformed politics and every
area of life by challenging the structures of authority in society.97
The salvation experience, for example, brought people into direct
contact with God, thus diminishing the importance of mediating
structures in society, as the church. And having already stood
against the church, an institution ordained by God, it was easy to
speak out against the civil authorities.
[The New Lights] held authority and government in less awe than
Old Lights. New Lights had been accustomed to contending with the
rulers of society ever since the Great Awakening, and their defiance
of eminent men in government had become almost habitual.
Hence for them a clash with King and Parliament was neither an
96. Jonathan Edwards, Some Thoughts Concerning the Present Revival of
Religion in New England, in The Works of Jonathan Edwards, 2 vols. (Carlisle, PA:
Banner of Truth, 1984), 1:381383.
97. Richard Bushman, From Puritan to Yankee: Character and the Social
Order in Connecticut, 16901765 (New York: Norton, 1965), 235.
230
innovation nor a shock. More important, the consequences were

less drastic for the New Lights sense of personal well-being. Their
world was not organized around external law and {195} authority
as was that of the Old Lights, for most of them had escaped the
power of the Social order in the Awakening and immediately put
their trust in God. The lives of the converted rested on a personal
experience with the divine; for them the risk of overthrowing the
external order was not so terrifying....
In the long view, this willingness of the New Lights to resist is
the greatest significance of their rise. Puritans had always held
that governmental power was limited and that God sanctioned
resistance when liberty was usurped. But before the Awakening no
one of importance had dared assert that the civil authorities had
actually overstepped their bounds....
In view of the make-up of the Puritan personality, the courage to
contend openly with the fathers of society had to have a religious
source.
Far from instilling submission to the old authority, the revival
planted the conviction that Gods power was given to individuals,
clearing the way for men to resist in good conscience when the
occasion arose.98
Alan Heimert has also shown many ties between the Awakening
and the Revolution, concluding that what the colonies awakened
to in 1740, was none other than independence and rebellion.99 For
Heimert, the Calvinists or evangelicals of the Awakening, not the
rationalists, were the leaders of the move for independence.100 They
had many reasons and motivations. One was their susceptibility
to the enthusiasm of the revolutionary cause.101 Another was a
concern for freedom, seen in Calvinisms radical and emphatic
definitions of liberty and equality.102 The concern for religious
98. Bushman, From Puritan to Yankee, 26567.
99. Heimert, Religion and the American Mind, 12.
100. Ibid., viii, 15. For a consideration of this view of the Old and New Lights,
see McAllister, Francis Alison and John Witherspoon, 3360; and Mark Noll,
The Church and the American Revolution: Historical Pitfalls, Problems and
Progress, Fides et Historia 8, no. 1 (Fall 1975):3.
102. Ibid., 14.
231
freedom was particularly acute since, as Sam Adams had preached,

The religion and public liberty of a people are so innately
connected, their interests interwove, and cannot separatly exist.103
Most importantly, the Calvinistic theology behind the Revolution
had its own genesis and was not rooted in the Enlightenment.
[T]he evangelical ministry was not dependent on Locke for their
political and social philosophy. Even when they employed his
concepts of natural law and the social contract they were offering
a counterstatement to the individualistic premises of Lockean
theory. Eventually the spokesmen for the evangelical scheme
produced a corpus of social and political thought that stands as the
American counterpart of the writings of Rousseau.... [C]alvinist
political sermons were not vindications of action already taken but
encouragement to further endeavor on the part of the populace ....
As has been observed, a pure rationalism might have declared
the independence of the American people, but it could never have
inspired them to fight for it.104 {196}
Secular Interpretations of the Revolution

There have been many ways of interpreting the American
Revolution from a secular perspective.105 Some have argued that
the colonists supported the revolutionary movement from selfish
economic motives.106 Others have seen colonial ambitions behind
the Revolution [as] ... an attempt by some to seize greater political
103. Ibid., 359.

104. Ibid., 18.
105. See Esmond Wright, ed., Causes and Consequences of the American
Revolution (Chicago: Quadrangle, 1966), 1551; Morgan, Review of Changing
Interpretations; Greene, Reappraisal of the American Revolution; and Archie
Jones, The Christian Roots of the War for Independence, Journal of Christian
Reconstruction 3, no. 1 (Summer 1976):951.
106. Charles Beard, An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution (New
York: Macmillan, 1935); and Louis M. Hacker, The First American Revolution,
Columbia University Quarterly 26, no. 3 (September 1935):1. See also Robert
Brown, Charles Beard and the Constitution: A Critical Analysis of An Economic
Interpretation of the Constitution (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press,
1956; reprint ed., New York: Norton, 1965); Forrest McDonald, We the People
(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1958); and Jackson Turner Main, Charles
Beard and the Constitution, William and Mary Quarterly 17 (1960):86110.
232
power.107 In Beckers words, the Revolution was fought, not over

home rule, but who would rule at home.108
Another approach is to stress the ideological convictions of the
colonists, focusing not on self-interest, but the principles which
lie behind their thought.109 This paper, in emphasizing intellectual
and religious history, will concentrate on this approach. This is not
to say there is no value in the other secular approaches. Nor does
it assume that the colonists first principles were right, or even
necessarily Christian. It does assume, however, that human beings
act from fundamental convictions which can be explained and
their genesis explored.
Some have seen an Enlightenment background to the American
Revolution. Paine and Jefferson would seem to be more at ease
with a Voltaire or Rousseau than John Calvin or John Cotton.
Sydney Mead, in Christendom, Enlightenment and Revolution,
has argued that
[i]t was not the religion of American denominations which basically
set and legitimized the norms for the American Revolution; rather
it was the symbols, concepts, and beliefs of the Enlightenment
which provided the legitimization for the basic Revolutionary
ideas.110
Mead further argued that the theology of the Republic, came,
not from the denominations, but from the Enlightenment.111
Robert Bellah, in a more mediating tone, claimed that the
revolutionary and constitutional period emerged out of the
Christian denominational-biblical tradition on the one hand and
107. Carl Becker, A History of Political Parties in the Province of New York,
17601776 (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1960); Arthur Schlesinger,
The American Revolution Reconsidered, in Wright, Causes and Consequences,
reprinted from the Political Science Quarterly 34 (1919):6178; and John Franklin
Jameson, The American Revolution Considered as a Social Movement (Princeton,
NJ: Princeton University Press, 1926). See also J. Murray Murdoch, 1776:
Revolution or War for Independence? Journal of Christian Reconstruction 3, no.
1 (Summer 1976):7487.
108. Becker, Political Parties in New York, quoted in Wright, Causes and
Consequences, 36.
109. Bailyn, Ideological Origins, vi.
110. Brauer, Introduction, Religion and the American Revolution, ixx.
111. Sydney Mead, Christendom, Enlightenment and the Revolution, in
Brauer, Religion and the American Revolution, 42.
233
the Enlightenment on the other hand.112

Measuring the degree to which the Enlightenment affected
the colonies is a difficult task.113 To whatever degree colonists
were indebted to the Enlightenment, it was probably to the more
moderate Scottish Enlightenment. Douglas Sloan has shown that
The radical Enlightenment was in a real sense tamed and
domesticated by the Moderate clergy of Scotland.... Ecrasez len
fame was never a Scottish slogan, even among those who, like
David Hume and Adam Smith, held the most tenuous relationship
with the church and were close friends of such persons as Voltaire,
dHolbach, Rousseau....114 {197}
Furthermore, American radicals, such as Thomas Paine, were
not as influential during the Revolutionary period as was once
supposed.115 Even Unitarians in the colonies clothed their language
with biblical concepts and imagery, rested on Providence, and
fought for a virtuous Republic.
The Scottish philosophy had become very popular in America
by the time of the Revolution. In Inventing America, Gary Wills
explains that
America in general had gone to the school of the Scots in its last
colonial period. At Princeton, Dr. Witherspoon was teaching his
Presbyterian students (including his future son-in-law Samuel
Stanhope Smith), and even an odd Anglican outsider like James
Madison, from the ethics texts of Francis Hutcheson. At the College
of Philadelphia, that tempestuous Scott William Smith aimed his
curriculum toward the culminating study of the same philosopher,
and Francis Alison drilled five signers of the Declaration of
Independence in Hutchesons texts ....
Social mechanics were developed in a subtle and thorough way by
the Scots, who taught a whole generation of the Founding Fathers
....
Madison under Witherspoon, like Jefferson under Small, had
112. Brauer, Introduction, in Religion and the American Revolution, x.
113. Henry F. May, The Enlightenment in America (New York: Oxford
University Press, 1976), xiixiv.
114. Sloan, Scottish Enlightenment, 1314.
115. R. J. Rushdoony, Biblical Philosophy of History (Phillipsburg, NJ:
Presbyterian & Reformed, 1979), 130.
234
shaped his politics to Scottish Enlightenment ways ....116
Why was America attracted to the Scots? There are obvious

reasons, such as the general popularity of the Scottish philosophers,
the fact that they wrote in English, and their compatibility with
the contractual mentality of the eighteenth-century colonist.117
There may have been cultural factors, as weIl.118 Both Scotland
and America had parallel drives of pride and inferiority. Both
looked to London for standards ... but had their own sense of
cultural identity. A common Calvinistic heritage yoked the two
theologically.119
The Scottish philosophy had a profound effect upon American
religion and theology. Sydney Ahlstrom maintains that the
Scottish philosophy made three major changes.120 First, building
upon Reid and Hutcheson, it gave theology an anthropocentric
bent, in contrast to Edwards theocentrism. Second, adaptation
of a benign and optimistic anthropology of Scottish moderates by
American Calvinists veiled the very insights into human nature
which were the chief strengths of Calvins theology.121 Third, in
relying on the moral sense or common sense, it accelerated the
trend toward rationalistic theology. Trinterud has also commented
on the susceptibility of Scottish theology to rationalism.
The church was the more vulnerable to the attacks of deism because
{198} of the rationalistic character of its own theology. Natural law,
general revelation, natural philosophy and moral philosophy were
deeply interwoven into orthodox as well as heterodox theologies
of the day.... In the University of Pennsylvania, the Hutchesonian
philosophy introduced by Francis Alison had been developed by
three of Alisons pupils, John Ewing, Samuel Magaw, and John
116. Gary Wills, Inventing America: Jeffersons Declaration of Independence

(Garden City, NJ: Doubleday, 1978), 176, 287, 352.
118. John Clive and Bernard Bailyn, Englands Cultural Provinces: Scotland
and America, William and Mary Quarterly, 3rd ser., 11 (April 1954):213.
120. Sydney Ahlstrom, The Scottish Philosophy and American Theology,
Church History 24 (September 1955):268.
121. Ibid.
235
Andrews, to a point little short of deism.122
The Scots also had a complex political philosophy. They saw

society, not as an artificial creation, but as a natural relation, for
human beings are always found in troops and companies.123
Gladys Bryson explains;
We should note here that Ferguson combated as vigorously as Hume
had done earlier in his Essays the popular theory of the origins of
society and government in a contract. Man was born in and for
society, he insists; as for political institutions, they often originated
in force, but when people for long periods avail themselves of the
benefits thereof and complied with the general requirements, they
consented to the government.... 124
Human beings are equipped with a natural capacity or sense for
social living. As Furgeson put it, No constitution is formed by
concert, no government is copied from a plan.... The seeds of every
form of government are lodged in human nature; they spring up
and ripen with the season.125
The Scottish philosophy also entailed concepts of resistance and
rebellion. Caroline Robbins has shown how these theories were
rooted in the Scots organic view of social relations.
... Hutchesons most original contribution to eighteenth century
thought was undoubtedly made in the field of politics.
Most important was his whole-hearted endorsement of the right
of resistance.... [E]ven when stressing obligation and peacefulness,
[he] always reserved a right of defense against private or public
tyranny. Thus, his doctrines of individual rights connected with
his notions of political behavior. Children could not be bound
forever to obey parents. Servants might leave unjust masters, the
conquered might demand consideration from the conqueror, and
the subjects of the most absolute monarch could not be tied down
forever, and in all circumstances, even by oaths and contracts.
122. Leonard J. Trinterud, The Forming of an American Tradition: A Reexamination of Colonial Presbyterianism (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1949), 261.
123. Gladys Bryson, Man in Society: The Scottish Inquiry into the Eighteenth
Century (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1945), 149, 151.
124. Ibid., 39.
125. Adam Furgeson, An Essay on the history of Civil Society (Edinburgh,
1766), quoted in Bryson, Man in Society, 64.
236
Nor, therefore, could colonists be tied down by sentiment or past

agreements to the mother country.
The rights of resistance to tyranny of a magistrate were early
propounded in An Inquiry. Civil war might be a lesser evil than
subjection to a bad government. The only possible good that might
derive from passive obedience would be patience. But men have
generally been a great deal {199} too tame and tractable, hence, the
enslavement of nine tenths of the nations.
Ultimately, Hutchesons theory of when it was that colonies might
turn independent rested on his assumption that power to resist
actions inimicable to their general good rested with any community
of persons. Just as a child might oppose an unjust parent, or a
servant a bad master, so might the citizens of any country, province
or plantation oppose governors whose action ran counter to their
welfare.126
Another, though similar, brand of political theory was presented

by the Whigs. The term was originally given to the wild western
Whigs, the Scottish Covenanters, stern Calvinists, who took up
arms against the Anglican establishment.127 The term was latter
applied to those who supported parliamentary authority over
against the crown.128 The Whigs achieved their greatest success in
the Glorious Revolution of 1688.
Standing behind Whig ideology was John Locke and the Second
Treatise of Civil Government.129 He argued that government is by
free contract; that governors hold their authority only as a trust
from the people; and that when this trust is violated, a people may
use their strength rightfully to undue tyrannyalthough only
under heavy provocation.130 In this system, there is a tremendous
stress on natural rights, such as life, liberty, and property. Emphasis
126. Caroline Robbins, The Eighteenth-Century Commonwealthman: Studies
in the Transmission, Development, and Circumstances of English Liberal Thought
from the Restoration of Charles II until the War with the 13 Colonies (Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press, 1961), 18890.
127. Russell Kirk, Roots of American Order (La Salle, IL: Open Court, 1974),
295.
128. Ibid.
129. John Locke, Lockes Two Treatises on Civil Government, ed. Peter Laslett
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1960).
130. Kirk, Roots of American Order, 28485.
237
on personal liberty carried with it a fear of the ominous, corrupting

influence of power. In Bernard Bailyns analysis of Whig ideology,
he explains that
Americas leaders... infused into American political culture two
inner drives, two central spirits, that would distinguish it forever.
They are the major themes of eighteenth century radical
libertarianism brought to realization here. The first is the belief
that power is evil, a necessity perhaps, but an evil necessity; that
it is infinitely corrupting; and that it must be controlled, limited,
restricted in every way compatible with a minimum of civil order....
[T]he second great theme that derives from the sources of
Revolutionary ideology; the belief that through the ages it had
been privilegeartificial, man-made and man-secured privilege,
ascribed to some and denied to others at birththat, more than
anything else except the misuse of power, had crushed mens hope
for fulfillment.131
Whiggism was the main political outlook at the time of the

Revolution. As Russell Kirk has shown, Whiggism was everywhere:
[P]olitical factions, on the eve of the Revolution and during the
Revolution, {200} actually were factions of radical Whigs [Patriots]
on one side and moderate Whigs [Loyalists] on the other. Therefore,
if only out of partisanship, almost all American politicians paid
their respects to Locke.132
Why the whole-hearted endorsement of Whiggism? Bailyn sees
it as growing out of English political conflicts in the seventeenth
century.
We now know that Enlightenment ideas, while they form the deep
backdrop and give a general coloration to the liberal beliefs of the
time, were not the ideas that directly shaped Americas responses
to particular events or guided the specific reforms they undertook,
nor were they perceived in the colonies in quite the same way they
were perceived elsewhere.
The starting point [of the Revolution] was the struggle between the
131. Bernard Bailyn, Central Themes of the American Revolution: An
Interpretation, in Essays on the American Revolution, ed. Stephen E. Kurtz and
James H. Huston (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1973), 2627.
238
king and Commons in the early seventeenth century, which secured

the rule of law and the principle of the consent of the governed ... ,
[but] it is wrong to think of these early seventeenth century ideas as
the effective documents of eighteenth century American politics of
the American Revolution. These ideas were overlaid with an array
of new conceptions and concerns later in the seventeenth century;
in the score of years surrounding the Exclusion Crisis, 16791681.
That gave them much of what to the eighteenth century was
their modern tone and that transformed them, in the context of
the 1770s into precepts of rebellion. Almostbut not quiteall
of the ideas and beliefs that shaped the American Revolutionary
mind can be found in the voluminous writings of the Exclusion
Crisis and in the literature of the Glorious Revolution that in effect
brought that upheaval to a peaceful conclusion.133
William McLoughlin, while tracing the way in which the

Revolution had its foundation in the Great Awakening, sees
colonial Whiggism, in turn, producing radical changes in
American religion.
The salient religious development of the Revolution has variously
been referred to as disestablishment, the rise of religious liberty,
the adaptation of voluntaryism, or the separation of church and
state (not all the same thing but closely related). From a moderately
long-ranged view, this was an irreversible development in America
from the time of the Great Awakening.
As I see it, the Great Awakening ... was really the beginning
of Americas identity as a nationthe starting point of the
Revolution. The forces set in motion during the Awakening broke
the undisputed power of religious establishments from Georgia
to the district of Maine, but more than that, the Awakening
constituted a watershed in the self-image and conceptualization
of what it meant to be an American. The old assumptions {201}
about social order and authority that underlay colonial political
economy and produced cultural cohesion dissolved. The corporate
and hierarchical ideal of society began to yield to an individualistic
and egalitarian one. While the medieval concept of a Christian
commonwealth lingered, its social foundations crumbled.
The historian of religion would stress three interrelated intellectual
strands that gave the pattern to the new national consciousness; the
133. Bailyn, Central Themes, 710.
239
new emphasis on evangelical Calvinism (the prevalent religious

commitment of the people), stressing the individuals direct,
personal, experiential relationship to God; the general acceptance
of the deistic theory of inalienable rights and contractual selfgovernment; and the resurgence of the radical Whig ideology with
its fear of hierarchical tyranny (the united despotism of church and
state) epitomized in John Adams Dissertation on the Canon and
Feudal Law.
After the Awakening, this order of things became reversed:
the state and church were considered by increasing numbers
of Americans to be creatures of the people and subject to their
authority. Prior to the Awakening the King, his bishops, judges,
and governors interpreted the will of God, and deference was their
due. Afterwards, the people considered themselves better than any
elite to interpret Gods will and expected their elected officials to
act as their viceregents under God. The channel of authority no
longer flowed from God to the rulers to the people, but from God
to the people to their elected representatives. State and church
were henceforth to serve the needs of the people as defined by
the people, or rather, by the peoples interpretation of Gods will.
Intermediaries were dispensed with; every individual was assumed
to be in direct relationship to God and responsible only to Him,
and therefore their collective will was Gods will.134
Others have shown the way political causes and Whig concerns
became the paramount issues amongst the clergy. Nathan Hatch
argues that for them, the cause of liberty was inseparable from
biblical religion.
Far from removing political culture from the domination of
religious concepts, ministers extended the canopy of religious
meaning so that even the cause of liberty became sacred. The
cycles of republican history and the linear perspective of Christian
eschatology became indivisible, the joining of separate traditions
in mutually supportive union. This study suggests that the
convergence of millennial and republican thought forms a central
theme in the complex relationship between religion and politics in
Revolutionary New England.135
134. William G. McLoughlin, The Role of Religion in the Revolution, in
Kurtz and Huston, Essays on the American Revolution, 198200.
240
Civic concerns took on religious dimensions. Liberty and

freedom became not merely operative social principles but
rallying cries expressed {202} in religious terms and fraught with
spiritual implications.136 Mark Noll has argued that, whereas at
one time New Englanders believed they were Gods chosen people
because of pure religion, now they saw themselves as chosen
because of the height of civil liberty theyd achieved.137 Noll quotes
Heimert to the effect that,
In the years between the Stamp Act and the Revolution the
evangelical ministry often spoke in the phrases of Sam Adams
who in 1772 explained that the religion and public liberty of a
people are so intimately connected, their interests are interwoven
and cannot exist separately. Not the least of the consequences of
such a blending of interests and issues was that elements of the
Calvinist populace were allowed to think that they were defending
religion when in fact they were doing battle for civil liberties.138
The disastrous consequence is that spiritual concerns were eclipsed
by political matters.
The positive side of virtuethat is, righteousnessentailed a right
relationship with God, ones self, and society. While emphasis on
personal salvation and proper Christian living was never entirely
displaced during the Revolutionary age, the weighty political
events of the day focused concern on the social and military
arenas. Christian virtue, as a consequence, came to be expressed
in increasingly social and political terms even though the more
traditional concerns for personal salvation and sanctification were
not neglected.139
Mark Noll also describes the way this change effected the
Puritan worldview. Whig politics was the flipside of Puritanism.
Both saw, and tried to prevent, the corruption of power. Both had
a low view of man, and saw history as a struggle between good and
evil, either in terms of liberty and oppression, or Christ and the
136. Noll, Christians in the American Revolution, 47.
137. Mark A. Noll, The Search for a Christian America, ed. Mark A. Noll,
Nathan O. Hatch, and George M. Marsden (Westchester, IL: Crossway Books,
1983), 112.
138. Heimert, Religion and the American Mind, 239, quoted in Noll, Search for
a Christian America, 11213.
139. Ibid., 54.
241
Antichrist.140 The greatest danger in these outlooks is that Whig

thought began to encompass Christianity.
The intermingling of Christian and Whig humanistic values
often saw Christianity perverted or overwhelmed .... Two dangers
lurked in the very Whig politics undergirding the Revolution: (1)
that the autonomous humanism latent in Whig thought would
eviscerate the Christian message, and (2) that the valid humanism
of Whiggery would not act as Christianitys servant, but its Lord.141
The gradual triumph of Whig thought could be seen in many
ways.142 First, there was the improper use of the Bible, as in
describing George III {203} as the beast of Revelation. Second, in
using Christian terms loosely in a national context, there was a
cheapening of theological coinage. Third, subjection to Whig
humanism led to a disruption of ecclesiastical fellowship, as in
the instances where Loyalists were driven from churches. Finally,
Whig values such as freedom and liberty were established as the
ultimate standards of approval before God.
In analyzing Whig thought, a couple of points could be made
from the writings of John Adams. Adams interpreted the struggle
for liberty in the language of the Revelation. As Ernest Tuveson
shows,
The apocalyptic background of Adams thesis emerges plainly in
his statement of the motives of the first colonists. Although no
enthusiasts, They saw clearly, that popular powers must be placed
as a guard, a control, a balance, to the powers of the monarch and
the priest, in every government, or else it would soon become
the man of sin, the whore of Babylon, the mystery of iniquity, a
great and detestable system of fraud, violence, and usurpation.
Here is an interesting amalgam of ideas. The balance of powers,
of course, is rooted in Renaissance political philosophy and is a
feature of Whig thought in the century. It is surely secular enough.
But the menaces are the whole collection from the Revelation; the
man of sin is a diabolical figure quite alien to Lockean philosophy.
The combination might be called apocalyptic Whiggism; it is the
140. Mark Noll, Christianity and Humanistic Values in 18th Century
America: A Bicentennial Review, Christian Scholars Review 6, nos. 23
(1976):11426.
141. Ibid., 121.
142. Ibid.
242
prototype of what was to be perhaps the central American attitude

toward government.143
These feelings often produced a conspiratorial mentality. Bailyn

has discovered that the founding fathers often saw sinister forces
behind history.
The colonists ... saw behind the actions of the English ministry...
not merely misgovernment and not merely insensitivity to the
reality of life in the British overseas provinces but a deliberate
design to destroy the constitutional safeguards of liberty, which
only concerted resistanceviolent resistance if necessarycould
effectively oppose.144
Even the Declaration carries this suspicion, But when a long train
of abuses and usurpations pursuing invariably from the same
object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism....
145Even George Washington saw conspiracy in the conflict with
England.
So too Washington, collaborating with George Mason in writing
the Fairfax resolves of 1794, agreed that the trouble had arisen from
a regular, systematic plan of oppression, the English government
endeavoring by every piece of art and despotism to fix the shackles
of slavery on us; he was convinced beyond the smallest doubt,
he wrote privately, that {204} these measures are the result of
deliberation .... I am as fully convinced as I am of my own existence
that there has been a regular, systematic plan to enforce them.
The more sensitive observers were to ideological issuesthe more
practical in theoretical discoursethe more likely they were to find
irrefutable evidence of what Richard Henry Lee called designs for
destroying our constitutional liberties.146
There is, then, a close tie between Whig thought and the fear of
power, expectations of conspiracy, and the recognition of these
things as the fulfillment of the Apocalypse.
Tuveson also holds that Adams, while purging out much of the
143. Tuveson, Redeemer Nation, 24.
144. Bailyn, Central Themes, 12. See also Bailyn, Ideological Origins, ix,
1113, 95, 14459.
145. Carl Becker, The Declaration of Independence (New York: Vintage Books,
1942), 10.
146. Bailyn, Ideological Origins, 120.
243
Puritan idea of mission, still retained a millennial and missionary

vision for America.
Throughout the published Dissertation, Adams describes the
people of the New England colonies as establishing their own
righteous state, eliminating the rags and tags of the whore of
Babylon, which, regrettably, remain in Babylon itself. There is no
overt concern about other nations, except a Christian desire to see
them liberated; there is no sense of special mission to save them.
The motivation of the Puritans in the New World seems to have
been a kind of holy self-interest. But the original draft, as recorded
in his diary for February, 1765, contains one sentence of very
different import: I always consider the settlement of America
with reverence and wonder, as the opening of a grand scene and
design in Providence for the illumination of the ignorant, and the
emancipation of the slavish part of mankind all over the earth.
Here is a very early suggestion that American settlements may be
destined to be the nucleus not only of a holy but of a millennial
people.147
This expectation for America was not uncommon. Christians,
for example, often saw the Revolution as the threshold of the
millennium.148 This sentiment was in no way universal, however.
Washington, Franklin, and Jefferson were pessimistic about the
countrys future and believed that there would be a decline after
the Revolution.149
Enlightenment Interpretations of Witherspoon

