1995 issue 8 - the causes of the war of independence part 3, the spiritual issues part 2 - counsel...
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/12/