The major difficulty in evaluating Witherspoons life is in
determining the camp or tradition to which he belongs. It has been
very common to interpret Witherspoon along the lines of Scottish
Realism. In pointing to the muddled ideas of sacred and profane
in the colonies, Henry May says that a Presbyterian divine like
John Witherspoon who likes everything simple and clear and hates
mystery has one foot in the camp of the Enlightenment.150 Gary
147. Tuveson, Redeemer Nation, 25.
148. Noll, Search for a Christian America, 84.
149. Robert Bellah, The Revolution and Civil Religion, in Brauer, Religion
and the American Revolution, 61.
150. May, Enlightenment in America, xv.
244
Wills argued that Witherspoon the educator {205} firmly grounded

his teaching in the precepts of the Scottish philosophy.151 As
Mark Noll concludes, It is clear that he had drunk more deeply
of the Scottish Enlightenment than the [Princeton] trustees [and
perhaps he himself] had supposed....152
In the area of government, Douglas Sloan maintains that
Witherspoons political ideas were based on Protestant-Lockean
social contract theory as it was expressed in the works of Francis
Hutcheson.153 He concludes that Witherspoon brought the
Enlightenment from Scotland to the College of New Jersey and
gave it an evangelical baptism.154 Gordon Talt concurs, claiming
that in his philosophical and political views, Witherspoons
dependence on Hutchesons A System of Moral Philosophy was
both obvious and heavy.155 Ralph Ketcham has noted that much
of Witherspoons library acquisition for Princeton focused on the
Scots.156
What impact did this have on Witherspoons thought? Some
have seen it as the beginning of a slippery slope, affecting
subsequent Reformed and evangelical theology. Sydney Ahlstrom
has argued that in the emphasis on Scottish philosophy, for
which Witherspoon was chiefly responsible, theology became
more rationalistic.157 Douglas Sloan has shown how Witherspoon
borrowed heavily from Lockes concept of reason.158 His approach
was Lockean, for three themes dominate the Lectures [on
Divinity]: Witherspoons efforts to reconcile faith and reason, his
use of the notion of moral sense, and his appeal to experience
as the test for truth.159 Even when emphasizing the importance
151. Wills, Inventing America, 176, 352.
152. Elizabeth Flower and Murray G. Murphy, A History of Philosophy in
America, 2 vols. (New York: Putnams Sons, 1977), 1:233, quoted in Noll, Search
for a Christian America, 91.
154. Ibid., 145.
155. Tait, John Witherspoon, 59.
156. Ketcham, Madison and Witherspoon, 48.
157. Ahlstrom, The Scottish Philosophy, 286.
159. Ibid., 119.
245
of religion against the infidel deists, Witherspoon does so by

appealing to the more orthodox Hutcheson, an early proponent of
the Scottish Common Sense philosophy.160
In some instances, the Scottish philosophy had disastrous
affects. As we have quoted earlier, Leonard Trinterud explains
that the church was the more vulnerable to the attacks of deism
because of the rationalistic character of its own theology.161
Fred Hood has charted the same decline in Witherspoons
thought and pupils.
During the early part of this period, the doctrine of Providence
underwent marked development from a dynamic concept of Gods
personal activity in history toward a static belief that God worked
primarily through natural, moral laws which could be discovered
by man. This development, which came about primarily from
the incorporation of the moral philosophy of John Witherspoon
and Samuel Stanhope into the doctrine, also entailed a {206} shift
in emphasis in subject matter of providence .... Christian thought
... traditionally viewed Gods activity in history as a demand for
human response in the present. As Gods activity seemed to be less
capricious, and more predictable on the basis of human behavior,
providence became more concerned with the social, political, and
moral activity of man than the movement of God in nature. Thus
man rather than God became the controlling force in the emerging
doctrine of Providence.162
Signs of a naturalizing or secularizing trend can be seen in
Witherspoons work as an educator. Under the presidencies of
Dickinson, Burr, and the early Witherspoon, 50 percent of all the
students at Princeton went into the ministry.163 Yet in Witherspoons
last ten years, and under his son-in-law Samuel Stanhope Smith,
little better than 10 percent entered the ministry.164 In the period
from 17861791, only thirteen men entered the ministry, while
160. Ketcham, Madison at Princeton, 45.
161. Trinterud, Forming of an American Tradition, 261.
162. Fred Hood, Presbyterianism and the New American Nation, 17831826:
A Case Study of Religion and National Life (Ph.D. diss., Princeton University,
1968), 1.
163. Mark Noll, The Founders of Princeton Seminary, Westminster
Theological Journal 42 (Fall 1979):99.
164. Ibid.
246
thirty-four went into law or public work.165 Elwyn Smith sums up

this change by saying, The zeal that had once lived in the churches
now made the civil life of the community its temple .... The college
at Princeton was shifting its weight from church to the state, from
clergy to the bar.166
Another feature of the Scottish philosophy that Ahlstrom
identified, as we have seen, was an anthropocentric doctrine of
man, which challenged and supplanted Edwards theocentrism.167
He concludes that adaptation of the benign and optimistic
anthropology of the Scot Moderates by American Calvinists
veiled the very insights into human nature which were the chief
strengths of Calvins theology.168 Others have noted this aspect
of Witherspoons theology. Witherspoon distanced himself from
more severe Calvinists on the issue of depravity, James Smylie
claims, refus[ing] to draw conclusions that every act of man is
in every part ... evil.169 James McAllister adds that [h]owever
much Alison and Witherspoon preached on the depravity of men,
clearly both were confident about the rational judgements of men
when guided by the moral sense.170 Mark Noll comments that:
Witherspoons lectures on politics and his public statements at the
Congress nowhere expressed the conviction that all humans, even
those fighting against British tyranny, were crippled by sin and
needed redemption.171
Some have further suggested that Witherspoons theology was
such a menagerie of Christian and Enlightenment motifs that it
is impossible to sort out. Witherspoon could combine Scottish
Realism and orthodox Christianity simply because he was not
consistent. In a very influential article, James McAllister says, {207}
One final question needs to be asked in this discussion of
Witherspoons concept of law, and civil law particularly. Since
165. Wertenbacher, Princeton, 77.
166. Elwyn Allen Smith, The Presbyterian Ministry in American Culture
(Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1955), 94.
167. Ahlstrom, The Scottish Philosophy, 268.
168. Ibid.
169. Smylie, Madison and Witherspoon, 121.
170. McAllister, Alison and Witherspoon, 39.
247
Witherspoon was of a rather conservative theological bent and

argued that the wisest way for us, with regard to all revealed truth,
is to receive it as revealed, how large a role did biblical revelation
play in his theory of civil laws? His Lectures on Divinity repeatedly
illustrated his literalistic method of interpreting Scripture; but
when he raised the question about whether the laws of Moses are
of perpetual obligation, he argued that they are not because of
their being particularly suited to conditions of Jews in Canaan.
Nonetheless, he believed that criminal laws based on the principle
of lex talonis were founded upon so much wisdom, that it is a
question whether departure from them in punishing crime has
ever been attended with advantage. Therefore, the answer to the
question regarding the biblical contribution to Witherspoons
teaching about civil law and liberty is: almost nothing. We
claimed that his theory of society and civil law was based not
on revelation but on the moral sense enlightened by reason and
common experience. Although his theological method was based
on a literalistic view of the Scripture, he somewhat inconsistently
explained away a large part of the scriptural revelation which he
said must be merely accepted without the believers presuming to
be wise above what is written.172
Mark Noll builds upon McAllisters analysis and sees a great

disparity between Witherspoons orthodox religion and
Enlightenment politics.
Witherspoons politics breathe a different spirit than his evangelical
sermons. In politics he seems very much a spokesman for the
Enlightenment. Politics is rooted, according to Witherspoon, in
conscience enlightened by reason [and] experience .... But when
Witherspoon said this, he explicitly excluded the Bible from what
we can learn about the will of the Maker, at least as far as politics
is concerned .... So Witherspoon was left to derive his politics from
nature and from natural human conscience .... [He] did not derive
his politics from the Bible. He did not think the Christian God
had a specific role to play in public life, where the rule of nature
prevailed. And he did not worry about assuming an Enlightenment
perspective on political matters.173
172. James McAllister Jr., John Witherspoon: Academic Advocate for
American Freedom, in A Miscellany of American Christianity, ed. Stuart C.
Henry (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1963), 21718.
248
It is from this Scottish philosophical foundation, some have

contended, that Witherspoon developed and stressed Whig
political ideas. Henry May comments that
Witherspoon began the long American career of Scottish
Common Sense, which eventually proved to fit still better the
needs of a religiously disturbed and divided society. Witherspoons
teaching of the Scottish philosophical {208} principles gained power
from the fact that he coupled them with the equally simple and
memorable maxims of the Whig political tradition whose chief
writers included Grotius, Pufendorf, Harrington, Locke, Sidney,
Montesquieu, and Ferguson.174
In his examination of Presbyterians in the Revolution, Leonard
Kramer concludes that Witherspoon was thoroughly a Whig.175
Building on Kramer, Mark Noll comments on Whiggism in the
colonies and in Witherspoon in particular.
American Christians who supported the patriotic cause did
so, more often than not, with a deep sense of how profoundly
compatible the politics of libertarianism were with the view of the
world which had developed in the course of American religious
history. Indeed, so deep was the mutual compatibility of latePuritan Christianity and Whig ideology that over the course of the
Revolutionary period it became increasingly difficult to discern
where one left off and the other began.
Although Witherspoon is difficult to classify theologically, his
political beliefs placed him squarely among the Patriotic Whigs.
As the Revolutionary crisis developed, Witherspoons activities on
behalf of the Patriot cause reflected the thorough mixture of Whig
and Christian elements in his thinking.
Witherspoon, Mather, and many other believers in the colonies
could merge Whiggery and Christianity so effortlessly since both
seemed to be grounded in the character and laws of God and to
point in only one direction where the conflict with Great Britain
was concerned.176
174. May, Enlightenment in America, 64.
175. Leonard J. Kramer, Muskets in the Pulpit, Journal of the Presbyterian
Historical Society 31 (December 1953):229.
176. Noll, Christians in the American Revolution, 52, 6667, 70.
249
Christian Interpretations of Witherspoon

In contrast to the above arguments, Witherspoon can also be
interpreted in a more Christian context, especially given the tone
of colonial society. The colonies were predominately Christian in
background and orientation, even evangelical and Calvinistic.177
A common British sentiment, primarily because of the ScotchIrish presence in the colonies, was that the Revolution was a
Presbyterian war.178 Thomas Pears evaluates the Revolution by
saying, I shall content myself with the observation that if any one
man is to be accounted the father of American Democracy, so far
as his influence can be traced historically it would be John Calvin
rather than Thomas Aquinas....179
The colonists, however, never had unanimity in their support
of the Revolution. Sincere Christians took greatly varied stances
on the conflict.180 Even the Scots had different positions on the
Revolution; such that Witherspoon complained that they were
getting a bad name, being {209} less concerned about liberty than
the Irish and English colonists.181 Amongst evangelical ministers
there was often a reticence to engage in civil matters. As Heimert
has shown, As late as the autumn of 1774 Calvinist ministers were
insisting that they had a more important function than discussing
the civil rights of human nature and just as sternly denying any
but a recent interest in the affairs of state.182
Though it is hard to label all the colonists, they universally
operated within a Christian heritage and had considerable biblical
capital. The degree of Enlightenment influence is open to question,
but whatever it was, it was tempered with orthodox Christianity.
Even John Adams rested the idea of law upon the Scriptures,
and argued that without theistic presuppositions there can be no
177. See Heimert, Religion and the American Mind.
178. Kramer, Muskets in the Pulpit, 22931.
179. Thomas Clinton Pears Jr., Presbyterians and American Freedom,
Journal of the Presbyterian Historical Society 29, no. 2 (June 1951):3.
180. See Noll, Christians in the American Revolution.
181. James G. Leyburn, Presbyterian Immigrants and the American
Revolution, Journal of Presbyterian History 54, no. 1 (Spring 1976):932; and
Trinterud, Forming of an American Tradition, 249.
182. Heimert, Religion and the American Mind, 15, 510.
250
virtuous government. Adams asks,

Is there a possibility that the government of nations may fall into
the hands of men who teach the most disconsolate of all creeds,
that men are but fireflies and that this all is without a father? Is
this the way to make man, as man, an object of respect? Or is it
to make murder itself as indifferent as shooting a player, and the
extermination of the Rohilla nation as innocent as the swallowing
of mites on a morsel of cheese?183
John Locke, the father of Whiggism and the grandfather of
the American Revolution, was also the product of a Christian
environment.
Moreover, Locke himself was the direct heir of Puritan political
thinkers, as well as the son of a Puritan, who not only claimed
that he derived his political teachings from the Bible, but whose
political teachings had become the common stock-in-trade of the
Independents as a whole.184
Some have also claimed that the colonists were not dependent
on Enlightenment philosophers, but simply used them for their
own purposes. In questioning the degree of Lockes influence in
America, Russell Kirk concludes that educated Americans often
mentioned Locke on the eve of the Revolution, but seldom read
his books at first hand.185 Bernard Bailyn has argued in the same
fashion about the Classical and Enlightenment impact on the
colonies, saying,
[T]his elaborate display of classical authors is deceptive. Often the
learning behind it was superficial; often the citations appear to have
been dragged in as window dressing with which to ornament a
page or speech and to increase the weight of an argument .... The
classics of the ancient world were everywhere in the literature
of the Revolution, but they were illustrative, not determinative,
of thought .... Citations, respectful borrowings {210} from, or at
least references to, the eighteenth century European illuminati
are everywhere in the pamphlets of Revolutionary America. The
183. John Adams, The Works of John Adams, 10 vols. (Boston: Little, Brown
and Co., 1865; reprint ed., New York: AMS Press, 1971), 6:281, quoted in John
Robbins, The Political Philosophy of the Founding Fathers, Journal of Christian
Reconstruction 3, no. 1 (Summer 1976):60.
184. Jones, The Christian Roots of the War for Independence, 32.
251
citations are plentiful, but the knowledge they reflect, like that of
the ancient classics is superficial. Locke is cited often with precision
on points of political theory, but at other times he is referred to
in the most offhand way.... Everyone, whatever his position on
Independence or his judgment of Parliaments actions, cited
them as iterative; almost no one, Whig or Tory, disputed them or
introduced them with apology.186
Winthrop Hudson has well summed up the colonists intent in

relying on Locke.
[Locke was] made to order for those who sought to defend the
rights of American colonists in the years preceding the American
Revolution. On the one hand, his political thought was thoroughly
acceptable in America because it was a restatement of familiar
principlesprinciples forged by the heirs of John Calvin during
the English Civil Wars and long the common property of most
of colonial America. On the other hand, as the chief apologist
of the Glorious Revolution of 1688, which brought William and
Mary to the English and Scottish thrones, Locke was eminently
respectable.187
Calvinism was the force behind other revolutionary movements
and theories. Calvin addressed the thorny issue of the Christian
in society, including resistance to tyranny.188 Calvinists were
responsible for the establishment of the Commonwealth, and
Samuel Rutherford, the Scottish divine, is often seen as a chief
apologist of the struggle.189 The Puritan political heritage in the
colonies largely grew from the Reformed tradition. John Adams
claimed that one of the most widely read and influential books in
the colonies prior to the Revolution was Vindicae Contra Tyrannos,
by Hugh Languet, a French Calvinist.190
186. Bailyn, Ideological Origins, 24, 26, 28.
187. Winthrop S. Hudson, John Locke: Heir of Puritan Political Theorists, in
Calvinism and the Political Order, ed. George Hunt (Philadelphia: Westminster,
1965), 108.
188. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 4:20:3031.
189. For Rutherfords influence in the colonies and on Witherspoon in
particular, see Talt, John Witherspoon, 58; Pears, Presbyterians and American
Freedom, 78; but, most importantly, Noll, Search for a Christian America,
142n12.
190. Rushdoony, Biblical Philosophy of History, 130.
252
The major work on Witherspoons Calvinistic roots, by

Wayne Witte, argues that his theology was the underlying
factor in motivating him to those activities which so influenced
ecclesiastical, educational, and political ideas during the American
Revolution.191 Witte feels that Witherspoon cannot be understood
in Enlightenment terms, but only through the grid of his orthodox
faith. Nobody has questioned the sincerity or basic orthodoxy of
Witherspoons faith and theology. His support of the Revolution,
then, was a logical consequence of evangelical Calvinism.
In the following sections, these interpretations will be evaluated.
We will seek to determine the degree to which Witherspoon,
like the {211} Puritans, began to apply biblical metaphors to the
national experiment. To what extent did Witherspoon manipulate
the Scriptures and history in his support of the sacred cause? We
will also look at Witherspoons political theology to see whether
his thought is rooted in a Reformed tradition, Whiggish concepts,
or Scottish Realism. This will include analysis of key terms in
his thought, as well as the interaction between the sacred and
profane realms. We will also consider the nature of Witherspoons
evangelical commitment, to see if there was a change in his
emphasis on revival and the importance of salvation. Finally,
we will examine the idea of authority in Witherspoons thought
to determine if he builds his theology from natural theology or
revelation.
3. Witherspoon: The Scottish Career

The Historical Horizon
The best place to begin in examining Witherspoons political
theology is with the Prayer for National Prosperity, and for the
Revival of Religion Inseparably Connected. This fast-day sermon
191. Wayne William Witte, John Witherspoon: An Exposition and

Interpretation of His Theological Views as the Motivation of His Ecclesiastical,
Educational and Political Career in Scotland and America (Th.D. diss., Princeton
Theological Seminary, 1954).
253
was preached in February 1758.192 Witherspoon delivered it after

two disastrous years for the British in the French and Indian
War.193 Though it is a political sermon, that is, occasioned by a
secular crisis, Witherspoon, as the title suggests, ties civil and
religious concerns closely together.
Witherspoons initial presupposition is that God is at work in
all the nations of the world. There is an absolute denial of Deism
or divine indifference. As Witherspoon points out, Our setting
apart this day, and applying ourselves to the duty of fasting and
prayer, implies a confession of the power and providence of
God.194 To petition his assistance demonstrates a belief in Him as
the almighty Creator and righteous Governor of the world; the
supreme Disposer of every event, and sovereign Arbiter of the fate
of nations.195 Witherspoon, then, saw Gods hand in history and
interpreted world events in terms of Providence.
Operative in the whole world, generally, God is particularly
active in Protestant countries. In an extremely charitable
assessment of Fredrick of Prussia, Witherspoon could identify
Gods work.
[W]e have had, in the course of Providence, a very recent instance,
both of the singular appearance of the hand of God in defense of a
righteous cause, {212} and a modest ascription of it to the power of
the Highest. That prince who appears now to be the chief outward
support of the Protestant cause in Europe, has been literally,
according to the ancient promise, with five to chase a hundred, and
with a hundred to put ten thousand to flight. The greatest earthly
potentates had combined against him, and conspired his ruin ....
But in the name of the Lord he set up his standard. The Lord turned
the counsels of his enemies into confusion .... Let us also, while we
give thanks to God for raising up an eminent prince in Germany
as the head of the reformed interest, be signally supporting him
hitherto, pray that he may continue in his protection to him,
192. Witherspoon, Prayer for National Prosperity, and for the Revival of
Religion Inseparably Connected, in Works, 5:5789.
193. Samuel Eliot Morrison and Henry Steele Commager, The Growth of the
American Republic, 2 vols., 4th ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1951),
1:124.
194. Witherspoon, Prayer for National Prosperity, 58.
195. Ibid.
254
encourage his heart, strengthen his hands, and fight his battles.196
Gods providence could also be seen historically in the United

Kingdom, for instance in 1638 and 1688, in the Solemn League
and Covenant and the Glorious Revolution.197
Since God is especially interested in true evangelical religion, it
follows that the Roman Church is the enemy of God. Witherspoon
speaks of Fredricks plans in almost apocalyptic terms. After asking
the people to pray for Fredrick in battle, he continued,
In fine, let us pray for the speedy accomplishment of the prophecy,
whoever shall be the instrument of it, of the downfall of the
Antichrist, when the cry shall be heard, Babylon the great is fallen,
is fallen and shall rise no more.198
For Witherspoon, the history of the church and Israel was one of
oppression, followed by the deliverance of the Lord. The Roman
Church stands in the background as a prophetic symbol.
How low was the interest in Sion at the Reformation, when
all the kings of the earth served the scarlet whore, and were
drunk with the wine of her fornication! How thick the darkness
that overspread the nations, and how universal the dominion of
error? And yet, in opposition to all cunning of earthly policy, in
opposition to all the fury of persecution cruelty, he enabled a few
plain men, lovers of the truth, to assert, to defend and to spread
it.199
Most importantly, Gods interest in any country was for religious
revival, rather than material blessing. Witherspoon is unequivocal:
Temporal mercies to a nation, as well as to particular persons,
ought always to be made subservient to the promoting of truth
and righteousness.200 We may pray for deliverance from calamity,
but it should be our main desire that the glory of divine power
may visibly shine in our deliverance; ... that his hand may be seen
in it, and, if possible, to the {213} conviction of all.201 In applying
196.
197.
198.
199.
200.
201.
Ibid., 6667, 86.

Ibid., 8788.
Ibid., 86.
Ibid., 87.
Ibid., 68.
Ibid., 66.
255
to God for an extraordinary interposition of his providence,

Witherspoon continued,
We ought also pray for a dispensation of his grace and mercy. When
we pray that the arm of the Lord may awake and put on strength, it
should be that revival of religion may accompany temporal relief,
and that by a plentiful effusion of the Holy Spirit many sinners
may be delivered from the worst of bondage, and brought to the
glorious liberty of the children of God.202
This sermon was preached during a fast day, when many were
in-treating deliverance from these national calamities.203 The
focus, Witherspoon suspected, is merely on deliverance. In light
of all the British disasters, one must seriously ask, Is there not a
cause?204 There is no question, Witherspoon concludes, but the
unrestrained flood of impiety which has overspread this nation
solicits divine vengeance, and prevents efficacy even of sincere
prayers that are offered up for deliverance and mercy.205 The note
of national judgment is especially strong as Witherspoon says,
It may sometimes please God to make use of desolating judgements
or alarming public strokes to awaken a secure and thoughtless
generation.... Therefore, our prayers must be conceived in such
a manner, and our desires after deliverance must be so qualified,
that the supreme honor due God may be preserved inviolate, that
duty may maintain its precedency before interest, and sin may be
still more feared and avoided than suffering. The great end both
of personal correction and rational correction is to weaken our
attachment to present and temporal enjoyment, by staining its
glory, and convincing us of its vanity. If then our chief if only aim
in asking deliverance from outward calamity is that one may again
recover the ease and quiet of security, and the pleasure of plenty,
though we may seem to honor God by imploring his aid, yet is our
homage really given to a sensual idol.206
With this rationale, Witherspoon could say that it is right that
Britain and the Protestant states of Europe in general suffer
202.
203.
204.
205.
206.
Ibid., 68.
Ibid., 58.
Ibid.
Ibid., 59.
Ibid., 63.
256
under the rod, as they have so shamefully departed from the

purity of faith and strictness of morals which was the glory of the
Reformation.207
With this foundation, Witherspoon gave specific rules in praying
for deliverance. First ... we have no warrant to ask for national
prosperity without a revival of religion.208 To love our nations
is a fine sentiment, but how much more so to be concerned for
their everlasting interest.209 Second, without revival of religion,
all such desires are {214} unwarrantable and disorderly, so we have
no reason to expect that they shall be granted.210 And third, if
deliverance were granted without spiritual revival, it would be no
blessing but a curse, and could not be of any long duration.211
Witherspoons closing plea is that Protestants in general will
be brought back to their first faith and first love.212 Because of
his confidence in the triumph of the gospel and the possibility of
revival in even the worst situations, Witherspoon is encouraging
about the future.
The most remarkable times of revival of religion in this part of
the united kingdom, immediately succeeded times of the greatest
apostacy, when truth seemed to be fallen in the streets, and equity
could not enter. This was the case immediately before the year
1638. Corruption in doctrine, looseness in practice, and slavish
submission in politics had overspread the Church of Scotland. And
yet, in a little time she appeared in greater purity and in greater
dignity than ever she had done before .... In the same manner,
immediately before the happy Revolution, how desperate in
appearance was the situation of this church! When all the best ...
were chased as fugitives from their dwellings, ... when many of our
worthy ancestors fell in battle, died on a scaffold, or were murdered
in the fields by the unrelenting rage of ecclesiastical tyranny! and
when worshipping the Lord God of our father, according to his own
word, was a capital crime! Yet our captivity was brought back, and
207.
208.
209.
210.
211.
212.
Ibid., 82.
Ibid., 70.
Ibid.
Ibid., 71
Ibid., 72.
Ibid., 8586.
257
we were as men that dreamed; so unexpected was the mercy.213
The political theology found in Prayer for National Prosperity

is characteristic of Witherspoons Scottish thought. Witherspoon
saw the hand of God and the trace of Providence in the affairs
of men, and was able to interpret their fortunes accordingly. The
British retreat in 1757 could be attributed to the overall national
apostacy, just as her prosperity was linked to a faithfulness to the
gospel in earlier times. On the whole, Witherspoon saw Great
Britain as a nation uniquely blessed with its Protestant heritage,
though, because of it, subject to chastisement.
In The Glory of the Redeemer in the Perpetuity of His Work,
Witherspoon reflects on Scotlands past:
Let us adore the wisdom and power of Christ.... [O]ur faith does
not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God. I must
not omit to say, that we are perhaps as much indebted, in this
nation, to the goodness of Providence in this respect, as any corner
of the earth; and I cannot but be pleased with the choice which our
fathers made of an emblem and motto for the Church of Scotland,
a burning bush, not consumed. Let us rejoice in the faith, that the
Prince of the kings of the earth, who hath {215} hitherto maintained
his truths and interest against all the power and cunning of earthly
policy, will continue to preserve them, and that his name shall
endure forever; his name shall be continued as long as the sun;
and men shall be blessed in him, and all nations shall call him
blessed.214
The sermon touched many important points. First, Scotland
is particularly seen as indebted to the goodness of Providence.
Second, Providence is not seen in a mechanistic or even general
sense, but is part of the special grace that Christ gives. Third, with
reference to the power and cunning of earthly policy, there is
a locus, if unidentified, of evil in the world set against Christ,
and presumably Scotland. Finally, Witherspoon emphasizes
the eschatological triumph of Christ, in which Scotland would
generally participate.
Witherspoon also commented on America, focusing on the
213. Ibid., 8788.
214. Witherspoon, The Glory of the Redeemer in the Perpetuity of His Work, in
Works, 4:21011.
258
first settlers. In The Absolute Necessity of Salvation through Christ,

a sermon preached in 1758 before the Society in Scotland for
Propogating Christian Knowledge, Witherspoon emphasized the
evangelistic mission in America.
[L]ittle or nothing has been attempted by the British [in
evangelizing the Heathen]. And is not God, in his righteous
providence towards us at the present, manifestly and severely
punishing us for this neglect? Are we not engaged in war with a
potent and formidable neighbor, in which the Supreme Disposer of
all events hath visibly written disappointment on every one of our
attempts? Did not this war take its rise from the disputed limits of
our territories in America? And are not our colonies in that part of
the world exposed to the most cruel and merciless deprivations? ...
Who, then, are the instruments of this cruelty? Must we not answer,
Those very Indians, a great part of whose territory we now possess,
and whom, with contempt equally impolitic and unchristian, we
suffer to continue in ignorance of the only living and true God, and
Jesus Christ whom he hath sent?
Such a particular interpretation of the language of providence
may be thought bold; but there are many circumstances which,
in manner, constrain us to confess its propriety. We have been a
nation early and long favored with the light of divine truth, and
are therefore bound to communicate it with others. That distant
country was a refuge to many of our pious forefathers, when flying
from the rage of ecclesiastical tyranny; and the territory either taken
from or ceded to us by these people, has been the great source of
wealth and power to this nation. But what seems chiefly to warrant
this application is, ... the care taken by our enemies to convert the
Indians, ... and being once converted, not to the Christian faith,
but to the Roman superstition, they are inviolately attached to
the {216} French interest. And that politic, but fraudulent nation,
is able to cover and excuse their own treacherous designs, by the
ungovernable and savage barbarity of their Indian allies.
Can there be, therefore, a more noble, a more important, or more
necessary exersize of Christian charity, then enabling the Society...
to extend their missions to the Indian tribes? Who that fears the
just judgement and displeasure of God, can refuse to take this step,
amongst others, evidently necessary for averting his threatened
vengeance? And who that loves his Redeemers name, but must
desire that it should be adored from the rising to the setting sun
259
.... [T]o promote knowledge and holiness in the uncivilized parts

of our own country, and to carry the glad tidings of the gospel of
peace to those who now sit in darkness, and the region and shadow
of death. [A]nd will not all such cheerfully and liberally contribute
to extend the bounds of the Redeemers kingdom, in the prospect
of that blessed time when the knowledge of God shall cover the
earth as the waters cover the sea? or of that still more glorious
period; when every vessel of mercy, from the east, west, north, and
south, shall be gathered together... in the kingdom of our Father.215
In this important sermon, Witherspoon argued, first, that

preaching the gospel to the whole world was the responsibility of
Christians, the Society, and the British nation as a whole. Second,
God was severely punishing the British nation, with the war
losses of 1757, for failing to take the gospel to the Indians. Gods
blessing always carries responsibility, and as a nation early and
long favored with the light of divine truth, they were bound to
communicate it. Third, Witherspoon is bold to use the language
of Providence to describe temporal judgments on a nation.
Fourth, he speaks highly of the American pilgrims as our pious
forefathers, acknowledging some form of kinship to the early
Puritans, who were flying from the rage of ecclesiastical tyranny.
Fifth, the focus of evil was France, a strong but fraudulent nation
with treacherous designs, which was converting the Indians to
the Roman superstition and using their savage barbarity for
their own ends. Finally, with millennial expectations, Witherspoon
calls the Society to spread the gospel.216
Witherspoon also sees common bonds between all Protestants.
National barriers seemed insignificant compared with the
common standing in Christ. In The Object of a Christians Desire in
Religious Worship, a communion sermon, Witherspoon warns the
people against hard-heartedness and urges them to come into real
communion with God.217 He challenges them with an example
of other believers. Were {217} but a society of those Protestants
abroad, who are lying under persecution, to enjoy the season
215. Witherspoon, The Absolute Necessity of Salvation Through Christ, in
Works, 4:27376.
216. Ibid., 276.
217. Witherspoon, The Object of a Christians Desire in Religious Worship, in
Works, 3:56.
260
which we now enjoy, what an edge would be on their spirits? What

a sense of gratitude in their hearts? What a fire and zeal in their
affections?218
Witherspoons harshest comments are reserved for the Roman
Catholic Church. No institution was as representative of tyranny
and coercion.
[M]ost of the schisms and divisions that have fallen out in the
Christian church, have arisen from the rigorous impositions of
usurped authority. Unjust authority is the very essence of popery.
The Church of Rome has expressly claimed a power of making laws
to bind the conscience, distinct from the laws of God; and severely
punishes all who call this authority in question.219
In The Deceitfulness of Sin, Witherspoon applied this concept to
the Inquisition.
My brethern, think a little on the dreaded persecutions which
good men have endured for conscience sake; the terrible tortures
they have been exposed to .... Think, in particular, of the horrible
tribunal of Inquisition, which to this day is in full authority in
countries not very distant; and does it not inspire you with the
highest detestation of blood tyrants?220
Tyranny, of course, was not just limited to the Roman Catholic
Church. While popery, since it is the very essence of tyranny, is
an archetype of oppression, Protestants are also susceptible to this
spirit. Witherspoon called his listeners to personal watchfulness,
since, frequently, zeal for religion is more than half composed of
pride, malice, envy of revenge.221 Witherspoon uses examples of
the persecution of biblical characters as a model to explain more
recent acts of tyranny. That this [persecution] was the case with
the first reformers both at home and abroad, is too well known to
need any proof, and we have had more recent examples of it in the
United Kingdom.222 Witherspoons attack on the Roman Catholic
Church in The Deceitfulness of Sin was introduced by describing
218. Ibid.
219. Witherspoon, The Charge of Sedition and Faction against Good Men,
Especially Faithful Ministers, Considered and Accounted For, in Works, 5:28.
220. Witherspoon, The Deceitfulness of Sin, in Works, 3:95.
221. Ibid.
222. Witherspoon, Charge of Sedition, 13.
261
the lust for power in all men, and concluded with a biting reference
to the moderates.
There is a love of dominion natural to all men, which is under no
control or restraint in those who are devoid of religion. This must
mutually dispose them to carry out their schemes and to insist on
having them universally complied with. It frets and provokes them,
therefore, to find any who will not be subservient to their pleasures.
A refusal to obey, on a {218} principle of conscience, is expressly
setting bounds to their authority, and saying, Hitherto shalt thou
go, but no further. How few are able to bear this with patience; the
history of the world in every age is continued proof.
[I]t is astonishing to think how often the same thing has happened
between Christian and Christian, who ought to have been
better acquainted with the rights of conscience, the measures of
submission and the duty of forbearance. Nor has this been confined
to [Rome]. Protestant churches, though their separation is founded
upon the very contrary principle, have yet often in practice acted in
the same arbitrary manner. They insist upon obedience to all their
appointments, however sinful in the judgement of the subject; and,
as a good man will not comply in such cases, how often doth it
happen that, after they expelled him from their society, stript him of
his office, and robbed him of his maintenance, they also cast out his
name as evil, loudly charge him as seditious and troublesome, and
the author of all that confusion which their tyranny occasions.223
Witherspoon, then, is fearful of mans tendency to deny the liberty

of conscience to others in his quest for power. The essence of this
tyranny is seen in the papacy, but Witherspoon readily recognizes
it in the Moderates as well.
Witherspoon does not always condemn Roman Catholics,
as every reference to Pascal and the Jansenists is respectful. In
Letters on Education, after quoting from the Port Royal Essays,
Witherspoon adds a rare footnote to give background on Arnauld,
Pascal, and the Port Royal community.224 In defending the type
of satire used in the Ecclesiastical Characteristics, Witherspoon,
in Defense in the Synod of Glasgow, points to Pascals Provincial
Letters as a precedent, and further describes Pascal as a man of
223. Witherspoon, Deceitfulness of Sin, 2728.
224. Witherspoon, Letters on Education, in Works, 8:19293, 193n.
262
eminent piety... whom all history testifies to have been as pious and
unbiased to the world as any of his time.225 So, while despising the
papacy as a model of tyranny and the origin of the Inquisition; and
sometimes referring to it as the Whore of Babylon, Witherspoon
has nothing against Roman Catholic individuals who adhere to
the true faith.
There is a general apocalyptic tone throughout Witherspoons
discussion of Gods work in the world. The papacy, as far as it set
itself (usually in connection with the French) against the interest
of reformed Christianity, was called the Beast or the Whore
of Babylon. Witherspoon sees a general triumph for the Church
of Christ in the world, though he does not connect this with any
particular nation. While praising the United Kingdoms religious
heritage, especially that of the Covenanters and the Grand
Rebellion, he draws attention to the {219} spiritual vacuity of the
people, and incessantly calls them to repentance. As people give
a true and unfeigned allegiance to Christ, Witherspoon argues,
the Redeemers kingdom will be established on earth.
Questions of Liberty in the Moderate-Popular Debate

Much of Witherspoons writings is dedicated to the concept
of tyranny and freedom, or the liberty of conscience. This was
of particular concern during the Moderate controversy. The
Moderates believed they could force a minister to participate
in an ordination service he believed was wrong, for instance,
where a candidate was being installed against the wishes of the
congregation. Witherspoon claimed that the reason for writing
the Ecclesistical Characteristics, aimed at the Moderates, was the
strange abuse of church-authority in the years 1751 and 1752,
citing in particular the cases at Torphichen and Inverkeithing.226
In the Ecclesiastical Characteristics, Witherspoon dealt with the
matter of employed in executing it; those who appointed, or those
who pretend and scruple of conscience at doing what appears to
their disordered intellects to be what they call sinful?227 If they
refuse to follow the courts order, they are to be deposed, and cast
225. Witherspoon, Defense in the Synod of Glasgow, in Works, 8:264.
226. Witherspoon, Serious Apology, 5:232.
227. Witherspoon, Ecclesiastical Characteristics, 197.
263
out as incorrigible.228 With cutting satire, Witherspoon explains

the moderate view of power.
In the first place, it is certain, that the command of proper
authority is sufficient to make any action not only innocent and
lawful, but perfectly right and strictly obligatory: insomuch, that
if an executioner should be commanded to hang his father or son
for praying to God, or reading his Bible; nay, if one of Jesus Christs
disciples had happened to have been a Roman soldier, and should
have been commanded to crucify his master, he should have
betrayed the most egregious ignorance of the Christian religion,
had he made the least difficulty in executing such orders.
It is to no purpose here to object the immutability of moral laws,
and the supreme authority of God: for if obedience to human
authority be one of his laws, as it plainly is, then all his other laws
must be submitted to such alterations and suspensions as our
superiors think proper.229
In the same section, Witherspoon explained that the Moderates

saw freedom simply as a facade for rebellion, and if left unchecked,
would destroy all authority in society.
In the second place, the disobedient brethren have but one
pretense {220} for their conduct, which is grounded, viz. a scruple
of conscience: as to which, hear Dr. Goodman, a noble English
writer: A tender conscience is nothing else but an ignorant and
uninstructed mind; or a sickly, melancholy and superstitious
understanding.... A certain learned gentleman of this court hath
assured us, that taking away ministers stipends would enlighten
their conscience.
The third principle [is] ... That if any excuse for disobedience
were once admitted, or any indulgence granted to those tenderconscienced inferiors, there would be an end of all government in
an instant; neither commands nor obedience could proceed one
step further, but every individual instrument of power, in that fatal
society, astonished at the monstrous phenomenon, would stare at
one another; all the wheels of the political machine would stop at
once; ... and the beautiful whole would rush into a wild chaos of
228. Ibid., 198.

229. Ibid., 19899.
264
anarchy and confusion.230
Another piece of satire charts the Moderates rise to power

and the gradual denial of religious freedom.231 For Witherspoon,
liberty of conscience was necessary in a world dominated by sinful
men, for it gave a recourse to tyranny. No civil authority could
compel an individual to act contrary to his innermost beliefs, for
to do such would place the ruler in the position of God.232
This emphasis on the liberty of conscience was not new.
The Popular Party had issued a paper against Moderate abuses,
appealing to the Confession of the Church.
[T]hey keep it quite out of view, that every man, whether in a
separate or associated state, is under the absolute domination of
God his creator, the Lord of his spirit, and the supreme parent of
human society; whose authority is supreme and paramount to all
other. Withal, they discover a particular shyness to come close
to the precise state of the question: which is not, Whether men,
as members of society, are bound, in many cases, to follow the
judgement of society? but, Whether they are bound to do so in
all cases without exception?nor, Whether the judgement of
the legislative power must be final? so as to be reversible only by
themselves; and that they have a power of putting it in execution:
which they may do, by laying their injunctions on such as do not
think it sinful to obey them: but, Whether it must be absolute?
so as it must necessarily be obeyed without reverse: as to which, we
are perfectly clear to say, in the words of our Confession of Faith,
chapter 20:2 That the requiring of implicit faith, and absolute and
blind obedience, is to destroy liberty of conscience, and reason
also.
To assert, that active obedience, in all cases, without reserve, and
without asking questions, is to be paid to the supreme powers, even
in civil {221} society, is scarce to be paralleled .... Such principles
could never be applied to rational creatures of God; who are
answerable to him, their supreme judge; for all their own acts and
deeds; whatever way they are put upon for doing them. Nor will it
230. Ibid., 2013.
231. Witherspoon, History of a Corporation of Servants, in Works, 5:306, 315
20.
232. Witherspoon, The Danger of Adversity, in Works, 4:115; and Charge of
Sedition, 27.
265
be a defense, or excuse, before this awful tribunal, that in doing and

action which their consciences told them was contrary to his will,
they willingly (or headlong and without asking questions) walked
after the commandment of any earthly superior whatsoever.233
Witherspoon would himself feel the extent of the Moderates

power. Before the Synod of Glasgow, he pointed out that Presbytery
refused to grant him a call to Paisley, even though there was a
presentation, and a unanimous application of all concerned.234 The
Moderates, in an uncharacteristic move to censure irreligious
books, claimed that the Ecclesiastical Characteristics had a
very bad tendency to the interests of religion.235 Witherspoon
could only conclude that the reason for their charge was unjust
and tyrannical, and that the Presbytery was establishing the
precedent of inquisition.236 He asks the Synod, [D]o we not glory
in [Scotland] being a land of liberty? Is it a land of civil liberty, and
yet of ecclesiastical tyranny?237 Arguing for the freedom of the
press as a foundation of liberty, Witherspoon says that to censure
churchmen would establish sacerdotal tyranny, which always was,
and always will be, of the most cruel, relentless, and illegal kind.238
Discussion of ecclesiastical freedom led naturally to an
examination of civil liberties. Witherspoon could see the hand
of tyranny in civil rulers, and made provision for resistance. His
favorite example was of the Covenanters and the trials of the
Restoration.
The noble struggle which many in England made, about a hundred
years ago, for their liberties, sacred and civil, still bears the name
grand rebellion. And it is remarkable, that however just a title,
they had to stand up for their rights as men and Christians, yet
their doings so at that time was in great measure owing to the
fury and violence of their enemies, who were, in every respect, the
aggressors. Thousands had no mind to meddle with the wars, but
233. Answers to the Reasons for Dissent, Annals of the General Assembly of
the Church of Scotland, 2 vols. (Edinburgh: John Johnston, 18381840), 23436.
234. Witherspoon, Defense in the Synod of Glasgow, 247.
235. Ibid., 249.
236. Ibid., 250, 274.
237. Ibid., 255.
238. Ibid., 256.
266
greatly desired to live peaceable at home, when the rage of soldiers

and drunkards would not suffer them.
And in Scotland, after the restoration, though there was no struggle
for civil liberty, all who chose to obey God rather than men,
either in the substance or circumstances of religious duties, were
charged with treason, and suffered as rebels. They were expelled
from the church, yet censured as schismatics. They were harassed,
fined and imprisoned, when living at peace, without any fault but
concerning the law of their God and yet {222} complained of as
troublesome. They were vanished, excommunicated, and denied
the common benefits of life; and yet, when the extreme rigor of
their oppressors compelled them to take up arms in self-defense,
they were condemned in form of law for resisting that government
which denied them its protection.239
Religious and civil affairs were closely interwoven for Witherspoon.

He urged the people to pray for both, never for one alone. He
argued, referring to the Moderates, that the political measure of the
past thirty years had been ruinous to the interests of religion.240 In
another vein, he argued that the prosperity and peace of the civil
government during the previous seventy years had also damaged
the cause of religion, for by the natural course of things it
produces spiritual lethargy.241 An ominous note, frequently added,
was that spiritual decay would lead to reformation by judgment,
either from tyranny or a foreign challenge.242 So, while urging
prayers for his country, Witherspoon never elevated national
concerns above the churchs spiritual mission.
Witherspoon was also convinced that God could, and would,
grant spiritual revival. He showed that even in times of the greatest
persecution and adversity, the true faith triumphed through its
sincere piety.243 Looking to the power of God, he believed that the
lowly estate of religion could be restored at any time. The closing
words of A Serious Apology are filled with this expectation.
240. Witherspoon, Serious Apology, 254.
241. Ibid., 257.
242. Witherspoon, History of Servants, 354.
243. Witherspoon, The Trial of Religious Truth by its Moral Influences, in
Works, 4:320.
267
Nothing is impossible to the power of God. I add, that the most

remarkable times of the revival of religion, in this part of the united
kingdom, immediately succeeded times of the greatest apostacy,
when truth seemed to be fallen in the streets and equity
could not enter. This was the case immediately before the year
1638. Corruption in doctrine, looseness in practice, and slavish
submission in politics, had overspread the church of Scotland: and
yet, in a little time, she appeared in greater purity and in greater
dignity than ever she had done before, or perhaps than ever she
had done since that period. Let no Christian, therefore, give way to
desponding thoughts. We plead the cause that shall at last prevail.
Religion shall rise from its ruins; and its oppressed state at present
should not only excite us to pray, but encourage us to hope for
speedy revival.244
Finally, and perhaps ironically, Witherspoon had strong

ideas about ministerial involvement in political affairs. As a
young man, he had raised and fought with the militia against
the Young Pretender. He took a very dim view, however, of
Moderate activity in political affairs, civil and religious. The
Ecclesiastical Characteristics is dedicated to the departed {223}
spirit of a Moderate. Since ghosts hang around their old haunts,
Witherspoon assumes his chief residence is in the Assembly
house in Edinburgh where he had given and received so much
pleasure.245 Maxim 8 of the Ecclesiastical Characteristics is
dedicated to the political maneuvering of the Moderates in the
Assembly.246 The History of a Corporation of Servants shows how
servants (ministers) began to assume greater power and authority
for themselves. Finally, in an ordination sermon, while defending
those who were being charged as schismatic, Witherspoon urges
ministers to stay out of secular affairs.
The other direction I would offer you upon this subject is that
ministers take care to avoid officiously intermeddling in civil
affairs. A minister should be separated and set apart for his own
work; he should be consecrated to his own office .... Ministers
giving themselves to worldly employments have been commonly
of bad fame; .... But it is still more sinful and dangerous for them
246. Ibid., 190208.
268
to desire or claim the direction of such matters as fall within the

province of the civil magistrate. When our blessed Savior says My
kingdom is not of this world, he plainly intimates to his disciples
that they have no title to intermeddle with state affairs .... I cannot
help mentioning here, that this is one of the things for which our
worthy ancestors of the church of Scotland (now despised by many)
deserve the highest commendation. It was the invariable principle
with them to be against the civil power and places of kirkmen.247
Evangelical Commitments
Witherspoons pastoral career cannot be understood apart from
his evangelistic emphasis. The New Side called him to Princeton
because of the reputation he had in Scotland for promoting
experiential religion. Much of Ecclesiastical Characteristics
challenges the Moderates for ignoring this element of religion.
The Moderate man was to preach only on social duties, because
his moderation teaches him to avoid all high flights of evangelical
enthusiasm, and the mysteries of grace, which the common people
are so fond of.248 For the Moderate man, Witherspoon continues,
sermons should contain only rational considerations, and even
St. Paul should be considered a moral or reasoning preacher,
who did not strive to raise peoples passions, but inform their
judgement.249 His defense of experiential religion, especially in
the Ecclesiastical Characteristics, made him leader of the Popular
Party in Scotland, and established his reputation in America.
Witherspoons sermons, especially the communion messages,
called {224} people to commitment and personal faith. Personal
experience was the main, identifiable feature of Gods grace in
salvation. He explains that:
The real and proper knowledge of the glory of God is by inward
and spiritual illumination .... It was one thing to think, and to speak
and to reason on the perfections of God, as an object of science,
and another to glorify him as God, or to have a deep and awful
impression of him in our hearts. Real believers will know this by
experience.
249. Ibid., 170.
269
[T]his discovery of the glory of God belongs only to his own

people. Wicked men are said, in Scripture, to be such as know not
God ... because they have not that intimate sense of his presence.250
His feelings on this subject come out even more in discussions

of the clergy. For a minister to be faithful, he must not only
know Scripture truths, but must feel their movement.251 In an
ordination sermon, Witherspoon gave a searching charge:
[P]ersonal religion is the foundation of all relative duties .... It is a
difficult thing, and a dreadful thing, to preach an unknown Savior.
Examine, therefore, whether you are born again; whether you
are united to Christ by faith; whether you know by experience the
difference between a state of nature and a state of grace or not ....252
Witherspoon argues that such knowledge, mysterious in its
origin, is beyond rational knowledge. He explains that the glory
of God can be discovered in many ways, through the Spirit
with no outward means, or, mediated through measures such as
ordinances and services. But, most importantly:
When I speak of the influence of the discovery of the glory of
God, I mean an internal and spiritual discovery, and not such a
knowledge as is merely speculative, and rests in the understanding
without descending to the heart.253
Of this experience, Witherspoon confesses it is extremely difficult
to speak in a clear and precise manner upon it, to tell wherein
it consists; or to show how these two sorts of knowledge differ
otherwise, than by their effects.254 Witherspoon will conclude
that, because of the happy effects of his salvation, every Christian
has an inward and experimental proof of the truth of the gospel,
not contrary, but superior to, stronger and more stable than any
speculative reasoning (1 John 5:9). This is common to all real
250. Witherspoon, Object of a Christians Desire, 4748.

251. Witherspoon, Ministerial Fidelity in Declaring the Whole Counsel of God,
in Works, 3:267.
252. Witherspoon, A View to the Glory of God Humbling to the Soul, in Works,
3:207.
253. Ibid.
254. Ibid.
270
believers in whatever denomination.255

The term providence is used to describe Gods regenerative
{225} grace, just as it is used for Gods ongoing work amongst the
nations.
God reveals his name in the daily administrations of his
providence. In this, I include not only what regards the support
and preservation of natural light, but all the methods of his grace.
What the works of nature teach us to infer by reason, what the holy
Scriptures teach us by information of God, the administration of
providence gives us an opportunity of seeing and feeling in our
own experience.
An experiential knowledge of the power and mercy of God is,
above all others, the most complete and effectual (Job 42:56).
But let me, in particular manner, beg of you, the careful observance
of divine providence, toward yourselves in particular.... You will
feel the unspeakable advantage of it. It will make God more present
with you than ever.
I am aware of the objection against this. Perhaps some will say,
how can I make an application of Providence? Is there not a great
danger of running into a visionary folly and enthusiasm? Believe
it Christian, a personal application of the truths relating to divine
Providence would reveal as it were a whole new world to you.256
Authority: Scripture and Reason

The use of Scripture and reason is another vital aspect of
Witherspoons theology. His emphasis on reason is seen by some
as an influence of Enlightenment thinking. The use of reason in
natural theology, however, has also been a common feature of
Reformed theology.
Sometimes Witherspoon appeals to experience as proof for an
assertion or concept. In showing the difference between heart
and head knowledge, for instance, Witherspoon says, That
there is such a distinction, in fact, experience obliges every man to
255. Witherspoon, Trial of Religious Truth, 316.

256. Witherspoon, The Security of Those Who Trust in God, in Works, 3:1518.
271
confess.257 Witherspoon believed that only the Spirit could convict

a man of personal guilt and bring him to embrace the gospel, yet
the necessity of salvation may be convinced in the clearest and
most satisfactory manner by reason and observation.258 These
references to experience, however, are never set in contrast to the
teaching of the Word of God, and are usually qualified in context.
Witherspoons teaching on Gods revelation often combines the
witness of Scripture and creation. Referring to the sinners cry for
mercy, Witherspoon says:
It is the language of nature, as well as of grace, to cry to God in
distress. [T]here remains so much of God written on the conscience
of even the most profligate, as excites them to this duty. The truth
of this observation {226} appears from many Scripture examples, as
well as every days experience.259
Sometimes Witherspoon will add personal enlightenment as a
third aspect of Gods revelation. He asks:
Are men ignorant of God? It is because they do not like to retain
him in their knowledge; for the whole creation is full of him; He
is not far from every one of us. We can no where turn our eyes, to
the heavens above, or to the earth below, but we may see the most
manifest proofs of his almighty power, his unsearchable wisdom,
his unbounded goodness, and his universal presence.
God hath revealed himself in his written word; there he hath clearly
and explicitly written his name, and revealed his nature; ... in these
lively oracles, there is a remedy, not for the uncertainty of natures
light, but for the darkness of our bewildered understandings.
In the last place, God reveals his name in the daily administration
of his providence. What the works of nature teach us to infer by
reason, what the holy Scriptures teach us by information concerning
God, the administration of providence gives an opportunity of
seeing and feeling in our own experience.260
257. Witherspoon, View to the Glory of God, 207, has been taken, by some, as
proof of Enlightenment influence.
258. Witherspoon, All Mankind by Nature Under Sin, in Works, 1:29.
259. Witherspoon, The Christians Disposition under a Sense of Mercies
Received, in Works, 3:169.
260. Witherspoon, Security of Those Who Trust in God, 1:1416.
272
Thus, while creation gives a true witness to God and provides

reason as a method, Scripture provides explicit information about
God which our sinful minds cannot see, and both are confirmed
by the revelation of God in our hearts.
The Word of God always stood as the ultimate standard.
Witherspoon said simply, Let not human understanding be put
in the balance with divine wisdom.261 In a warning on how to
interpret the Bible, he said, If you have any belief of the truth of
the Scriptures as the Word of God, attempt not to warp or pervert
them when speaking contrary to your fond prejudices.262 And, in
a strong statement on human sin, Witherspoon refers to the
wretches among us who call themselves free thinkers, who have
been taught by revelation only to form rational and consistent
notions of the first cause and creator of all things and yet reject
revelation entirely, and pretend to found them upon human
reason.263
Witherspoons most developed statement on the authority of
Scripture came in Ministerial Fidelity in Declaring the Whole
Counsel of God.
There is a preciousness in every truth that hath the stamp of divine
authority upon it; and, therefore, to neglect any of them, and count
them trifling, or of little moment, argues a want of reverence for
the word of God. The {227} holy Scriptures, as they are full and
complete, containing every thing that is necessary; so they are
perfect and faultless, containing nothing that is unnecessary....
Nay, I cannot help thinking, that the veneration due to God, who
does nothing in vain, obliges us to believe the utility even of those
passages whose purpose we ourselves may not as yet have clearly
perceived.
They are therefore greatly to be blamed who are at no pains to make
known the counsel of God, in its full extent; but how much more
those who satisfy themselves with insisting upon some things,
which may be most agreeable to their own taste and disposition,
to the entire neglect of others that are perhaps of equal or greater
moment? . . .He who truly understands Scriptures will soon
261. Witherspoon, Letters on Education, 203.
262. Witherspoon, All Mankind by Nature under Sin, 17.
263. Ibid., 18.
273
perceive, that there is such an inseparable connection between one

truth and another, that you can hardly admit one without admitting
or rejecting the whole; and that none of them can be withdrawn, or
concealed, without a manifest injury to the beauty and fullness of
the general system.264
Finally, in a polemic against the stage, he said that the character

of a Christian must be taken from Holy Scriptures, ... the unerring
standard....265
Witherspoon also argued that experience be used as an
apologetics tool. It does not prove what the Scriptures cannot, but
rather, it serves as greater confirmation for the natural man. With
this pragmatic view in mind, Witherspoon explains,
If the testimony of God in Scripture is to be rested on, this one
passage is sufficient; but the unbelieving heart is ready to challenge
and call in question every such Scripture declaration. Therefore, I
shall, first, briefly lay before you some of the Scripture declaration
on this subject; and, secondly, confirm them from experience, the
visible state of the world, and the testimony of our own hearts.266
Witherspoon expands these sentiments in Man in His Natural
State, and other sermons dealing with sin and mans need for
salvation.
One considerable part of the disease, is blindness of understanding
.... Unbelievers are apt to hear with indifference, and neglect what
they are told from Scripture testimony, unless otherwise confirmed
to them; and it is with the unbeliever we have now to do. Besides,
the establishment of this truth, upon other evidence than that of
Scripture, ought to have a powerful influence in inducing men to
believe the other truths in Scripture, that are connected with and
founded upon it. I think it, therefore, highly proper to lay before
you what evidence we have of our lost state, from observation
of the world, though the Scriptures had been silent. [E]ven {228}
unenlightened reason confirms the foundation of divine truth,
and nature and providence conspire in preaching the doctrine of
grace.267
264. Witherspoon, Ministerial Fidelity, 26364.
265. Witherspoon, A Serious Inquiry into the Nature and Effects of the Stage,
in Works, 6:43.
266. Witherspoon, All Mankind by Nature under Sin, 1213.
267. Witherspoon, Man in His Natural State, in Works, 4:17.
274
Witherspoon, then, felt comfortable with natural theology.

When asked to prove the doctrine of total depravity without the
Scriptures, he said he would turn to the conscience. Is not the
conscience Gods vice-regent? And doth not natural religion as
well as the religion of Christ declare him corrupt?268
Witherspoon did see a place for experience or natural religion.
The world is filled with evidence of the creator. The only thing
inadequate is our understanding for failing to see it completely.
Since Gods Word is our ultimate standard, however, experience
can never contradict Scripture, only supplement. Experience is
seen primarily as an apologetic tool for reaching the unregenerate.
In the Scottish career, then, Witherspoons use of reason was
consistent with the function of natural revelation in the Reformed
tradition.
Witherspoons view of the nature of man is also important in
understanding the origins of his political theology. Some have
held that Witherspoon saw man as essentially good, or at least
touched with enough moral sense to be able to govern himself
adequately, and that this optimistic anthropology is taken from
the Common Sense philosophy. It is necessary, however, to look
at Witherspoons sermons, as many emphasize mans sin and
depravity.
Witherspoon believed that all men retained a witness to God in
their conscience. He argued that anybody could cry to God for help,
since there remains so much of God written on the conscience of
even the most profligate ....269 Even when he speaks of how little
sense of the divine goodness is in the hearts of [worldly] men,
he concludes that they have not wholly extinguished the light
of natural conscience.270 On the other hand, in an application to
profligates, Witherspoon says that they are not being tied by any
principle of conscience.271 The Trial of Religious Truth by Its Moral
Influence, gives the best explanations of Witherspoons views.
It pleased God to write his law upon the heart of man at first. And
the great lines of duty, however obscured by their original apostacy,
268.
269.
270.
271.
Ibid., 19.
Witherspoon, Christians Disposition, 169.
Ibid., 196.
Witherspoon, Ministerial Fidelity, 305.
275
are still so visible as to afford an opportunity of judging what

conduct and practice is or is not agreeable to its dictates.
Such authority hath natural conscience still in man that it renders
those ... inexcusable in the sight of God (Rom. 1:202:14). But it is
of importance in the present argument to observe, that every one
is able to {229} pass a far surer judgement on the moral character of
another, than his own. The pollution of the heart brings a corrupt
bias on the judgement, in the mans own case, ... [w]hereas in
determining the character of others, this bias is less sensibly felt.272
Witherspoon felt, then, that each person, even though tainted by

sin, had the law of God written on his heart. And though he often
ignored that law, its presence helped him to judge his fellow man,
and left him without excuse before God.
Finally, there was, in Witherspoons works, a clear statement
of the doctrine of total depravity. He mocks the Moderates for
believing that man was free from everything that is evil, and his
original constitution perfectly just and sound.273 In Man in His
Natural State, Witherspoon opened by saying, [A]ll mankind
are by nature in a state of sin and misery, under the bondage of
corruption, and liable to the wrath of God.274 In a similar work, he
begins with a rhetorical question, What is the history of past ages
but the history of human guilt?275 In Whiggish fashion, he argues
that it is sin which necessitates human government.
[T]he extent and prevalence of wickedness should be considered as
strong proof of the corruption of the whole race; and the particular
signal instances of astonishing or monstrous crimes, as proof
of the excessive deprivation of our nature .... What was this else
[the establishment of government], but taming the savage, and
restraining the profligate part of their fellow-creatures? It seems
plainly to be the point in view in every human law, to bridle the
fury of human inclination, and hinder one man from making a
prey of another (1 Tim 1:910).276
An analysis of Witherspoons thought and its relationship to the
272.
273.
274.
275.
276.
Witherspoon, Trial of Religious Truth, 310.

Witherspoon, History of Servants, 346.
Witherspoon, Man in His Natural State, 12.
Witherspoon, All Mankind by Nature under Sin, 18.
Ibid., 22.
276
Scottish Enlightenment should include Witherspoons assessment

of these philosophers. Almost without exception, he had nothing
good to say about them. The Moderate party had assimilated
much of the Scottish Enlightenment, and it is not surprising that
Witherspoon would set himself against the intellectual sires of his
arch-foes.
The Ecclesiastical Characteristics contains most of the references
to these philosophers. Shaftesbury is cited most frequently as
the ideal for the Moderate man. He ridicules those who alter
Christianity to reconcile it to moderation and common sense;
and to find out a meaning to words which the writers of them, as
living in the infancy of the church had no discernment enough
to intend.277 In this connection Witherspoon satirically noted
how a Moderate roommate once stood up at the back of a chair,
and said, O Lord, we thank thee for Mr. Bayles {230} Dictionary.
Amen.278
Witherspoon also challenged the Moderates for emphasizing
classical and pagan writers.
Witherspoons major criticism of modern philosophy was
the way it emphasized the philosophy of the whole, an almost
pantheistic brand of deism. In the Athenian Creed, he suggests
that the Moderates affirmed:
I believe in the beauty and comely proportions of Dame Nature,
and in almighty Fate, her only parent and guardian, for it hath
been most graciously obliged (blessed be its name) to make us very
good.
I believe that the universe is a huge machine, wound up from
everlasting by necessity... that I myself am a little glorious piece of
clockwork....
I believe that there is no ill in the universe, nor any such thing
as virtue absolutely considered; that those things vulgarly called
sins, are only errors in judgement, and soils to set off the beauty of
nature....279
In outlining the present fashionable scheme of Moral Philosophy,

277. Witherspoon, Ecclesiastical. Characteristics, 176.
278. Ibid., 188.
279. Ibid., 185.
277
he says that virtue doesnt consist in acting agreeable to the nature

of things, ... nor in acting according to truth, ... but in the good of
the whole, and therefore an illustrious and noble end sanctifies the
means of attaining it.280
The man chiefly responsible is Hutcheson. Witherspoon says
that all his books, and particularly the Essays, are must reading
for the true Moderate man.281 Witherspoon also claimed that
the Ecclesiastical Characteristics was prompted because of a
pamphlet by Hutcheson which represented a certain sect of
ministers as agitators of the people, and in general, as not acting
upon confidence, even where they pretend it, but from a love of
popularity.282
In The Absolute Necessity of Salvation Through Christ,
Witherspoon has an extended excursus on modern philosophy
and its effects upon the church. His footnote refers the reader to
Hume.
See David Humes writings on morals throughout; where, besides
leaving out entirely our duty to God, which he hath in common
with many other late writers, he expressly founds justice upon
power and convenience, derides chastity, and turns many of the
most important virtues into vices. See also Essays on the Principles
of Morality and Natural Religion; the author of which, at one
decisive blow, takes away all sin, by founding virtue on delusive and
the necessity of that satisfaction and feeling. These writings are far
from being hurtful in proportion to the intention of their authors;
for though the principles contained in them are often retained in
{231} conversation, yet it is only by way of amusement, ... not one in
an hundred appearing to have any serious conviction of their truth.
But there is another quarter from which we have a much greater
reason to apprehend danger, viz. that class of men, who being
nominal christians, disguise or alter the gospel in order to defend it
.... Hence the unnatural mixture often seen of modern philosophy
with ancient Christianity. Hence the fundamental doctrines of the
gospel are softened, concealed, or denied; as, the lost and guilty
state of man by nature, his liableness to everlasting misery, ransom
280. Ibid., 195.
281. Ibid., 183.
278
which was paid by our Redeemer when he died on the cross.283
This passage makes a number of interesting points. First,

Witherspoon suggests that the philosophers had a relatively
low level of influence and were not taken seriously. He uses the
same idea in the Athenian Creed, where the Moderate man was
to affirm the perpetual duration of Mr. Hutchesons works, not
withstanding their present tendency to oblivion.284 Even though
we live in an age of infidels, Witherspoon adds,
The cause of truth has much less to fear from the assaults of its
open enemies, than from the treachery of its pretended advocates.
The latest infidel writers have carried their own scheme to such
perfection of extravagance, that it must discredit the cause in the
eye of every sober judge.285
This confidence is consistent with the overall optimism of
Witherspoons eschatology.
Second, Witherspoon was afraid that the gospel would be
watered down. In the Ecclesiastical Characteristics, he defined
the Moderate ministry as merely dealing with social duties. His
harshest language is saved for those who were rooted in a biblical
worldview, but have turned away, calling them the wretches
among us who call themselves free thinkers, who have been taught
by revelation ... but reject revelation entirely, and pretend to found
[their philosophy] upon human reason.286
Witherspoon was highly critical of the Scottish philosophers.
This is not to say that he wasnt influenced by them in any
measure. In every recorded instance, however, Witherspoon
seeks to maintain the Reformed faith, and aggressively challenges
Enlightenment precepts. He is especially critical of Hutcheson.
Though his attack in the Ecclesiastical Characteristics might be
vindictive, it does make it less likely that {232} Witherspoon founded
his thinking upon Hutchesons Essays, as some have implied. In
the Scottish career, then, judged by the theological content of
his sermons and his assessment of contemporary philosophers,
283.
284.
285.
286.
Witherspoon, Necessity of Salvation, 24243.

Witherspoon, Ecclesiastical Characteristics, 18586.
Witherspoon, All Mankind by Nature under Sin, 18.
279
Witherspoon seems not to have been greatly influenced by the

Scottish Common Sense thinkers.
4. Witherspoon: The American Career

Major Political Sermons
Witherspoons political theology in America is best introduced
by examining three major political messages he delivered. The
provide a conceptual framework for his political theology, and,
most importantly for our purposes, have a remarkable similarity
to his emphases in Scotland.287
The first work which catches our attention is A Pastoral Letter,
issued by the Synod of New York and Philadelphia. It was to be
read on the day of the General Fast, June 29, 1775. Because of the
threatening aspect of the horrors of civil war, the Synod, through
Witherspoon, addressed its congregations on current concerns.288
It was to offer guidance on the thorny issue of liberty.
Witherspoon began by appealing to the Providence of God and
the need for repentance. Firm belief in the power and presence of
the living God is essential at times like these; and since the Lord
is known by the judgements he executes, it would be foolish not
to look up to him with reverence, to implore his mercy by humble
and fervent prayer, and if possible, to prevent his vengeance by
unfeigned repentance.289 He mentioned the need for salvation, as
he urged the people to [f]ly also for forgiveness to the atoning
blood of the great Redeemer....290 Witherspoon implied that
repentance is needed, because the political tensions were the result
of the peoples sins.
Remember and confess, not only your sins in general, but those
prevalent national offenses, which may be justly considered as the
287. These sermons, some of but a few that Witherspoon published in
America, are generally regarded as the best representation of his thoughts on the
Revolution. Most importantly, they reveal Witherspoons thought before, at the
onset of, and at the conclusion of the war.
288. Ibid.
289. Witherspoon, Pastoral Letter, 16768.
290. Ibid., 168.
280
procuring causes of public judgements; particularly profaneness,

and contempt of God, his name, his Sabbaths, and sanctuary; pride,
luxury, uncleaness, and neglect of family religion and government
....291
The Lord would hear their plea, however, if unfeigned repentance

were offered up, together with personal and family reformation.292
{233}
Witherspoon also pointed to the growing hostilities with Britain

as a challenge to liberty. Americans had enjoyed uninterrupted
freedoms since the first settlement of the country. But after hearing
of the sword in one providence, Americans were ready to defend
their rights by force of arms. If the British ministry shall continue
to enforce their claims by violence, a lasting and bloody contest
must be expected.293 Knowing the people were looking toward
war, he urged them to look to spiritual matters. Every soldier, for
example, to be confident in victory or in death, must reverence
the name, and walk in the fear of the Prince of the kings of the
earth.294
Witherspoon made many practical applications in the Letter.
First, ... express your attachment and respect to our sovereign
king George, and to the revolutionary principles by which his
august family was seated on the British throne.295 That reverence
was not just to be the allegiance owed from duty and principle to
the highest magistrate, but was to be an esteem of affection for
his very person. Witherspoon believed the king had served well
upon the throne, though on the colonial issue he was mislead and
misinformed. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, Witherspoon
pointed to the constitutional principles which were the foundation
of the throne. He concluded this section by saying:
Let it ever appear, that you only desire the preservation and security
of those rights which belong to you as freemen and Britons, and
that reconcilliation upon these terms is your most ardent desire.296
291.
292.
293.
294.
295.
296.
Ibid.
Ibid., 169.
Ibid.
Ibid., 170.
Ibid., 17172.
Ibid., 172.
281
Secondly, the people were to maintain the union which at

present subsists through all the colonies.297 The Continental
Congress, he pointed out, consists of delegates chosen in the most
free and unbiased manner, by the body of the people ....298 He
closed this appeal to unity by warning that there is no example
in history, in which civil liberty was destroyed, and the rights of
conscience preserved entire.299
Third, Witherspoon made an appeal for people to be diligent in
morality. If it is true that universal profligacy makes a nation ripe
for divine judgements, and is the natural means of bringing them
to ruin, reformation of manners is of the utmost necessity in our
present distress.300 Religion has a tremendous force in the lives of
the populace, and with the respect to religion and the morals of
the people, the civil ruler is to defend the rights of conscience.301
Witherspoon gave three more exhortations dealing with public
conduct. Warning against anarchy, he urged the people to keep
peace so {234} that civil war would not be made even worse. He
called for a spirit of humanity and mercy, since civil wars were
often marked by rancour and revenge.302 Finally, he urged a
continuance in prayer and intercession. Witherspoons conclusion
pointed to the major emphasis of the exhortations. He prayed for
Gods temporal and spiritual blessings, that the present unnatural
dispute may be speedily terminated by an equitable and lasting
settlement on constitutional principles.303
The Pastoral Letter, then, emphasized repentance and judgment.
American sins had led to this crisis, and God was punishing
the colonies through the British. He called people to personal
repentance and salvation in light of the coming conflict. There was
also an emphasis on constitutional privilege, Witherspoon having
claimed that the British were usurping American rights as British
subjects. Calling attention to the thrones constitutional base,
297.
298.
299.
300.
301.
302.
303.
Ibid.
Ibid., 173.
Ibid.
Ibid., 17374.
Ibid., 174.
Ibid., 17475.
Ibid., 175.
282
Witherspoon asked for a settlement according to this principle.

He did not relish the thought of war, but saw it as inevitable. He
supported the war, fearful that the loss of civil liberties would
result in an end of the freedom of conscience. This was the very
substance of the Popular-Moderate dispute in Scotland.
The second document that draws our attention because of its
centrality to Witherspoons political theology in America, is the
Dominion of Providence over the Passions of Men, often cited as
Witherspoons most famous work. In this Fast Day sermon, May
17, 1776, Witherspoon strongly supported the Revolutionary
cause, even dedicating the sermon to John Hancock. Witherspoon
noted that this was the first time he had introduced politics into
the pulpit.304 Once again we see a continuity with his Scottish
career. In fact, in this sermon, Witherspoon pointedly quotes from
an earlier sermon in Scotland to bolster his argument for joining
the War for Independence.
The sermon began with a strong reference to Gods universal
providence in the world. The major truth Witherspoon wished
to convey, is [t]hat all the disorderly passions of men, whether
exposing the innocent to private injury, or whether they are
arrows of divine judgement in public calamity, shall, in the end, be
to the praise of God.305 Or, in application to the crisis in America,
the ambition of mistaken princes, the cunning and cruelty of
oppressive and mistaken ministers, even the inhumanity of brutal
soldiers, however dreadful, shall finally promote the glory of
God.306
Witherspoon presented a major scriptural study of how
mans wrath praises God. First, mans wrath points out human
corruption and {235} depravity, thus confirming divine truth.
Observation of the ravages of lawless power, ought to humble us
in the dust.307 His point is reminiscent of Augustine, whose good
ruler, will begin by bewailing the necessity he is under of waging
even just wars.308 In a lengthy footnote, Witherspoon challenged
304.
305.
306.
307.
308.
Witherspoon, Dominion of Providence, 202.

Ibid., 179.
Ibid.
Ibid., 184.
Augustine, The City of God, 5:19:7.
283
the optimistic view of human nature in Thomas Paines Common

Sense.309
Secondly, mans wrath praises God as it brings sinners to
repentance and corrects and improves Gods own children. War
could shake the spiritual laxity that develops in times of security
and prosperity. Because of sin, calamities become Gods rod to
bring people back to Himself. Public calamities, especially the
destroying sword, [are] so awful that it cannot but have a powerful
influence in leading men to consider the presence and power
of God.310 Witherspoon hastened to add, probably to avoid the
labrynth of providence, that it is impossible to make a just or full
comparison of the character either of persons or nations, and it
would be extremely foolish for any to attempt it....311
Third, mans wrath exalts God in showing His divine glory, for
example, when He turns the counsel of the wicked to confusion.312
The early church is another example, for the blood of martyrs was
the seed of Christianity; the more abundantly it was shed, the more
plentiful did the harvest grow.313 The same thing happened during
the persecution of the Reformers. The same deliverance was was
given from the Spanish Armada, which was determined to crush
the interest of the Reformation.314 Hampden and Cromwell serve
as similar examples in English history. Both wished to avoid the
contention of the civil war, but the ship theyd taken passage on
was ordered to remain at home. Consequently, one was the soul
of the republican opposition to monarchial usurpation during the
civil wars, and the other brought the tyrant to the block.315 The
last example, since it dealt with America, is worth quoting in full:
The only other historical remark I am to make is, that the violent
persecution which many eminent Christians met with in England
from their brethren, who called themselves Protestants, drove
them in great numbers to a distant part of the world, where the
309.
310.
311.
312.
313.
314.
315.

Ibid., 187.
Ibid., 189.
Ibid., 190.
Ibid., 192.
Ibid., 193.
Ibid.
284
light of the gospel and true religion were unknown. Some of the
American settlements, particularly those in New England, were
chiefly made by them; and as they carried the knowledge of Christ
to the dark places of the earth, so they continue themselves in as
great a degree of purity, of faith, and strictness of practice, or rather
a greater, than is to be found in any Protestant church now in the
world. Does not the wrath of man in this instance praise God? Was
not the {236} accuser of the brethren, who stirs up their enemies,
thus taken in his own craftiness, and his kingdom shaken by the
very means which he employed to establish it.316
In all these examples, Witherspoon saw signal acts revealing

Gods glory. He included, not only the early church and the
Reformation, but also Cromwell and the American Puritans. The
accuser of the brethren is strong terminology to use for those
who resisted the Puritans. With such a lengthy reference to the
New England Puritans, it seems that Witherspoon could be guilty
of hagiography, and raising up a politically expedient example.
That is, at least, what Witherspoon has been charged with. It is,
furthermore, what Witherspoon feared people would say. In a rare
footnote, he pointed out that the above quotation came verbatim
from a 1758 sermon, written while he was still in Scotland.
Lest this should be thought a temporising compliment to the people
of New England, who have been the first sufferers in the present
contest, and have set so noble an example of invincible fortitude,
in withstanding the violence of oppression, I think it proper to
observe, that the whole paragraph is copied from a sermon on
Psalm 28:22, prepared and preached in Scotland, in the month of
August 1758.317
The point of this thesis is that Witherspoons political concepts
remained constant in his Scottish and American careers.
Furthermore, as part of the Scottish covenanting tradition, he
raised up America, while still in Scotland, as an excellent example
of Reformed religion and republican government. Witherspoon
himself made that pointed connection. Great expectations for
America did not arise solely from a narrow nationalism.
Witherspoon applied this message first, to the need for salvation.
316. Ibid., 194.
317. Ibid., 195.
285
He wanted to take the opportunity to press every hearer to a

sincere concern for his own souls salvation, for in seasons of
public judgment is the conscience more open to the arrows of
conviction ....318 He even stressed that this spiritual concern was
more important than civil liberties.
Can you have a clearer view of the sinfulness of your nature, than
when the rod of the oppressor is lifted up, and when you see men
putting on the habit of warriors, and collecting on every hand the
weapons of hostility and instruments of death? I do not blame
your ardour in preparing for the resolute defense of your temporal
rights; but consider, I beseech you, the truly infinite importance
of the salvation of your souls. Is it of much moment {237} whether
you and your children shall be rich or poor, at liberty or in bonds?
And is it of less moment, my brethren, whether you shall be heirs
of glory or the heirs of hell? Is your state on earth for a few fleeting
years of so much moment? And is it less what shall be your state
through endless ages?319
Secondly, Witherspoon made application of Gods providence
to the conflict in America. He referred to the discovery of enemy
plans, victory over seasoned enemy troops, and the evacuation of
Boston. He cautioned, however, to guard against the dangerous
error of trusting in or boasting of an arm of flesh.320
Finally, Witherspoon assured the people that they could put
their trust in God, if your cause is just, if your principles are pure,
and your conduct is prudent.321 Witherspoon concluded without
hesitation that the cause in which America is now in arms, is the
cause of justice, of liberty, and of human nature.322
In fairness to Witherspoon, his qualifications on this
topic should be mentioned so that he does not appear as an
indiscriminate patriot. Witherspoon pointed out that this was
the first time he had introduced politics to the pulpit, and, only
because of the season, found it necessary to declare his opinion.323
318.
319.
320.
321.
322.
323.
Ibid.
Ibid., 19596.
Ibid., 199.
Ibid., 202.
Ibid.
Ibid.
286
In calling people to put their confidence [for the war] in the Lord,
he specifically said that I do not mean to speak prophetically,
but agreeably to the analogy of faith, and to the principle of Gods
moral government.324
Witherspoon proceeded to explain the principles of moral
government, and, in language similar to what he had used in
Scotland, why their cause was just.
So far as we have hitherto proceeded, I am satisfied that the
confederacy of the colonies has not been the effect of pride,
resentment, or sedition, but of a deep and general conviction
that our civil and religious liberties, and consequently in a
great measure the temporal and eternal happiness of us and our
posterity, depended on the issue. The knowledge of God and his
truths have from the beginning of the world been chiefly, if not
entirely confined to those parts of the earth where some degree
of liberty and political justice were to be seen, and great were the
difficulties with which they had to struggle, from the imperfection
of human society, and the unjust decisions of usurped authorities.
There is not a single instance in history, in which civil liberty was
lost, and religious liberty preserved entire. If therefore we yield up
our temporal property, we at the same time deliver the conscience
into bondage.325 {238}
There is a fear of human nature in Witherspoons thought. He
began by saying that he would not rail at the king or his ministers,
and that he believed many of their actions have been worse than
their intention.326 As he continued, however, Whig concepts could
be seen in his examples:
That they should desire unlimited dominion, if they can obtain
or preserve it, is neither new nor wonderful. I do not refuse
submission to their unjust claims, because they are unjust or
profligate, although many of them are so, but because they are
men, and therefore liable to all the selfish bias inseparable from
human nature. Would any man who could prevent it, give up his
estate, person and family, to the disposal of his neighbor, although
he had the liberty to choose the wisest and the best matter? Surely
not. This is the true and proper hinge of the controversy between
324. Ibid.
325. Ibid., 2023.
326. Ibid., 203.
287
Great Britain and America.327
Witherspoons second criterion had to do with self evaluation

and correct motivation.
The meaning of this is, if your present opposition to the claims
of the British ministry does not arise from a seditious spirit, or
a wanton contempt of legal authority; from a blind and factious
attachment to particular persons or parties; or from a selfish
rapacious disposition, and a desire to turn public confusion to
private profitbut from a concern for the interest of your country,
and the safety of yourselves and your posterity.328
In an Address to the Natives of Scotland Residing in America, an
open letter published in the same pamphlet with the Dominion
of Providence, Witherspoon is careful to outline the purity of
the wars principles. A number of pages are spent showing the
difference between the Revolutionary cause, and the seditious
spirit which characterized Wilkes rebellion.329
In his practical admonitions, Witherspoon first recommended
an attention to the public interest of religion.330 For Witherspoon,
nothing is more certain, than that a general profligacy and
corruption of manners make a people ripe for destruction.331
A good government can hold rotten wood together for a while,
but not forever. He concluded [t]hat he is the best friend of
American liberty who is most sincere and active in promoting
true and undefiled religion ....332 This is especially true of rulers
and soldiers, for the cause is sacred, and the champions ought
to be holy.333 A second admonition is to industry. Witherspoons
emphasis was not on producing wealth for wartime use, though
that was necessary too, but on preventing idleness which led to sin
and finally {239} judgment. Finally, Witherspoon called the people
to be frugal.
The closing lines echoed a familiar theme:
327.
328.
329.
330.
331.
332.
333.
Ibid., 2034.
Ibid., 2056.
Witherspoon, Address to the Natives, 21922.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid., 212.
288
God grant that in America true religion and civil liberty may be
inseparable, and that the unjust attempts to destroy the one, may in
the issue tend to support the establishment of both.334
The emphasis of Witherspoons sermon, then, was on Gods

providence, even over the violent passions of men. Tyranny and
war could, most importantly, result in the salvation of souls
to which Witherspoon called people. Seeing Gods hand in all
history, he believed God had helped the American cause. He
furthermore believed God would guide America throughout the
rest of the war. This wasnt because America was perfect; indeed,
he saw God judging America and called the people to repentance
and purity lest they become ripe for judgement in the future.
God would establish the just cause, however, because the British
were seeking to strip the colonists of their civil liberties. This does
not mean that Witherspoons major concern was with freedom.
In fact, he thought civil liberty was a small concern compared to
salvation. What worried Witherspoon was that violations of civil
liberty could easily become violations of religious freedom. It was for
this reason, that he prayed for the establishment of true religion
and civil freedom in America.
The third sermon which draws our attention because of its
political theology, is the Thanksgiving Sermon, delivered at
public thanksgiving after peace. Witherspoon dutifully led the
thanksgiving, though he pointed out that it has never been my
practice ... to intermix politics with the ordinary service of the
sanctuary, on the weekly returns of the Christian Sabbath....335
Witherspoons first task was to explain what Psalm 3:8 meant
by Salvation belongeth to the Lord. Obviously, it excluded
all confidence in man during a trial; confidence before and
boasting afterwards is impermissible. Secondly, it pointed to the
omnipotence of Providence; that nothing is impossible with God,
that there is no state so dangerous, no enemy so formidable, but
he is able to work deliverance.336 Finally, the text implied that God
is good and merciful, ready to hear the cry of the oppressed, and
334. Ibid., 216.

335. Witherspoon, Thanksgiving Sermon, in Works, 5:238.
336. Ibid., 241.
289
send deliverance to his people.337

The second major task, was to show what the United States
of America owe divine Providence, in the course of the present
war.338 Gods signal providence was seen in many ways, as when
the colonists procured weapons, overcame the British navy,
captured the Hessians at {240} Trenton, discovered the treachery of
Benedict Arnold, and received the valuable leadership of George
Washington. Providence also helped them overcome what seemed
like unavoidable difficulties. Against all odds, the colonists were
able to stay united with one another and their foreign allies. The
ruin of paper money, which Witherspoon had opposed, did not
injure the public cause. They were able to avoid the dangers of a
standing army, on the one hand, or, on the other, anarchy.
Finally, Gods providence was seen in the way the enemys
counsel was confounded. The British, for example, thought that
the revolution was unpopular, whereas in truth the American
Congress owes its existence and influence to the people at large.339
Almost every British attempt to subjugate the people or recapture
their loyalty had the reverse effect. The unsurpassed brutality of
the British soldiers and cruelty of the Parliament filled the hearts of
citizens with resentment, and added vigour to the soldiers arm.340
The treatment of prisoners of war, the desecration of churches,
and the execution of neutral ministers only hurt their efforts. So,
Witherspoon, concluded, the separation of this country from
Britain has been of God; for every step the British took to prevent,
has served to accelerate it.341
In his practical applications, Witherspoon, first, urged the people
to thank God for His deliverance. Secondly, they were to show their
thanks to God by living according to His gospel. Not only is this a
tribute, but, echoing the Prayer for National Prosperity and Revival
of Religion, it was the only way by which public prosperity can
become a mercy to us.342 Since eternity is of yet greater moment
337.
338.
339.
340.
341.
342.
Ibid., 242.
Ibid., 243.
Ibid., 254.
Ibid., 258.
Ibid., 26162.
Ibid., 263.
290
than any earthly blessing, Witherspoon concluded that their

state is little to be envied, who are free as citizens, but slaves as
sinners.343 Characteristically, Witherspoon used the occurrences
of Providence to urge the people to repentance and salvation.
Finally, Witherspoon urged the people to live for the glory of God,
the public interest of religion and the good of others.344 Religion
is especially important for the stability of civil society, so much so,
that civil liberty cannot be long preserved without virtue.345 This
was particularly critical in a republic, which must either preserve
its virtue or lose its liberty.346
The Thanksgiving Sermon, then, appealed to Gods providence
in Americas struggle. It also gives warnings. In it, Witherspoon
warns against trusting in the flesh. He urged people diligently
to search their souls to see if they were saved. He emphasized
morality, without which the Republic would not survive. This,
again, had been a major feature of {241} Witherspoons political
theology in Scotland.
Continuity of Witherspoons Political Theology

In each of these writings, as well as in his other essays and
writings, there was an emphasis on the same themes as in Scotland.
Providence is an important motif. Not only did the major political
sermons begin with reference to it, but even in the political essays,
Gods guiding hand was seen. In a 1778 letter On the Contest
between Great Britain and America, Witherspoon said, I look
upon the separation of America from Great Britain to be the
visible intention of Providence ....347 Another example was when
it pleased God to incline the heart of the king of France to give
relief to the oppressed, by entering into a treaty with the United
States, on the most disinterested principles.348 In an Address to
General Washington, Witherspoon cited Washingtons leadership
343. Ibid.
344. Ibid., 264.
345. Ibid., 266
346. Ibid.
347. Witherspoon, On the Contest Between Great Britain and America, in
Works, 9:167.
348. Witherspoon, Memorial and Manifesto, in Works, 9:163.
291
as one of the signal acts of Gods favor.

We contemplate and adore the wisdom and goodness of divine
Providence, as displayed in favor of the United States, in many
instances during the course of the war; but in none more than in
the unanimous appointment of your Excellency to the command
of the army. When we consider the continuance of your life and
health ... we cannot help being of the opinion, that God himself has
raised you up as a fit and proper instrument for establishing and
securing the liberty and happiness of these states.349
In contrast to the Scottish sermons, Witherspoon, in America,
said little about Protestants in other parts of the world. Either
because there was no occasion for it, or because of the hostilities
with England, little mention is made of the broader work of
Providence within Reformed countries.
References to Roman Catholicism were also less frequent,
but were generally consistent with his Scottish messages. The
Antichrist and Beast were titles still applied to popery.
Protestant writers very generally suppose that the pope and Roman
Catholic system of superstition are the antichrist prophesied of,
and indeed they seem very much to quadrate with the description.
The sitting in the temple of God, corresponds surprisingly with
the extravagant pretensions to infallibility in that church, and the
excessive secular power and profit which it is intended to bring to
the priesthood. The account in the Revelation, of kings and princes
giving their power and honor to the beast ... corresponds exactly
to the arrangements made by the Popish states for many ages, to
the usurped dominion, and to that tyranny over {242} conscience
which was everywhere exersized.350
He called attention, as well, to the cruelty of the Inquisition,
or, the bloody Tribunal, where monsters divested of humanity
persecuted people because of bigotry and false zeal.351 (The
Inquisition was used as an example of how people, for instance
the British, could get carried away with feelings of hatred and
fear during a civil war.)352 As in Scotland, Witherspoon spoke
349.
350.
351.
352.
Witherspoon, Address to General Washington, in Works, 9:15253.

Witherspoon, Lectures on Divinity, 74
Witherspoon, The Druid, in Works, 248.
Ibid., 247.
292
highly of the Janenists and other evangelical Popish divines.353

One major change was in his view of the French. They are no
longer representatives of the Antichrist, but illustrative and
courageous allies.354 He was critical of those who said that all
the French are interested, treacherous, and cowardly.355 While
Witherspoon did not move beyond these simple adjectives, and
did not speak as highly of them as of the Reformed German
prince, it is evident that he felt much more affection for the French
than in 1758.
Witherspoon also emphasized the work of God in creating
religious revival. This had been a major feature of the political
sermons. In the political essays and the more technical writings,
Witherspoon seemed to prefer the broader terms of virtue and
morality.
Witherspoon also retained his postmillennialist eschatology.
In response to a libertine, with whom Witherspoon might be
expected to have an affinity, he said:
[T]here is a late opinion ... that an established church is Antichrist,
that whatever has the approbation and authority of the civil
government in any state interposed in its behalf, not only may, but
must be contrary to the gospel. I do not see how this sentiment
can be supported, either from Scripture or reason, as it would
seem impossible for the kingdoms of this world, to become the
kingdoms of our Lord and his Christ ... but so far I shall admit, that
an intolerant establishment, and all tyranny over the conscience
partakes of an unchristian spirit.356
This optimism, presented less frequently than in Scotland, was
never linked with American nationalism. When he did speak of
it being an important era of mankind, it is only because of the
size and relative freedom of this country.357 Though he saw Gods
hand in the Revolution, Witherspoon did not create millennial
expectations for America, nor even guarantee the future help of
353. Witherspoon, Lectures on Divinity, 25.
354. Witherspoon, Memorial and Manifesto, 154.
355. Witherspoon, Lectures in Moral Philosophy, in Works, 8:62.
357. Witherspoon, Reflections on the Present State of Public Affairs, in Works,
9:66, 68; and Address to the Natives, 222.
293
Providence.
Tyranny and freedom were major themes in the American
career. One obvious difference from Scotland, is that he had less
to say about ecclesiastical tyranny. He had left those battles in
Scotland. At some points, he connected religious persecution and
freedom with the zeal {243} for freedom in the colonies. There had
been many reasons for immigration to America, including those
who were driven from their native country by the iron rod of
sacerdotal tyranny.358 They all agreed on one thing, however, that
they considered themselves as bringing their liberty with them,
and as entitled to all the rights and privileges of freemen under
the British constitution.359 As we have seen, he had argued in the
Dominion of Providence that there was no instance in history in
which civil liberty was lost, and religious liberty preserved entire.
If therefore we yield up our temporal property, we at the same
time deliver the conscience into bondage.360 The closing plea of
the Dominion of Providence was that both true religion and civil
liberty would be established.361
Liberty of conscience was also an important idea, but stressed
less in Witherspoons American thought. He criticized the
popish states for their usurped dominion and to that tyranny of
conscience which is everywhere exersized.362 He cautioned that
the prevalence of this antichristian usurpation and tyranny
should put all others upon their guard, lest they in any degree
partake of the sin ....363 Witherspoon also felt that the greatest
service magistrates and authorities could do in behalf of religion
and morality among the people was to defend and secure rights
of conscience in the most equal and impartial manner.364 Oddly
enough, Witherspoon claimed that persecution for conscience
sake [was] by the peculiar kindness of Providence ... exceedingly
358.
359.
360.
361.
362.
363.
364.
Witherspoon, Memorial and Manifesto, 155.

Ibid.
Witherspoon, Dominion of Providence, 203; and Pastoral Letter, 173.
Ibid., 216.
Witherspoon, Lectures on Divinity, 74.
Ibid., 75.
Witherspoon, Pastoral Letter, 174.
294
rare among us.365

Liberty in a broader sense, however, became a more important
aspect of Witherspoons thought. There was frequent mention of,
or allusion to, a spirit of liberty. Property became a new concern
as well. Witherspoon mentioned how British veterans went fleeing
before the new and maiden courage of freemen, in defense of
their property and right.366 Discussing the state of nature and the
obligations of society to its citizens, he said:
Their persons must not be assaulted nor their property invaded.
The single purpose of society, indeed, is to protect the individual,
and to give him the strength of the public arms in defense of his
just and natural rights.367
Tyranny and oppression became common terms in describing
British treatment of Americans.368
In the American writings, there also seemed to be a greater
emphasis on Whig argumentation and concepts. In the Lectures
on Moral Philosophy, there was an extensive treatment of natural
rights and {244} liberty which might be traced to Locke.369 For
Witherspoon, the formation of the Continental Congress was
an appeal to the great law of reason, the first principles of social
union, and the multitude collectively, for whose benefit all ... are
supposed to have been originally established.370 In addition to
frequent references to Montesquieu, he agreed that every good
form of government should be complex, so that the one principle
may check the other. They must be balanced, that when every
one draws to his own interests and inclinations, there may be an
overpoise on the whole.371
365. Witherspoon, Christian Magnanimity, in Works, 287.
366. Witherspoon, Dominion of Providence, 198.
367. Witherspoon, The Druid, 235.
368. Witherspoon, Address to the Natives, 231.
369. Witherspoon, Lectures in Moral Philosophy, 6377. See also Roger
Schultz, Enlightenment Impulses in Revolutionary and Constitutional America:
An Examination of John Lockes Second Treatise of Government and John
Witherspoons Lectures in Moral Philosophy (paper presented at Enlightenment
seminar, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, 1982).
370. Witherspoon, Thoughts on American Liberty, 74.
371. Witherspoon, Lectures in Moral Philosophy, 101.
295
A Whiggish theology of resistance was also developed. Though

Witherspoon believed there was a supreme irresistible power
lodged somewhere, in king, senate or people, it could be resisted
and overthrown by the subjects if the supreme power, wherever
lodged, came to be exersized in a manifestly tyrannical manner.372
This provision was necessary, since [n]othing is more natural
than for rulers to grasp at power, and their situation enables them
to do it successfully by slow and insensible encroachments.373
Though he acknowledged the possibility of anarchy, to refuse this
inherent right in every man is to establish injustice and tyranny,
and leave every good subject without help, as a tame prey to
ambition and rapacity of others.374
During the American conflict, Witherspoon always maintained
that resistance had become necessary because the king had
usurped the constitutional liberties of the colonies and was about
to impose slavery upon them. The colonists saw themselves as
Britons with certain legal rights and wanted to defend them from
unjust encroachments.375 For the English to revoke these, as
they did in the Intolerable Acts, was unconstitutional. To submit
to deliberate attempts to overturn constitutional liberties, would
result in slavery. Of prime importance, then, was Witherspoons
claim to a legal right to revolt, since the king, intentionally or
through the bad advice of his ministers, had broken covenant with
the colonies.
Many examples could be given of this constitutional concern.
In Thoughts on American Liberty, Witherspoon presented the
following resolutions:
1. To profess as all the provincial and county rulers have done, our
loyalty to the king, and our backwardness to break our connection
with Great Britain, if we are not forced by their unjust impositions.
2. To declare, not only that we esteem the claim of the British
Parliament to be illegal and unconstitutional, but that we are firmly
determined {245} never to submit to it, and do deliberately prefer
war with all its horrors, and even extermination itself, to slavery
372.
373.
374.
375.
Ibid., 103.
Ibid., 104.
Ibid.
Witherspoon, The Druid, 250.
296
rivetted on us and our posterity.

3. To resolve that we will adhere to the interest of the whole body;
and that no colony shall make its separate peace ... til American
liberty is settled on a solid base, and in particular, til the now
suffering colony of Massachusetts Bay is restored to all the rights
which it has been, on this occasion, unjustly deprived.376
Witherspoon explained his own rationale for supporting the

Revolution in another article:
For my own part, I confess, I never would have signed these resolves
at first, nor taken up arms in consequence of them afterwards, if I
had not been fully convinced, as I am still, that acquiescence in this
usurped power, would be followed by the total and absolute ruin
of the colonies. [T]hough we earnestly wished for reconciliation
with safety to our liberties, yet we did deliberately prefer, not only
the horrors of a civil war, not only the danger of anarchy, and the
uncertainty of a new settlement, but even extermination itself, to
slavery, rivetted on us and our posterity.
The most peaceable means were first used; but no relaxation could
be obtained: one arbitrary and oppressive act followed another;
they destroyed the property of a whole capitalconstitution and
government of a whole colony, and granted the soldiers a liberty of
murdering in all the colonies.
[From this] I infer the misery of the people of America, if they
must submit in all cases whatsoever, to the decisions of a body of
the sons of Adam, so distant from them, and who have an interest
in oppressing them.377
Concern for constitutional liberty is also outlined in Aristides,

where Witherspoon argued that the colonists decided to resist
because of the unconstitutional claims of Great Britain.378 Any
resolution of the conflict must be based upon those principles:
Is there a probable prospect of reconciliation on constitutional
principles? Will any body shew that Great Britain can be sufficiently
376. Witherspoon, Thoughts on Liberty, 7576.

377. Witherspoon, On the Controversy about Independence, in Works, 9:78
80.
378. Witherspoon, Aristides, in Works, 9:91.
297
sure of our dependence, and yet we sure of our liberty?379
Witherspoon took care to separate the legitimate concerns

of the Revolution from the seditious motivations of the Wilkes
rebellion. Since Wilkes had also resisted the British government,
some patriots had looked to him as a model. Witherspoon
referred to the Wilkites as the most despicable of all factions
that ever existed in the British empire, {246} a shameless gang
[which] carried on their attacks with such gross, and indecent,
and groundless abuse of the king and his family, that they became
odious to the nation.380 In an Address to the Natives of Scotland
Residing in America, Witherspoon warns, at length, against the
hatred and animosity that characterized the Wilkes revolt.381 Since
the Revolution was built upon constitutional issues, not anarchy
and sedition, it was as different from that of Wilkes as light is
from darkness.382
In looking to examples of a just revolution, Witherspoon turned
to the preceding century in England. Frequently there would be
mention of the cause or underlying factors of the civil wars or
Glorious Revolution.383 Cromwell and Hampden were used as
examples of Gods Providence in England.384 The Druid contains
an extended discussion of this subject.
There remains another class of civil wars, in which a part or the
great body of a monarchy or republic resist the authority of their
rulers on the pretense that they are suffering under oppression. If
they have been successful, history dignifies them with the name
Revolution; and if otherwise, they must bear that of Rebellion.
Their success, however, is no certain criterion of their justice. The
civil war in England of the last century, which bears the name of
the grand rebellion, and the late vigorous contest of the Corsicans...
were as honorable in the principles, as the successful resistance of
the Seven United Provinces to the king of Spain, or the efforts of
379. Ibid., 97.
380. Witherspoon, On Conducting the American Controversy, in Works, 9:86.
381. Witherspoon, Address to the Natives, 21921.
382. Ibid., 221.
383. Witherspoon, Lectures in Eloquence, in Works, 7:241. See also Pastoral
Letter, 171.
298
the English nation of the period, which we now have agreed to call
the glorious revolution.385
Witherspoons idea of ministerial involvement in the political

sphere may have undergone some change. He criticized the Roman
Catholic Church for the excessive secular power and profit which
it ... intended to bring to the priesthood.386 Witherspoon was
personally cautious about becoming too political, often showing
reticence in addressing civil matters from the pulpit.387 There was,
no doubt, a lingering suspicion of political involvement since he
had experienced the Moderate abuse of power. In On the Georgia
Constitution, however, he took issue with the resolution that [n]o
clergyman of any denomination shall be a member of the General
Assembly.388 His argument was that the minister was also a citizen,
possessing a right to serve politically. So, while Witherspoon was
always disdainful of mixing politics with religion, he was not
opposed in principle to a minister, as a citizen, serving in the City
of Man. {247}
Evangelical Commitments
Witherspoons emphasis upon evangelism was undiminished
in his move to America. Each of his major political sermons had
strong calls for people to embrace the gospel message, and to be
sure of their salvation. Salvation was never of less consequence
than civil liberties. Even in the call to arms of the Dominion of
Providence, Witherspoon reminded them that all the monuments
of human greatness shall be laid in ashes ....389 As we have seen, he
asked, Is it of great moment whether you and your children shall
be ... at liberty or in bonds? And is it of less moment, my brethren,
whether you shall be heirs of glory or the heirs of hell?390
Witherspoon greatly stressed personal, experiental knowledge
of Jesus Christ. This was essential in a minister, who was to have
385.
386.
387.
238.
388.
389.
390.
Witherspoon, The Druid, 24445.

Witherspoon, Dominion of Providence, 202; and Thanksgiving Sermon,
Witherspoon, On the Georgia Constitution, in Works, 9:220.
Ibid.
299
a firm belief of that gospel he is called to preach, and a lively sense

of religion upon his own heart.391 Extending the idea still further,
he said, Experimental knowledge is the best sort in every branch,
but it is necessary in divinity, because religion is what cannot be
truly understood, unless it is felt.392
Throughout his career in the colonies, Witherspoon had a
concern for evangelism. Though he regretted not having a pastoral
charge, he consoled himself by saying, if I am made instrumental
in sending out faithful laborers into the harvest, it will be an ample
recompense.393 For Witherspoon, Religion is the grand concern
of us all; ... the salvation of our souls is the one thing needful.394
Ashabel Green related that Witherspoon labored assiduously
to cherish religion and good morals among the youth of the
college.395 Both Green and Samuel Stanhope Smith call attention
to a remarkable revival of religion among his students during his
third and fourth year. 396
Authority: Scripture and Reason

Another important facet of Witherspoons theology was the
use of the Scriptures and reason. As in Scotland, the Scriptures
stood as the ultimate authority over reason. Responding to those
who wished to make their own reason the previous standard of
what was admissible or not in quality of revelation, Witherspoon
responded by saying:
I have been many years of opinion, that as revelation was necessary,
and revelation is given us, we act the most wise and truly rational
part, if we take all our theological opinions immediately and
without challenges from {248} the oracles of truth. I confess it is
agreeable to me to shew, that the truths of the everlasting gospel are
agreeable to sound reason, and founded upon the state of human
391. Witherspoon, Lectures in Eloquence, 174.
392. Ibid., 176.
394. Ibid., 12.
396. Ibid., and Samuel Stanhope Smith, John Witherspoon, D.D., in Annals
of the American Pulpit, ed. William B. Sprague (New York: Carter and Brothers,
1868; reprint ed., New York: Arno Press, 1969), 293.
300
nature; and I have made it my business, through my whole life, to

illustrate this remark. Yet to begin by making the suggestion of our
own reason the standard of what is to be heard or examined as a
matter of revelation, I look upon to be highly dangerous, manifestly
unjust, and inconsistent with the foundation stone of all revealed
religion, viz. that reason, without it, is insufficient to bring us to the
knowledge of God and our duty....397
Many important themes are introduced in this passage. First,

Scripture does not contradict reason, for indeed, the moral
government of God, as taught in the Scripture, is exceedingly
rational and satisfying.398 Secondly, though no contradiction
existed, at some points the Scriptures went above reason, as
in the doctrine of the Trinity. Above reason meant beyond
the power of reason to discover, and above the reach of reason
to comprehend.399 Furthermore, revelation is necessary because
it substantiates reason. Pointing to Cherbury and the deists,
Witherspoon said, Their way of arguing is fallacious for they avail
themselves of that very improvement of reason which they owe
to revelation, in order to show revelation to be unnecessary.400
Finally, reason was never able to provide, or give knowledge of,
what is truly essential: salvation.
As in Scotland, Witherspoon saw an inward confirmation of the
truth of Scripture in personal experience. Every good man has a
conviction of the truth of the gospel, from its power and efficacy
upon his own heart, distant from and superior to all speculative
reasoning.401 The gospel, because of the cross, is contrary to
the taste of a carnal mind, and human wisdom; but since the
cross points to the deep feelings of corruption and the promise of
redemption in Christ, it can give consolation to the sinner, while
it changes the heart.402
A final question in this area, deals with Witherspoons purpose
in developing a moral philosophy, and the degree to which he
397.
398.
399.
400.
401.
402.

Ibid., 37.
Ibid., 85.
Ibid., 30.
Ibid., 27.
Ibid., 2728.
301
is thus indebted to the Scottish philosophy. The Lectures on

Moral Philosophy have many similarities with other philosophic
writings.403 Witherspoon presented moral philosophy from an
apologetics angle, arguing that an understanding of contemporary
philosophy would help to confirm and support Scripture truths
and answer the infidels on their own ground. In instructing
divinity students to study moral philsoophy, Witherspoon said it
was an improving study in itself, and, because of its connection
with the deistical controversies, it was necessary for a {249} divine
to master it.404 The introduction to the Lectures in Moral Philosophy
outlines Witherspoons thought.
[Moral philosophy] is called philosophy, because it is an inquiry
into the nature and grounds of moral obligation by reason, as
distinct from revelation.
Hence arises a question, Is it lawful, and is it safe or useful, to
separate moral philosophy from religion? It will be said, it is
either the same, or different from, revealed truth; if the same,
unnecessaryif different, false and dangerous.
An author of New England says, Moral Philosophy is just reducing
infidelity to a system. But however specious the objections, they
will be found at bottom not valid. If the Scripture is true, the
discovery of reason cannot be contrary to it; therefore it has nothing
to fear from that quarter. And as we are certain it can do no evil, so
there is a probability that it may do much good. There may be an
illustration and confirmation of the inspired writings from reason
and observation, which will greatly add to their beauty and force.
It is true, that infidels so commonly proceed upon pretended
principles of reason. But as it is impossible to hinder them from
reasoning on this subject, the best way is to meet them upon their
own ground, and to show them from reason itself the fallacies of
their principles.405
Witherspoons anthropology has been a source of much

confusion. It has been argued that, because of his affinity
with Scottish Realism which emphasized the moral sense,
403. See chap. 2.
404. Witherspoon, Lectures on Divinity, 26, 28.
302
Witherspoon had a high view of man.406 That does not seem

to be the case. Ashabel Green complained that [i]t had been
publickly asserted in print, that Dr. Witherspoon favored the idea,
that unsanctified men possess natural ability to love God and keep
his commandments.407 Green responded convincingly by quoting
from the fifteenth lecture on divinity.408
As in Scotland, Witherspoon stressed total depravity. In the
Dominion of Providence, he said that the corruption of our nature
... is the foundation-stone of the doctrine of redemption. Nothing
can be more absolutely necessary to true religion, than a clear
conviction of the sinfulness of our nature and state.409 Seeking to
underscore the depravity of our nature, he was critical of those
who would exalt man.
Men of lax and corrupt principles take great delight in speaking
to the praise of human nature, and extolling its dignity, without
distinguishing what it was at its first creation, from what it is
in its present fallen state. But I appeal from these visionaries
reasonings to the history of all ages, and the inflexible testimony
of daily experience. [C]andid attention, either to {250} past history
of present state of the world, but, above all, the ravages of lawless
power, ought to humble us in the dust.410
Witherspoon knew of depravity, first, from the Scriptures, as the
evil of sin appears from every page of the sacred oracles.411 One
could also see depravity in the history of mankind. A favorite
expression of Witherspoon was that the history of the world is
little else than the history of human guilt.412 Proof could also be
seen in each heart, for nothing is more plain from Scripture, or
better supported by daily experience, than that man by nature is
in fact incapable of recovery without the power of God specially
interposed.413 The doctrine of depravity was not incidental to
406.
407.
408.
409.
410.
411.
412.
413.
See chap. 2.
Green, Life of Witherspoon, 265.
Ibid.
Ibid., 18384. See also Lectures on Divinity, 4142.
Ibid., 31, 126.
Ibid., 134.
303
Witherspoons theology; it was foundational.

Witherspoons view of the Scottish philosophers seemed to be
less severe than when he was in Scotland. He was still critical
of the deists and infidels. Hume, Shaftesbury, Cherbury, and
especially Thomas Paine were people Witherspoon attacked. He
was also disturbed by the Immaterialists. Yet, there is little strong
criticism of the Scottish philosophers, and many are discussed
in a dispassionate tone as Witherspoon evaluates different
governmental structures and ethical systems in the Lectures in
Moral Philosophy.
It is difficult to say how much Witherspoon might have been
influenced by these philosophers. He quoted some, on the
nature of government, approvingly. The whole framework of the
Lectures in Moral Philosophy has an Englightenment approach.
Most significantly, however, Witherspoon introduced the
Lectures as a supplementary study. Philosophy could be used to
supplement Scripture truths, or it could be used to argue against
infidel presuppositions; yet, it was clearly secondary to the word
of God. It is hard to justify using the Lectures, in clear violation
of their express purpose, to show an Enlightenment element in
Witherspoon. Initial consideration, at any rate, ought to take the
work at face valuefor what Witherspoon intended it to bean
apologetic work.
Conclusion
In evaluating Witherspoon and his place in the covenanting
tradition, the first question raised in the introduction to this thesis
dealt with how Witherspoon perceived himself. Unquestionably,
he saw himself as {251} a Christian. He aligned himself with
the orthodox, Reformed faith. He never identified with the
Enlightenment, and referred to such infidelity, as he believed
existed in that movement, in only the harshest of terms. Politically,
he saw himself as an heir of the Scottish Covenanters and the
Glorious Revolution in Great Britain.
The second major question raised in the opening of this paper
dealt with the continuity of Witherspoons thought in his two
careers. Politically, his theology remained constant between
Scotland and America. Freedom of conscience was the central
304
cause in Witherspoon and the Popular Partys struggle with the

Moderates. To deny it represented the worst form of civil tyranny.
Witherspoon interpreted the American conflict in the same terms.
In both America and Scotland, he saw civil and religious liberty as
closely intertwined. If the first were sacrificed, freedom to worship
would also be lost. Yet, there was always a clear distinction between
secular and spiritual matters; and even in political messages,
there was greater stress laid upon salvation than civil freedoms.
Witherspoon also showed consistency in the examples he used.
In both Scottish and American careers, he pointed repeatedly to
the Scottish Covenanters and the Glorious Revolution as noble
examples of people justly fighting for their liberties and the
freedom of conscience. In both Scotland and America, Puritans
and American colonists were raised up as righteous examples;
both in their struggle for religious freedom, and in the purity of
their faith. Witherspoon directly showed that he had admired
the early colonists and their errand, long before he came to the
colonies.
Some differences in perspective do exist during his career in
America compared with his Scottish period. There was a subtle
shift in some of the language he used. Virtue was used more in
America, for instance, than a term like revival or faithfulness.
Liberty became more common at the time of the revolution,
probably replacing freedom of conscience. There are many
possible explanations for this shift. First, the Revolution was a
political conflict, and would call for more political terminology
than in the struggle with the Moderates in the General Assembly.
Second, Witherspoons audience is more political. In Scotland,
the majority of his published works were sermons. In America,
Witherspoon published few sermons, but many pamphlets,
newspaper articles, etc. It is not surprising that his style or
emphasis would change with his audience. Third, it may be that
Witherspoons political thought {252} underwent some change.
Virtue and liberty are more neutral, more Whiggish terms,
and it is possible that Witherspoon was caught in the political
ferment of the Revolution. Finally, the shift in terminology is
subtle enough, and Witherspoons published material is sparse
enough, that no sure conclusion can be drawn. To argue that this
linguistic shift is a paradigmatic theological movement, clearly
305
goes beyond the evidence.

The third question dealt with a major consideration of
whether Witherspoon espoused the sacred cause of liberty.414
Witherspoon was both a religious and a political figure. At one
point, in describing the Revolution and the colonists, he declared,
The cause is sacred, and the champions for it ought to be holy.415
To what extent, then, did Witherspoon advocate what Hatch has
called civil millennialism?
The first criterion of the sacred cause is the idea of a national
calling. Witherspoon did not expound a narrow nationalism. In
Scotland, he spoke with affection of other Reformed countries.
He lauded the Puritan experiment, as much while in Scotland as
in America. I have found no place where Witherspoon referred
to America as the chosen people of God. Even where he does see
promise in Americas future, it is not connected with any special
sense of calling. Nor did he think a nation was called because of
its civil liberty. People were called. And while Witherspoon felt a
greater attachment to Reformed countries where the leaders were
elect (and where, frequently, there would be greater freedom), he
saw no special country as the New Jerusalem.416
Another criterion is in the use of metaphors, where political
expressions came to characterize Christianity. Witherspoon
did use some political expressions, such as the freedom of
conscience, but they really were not used metaphorically. He
used metaphors less frequently than the Puritans, and there
is no evidence that he saw Scripture so typologically that he
incorporated Bible history into the American experience.417 He
made use of examples from the Scriptures and Church history to
show how people fought for liberty and how the Lord defended
them. But, they always remained examples. Witherspoon would
cite a passage or incident, explain the principle or teaching, and
then make application.418 He used these political expressions and
415. Ibid., 212.
416. See Witherspoon, Prayer for National Prosperity, 6263.
417. Bercovitch, American Jeremiad, 94.
418. Compare Witherspoons Prayer for National Prosperity, 5961, and
Dominion of Providence, 17879.
306
biblical examples consistently in Scotland and America. If they are

expressions of civil millennialism, then it applies to both careers;
and, in Witherspoons case, this civil millennialism could not
have been an indigenous American development.
A third criterion has to do with history becoming civic. There
{253} would be a tremendous emphasis on British liberties and
political tradition. Witherspoon did place great stress on British
constitutional rights, and emphasized the tradition of the
Covenanters and the Glorious Revolution. He did this in Scotland,
however, as well as in the colonies. If this was an element of the
sacred cause of liberty, it was well developed before Witherspoon
came to America.
With an increased emphasis on civic affairs, it was easy for civil
matters to become more important than spiritual pursuits, or at
least, for the two to become muddled. This was not a problem for
Witherspoon. Salvation was always his paramount concern. Even
in the most political sermons, he called people to evaluate their
eternal state. For, he pointed out, ones condition of freedom or
slavery for a few years is nothing compared to eternity.419
A question could be raised concerning the dwindling interest
in religious service during Witherspoons presidency at Princeton.
Witherspoon could be defended in a number of ways. It was an
era of civil involvement, and it is not surprising that students
would want to serve the new country. It is probably also true
that Witherspoon was more involved with political affairs than
when he was a pastor, and he may easily have been too involved
in politics. Yet his sermons witnessed a concern for salvation.
He took great pride in training ministers for service, and in the
number of his students serving in Presbytery. His biographers
took special note of the revival his efforts produced at Princeton.
It is a matter of concern that Princeton produced fewer ministers
under Witherspoon. Yet every indication is that he emphasized
the ministry. It might easily be that within earlier colonial society,
opportunities for public service, apart from the ministry, were
very limited. With so many new openings later, students could
now move into other areas of service. We should not, in any event,
hold Witherspoon responsible for the moving of the Spirit of God.
307
A fourth criterion is the reapplication of the past. Hatch believes

the patriots began to emphasize the motivations of freedom in
their forefathers, creating a hagiography of liberty. This charge
could be made against Witherspoon, perhaps justifiably. He
saw the Covenanters and Puritans, in both Old World and New,
fighting for religious freedom. But Witherspoon did not quickly
separate civil and religious freedom. Civil tyranny would result in
religious tyranny. There was no instance in history in which civil
liberty was lost, and religious liberty preserved entire. If therefore
we yield up our temporal property, we at the same {254} time deliver
the conscience into bondage.420 This emphasis on the forefathers
struggle for civil and religious freedom was characteristic of his
sermons in both Scotland and America.
Fifth, Americans saw sin and repentance in terms of political
corruption and liberty. Yankees urged repentance more from a
fear of tyranny than from the felt need to repent.421 Witherspoon
did feel that God was involved in the nations, and would judge
apostate and immoral nations. Sometimes judgment came from
tyranny or a foreign oppressor.422 One motivation for repentance
was to escape the coming fury. Yet Witherspoon was explicit, that
if our chief or only aim in asking for deliverance from outward
calamity, is that we may again recover the ease and quiet of
security...our homage is really given to a sensual idol.423
Finally, in the sacred cause of liberty, history became
apocalyptic, especially as a result of the French wars and British
oppression. A result is that America became seen, increasingly, as
the center of Gods redemptive plan. This was true of Witherspoons
Scottish career. He then viewed the French as the Antichrist. In a
sermon before the Society in Scotland for Propogating Christian
Knowledge, he tied the coming of the millennium to the work of
evangelizing the Indians in America424 The reference, however, is
very broad. In his American career, there is almost no apocalyptic
terminology, and none in connection with Americas destiny.
420.
421.
422.
423.
424.
Ibid., 203.
Hatch, Sacred Cause of Liberty, 81.
Witherspoon, Prayer for National Prosperity, 82.
Ibid., 63.
308
I did not find Witherspoon, then, pointedly advocating a civil

millennialism or the sacred cause of liberty. Where there are
traces of it, it is at least as characteristic of his Scottish ministry.
This is important, as the sacred cause was supposed to have been
a uniquely American phenomenon. Elements of it can be seen
in Witherspoons writings while still in Scotland, long before he
came to America. This is not meant to be a challenge to Hatchs
thesis, which is specifically limited to the New England clergy.
Witherspoon, and perhaps others in the middle colonies, were not
really advocates of the sacred cause of liberty.
The last, and most difficult question raised in the introduction of
this thesis is that concerning the roots of Witherspoons thought.
As already noted, he classified himself within an evangelical or
Reformed tradition. His doctrines were all orthodox. Though
people have challenged certain points of his theology, namely
anthropology and epistemology, those charges seem basically
unfounded. Even granted this, however, it still does not prove
that there was no Enlightenment influence in {255} Witherspoons
thought.
The Lectures in Moral Philosophy are usually cited as proof of an
Enlightenment element in Witherspoons thought. In it, various
philosophies are referred to, and rationalistic terms are used. It
may certainly be true that Witherspoon, without being aware of it,
was influenced extensively by secular thought.
This line of thought, however, completely ignores the purpose
and argument of the Lectures in Moral Philosophy. Witherspoon,
like most Calvinist theologians, acknowledged the validity of
natural revelation, and encouraged students to pursue it. He also
believed, still consistent with Reformed theology, that natural
revelation or reason cannot contradict revelation, and that
revelation can explain things above reason. Most importantly,
only revelation could lead to salvation in Christ. The purpose of
the Lectures in Moral Philosophy, furthermore, was apologetic in
nature. Moral philosophy was used to substantiate the truths of
Scripture, and to defeat the infidels on their own ground.
Witherspoon might have been influenced by the Enlightenment.
It is a tenuous argument, however, based mostly upon
circumstantial evidence. We are much safer in approaching
Witherspoon in the way in which he viewed himselfas one
309
standing firmly in a Reformed and covenanting tradition.

In conclusion, I think that Witherspoon was certainly part
of the covenanting tradition. He pictures himself in line with
the Christian men who worked together to secure religious and
civil freedoms. This element of Witherspoons thought has been
neglected.
It is also appropriate to understand Witherspoon from a
Whig context. His terminology, references to constitutional
principles and the Glorious Revolution, and overall view of man
and government are similar to eighteenth-century Whiggism.
The findings of this thesis strongly support Bailyns analysis that
the roots of the Revolution lie in the constitutional struggles of
seventeenth-century England.425
The major discovery, for me, had to do with Witherspoons
civil religion. I assumed that Witherspoon probably had, during
the heat of the Revolution, begun to stress civil liberties over the
gospel, or had at least confused the two. I found the opposite. Civil
and religious freedoms were tied together, but the two realms were
distinct. Even in the service of freedom, Witherspoon claimed that
salvation was the one thing truly needful. Adams called him a true
son of liberty.426 So he was. But first, he was a son of the cross. {256}
Appendices
Appendix 1. Sources
A major difficulty for this, and any study of Witherspoons
thought, is the limitation of available material. The largest body
of his works was brought out in four volumes as the The Works of
the Reverend John Witherspoon in 18041805. A slightly enlarged
edition was published by J. Ogle in nine volumes in 1815 in
Edinburgh. Aside from a few reprinted articles, there are few other
published materials available.
Most of the other primary materials were destroyed by
Witherspoon prior to his death, as he felt that they were unfit for
publication. Four other collections, comprising the remaining
425. Bailyn, Central Themes, 710.
426. Adams, Works of John Adams, 2:356.
310
Witherspoon papers, have been lost.427 The first collection was held
by Witherspoons son-in-law, and successor at Princeton, Samuel
Stanhope Smith. These were passed to his son, John Witherspoon
Smith, who carried them to Louisiana and oblivion. The second
set, two volumes of notes, sermon outlines, and memoranda, was
in the Princeton library until at least 1825, but has since vanished.
A third collection of sermon manuscripts disappeared with John
Blair Smith, Samuels brother. The fourth and most valuable
collection was compiled by Ashabel Green and formed the basis
of his biographical sketch of Witherspoon. Though this collection
of sermons, correspondence, and works of satire has been lost,
Greens biography has recently been published.428
Appendix 2. Approach to the Sources

Another major problem in the study of Witherspoon, is the
different types of work that he produced. A large part of his
extant works are specifically religious: sermons, and doctrinal and
devotional studies. Another segment of his work is more political
and polemic. It would include everything from pieces of satire
written in Scotland, to speeches and newspaper articles at the
time of the Revolution. The final segment of his work is technical
and more philosophical in nature, dealing with class lectures in
academic disciplines.
Past studies of Witherspoon have focused on the more technical
works, particularly the Lectures in Moral Philosophy. Gordon Talt
has argued that the Lectures are central to Witherspoons thought:
{257}
However, the key to understanding the revolutionizing process

may well lie in Witherspoons Lectures in Moral Philosophy, which
comprised the course on philosophy he offered to the students at
Princeton before and after the Revolution. Both James Nichols and
James McAllister have called attention to these Lectures, and urged
careful study of them.429
Henry May has further argued that Witherspoons greatest effect

428. Green, Life of Witherspoon.
429. Tait, John Witherspoon, 59.
311
on his students came about through his delivery, year after year in
unchanged form, of his Lectures in Moral Philosophy.430
This paper, however, mainly deals with the religious and polemical
writings of Witherspoon. There already has been ample discussion
of the major philosophical works, while a wealth of information
in the sermons and tracts has been untouched. In addition,
too great an emphasis may have been placed on the Lectures
in Moral Philosophy. It is important to note that Witherspoon
never published them, and that the editions we possess have
been compiled from students notes from Witherspoons syllabus.
Witherspoon was sensitive about the worthiness of those materials
he had chosen not to publish.431 It is also possible that the Lectures
were not representative of Witherspoons original thought, but
were simply the regurgitation of his old lecture notes. Furthermore,
Witherspoon noted that the study of moral philosophy in general,
and the Lectures in particular, were to be apologetic in nature;
to give confirmation to the truths of Scripture and to defeat the
infidels on their own ground.432 There is, of course, a question of
how serious Witherspoon was, or how far this could be extended.
It must be noted, however, that for Witherspoon, the study of
moral philosophy was supplemental, not foundational to his
thought. Finally, since the Lectures in Moral Philosophy were in a
more static form, unlike the sermons and polemical writings, they
cannot give an impression of Witherspoons response to special
circumstances.
Resolving philosophical and theological differences between
the different types of literature remains a problem. There are many
possible explanations in trying to understand Witherspoon, and
in trying to determine the best way of approaching his work.
First, it could be argued that there was no continuity in
Witherspoons thought and that a major shift occurred between
his careers in Scotland and America. Some, representing different
interpretations of Witherspoon, have argued this way. Mark Noll,
for instance, claims that a strange transformation took place
430. May, Enlightenment in America, 63.

431. App. 1, 148.
432. Chap. 4, 13335.
312
when Witherspoon crossed the Atlantic.433 {258}

Second, it could be argued that there was continuity between
Witherspoons political theology in Scotland and America. That
would leave a problem of explaining at least the methodological, if
not the essential differences in the different works. There could be
many ways of resolving this problem.
One approach would be to argue that the Enlightenment
approach of the Lectures in Moral Philosophy in representative of
Witherspoons true thought, and that the sermons are simply an
accommodation to the Christian worldview of his parishioners
and constituents. Nobody advances this view seriously, and it
would run contrary to the general estimation of Witherspoon as a
dedicated Evangelical, rather than a Moderate.
A second approach is to see Witherspoon as confused in his
theology, unconsciously mixing Enlightenment and Christian
motifs. James McAllister and Mark Noll pursue this line of
reasoning. McAllister comments:
One can hardly deny that there was some considerable confusion
in Witherspoons discussion of the state of society. The root of
the confusion lay in his discussion of the state of nature, i.e., in
his failure to identify the individual of the societal aspect of
mans nature as more fundamental .... He maintained both that
society is natural to a man and that it is an artificial creation for
utilitarian reason .... Indeed, one can hardly escape concluding
that Witherspoon was interested not so much in the state of nature
or society as such, but rather in using these myths to explain his
concept of civil government in such a way as to insure that the
rights of human beings were not being trespassed.434
McAllister explains this discrepancy by saying that Witherspoon
was more interested in action than reflection, and action was
what his situation demanded.435 He also argues that Witherspoon
was not very careful about his methods.
In his use of contract theology, Witherspoon was doing as he
commonly did, adopting rather uncritically a scheme of thought
that proved a useful vehicle for his cherished convictions about
434. McAllister, John Witherspoon, 204.
435. Ibid., 220.
313
civil liberties and human rights.436
Much of McAllisters criticism arises from a very perceptive

evaluation of Witherspoons treatment of Scripture. He shows that
in civil theory, Witherspoon doesnt always build upon the Bible.
Witherspoons concept of law and civil law particularly. Since
Witherspoon was of a rather {259} conservative theological bent and
play in his theory of civil law? His Lectures on Divinity repeatedly
illustrates his literalistic method of interpreting Scripture; but
their being particularly suited to conditions of the Jews in Canaan.
of lex talionis were founded upon so much wisdom, that it is a
question whether departure from them in punishing crime has ever
been attended with advantage. Therefore, the answer to the question
regarding the biblical contribution to Witherspoons teaching
about civil law and liberty is: almost nothing. We claim that his
theory of societal and civil law was based not on revelation but on
the moral sense enlightened by reason and common experience.
Although his theological method was based on a literalistic view of
the Scripture, he somewhat inconsistently explained away a large
part of the scriptural revelation which he had said must be merely
accepted without the believers presuming to be wise above what
is written.437
McAllister finally describes Witherspoon as one caught between
two opposing ideologies.
When one probes yet deeper into the prevailing character of
Witherspoons views he discovers a background conflict between
conservative theology and Enlightenment philosophy which the
Princeton professor never synthesized.438
Mark Noll uses McAllisters analysis to show how much
Witherspoon was rooted in the Scottish Enlightenment. He argues
that, rather than from grace and revelation, Witherspoon was
436. Ibid., 223.
437. Ibid., 21718.
438. Ibid., 222.
314
left to derive his politics from nature and from natural human
conscience.439 He issues a caution for contemporary Christians:
[M]odern Christians should recognize what the political thinking
of Witherspoon and like-minded Revolutionaries involved.
Witherspoon did not derive his politics from the Bible. He did not
think the Christian God had a special role to play in public life,
where the rule of nature prevailed. And he did not worry about
assuming an Enlightenment perspective on political matters.440
A final approach is to try to understand Witherspoon through
his sermons and polemical writings. It acknowledges that these
represent Witherspoons true thought, and that the Lectures are
an apologetic attempt to interact with contemporary philosophy.
Though much of the {260} thesis explores this question, this paper
will adopt the final option as a working hypothesis.
Appendix 3. Search And Ye Shall Find:

An Examination of Mark Nolls Witherspoon
The most recent contribution to the study of Witherspoon has
come from Wheaton professor Mark Noll. Witherspoon serves
as an interpretive model in two recent books, Christians in the
American Revolution and The Search for a Christian America, as
well as some popular articles. Nolls evaluation of Witherspoon
has become quite common in evangelical circles.
In Christians in the American Revolution, Professor Noll
identifies four Christian responses to the American Revolution.
The Patriotic Response was built upon the confluence of Whig
and Christian concepts.441 The patriots believed that God had
singularly blessed and would uniquely guide the American
colonies.442 They tended to be unreserved in their support of the
Revolution, and ostracized anyone who did not share their zeal.
The second approach, built more upon an Edwardsean
foundation, was the Reforming Response.443 They admired the
439.
440.
441.
442.
443.
Noll, Search for a Christian America, 90.

Ibid., 91.
Noll, Christians in the American Revolution, 5758, 76.
Ibid., 7677.
Ibid., 102.
315
colonial Puritans, and, like the Puritans, managed to separate civil

and religious concerns. Though they were faithful to the cause of
colonial patriotism, they did not allow that loyalty to displace
a more intense loyalty to the Christian faith as they understood
it.444 These reforming Christians were not blind in their allegiance
to the colonial cause, for they were able to apply searching
Christian criticism to the very movement which their fellow
religionists supported with so little reservation.445 The dividing
line, for Noll, is the question of slavery; the Reforming Christians,
while supporting the Revolution, also spoke out against the evil
institution.446
Third, Noll identifies a Loyalist Response. Many people felt ties
to England because of families, commerce, and religion.447 Some,
while also concerned about freedoms and rights, could not believe
that Parliament was exercizing such tyranny that slavery was
imminent.448 Others, from sincere Christian motivations, refused
to take up arms against the God-ordained ruler, or violate their
oaths of allegiance.449
Finally, there was the Pacifistic Response.450 Growing out of
Quaker {261} and Anabaptist circles, these Christians were hesitant
to take any oaths of allegiance, and refused to take up arms against
their brothers.
Mark Noll places Witherspoon in the Patriotic camp. He was
so involved in civil affairs, that fellow ministers began to criticize
his political zealousness.451 Princeton could even be called
Witherspoons seminary of sedition.452 He was so political, that
with the Dominion of Providence, for the first time a Presbyterian
444. Ibid.
445. Ibid., 80.
446. Ibid., 92102.
447. Ibid., 1034.
448. Ibid., 107.
449. Ibid., 11114.
450. Ibid., 12346.
451. Ibid., 65.
452. Leonard J. Kramer, Muskets in the Pulpit: Part II, Journal of the
Presbyterian Historical Society 32 (March 1954):42, quoted in Noll, Christians in
the American Revolution, 65.
316
of such stature used the pulpit openly to propagate such a partisan

point of view.453
Politically, Witherspoon was a Whig. Noting the contractarian
element of Witherspoons thought,454 Noll says the importance
of the covenant in Witherspoons thought predisposed him to see
sanctifying force in arguments from natural law. It also enabled
him to castigate British violations of colonial charters on religious
grounds.455 Throughout his thought during the Revolution, there
was a mixture of libertarianism and Christianity.456
Theologically, Witherspoon was conservative and orthodox,
though he didnt possess the revivalistic zeal or dogmatic rigor
of Edwardsean New Divinity.457 Though he had a high view of
the Bible, he was inclined to lay greater weight on the natural, as
opposed to the revealed, law of God.458 Throughout his thought,
there was an emphasis on the precepts of Scottish Realism....459
Professor Noll is correct in pointing to Witherspoons zeal for
the Revolution. His colleagues may have been right to criticize
Witherspoons activities. It probably isnt fair to charge Witherspoon
with creating a seminary of sedition. (This was an incidental
reference by Kramer, and not a main point.)460 Princeton was a
seedbed of revolutionary ideas by the time Witherspoon arrived
from Scotland. It is true that Witherspoon came out strongly for
a partisan cause in the Dominion of Providence. Yet, this was two
years after his first political tract, Thoughts on American Liberty,
and he is still apologetic about introducing civil affairs into the
pulpit.461 Furthermore, while in Scotland, Witherspoon had
preached about civil affairs, and had, from the pulpit, entered a
very partisan ecclesiastical debate.462 Witherspoon felt at liberty
453.
454.
455.
456.
457.
458.
459.
460.
461.
462.
Noll, Christians in the American Revolution, 67.

Ibid., 66.
Ibid.
Ibid., 6768.
Ibid. 66.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Kramer, Muskets in the Pulpit, 42.
Witherspoon, Prayer for National Prosperity, and Charge of Sedition.
317
to preach on political topics, however hesitant at first, because he

believe that God was at work in every sphere of society.
Professor Noll is also right to point to Witherspoons
orthodoxy.463 Witherspoon, as most men, did not have Edwardss
dogmatic or evangelistic gifts. Yet, as this paper has shown, there
was a tremendous salvation/revival concern within Witherspoons
sermons, even the most {262} political ones. Nolls contention that
Witherspoon leaned more on natural law is not correct.464
If one were to use Nolls categories, Witherspoon would fit much
better in the Reforming Response. Though he had supported the
Revolution strongly, he could see, at least in part, the sentiments of
the other side. Though thoroughly a patriot, Witherspoon always
gave first place to the gospel.
In The Search for a Christian America, Mark Noll continues his
commentary on the Revolution. He points to the Whig ideology
of the Revolution and wonders if it was really biblical.465 There was
such a mix of Whig and Christian ideas, that it is hard to tell where
Christian Whigs were bringing Scripture to bear on politics, or
where politics had robbed words of their Christian content while
retaining their religious force.466 The patriots could, for instance,
in the heat of the war, exchange the concepts of Christ/Antichrist
and liberty/oppression, thus making America the cause of Christ,
and Britain the seat of the Antichrist.467 Radicals also dipped into
the Enlightenment, especially for views on society and human
nature.468
Noll also offers a much bolder portrait of Witherspoon. He
claims that Witherspoon had an intellectual conversion in crossing
the Atlantic.469 In Scotland, Witherspoons sermons emphasized
saving grace and the testimony of the Scriptures. In America,
however, as professor of moral philosophy, Witherspoon began to
463. For an early examination of Witherspoons orthodoxy, see Lyman H.
Atwater, Witherspoons Theology, Biblical Repertory 35 (1863):596610.
464. Chap. 3, 8994; and chap. 4, 13137.
466. Ibid., 82.
467. Ibid., 84.
468. Ibid.
469. Ibid., 8889.
318
lay a foundation upon secular philosophy.

Witherspoons excessive support for the Revolution can be seen
in two vicious recantations, where Witherspoon put the most
demeaning words in the mouths of loyalists.470 lt was a case of
making the new American nation a supreme value in violation
of the Christians obligation to put first the Kingdom of God. He
allowed self-righteousness to triumph over charity.471
Concerning Witherspoons theology, Noll says that the most
alarming part was its frankly naturalistic basis ... lacking the
essential elements of a genuinely Christian approach to Christian
life.472 Noll contends that Witherspoons lectures on politics
and public statements in Congress nowhere expressed the
conviction that all humans ... were crippled by sin and needed
redemption.473 His politics seem to make him a spokesman for
the Enlightenment.474 Noll concludes that,
[H]e explicitly excluded the Bible from what we can learn about
the will of the Maker, at least as far as politics is concerned. In
fact, he began the {263} lectures from which this quotation comes
by affirming that they were an inquiry into the nature and grounds
of moral obligation by reason, as distinct from revelation. So
Witherspoon was left to derive his politics from nature and from
natural human conscience.475
Noll further asks, How large a role did the biblical revelation play
in his theory of civil law?476 He offers McAllisters answer: ...
almost nothing... his theory of society and civil laws was based not
on revelation but on the moral sense enlightened by reason and
experience.477
With this analysis of Witherspoons thought, Noll offers a
warning for contemporary Christians.
470.
471.
472.
473.
474.
475.
476.
477.
Ibid., 8990.
Ibid., 90.
Ibid., 90.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid., 91.
319
Witherspoon did not derive his politics from the Bible. He did not
think the Christian God had a specific role to play in public life,
where the rule of nature prevailed. And he did not worry about
assuming an Enlightenment perspective on political matters.478
According to Noll, we must examine history carefully, for even

in Witherspoon, the most self consciously evangelical of the
founding fathers, there is little effort... to ground politics in
specifically Christian propositions.479 Though Witherspoons
conclusions may have been more benign, says Noll, Witherspoons
approach ... was as humanistic as anything in the eighteenth
century Enlightenment, from which arose the secular humanism
of our own day.480
There are many problems with this approach to Witherspoon and
his theology. As this paper has already demonstrated, the message
of saving grace was an integral part of Witherspoons preaching.481
This is especially apparent in his major political sermons. In each
of these, there is an emphasis on human sinfulness as well. The
Dominion of Providence specifically addresses the problem of
human corruption and how the sovereignty of God overrides it.
Witherspoon, in particular, deals with the sins of the colonists,
for which reason British oppression came.482 It does not seem
problematic that there were few references to sin and salvation
in Witherspoons messages before Congress. They dealt, after all,
with political affairs. Even today, those citizens who would want
their representatives to vote from a Christian perspective, would
probably feel uncomfortable if they used Congress as a preaching
point. There is, furthermore, no evidence of Witherspoon using
apocalyptic imagery for the American conflict. And, far from
seeing God has having no role in political affairs, Witherspoon
could probably be criticized for seeing too much of Gods
involvement.
Professor Noll is correct to criticize Witherspoons Recantation.
It {264} was not necessary, and worse, not very creative. Yet to
478.
479.
480.
481.
482.
Ibid.
Ibid., 92.
Ibid., 93.
Chap. 4, 13031.
320
argue that this is an example of placing supreme value in the

American nation, and not seeking the Kingdom of God, is strong
language. A number of things should be kept in mind. First,
Witherspoon fancied himself, especially after the success of the
Ecclesiastical Characteristics, to be a satirist. It isnt surprising
that he would revert, albeit poorly, to this form of expression.
Second, Witherspoon himself was the object of cutting articles. In
The XLV Chapter of the Prophecies of Thomas the Rymer, in Verse,
published in Scotland in 1776, the preface is addressed to Dr.
Silverspoon, preacher of sedition in America; and included such
lines as Double, double, toil and troublemake our brazen pulpit
bubble.483 In The American Times, the Rev. Dr. Odell, an Anglican
minister, described Witherspoon in the following stanzas:
Ye priests of Bael
Mess mates of Jezebels luxurious mess,

Come in the splendour of pontific dress,
Haste to receive your chief in solemn state;
Haste to attend Witherspoon the great
Imprisoned Tores to convert or fight;

Whilst to myself Ive hummed in dismal tune,
Id rather be a dog than Witherspoon.484
While Noll doesnt suggest that this is a loyalist example of placing

supreme value in the British nation, it does demonstrate the type
of genre prevalent at the time. Third, while these writings seem
offensive to us, it may not have been so devastating to the thickskinned colonists. It should be noted that Caspipinas Catechism,
another needless attack on a loyalist, was never published by
Witherspoon, and wasnt printed until a hundred years after his
death.485 Fourth, the man accused was a traitor, not just a loyalist.
Towne had professed loyalty to the American cause, and had
solicited information from the members of Congress. When the
485. Ibid., 129.
321
British entered Philadelphia, he turned against the colonists.486

Finally, Witherspoon lost two sons in the war. Undoubtedly, he
should have had greater command of his passions, but what father,
perhaps wondering if his sons had lost their lives because of the
information a spy had delivered, would not be given to anger? The
Recantation was unnecessary, yet it was hardly a case of putting
supreme value in the American nation, {265} and forsaking the
Kingdom of God.
Noll might be correct in seeing Enlightenment influences
in Witherspoon. He was probably influenced by the Scottish
philosophers to some degree. As noted, in the American career,
there was a greater use of more Whiggish terms such as liberty.487
To claim, however, that Witherspoon built his theology upon
reason and not Scripture is wholly incorrect. This claim is built
upon the Lectures in Moral Philosophy, which had a specifically
apologetic function.488
One of the greatest problems with Nolls treatment of
Witherspoon is in the use, and misuse, of sources. Professor Nolls
Witherspoon is built from secondary sources. Primary references
to Witherspoon are virtually nonexistent. In other places,
quotations are taken out of context or are deceiving.
Much of Nolls interpretation is grounded in McAllisters article
on Witherspoon. Noll quoted him to the effect that,
[t}he answer to the question regarding the biblical contribution to
Witherspoons teaching about the law and liberty is: almost nothing
... his theory of society and civil laws was based not on revelation
but on the moral sense enlightened by reason and experience.489
Yet Noll does not explain the standard by which McAllister judged
Witherspoon. The full paragraph says:
Witherspoons concept of law and civil law particularly. Since
Witherspoon was of a rather conservative theological bent and
486.
487.
488.
489.
Witherspoon, Recantation of Benjamin Towne, in Works, 9:182.

Chap. 4, 12325, and Noll, Search for a Christian America, 8283.
Chap. 4, 13137.
Noll, Search for a Christian America, 91.
322
play in his theory of civil law? His Lectures on Divinity repeatedly

illustrates his literalistic method of interpreting Scripture; but
their being particularly suited to conditions of the Jews in Canaan.
of lex talionis were founded upon so much wisdom, that it is a
question whether departure from them in punishing crime has ever
been attended with advantage. Therefore, the answer to the question
regarding the biblical contribution to Witherspoons teaching
about civil law and liberty is: almost nothing. We claim that his
theory of societal and civil law was based not on revelation but on
the moral sense enlightened by reason and common experience.
Although his theological method was based on a literalistic view of
the Scripture, he somewhat inconsistently explained away a large
part of the scriptural revelation which he had said must be merely
accepted with {266} out the believers presuming to be wise above
what is written.490
McAllister starts by pointing to Witherspoons commitment

to Scripture. He figures that in reality, however, Witherspoon
didnt follow Scripture because he didnt adopt the Mosaic case
laws. McAllister has judged Witherspoon by a criterion that only
the most ardent theonomist could meet. If failure to accept the
total Mosaic law as a civil pattern makes one guilty of following
the Enlightenment, it must be noted that the Reformers and
most Christian theologians would fall into that camp. Without
explaining McAllisters position, Noll holds Witherspoon up to
a standard which few people, probably including Professor Noll,
could meet.
Heimerts Religion and the American Mind, is another example.
Noll is critical of those who were quick to exploit this work.491
Noll uses Heimert to show the shift toward the sacred cause of
liberty amongst the colonists, making it possible to express
secular purposes in religious terms ...492
In the years between the Stamp Act and the Revolution the
evangelical ministry often spoke in the phrases of Sam Adams
490. McAllister, John Witherspoon, 21718.
492. Ibid., 112.
323
who in 1772 explained that the religion and public liberty of a

people are so intimately connected, their interests are interwoven,
and cannot exist separately. Not the least of the consequences of
such a blending of interests and issues was the elements of the
Calvinist populace were allowed to think that they were defending
religion when in fact they were doing battle for civil liberties.493
He neglects, however, to cite the whole paragraph, which conveys

a different idea from the quotation used.
In the 1770s Calvinists, too, were concerned with their civil as well
as their religious freedoms.... And some, in fact, did battle for civil
liberties in order to gain freedom they would use for purposes
which, in the light of the Awakening, had seemed sinful pursuits.
Still, before 1775, Calvinist spokesmen insisted that the defense
of American liberty primarily involved the preservation of pure
and undefiled religion from the depravations of Europe. To arouse
the evangelical multitude, Sam Adams found it necessary to issue
periodic reminders that Americas chief danger was the utter loss of
those religious rights, the enjoyment of which our good forefathers
had more especially their intention, when they explored and
settled this new world. Meanwhile Calvinist preachers, discussing
the issues of the day, continued to assert of their ancestors that
their sole motive in transporting themselves to these then {267}
uncultivated lands, was that they might plant the Gospel there,
enjoy it freely while they lived, and transmit it to posterity.494
Heimerts point was that the major concern of the Calvinists

was the defense of religious freedom. He tied it the fear of the
episcopacy. He was not arguing that the colonists were blending
civil and religious concepts, nor advocating the sacred cause of
liberty.
Nolls reference to Witherspoons reliance on reason is another
example. A significant part of his case rests upon ideas from the
Lectures in Moral Philosophy. He states:
In fact, he began the lectures from which this quotation comes by
affirming that they were an inquiry into the nature and grounds of
moral obligation by reason, as distinct from revelation. And in the
493. Heimert, Religion and the American Mind, 359, quoted in Noll, Search for
a Christian America, 11213.
324
same lectures he criticized Cotton Mather for thinking that moral

philosophy, including politics, needed special insights from Gods
grace or his revelation. So Witherspoon was left to derive his
politics from nature and from natural human conscience.495
What Noll does not mention is that Witherspoon spent the next
four pages discussing the relationship of revelation and reason.496
It may be true that Witherspoon depended more on reason
than he realized, but from the Lectures in Moral Philosophy it
seems that, as in Scotland, reason is subordinate to Scripture. The
observations of reason might be an illumination and confirmation
of the inspired writings; ... which will greatly add to their beauty
and force.497 Since infidels use reason, the best way to meet them
is on their own ground, and to shew them from reason itself the
fallacy of their principles.498 The criticism of Mather is actually
more of a joke and an example. What Witherspoon said was:
An author of New England says, Moral Philosophy is just reducing
infidelity to a system. But however specious the objections, they
will be found at bottom not solid. If the Scripture is true; the
discoveries of reason cannot be contrary to it; ....499
To say that reason does not contradict Scripture is a long way
from saying that moral philosophy doesnt need revelation, as Noll
implies was Witherspoons position.
Mark Noll could also be criticized for making slavery the
dividing line between the Patriotic and Reforming responses.500
Given a twentieth-century vantage point, it is not hard to see the
evils of slavery. It is {268} commendable, as well, that Professor
Noll would wish to continue the tradition of Jonathon Blanchard.
But given the fact that slavery is permitted and regulated in the
Scriptures, absolute opposition to it might be more characteristic
497. Ibid., 10.
498. Ibid.
499. Ibid., 9.
500. Mark A. Noll, Observations on the Reconciliation of Politics and
Religion in Revolutionary New Jersey: The Case of Jacob Gree, Journal of
Presbyterian History 54 (Summer 1976):226, and Noll, Christians in the American
Revolution, 92102.
325
of a Whiggish, rather than a biblical, system. If slavery is used as

the shibboleth, Witherspoon, though no abolitionist, could still
be considered part of the Reforming Response in that he saw the
nature of slavery as morally indefensible.501
In closing, I should acknowledge my indebtedness to Mark Noll
for his many fine studies in colonial and revolutionary America.
I think his point in Christians in the American Revolution, that
there were many different Christian responses to the war, is
valuable. His concern in The Search for a Christian America that
Christians should not idolize any past period is also worthwhile.
The Witherspoon he presents in these studies, however, bears little
resemblance to the historical figure.
Bibliography
Primary Works
Annals of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland. 2 vols.
Edinburgh: John Johnstone, 18381840.
Records of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America,
17581788. Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Publication, 1841.
Witherspoon, John. Philosophical Disputation: Concerning the
Immortality of the Soul. Masters thesis, University of Edinburgh,
1739.
_________. Remarks on an Essay on Human Nature. Scots Magazine
15 (April 1753):16570.
_________. The Works of John Witherspoon, D.D. 9 vols. Edinburgh: J.
Ogle, 1815.
_________. The Works of the Rev. John Witherspoon. 4 vols.
Philadelphia: Woodward, 1804.
Secondary Sources
Anderson, Harrison Ray. John Witherspoon. Presbyterian Outlook,
October 13, 1975.
Atwater, Lyman H. Witherspoons Theology. Biblical Repertory 35
(1863):595610. Benson, Louis. What Did Witherspoon Say?
Journal of the Presbyterian Historical Society 12 (April 1927):38997.
Brackett, William Oliver. John Witherspoon, His Scottish Ministry.
326
Ph.D. diss., New College of Divinity, Edinburgh, 1948.{269}

Breed, William P. Witherspoon: Proceeding and Addresses. Philadelphia:
Presbyterian Board of Publication, 1877.
Butterfield, Lyman Henry. John Witherspoon Comes to America.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1953.
Critchon, Thomas. John Witherspoon. Edinburgh Christian Instructor
28 (October 1829).
Dodds, Harold W. John Witherspoon, 17231794. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press, 1944.
Drummond, A. L. Witherspoon of Gifford. Scottish Church Historical
Society 12 (1958).
Ketcham, Ralph. James Madison at Princeton. Princeton University
Library Chronicle 28 (Autumn 1966):2454.
Love, Mary. John Witherspoon in Scotland. Princeton Theological
Review 2 (1913).
McAllister, James L. Francis Allison and John Witherspoon: Political
Philosophers and Revolutionaries. Journal of Presbyterian History 54
(Spring 1976):3360.
________. John Witherspoon: An Academic Advocate for Religious
Freedom. In A Miscellany of American Christianity, edited by Stuart
C. Henry. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1963.
Montague, Mary Louise. John Witherspoon, Signer of the Declaration
of Independence; George Washgintons Closest Friend and Sponsor.
Washington, DC: McQueen, 1932.
Rich, George. John Witherspoon: His Scottish Intellectual
Background. Ph.D. diss., Syracuse University, 1964.
Rodgers, John. A Faithful Servant Rewarded. New York: Thomas
Greenleaf, 1795.
Stohlman, Martha Lou. John Witherspoon: Parson, Politician, Patriot.
Philadelphia: n.p., 1976.
Talt, L. Gordon. John Witherspoon; The Making of a Patriot. Ohio
Journal of Religious Studies 4 (October 1976):5463.
Weeks, Louis B. John Witherspoon: Presbyterian Revolutionary.
Presbyterian Survey 65 (November, 1975):9.
The Scottish Background

Aikman, James. Annals of the Persecution in Scotland. 2 vols.
Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Publication, n.d.
Annals of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland. 2 vols.
Edinburgh: John Johnstone, 18381840.
Bower, Alexander. The History of Edinburgh University. 3 vols.
327
Edinburgh: Oliphant, Waugh and Innes, 18171830.

Brown, Hume. History of Scotland. 3 vols. Cambridge: University Press,
1911.
Brown, Thomas. Church and State in Scotland. Edinburgh: McNiven and
Wallace, 1891.
Bryson, Gladys. Man and Society: The Scottish Inquiry of the 18th
Century. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1945.
Carlyle, Alexander. The Autobiography of the Re vols. Alexander Carlyle.
3rd ed. Edinburgh: Blackwood and Sons, 1861.
Cunningham, John. The Church History of Scotland. 2 vols. Edinburgh:
James Thin, 1882.
Daud, Charles Hendry. The Mighty Affair: How Scotland Lost Her
Parliament. Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd, 1972.
Donaldson, Gordon. Scotland: Church and State Thru Sixteen Centuries.
2nd ed. Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press, 1972.
________. Scotland: The Shaping of a Nation. North Pomfret, VT: David
and Charles, 1974.
Donaldson, Mary Ethel Muir. Scotlands Suppressed History. London: J.
Murray, 1935.
Drummond, Andrew Landale and James Bulloch. The Scottish Church,
16881843. Edinburgh: St. Andrews Press, 1973.
Drummond, R. J. Traditions of the Relief Church. Scottish Church
Historical Society 8, no. 1 (1942):4254.
Flinn, Richard. Samuel Rutherford and Puritan Political Theory.
Journal of Christian Reconstruction 5, no. 2 (Winter 197879): 4974.
{270}
Graham, Henry Gray. Scottish Men of Letters in the 18th Century.

London: Adam and Charles Black, 1901.
Grave, S. A. The Scottish Philosophy of Common Sense. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1960.
Grub, George. An Ecclesiastical History of Scotland. 4 vols. Edinburgh:
Edmonston and Douglas, 1861.
Haller, William. Liberty and Reformation in the Puritan Revolution. New
York: Columbia University Press, 1938.
________. The Rise of Puritanism. New York: Columbia University
Press, 1955.
Henderson, G. D. The Claims of the Church of Scotland. London:
Hodder and Stoughton, 1951.
Henderson, Henry F. The Religious Controversies of Scotland. Edinburgh:
T. and T. Clark, 1905.
MacLeod, John. Scottish Theology in Relation to Church History since the
Reformation. Edinburgh: n.p., 1943.
328
MacPherson, Hector. Scotlands Battle for Spiritual Independence.

London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1905.
MacPherson, John. A History of the Church in Scotland. Paisley,
Scotland: Alexander Gardener, 1901.
Mathieson, William Law. The Awakening of Scotland, 17471797.
Glasgow: Maclehose, 1910.
________. Church and Reform in Scotland, 17971843. Glasgow:
Maclehose, 1916.
________. Politics and Religion in Scotland, 15501695. 2 vols. Glasgow:
Maclehose, 1902.
________. Scotland and the Union, 16951747. Glasgow: Maclehose,
1905.
Moue, George L. The Struggle for Sovereignty in England. East Lansing:
Michigan State College Press, 1950.
Rae, T. J., ed. Union of 1707: Its Impact on Scotland. Glasgow: Blackie
and Son, 1974.
Rapheal, D. Daiches. The Moral Sense. London: Oxford University Press,
1947.
Riley, Patrick William Joseph. The Union of England and Scotland: A
Study of Anglo-Scottish Politics of the Eighteenth Century. Manchester:
University of Manchester Press, 1970.
Robbins, Caroline. The Eighteenth Century Commonwealthman.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University press, 1959.
Rutherford, Samuel. Lex, Rex. London: John Field, 1644. Reprint ed.,
Harrisonburg, VA: Sprinkle Pulications, 1982.
Segerstedt, Torgny T. The Problem of Knowledge in Scottish Philosophy.
Jund: C.W.K. Gleerup, 1935.
Seth, Andrew. Scottish Philsophy. London: Blackwood and Sons, 1899.
Story, Robert Herbert, ed. The Church of Scotland. 4 vols. London:
William McKenzie.
Tanner, J. R. English Constitutional Conflicts of the Seventeenth Century.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1948.
Walker, Norman L., ed. Religious Life in Scotland. London: T. Nelson
and Sons, 1888.
Watson, John. The Scot of the Eighteenth Century. London: Hodder and
Stoughton, 1901.
Watt, Hugh. Thomas Gillespie. Scottish Church Historical Society 15,
no. 1 (1964):89102.
329
Religion and the Revolution

Ahlstrom, Sydney. The Scottish Philosophy and American Theology.
Church History 24 (1955): 25772.
________. Theology in America. In The Shaping of American Religion,
edited by James Ward Smith and A. Leland Jamison. Princeton
Studies in American Civilization, no. 5. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
Albanese, Catherine. Sons of the Fathers: Civil Religion of the American
Revolution. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1976.
Alexander, Samuel D. Princeton College During the Eighteenth Century.
New York: n.p., 1872.
Andrews, Charles M. The Colonial Background of the American
Revolution. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1924.
Armstrong, Maurice W., et al., eds. The Presbyterian Enterprise: Sources
of American Presbyterian History. Philadelphia: Westminster Press,
1956.
Bailyn, Bernard. The Ideological Roots of the American Revolution.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1967. {271}
________. Religion and Revolution: Three Biographical Sketches.
Perspectives in American History 4 (1970):1124, 87110.
Bailyn, Bernard and John Cline. Englands Cultural Provinces: Scotland
and America. William and Mary Quarterly, 3rd ser., 11, no. 2 (April
1954): 200213.
Baird, Samuel J. History of the New School. Philadelphia: n.p., 1868.
Baldwin, Alice M. The New England Clergy and the American
Revolution. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1928.
________. Sowers of Sedition: The Political Theories of Some of the
New Light Clergy of Virginia and North Carolina. William and Mary
Quarterly, 3rd ser., 5 (January 1948): 5276.
Baron, Hans. Calvinistic Republicanism and Its Historic Roots. Church
History 8 (1939): 3042.
Beam, Christopher. Millennialism and American Nationalism, 1740
1800: Journal of Presbyterian History 54 (1976): 182199.
Becker, Carl. The Declaration of Independence. New York: Vintage
Books, 1942.
Bellah, Robert. The Revolution and Civil Religion. In Religion and
the American Revolution, edited by Jerald C. Brauer. Philadelphia:
Fortress Press, 1976.
Bercovitch, Sacvan. Horologicals to Chronometricals: The Rhetoric of
the Jeremiad. In Literary Monograms, vol. 3. edited by Eric Rothstein.
Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1970.
Brauer, Jerald C. Religion and the American Revolution. Philadelphia:
330
Fortress Press, 1976.

Breed, William Pratt. Presbyterians and the Revolution. Philadelphia:
Presbyterian Board of Publication, 1876.
Bridenbaugh, Carl. Mitre and Sceptre: Transatlantic Faiths, Ideas,
Personalities and Politics. New York: Oxford University Press, 1962.
________. The Spirit of 76: The Growth of American Patriotism before
Independence. New York: Oxford University Press, 1976.
Broderick, Francis L. Pulpit, Physics and Politics: The Curriculum of
the College of New Jersey, 17461794. William and Mary Quarterly,
3rd ser., 6 (1948): 4268.
Brock, William Ranulf. Scotus Americanus: A Survey of Sources
between Scotland and America in the Eighteenth Century. Edinburgh:
University of Edinburgh Press, 1982.
Buchanon, James. Puritan Philsophy of History from Restoration to
Revolution. Essex Institute Historical Collection 104 (1968):34245.
Burr, Nelson. Education in New Jersey, 16301871. Princeton, NJ:
Bushman, Richard L. From Puritan to Yankee: Character and the
Social Order in Connecticut, 16901765. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
Carroll, Peter N., ed. Religion and the Coming of the American
Revolution. Waltham, MA: Ginn-Blaisdell, 1970.
Cherry, Conrad, ed. Gods New Israel: Religious Interpretations of
American Destiny. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1971.
Cohen, Sheldon S. and Larry R. Gerlach. Princeton in the Coming of
the American Revolution. New Jersey History 92 (1974): 6992.
Coleson, Edward. The American Revolution: Typical or Unique?
Journal of Christian Reconstruction 3, no. 1 (Summer 1976): 17277.
Collins, Varnum Lansing. The Continental Congress at Princeton.
________. President Witherspoon. 2 vols. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press, 1925. Reprint ed., New York: Arno Press/New York
Times, 1969.
________. Princeton. New York: Oxford University Press, 1914.
Come, Donald. The Influence of Princeton on Higher Education.
William and Mary Quarterly, 3rd ser., 3, no. 3 (1945): 35996.
Constitution of the Presbyterian Church. Philadelphia: Alex Tower, 1834.
Corwin, Edward S. The Higher Law Background of American
Constitutional Law. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1961.
Cowing, Cedric B. The Great Awakening and the American Revolution:
Colonial Thought in the 18th Century. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1971.
{272}
331
Davidson, James W. Searching for the Millennium: Problems for the

1790s and the 1970s. New England Quarterly 45 (June 1972): 24161.
Davidson, Phillip. Propaganda and the American Revolution. Chapel
Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1941.
Davies, A. Mervyn. Foundation of American Freedom. New York:
Abingdon, 1955.
De Jong, Peter. The Covenant Idea in New England Theology: 16201847.
Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1945.
Dennis, William Cullen. Puritanism as a Basis for American
Conservatism. Modern Age 18 (Fall 1974): 40413.
Duffield, George. Doctrines of the New School Presbyterian Church.
Bibliotheca Sacra 20 (July 1863): 561635.
Eidelberg, Paul. The Philosophy of the Constitution: A Reinterpretation of
the Intentions of the Founding Fathers. New York: Collier-Macmillan,
1968.
Erdman, Charles R., Jr. The New Jersey Constitution of 1776. Princeton,
NJ: Princeton University Press, 1929.
Flinn, Richard. Samuel Rutherford and Puritan Political Theory.
Journal of Christian Reconstruction 5, no. 2 (Winter 197879): 4974.
Foote, W. H. Sketches of Virginia. Philadelphia: W. S. Martin, 1850.
Funk, Henry D. The Influence of the Presbyterian Church in Early
American History. Journal of Presbyterian History 2, no. 1 (April
1924): 2663; 3 (April 1925): 15289; 4 (October 1925): 193224; 5
(April 1926): 281316.
Geissler, Suzanne. Jonathon Edwards to Aaron Burr Jr.: From the Great
Awakening to Democratic Politics. New York: Edwin Mellen Press,
1981.
Gerlach, Larry. Revolution of Independence? New Jersey, 17601776.
Ph.D. diss., Rutgers University, 1968.
Gierke, Otto. Natural Law and the Theory of Society, 1500 to 1800.
Boston: Beacon Press, 1957.
Gillet, E. H. History of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of
America. 2 vols. Philadelphia: n.p., 1864.
Glasgow, Maude. The Scotch-Irish in Northern Ireland and the American
Colonies. New York: Putnams, 1936.
Goen, C.C. Revivalism and Seperatism in New England, 17401800. New
Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1942.
Green, Ashabel. Dr. Witherspoons Administration. Presbyterian
Magazine 4 (1954):467ff.
________. The Life of the Rev. John Witherspoon. Princeton, NJ:
Green, Jack P., ed. The Reappraisal of the American Revolution in
332
Recent Historical Literature. Washington, DC: American Historical

Association, 1967.
Guttridge, George Herbert. English Whiggism and the American
Revolution. University of California Publications in History, no. 28.
Berkeley: University of California Press, 1942. Reprint ed., New York:
AMS Press, 1979.
Hanna, Charles Augustus. The Scotch-Irish. New York: Putnams Sons,
1902.
Haroutunian, Joseph. Piety versus Moralism: The Passing of the New
England Theology. New York: Henry Holt, 1932.
Harris, R. W. Reason and Nature in the 18th Century. New York: Names
and Noble, 1969.
Hatch, Nathan. Origins of Civil Millennialism in America: New
England Clergymen, War with France, and the Revolution. William
and Mary Quarterly 31 (July 1974): 42830.
________. The Sacred Cause of Liberty: Republican Thought and
Millennialism in Revolutionary New England. New York: Charles
Scribners Sons, 1964.
Hays, George P. Presbyterians. New York: J.A. Hill, 1892.
Headley, Joel Tyler. The Chaplains and Clergy of the American
Revolution. New York: Scribner, 1864.
Hill, William. History of the Rise, Progress, Genius and Character of
American Presbyterianism. Washington: n.p., 1839.
Heimert, Alan. Religion and the American Mind: From the Great
Awakening to the Revolution. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press, 1966.
Hodge, Charles. A Constitutional History of the Presbyterian Church.
Philadelphia: n.p., 1851.
Hodgson, Francis. New School Theology. New York: n.p., 1939. {273}
Hood, Fred J. Presbyterianism and the New American Nation,
17831826: A Case Study of Religion and National Life. Ph.D. diss.,
Princeton University, 1968.
Howe, John R., Jr. The Changing Political Thought of John Adams.
Hudson, Winthrop. John Locke: Heir of Puritan Political Theorists.
In Calvinism and the Political Order, edited by George L. Hunt.
Philadelphia: Westminster, 1965.
________. Religion in America. 2nd ed. New York: Charles Scribners
Sons, 1973.
Humphrey, Edward Frank. Nationalism and Religion in America, 1774
1789. Boston: Chapman, 1924.
Hunt, George L. and John T. McNiell. Calvinism and the Political Order.
333
Philadelphia: Westminster, 1965.

Jameson, J. Franklin. The American Revolution Considered as a Social
Movement. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1926.
Johnson, T. C. A History of the Presbyterian Church in the United
States. American Church History Series, no. 2. New York: Christian
Literature Society, 1894.
Jones, Archie. The Christian Roots of the War for Independence.
Ketcham, Ralph. James Madison at Princeton. Princeton University
Library Chronicle 28 (Autumn 1966): 2454.
Kerr, Harry P. Politics and Religion in Colonial Fast and Thanksgiving
Day Sermons, 17631783. Quarterly Journal of Speech 46 (December
1960):37282.
________. The Election Sermon: Primer for Revolutionaries. Speech
Monograms 29 (March 1962): 1322.
Kirk, Russell. Roots of American Order. La Salle, IL: Open Court, 1974.
Knollenberg, Bernhard. Growth of the American Revolution. New
York:Free Press, 1974.
________. The Origin of the American Revolution, 17591766. New
York: n.p., 1960.
Koch, Adrienne. The American Enlightenment: The Shaping of the
American Experiment and a Free Society. New York: George Braziller,
1965.
Kramer, Leonard J. From Colony to Country: The Revolution in American
Thought, 17501820. New York: Macmillan, 1974.
________. Muskets in the Pulpit, 17761783. Journal of the
Presbyterian Historical Society 31 (December 1953): 22944; 32
(March 1954): 3751.
________. Presbyterians Approach the American Revolution. Journal
of the Presbyterian Historical Society 31 (June and September 1953):
7186, 16780.
Lawrence, Edward A. The Old School in New England Theology.
Bibliotheca Sacra 20 (April 1963): 31148.
Love, Mary. John Witherspoon in Scotland. Princeton Theological
Review 2 (1913).
Leyburn, James. Presbyterian Immigrants and the American
RevolutionJournal of Presbyterian History 54, no. 1 (Spring 1976):
932.
Loetscher, Lefferts. The Broadening Church. Philadelphia: University of
Pennsylvannia Press, 1954.
Lynd, Staughton. Intellectual Origins of American Radicalism. New York:
Vintage, 1969.
334
McAllister, James L. Francis Allison and John Witherspoon: Political

Philosophers and Revolutionaries. Journal of Presbyterian History 54
(Spring 1976): 3360.
________. John Witherspoon: An Academic Advocate for Religious
Freedom. In A Miscellany of American Christianity, edited by Stuart
C. Henry. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1963.
McCarthy, Rockne. Civil Religion in Early America. Fides et Historia
8, no. 1 (Fall 1975): 2040.
McCormick, Richard P. New Jersey from Colony to State, 16091789.
McCosh, James. The Scottish Philosophy: From Huteson to Hamilton.
New York: Robert Carter, 1875.
________. Witherspoon and His Times. Philadelphia: Presbyterian
Board of Publication, 1890.
McLean, J. History of the College of New Jersey. 2 vols. Philadelphia: J.B.
Lipponcott, 1877.
McLear, J. F. The Republic and the Millennium. In The Religion of the
Republic, edited by Elwin A. Smith. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1971.
{274}
McLaughlin, Andrew C. Foundations of American Constitutionalism.

New York: Fawcett, 1961.
McLoughlin, William G. The American Revolution as a Religious
Revival: The Millennium of One Century. New England Quarterly 40
(March 1967): 99110.
________. The Role of Religion in the Revolution: Liberty of
Conscience and Cultural Cohesion in the New Nation. In Essays on
the American Revolution. edited by Stephen G. Kurtz and James H.
Huston. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1973.
McNiell, John T. The Democratic Element of Calvins Thought. Church
History 18 (September 1949): 15371.
________. The History and Character of Calvinism. New York: Oxford
Maier, Pauline. From Resistance to Revolution: Colonial Radicals and
the Development of American Opposition to Britain, 17651776. New
York: n.p., 1963.
Marsden, George. The Evangelical Mind and the New School Presbyterian
Experience. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1970.
Marty, Martin E. Religion, Awakening and the Revolution. McGrath
Publishing, 1977.
May, Henry. The Enlightenment in America. New York: Oxford
Mead, Sydney. Christendom, Enlightenment and the Revolution. In
Religion in America, edited by Jerald C. Bauer. Philadelphia: Fortress
335
Press, 1976.
________. The Lively Experiment. New York: Harper and Row, 1963.
________. The Nation with the Soul of a Church. New York: Harper and
Row, 1975.
Meyer, Donald. The Democratic Enlightenment. New York: Putnam,
1976.
________. The Instructed Conscience: The Shaping of the American
Conscience. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1972.
Miller, Glen. Fashionable to Prophecy: Presbyterians, the Millenium
and the Revolution. Amerika Studien 21 (1976): 23960.
Miller, Howard. The Revolutionary College: American Presbyterian
Higher Education, 17071837. New York: New York University Press,
1976.
Miller, John C. Origins of the American Revolution. Boston: Little,
Brown and Co., 1943.
Miller, Perry. From Covenant to Revival. In The Shaping of American
Religion, edited by James Ward Smith and A. Leland Jamison.
Princeton Studies in American Civilization, no. 5. Princeton, NJ:
Minutes of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the United
States, 17791820. Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Publication,
n.d.
Moore, Frank. The Patriotic Preachers of the American Revolution. New
York: C.T. Evans, 1860.
Morais, H. M. Deism in 18th Century America. New York: n.p., 1934.
Morgan, Edmund S., ed. The American Revolution: Two Centuries of
Interpretation. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1965.
Morgan, Edmund. The Birth of the Republic. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1956.
________. The Puritan Ethic and the American Revolution. William
and Mary Quarterly, 3rd ser., 24 (January 1967): 343.
________. The Revolution as an Intellectual Movement. In Causes and
Consequences of the American Revolution, edited by Esmond Wright.
Chicago: Quadrangle Books, 1966.
Morse, Jedidiah. Annals of the American Revolution. Hartford, CT: n.p.,
1824.
Morrison, Samuel E. and Henry Steele Commager. The Growth of the
American Republic. 2 vols. 4th ed. New York: Oxford University Press,
1951.
Mulder, John M. and John Wilson, eds. Religion in American History:
Interpretive Essays. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1978.
Murdoch, Murray. 1776: Revolution or War for Independence?
336
Journal for Christian Reconstruction 3, no. 1 (Summer 1974): 7488.

Nettles, Curtis P. The Roots of American Civilization. New York: n.p.,
1834.
Nichols, James Hastings. Democracy and Churches. Philadelphia:
Westminster, 1951.
________. John Witherspoon on Church and State. In Calvinism and
the Political Order, edited by George Hunt. Philadelphia: Westminster,
1951.
Niebuhr, H. Richard. The Idea of Covenant and American Democracy.
Church History 23 (June 1954): 12635.
________. The Kingdom of God in America. Chicago: Willet and Clark,
1937. {275}
Noll, Mark A. Christian and Humanistic Values in 18th Century
America: A Bicentennial Review. Christian Scholars Review 6:23
(1976): 11426.
________. Christians in the American Revolution. New York: Christian
________. The Church and the American Revolution: Historical
Pitfalls, Problems, Progress. Fides et Historia 8, no. 1 (Fall 1975):
219.
________. The Founding of Princeton Seminary. Westminster
Theological Journal 42 (197980): 72110.
________. Observations on the Reconcilliation of Politics and Religion
in Revolutionary New Jersey. Journal of Presbyterian History 52, no.
2(Summer 1976): 21737.
North, Gary. The Declaration of Independence as a Conservative
Document Journal of Christian Reconstruction 3, no. 1 (Summer
1974):95115.
Nye, Russell B. This Almost Chosen People. East Lansing: Michigan State
Osgood, Herbert L. The American Colonies in the 18th Century. 4 vols.
New York: Columbia University Press, 1924.
Pears, Thomas C. Colonial Education amongst Presbyterians. Journal
of Presbyterian History 30 (September 1952): 165ff.
________. Presbyterianism and American Freedom. Journal of the
Presbyterian Historical Society 29 (June 1951): 5595.
Petersen, Richard J. Scottish Common Sense in America, 17681850:
An Evaluation of Its Influence. Ph.D. diss., American University,
1963.
Pocock, J.G.A. English Political Ideologies in the 18th Century.
William and Mary Quarterly, 3rd ser., 22 (1965): 54983.
Richardson, Lyon Norman. History of Early American Magazines, 1741
337
1789. New York: T. Nelson, 1931.

Robbins, Caroline. The Eighteenth Century Commonwealthman.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1959.
Robbins, John. The Political Philosophy of the Founding Fathers.
Rogers, Alan. Empire and Liberty: Resistance to British Authority, 1755
1763. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1974.
Rossiter, Clinton. The Political Thought of the American Revolution. New
York: Harcourt, Brace and World, 1963.
________. Seedtime of the Republic: The Origin of the American
Tradition of Political Liberty. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World,
1953.
Rushdoony, R. J. The Nature of the American System. Fairfax, VA:
Thoburn Press, 1978.
________. This Independent Republic. Fairfax, VA: Thoburn Press, 1978.
Sanderson, John. Biography of the Signers. 9 vols. Philadelphia: Pomeroy,
1824.
Shalhope, Robert. Toward a Republican Synthesis: The Emergence of
an Understanding of Republicanism in American Historiography.
William and Mary Quarterly 3rd ser., 29 (January 1972): 4980.
Sklar, Robert. The Great Awakening and Colonial Politics:
Connecticuts Revolution in the Minds of Men. Connecticut
Historical Society Bulletin 28 (July 1963): 8195.
Sloan, Douglas. The Scottish Enlightenment and American College Ideal.
New York: Columbia University, Teachers College Press, 1971.
Slosser, Gaius. They Seek a Country: The American Presbyterians. New
York: McMillan, 1955.
Smith, Elwyn Allen. The Presbyterian Ministry in American Culture: A
Study of Changing Concepts, 17001900. Philadelphia: Westminster,
1955.
Smith, James Ward and A. Leland Jamison, eds. The Shaping of
American Religion. Princeton
Studies in American Civilization, no 5. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
Smith, Samuel Stanhope. John Witherspoon, D.D. In Annals of the
American Pulpit, edited by William P. Sprague. New York: Carter and
Brothers, 1869. Reprint ed., New York: Arno Press, 1969.
Smylie, James H. American Clergymen and the Constitution of the
United States. Th.D. diss., Princeton Theological Seminary, 1954.
________. Introduction Journal of Presbyterian History 54 (Spring
1976).
________. Madison and Witherspoon. Princeton University Library
338
Chronicle 22 (Spring 1961): 11832.

________. Presbyterian Clergy and the Problems of Dominion in the
Revolutionary Generation. Journal of Presbyterian History 48 (Fall
1970): 16175.
________. Protestant Clergymen and American Destiny Harvard
Theological Review 56, no. 3 (July 1963): 21731.
Sprague, William B. Annals of the American Pulpit. 9 vols. New York:
Carter and Brothers, 1869. Reprint ed., New York: Arno Press, 1969.
Spurlin, Paul Merrill. Montesquieu in America, 17601801. Baton
Rouge: University of Louisianna Press, 1940.
Strout, Cushing. The New Heavens and the New Earth: Political Religion
in America. New York: Harper and Row, 1975.
Sweet, William Warren. The Story of Religion in America. New York:
Harper and Row, 1930. Reprint ed., Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1973.
Taylor, Moses Coit. The Literary History of the American Revolution,
17631783. 2 vols. N.p., 1893.
Thompson, Ernst. Presbyterians in the South, 16071861. 3 vols.
Richmond, VA: John Knox, 1963.
Thornton, John Wingate, ed. The Pulpit of the American Revolution.
Boston: Gould and Lincoln, 1860.
Trinterud, Leonard J. The Forming of an American Tradition: A Reexamination of Colonial Presbyterianism. Philadelphia: Westminster,
1949.
________. The New England Contribution to Colonial American
Presbyterianism. Church History 17 (March 1948).
Tuveson, Ernest Lee. Redeemer Nation: The Idea of Americas Millennial
Role. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1968.
Van Alstyne, Richard W. Genesis of American Nationalism. Waltham,
MA: Blaisdell Publishing, 1970.
Vander Stelt, John. Philosophy and Scripture: A Study of Old Princeton
and Westminster Theology. Marlton, NJ: Mack Publishing, 1978.
Van Tyne, Claude H. Influences of the Clergy and of Religious and
Sectarian Forces on the American Revolution. American Historical
Review 19 (October 1948): 4464.
Wallace, Paul. Princeton Sketches the Story of Nassau Hall. New York:
n.p., 1893.
Walsh, James J. Education of the Founding Fathers of the Republic. New
York: Fordham University Press, 1935.
Weis, Fredrick L. The Colonial Clergy of the Middle Colonies. Worchester,
MA: American Antiquarian Society, 1957.
Wertenbacher, Thomas Jefferson. The Founding of American Civilization:
The Middle Colonies. New York: Copper Square Publishers, 1963.
339
________. John Witherspoon (17231794): Father of American

Presidents, Maker of Statesmen. In The Lives of Eighteen From
Princeton, edited by Willard Thorp. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
________. Princeton, 17461896. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press, 1946.
White, Morton. The Philosophy of the American Revolution. New York:
Oxford University Press, 1978.
Willey, Basil. The Eighteenth Century Background. New York: Columbia
________. Religion of Nature. Folcroft, PA: Folcroft Library Editions,
1971.
Wills, Gary. Inventing America: Jeffersons Declaration of Independence.
Garden City, NY: Doubleday and Co., 1978.
Witte, Wayne W. John Witherspoon: Servant of Liberty; A Study in
Doctrinal History and Political Calvinism. Th.D. diss., Princeton
Theological Seminary, 1954.
Wood, Gordan. The Creation of the American Republic, 17761787. New
York: Norton, 1969.
________. Rhetoric and Reality in the American Revolution. William
and Mary Quarterly, 3rd ser., 23 (January 1966).
Woods, David Walker. John Witherspoon. New York: Revell, 1906.
Wright, Benjamin F., Jr. American Interpretations of Natural Law: A
Study in the History of Political Thought. New York: Russell and
Russell, 1931. {277}
Wright, Esmond, ed. Causes and Consequences of the American
Revolution. Chicago: Quadrangle Books, 1966.
Wright, Louis B. The Cultural Life of the American Colonies, 16071763.
New American Nation Series; Henry Steele Commager and Richard
Morris, eds. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1957.
Wyndam, Mark. The Historical Background to the Issue of Religious
Liberty in the Revolutionary Era. Journal of Christian Reconstruction
3, no. 1 (Summer 1976): 15271.
340
3.
BOOK REVIEWS
Book Reviews
341
Book Reviews
Harold Lindsell: The New Paganism.
San Francisco, CA: Harper & Row, 1987. 279 pp. $16.95, hardcover.
Reviewed by Randall E. Otto

John Warwick Montgomery, presently Dean of the Simon
Greenleaf School of Law in California, introduces Lindsell in
the foreword as a journalist (editor of Christianity Today in its
halcyon days) and as a theological controversialist (The Battle for
the Bible). But, says Montgomery, Lindsell is first and foremost a
scholar-historian (he received a Ph.D. in history from New York
University) and presently chairs the M.A. program in apologetics
at the Greenleaf School.
Lindsells thesis in this book is that the Christian churchs
contribution to Western civilization has now been lost to the New
Paganism, that alien Zeitgeist and Weltanschauung which operates
in direct opposition to Christianity. This New Paganism arrived
on the scene in the Enlightenment and continues to receive its
impetus from that movement. The Enlightenment has issued in
a new post-Christian age in the West. More than anyone else,
evangelicals in America have signally failed to understand and
appreciate what the Enlightenment has accomplished in its midst
(xiii). With the controlling elements of American culture in pagan
hands, evangelicals need to be shown the pressing needs for the
defense of the Christian faith and for a Christian assault on the
strongholds of paganism. {291}
After providing a brief delineation of the basic tenets of the
Christian faith, Lindsell briefly discusses Christianitys victory
over paganism following Pentecost. This victory he attributes
to evangelism. He repudiates the Constantinian mandate as
unscriptural and proceeds to sketch the doctrinal developments
of Catholicism.
The Reformation broke the Roman pattern against religious
freedom. Lindsell gives three or four paragraphs to each of the
major Reformers in his survey of the Reformation. He concludes
342
that the freedom of inquiry ushered in by the Reformation had

implications for the Enlightenment dissent.
Lindsell next surveys the writers of antiquity who were
revivified in the Renaissance. He then devotes several paragraphs
to each of the major figures of the Enlightenment. Enlightenment
rationalism brought about the fall of the church. Enlightenment
criticism continues into this century in Dewey, Hartshorne, and
others. This has resulted in evolutionary and relativistic thought
pervading all of culture, including education, morals, theology, et
al.
By the time the reader has reached this point in Lindsells book,
he is well over half done and encountered virtually nothing incisive
or insightful. Lindsell has provided only the most basic elements
of each thinker involved and has done little to show underlying
philosophical currents at work. His work on the Enlightenment
draws almost completely upon Peter Gay (The Enlightenment: An
Interpretation, 2 vols., 1977) and Encyclopaedia Britannica. This
lack of any serious original work or analysis seriously jeopardizes
Montgomerys assertion that Lindsells book is the first balanced
treatment of how our society became secularized.
The shallow treatment just mentioned only worsens in
Lindsells chapter on Karl Barth. One gets the impression that the
underlying agenda of Lindsells book is to answer Bernard Ramms
admonition to evangelicalism to follow after Barth in his After
Fundamentalism: The Future of Evangelical Theology, published
by Harper & Row in 1983. There Ramm had spoken against the
obscurantism of fundamentalism, challenging fundamentalism to
come to grips with the acknowledged results of the Enlightenment.
It seems that Lindsells historical survey has led up to this chapter,
the longest in his book, dealing with the problem posed by
Ramm, Karl Barth, a Via Media? Lindsell applies two tests to
Barths position: (1) Is Barth orthodox, or is he off base and not
to be regarded as a reliable exponent of historical theological {292}
orthodoxy? (173), and (2) Since Barth, as Ramm agrees, bought
into the Enlightenment methodology, that is, its empiricism as a
principle for gaining knowledge, is it essential for evangelicalism/
fundamentalism to do so in order to be saved from obscurantism?
(173).
As to the first question, Lindsell, of course, repudiates Barth
Book Reviews
343
as orthodox. Barths belief that the Bible contains errors, Lindsell

says, violates the Bibles claim to be free from all error and flies in
the face of the pre-Enlightenment church confessions of Calvin,
Luther, and others. Since Lindsell offers nothing other than bald
affirmation for these statements, however, it is not likely that he
will convince anyone who challenges the first assumption with a
different conception of revelation (as Barth, who claimed to take
his position from Scripture) or anyone who is conversant with the
Rogers-McKin thesis regarding the history of inerrancy.
Lindsell fares no better in his page and a half discussion of Barths
view of the resurrection. He simply cites Carl Henrys famous
question about whether news reporters could have photographed
the occurrence and Barths negative reply as evidence that Barth
did not believe in the resurrection as orthodoxy does. This is a
manifestly pitiful treatment of so complex and vital an area of
theology. No treatment of Barths position on the resurrection
is satisfactory unless it deals with his Geschichte-Historie usage.
However one interprets that problem, it seems clear that Barth
had every intention of affirming an orthodox position, for he
says the resurrection did not take place in a heavenly or supraheavenly realm, or as part of an intra-divine moment or a divine
conversation, but before the gates of Jerusalem in the days of
Tiberius Caesar and therefore in the place and time which are also
ours, in our sphere (Church Dogmatics 4/3, 298).
Lindsell also caricatures Barth on the matter of the sinlessness
of Christ. Lindsell infers from the vulnerability of Scripture that
the Word of God incarnate was also vulnerable and in fact sinned.
This is said despite Barths clear affirmation that Jesus was sinless
(cf. Church Dogmatics 4/1, 216, 258).
In his entire treatment of Barths views on these important
issues, Lindsell quotes from Barth precisely once, instead relying
again upon secondary and popular literature to substantiate
his charges. This is just the kind of scholarship that has given
fundamentalism a bad name.
Under the heading Barths Enlightenment Methodology,
Lindsell lists atheism, agnosticism, empiricism, scientism,
naturalism, materialism, {293} rationalism, evolution, deism,
humanism, and logical positivism as concurrent with or derivative
of the Enlightenment, apparently implicating Barth. Again in a
344
cursory fashion, Lindsell describes each philosophical position,

but fails to show how they relate to Barth.
Lindsells attempted apologetic becomes very clear at this
point. He sounds very much like Norman Geisler when he says
that atheism has nothing to offer in this life or the next and that
Christianity has more attractive answers (187). Agnosticism is also
not desirable. Empiricism is useful, providing its limitations are
understood. If empiricists will accept the metaphysical, there can
be peace and progress (190). The presupposition of scientism that
excludes metaphysics cannot be proved empirically (190). No
one can be a good scientist and deny the supernatural, unless he
is himself God. And whoever claims there can be no supernatural
has entered the field of metaphysics and abandoned the field of
science or the empirical. No scientist has a right to do this; it is
inconsistent (19192). Lindsell is himself inconsistent here, for
he asks the empiricist to accept the metaphysical and yet says that
empiricists cannot falsify such a proposition lest he leave his own
domain of science. But consistency is not the issue here. The issue
is a viable apologetic.
Lindsells emphasis on empiricism has already been shown. He
says regarding evolution that it, too, cannot be proven empirically
(194). In spite of this emphasis, Lindsell wants to say that all
science is false, since it works by induction. He quotes extensively
here from Gordon H. Clarks Philosophy of Science and Belief in
God. He supposes himself to be chiding Barth when he says that
scientific methodology can never demonstrate that Christianity is
true (202), as if Barth ever thought it could. Barths entire theology
was built upon the idea that revelation was not a predicate of
history. But Lindsell does not know Barth; he only criticizes him.
Lindsell thinks that apologetics should start from above. This
is appreciable. It is ironic, however, that Lindsell proceeds to fall
right into the hole wherein he thought to find Barth. There are,
he says, evidences that demand of us a verdict. Because of these
evidences, there is more reason to accept the first presupposition
(to start from above) than there is evidence for accepting any
other presupposition contrary to that one (211). For Lindsell,
it seems, each man must choose his presuppositions according
to their verifiability. They must be scientifically demonstrated
Lindsell is right back in empiricism. How can {294} Lindsell show
Book Reviews
345
that Marxism is wrong if it is true to its presuppositions? (193).

Lindsells position has much in common with Francis Schaeffer
and the verificationalist camp of E. J. Carnell. Lindsell talks about
presuppositions, but these must be tested and verified. If one can
satisfy this requirement, the logical outworking of this starting
point will, for Lindsell, assure him of the truth of his position.
Logic is something that can be used by friend and foe alike.
When the laws of logic are applied, those who entertain Christian
convictions have nothing to fear (231). Lindsell does not seem to
realize, as Calvin, Kuyper, and Van Til have strongly maintained,
the extent of the noetic effects of sin. Presuppositions are not
things to be tested; they are rather innate and ultimate ethicoepistemological bases for all predication. Sin affects all man sees
and thinks so that he cannot see and think clearly, but rather in
rebellion to God. Both evidence and logic will fail if the natural
man is not challenged as to his innate knowledge of God, which he
suppresses in willful rebellion against God.
One must always appreciate any attempt to defend orthodox
Christianity. But that appreciation must always be qualified by
the value of the attempt. Lindsells attempt is of little value, for
it employs a faulty apologetic methodology and is shallow in its
analysis. Mans problem is not the Enlightenment. It is rather his
sinful nature, whereby he places himself on a par with God in the
interpretation of reality in building upon the borrowed capital of
Christian theism.
346

[Proverbs 29:18]
Chalcedon (kalSEEdon) is a Christian educational organization
devoted exclusively to research, publishing, and cogent communication of
a distinctly Christian scholarship to the world at large. It makes available
a variety of services and programs, all geared to the needs of interested
laymen who understand the propositions that Jesus Christ speaks to
the mind as well as the heart, and that His claims extend beyond the
narrow confines of the various institutional churches. We exist in order
to support the efforts of all orthodox denominations and churches.
Chalcedon derives its name from the great ecclesiastical Council
of Chalcedon (AD 451), which produced the crucial Christological
definition: Therefore, following the holy Fathers, we all with one accord
teach men to acknowledge one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ,
at once complete in Godhead and complete in manhood, truly God and
truly man.... This formula challenges directly every false claim of divinity
by any human institution: state, church, cult, school, or human assembly.
Christ alone is both God and man, the unique link between heaven
and earth. All human power is therefore derivative; Christ alone can
announce that All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth (Matt.
28:18). Historically, the Chalcedonian creed is therefore the foundation of
Western liberty, for it sets limits on all authoritarian human institutions
by acknowledging the validity of the claims of the One who is the source
of true human freedom (Gal. 5:1).
Christians have generally given up two crucial features of theology that in
the past led to the creation of what we know as Western civilization. They
no longer have any real optimism concerning the possibility of an earthly
victory of Christian principles and Christian institutions, and they have
also abandoned the means of such a victory in external human affairs: a
distinctly biblical concept of law. The testimony of the Bible and Western
history should be clear: when Gods people have been confident about
the ultimate earthly success of their religion and committed socially to
Gods revealed system of external law, they have been victorious. When
either aspect of their faith has declined, they have lost ground. Without
optimism, they lose their zeal to exercise dominion over Gods creation
(Gen. 1:28); without revealed law, they are left without guidance and drift
347
along with the standards of their day.

Once Christians invented the university; now they retreat into little Bible
colleges or sports factories. Once they built hospitals throughout Europe
and America; now the civil governments have taken them over. Once
Christians were inspired by Onward, Christian Soldiers; now they see
themselves as poor wayfaring strangers with joy, joy, joy down in their
hearts only on Sundays and perhaps Wednesday evenings. They are, in
a word, pathetic. Unquestionably, they have become culturally impotent.
Chalcedon is committed to the idea of Christian reconstruction. It is
premised on the belief that ideas have consequences. It takes seriously
the words of Professor F. A. Hayek: It may well be true that we as
scholars tend to overestimate the influence which we can exercise on
contemporary affairs. But I doubt whether it is possible to overestimate
the influence which ideas have in the long run. If Christians are to
reconquer lost ground in preparation for ultimate victory (Isa. 2:6566),
they must rediscover their intellectual heritage. They must come to grips
with the Bibles warning and its promise: Where there is no vision, the
people perish: but he that keepeth the law, happy is he (Prov. 29:18).
Chalcedons resources are being used to remind Christians of this basic
truth: what men believe makes a difference. Therefore, men should not
believe lies, for it is the truth that sets them free (John 8:32).
Finis
348
349

JCR Vol. 12 No. 01: Symposium On The Constitution and Political Theology

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

JCR Vol. 12 No. 01: Symposium On The Constitution and Political Theology

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Volume 12

Journal of Christian Reconstruction / Vol. 12.1

The Journal of Christian Reconstruction

The Journal of Christian

Journal of Christian Reconstruction / Vol. 12.1

The United States Constitution

The Legend of the Constitution

2. POLITICAL THEOLOGY AND ACTION

Federalism and Republican Government

Historical Reality of the Christian Cultural Consensus in

Theopolitics: Theological Grounds of Political Action

Biblical Law as the Foundation for Constitutional SelfGovernment

God, Caesar, and the Constitution

The Ministry of Chalcedon

Journal of Christian Reconstruction / Vol. 12.1

Introduction: The Constitution of Society

In 1865, Southern congressman and political thinker Alexander

Journal of Christian Reconstruction / Vol. 12.1

Introduction: The Constitution of Society

Journal of Christian Reconstruction / Vol. 12.1

parchment but about the meaning of those words. This is probably

Introduction: The Constitution of Society

Constitution and enforce extraconstitutional values and norms,

Dreisbach goes on to note that intentionalists counter their

people accepted through their representatives in state ratifying

There are many difficulties with both the interpretivist and

Journal of Christian Reconstruction / Vol. 12.1

leaves troublesome questions if ones approach is to consider

Introduction: The Constitution of Society

the Christian credentials of the founders. There can be no doubt

Journal of Christian Reconstruction / Vol. 12.1

century, called the Constitution our Ark of the Covenant,

Introduction: The Constitution of Society

lacks stability or character.13

Mob rule has never produced justice, as the French Revolution,

Today in America, the public opinion poll has become a fourth

Journal of Christian Reconstruction / Vol. 12.1

including the public ownership of utilities, businesses, and other

Introduction: The Constitution of Society

The eternal revelation of Gods will for mankind therefore

16. R. J. Rushdoony, Freedom Under God, in Comments in Brief, (Vallecito,

Journal of Christian Reconstruction / Vol. 12.1

or human rule instead of law, instead of true freedom under God.18

For any constitution to have validity and viability, then, it must

Introduction: The Constitution of Society

gets to the heart of the constitutional issue when he observes,

Journal of Christian Reconstruction / Vol. 12.1

were to a significant degree expressly derived from the influence

Introduction: The Constitution of Society

Finally, we are pleased to include as a highlight of this

Journal of Christian Reconstruction / Vol. 12.1

Scotland. During the Moderate-Popular controversy, Witherspoon,

Introduction: The Constitution of Society

Even in emphasizing liberty, however, he emphatically pointed out

Journal of Christian Reconstruction / Vol. 12.1

The United States

1 . The Constitution and Its Problems

The United States Constitution

Journal of Christian Reconstruction / Vol. 12.1

enumerated in clause 17.2

The United States Constitution

substantive morality, but it does reflect a procedural morality. For

Journal of Christian Reconstruction / Vol. 12.1

The Constitution is not a mechanism which guarantees us justice

The United States Constitution

are concerned, without a massive transfusion of Christian blood.8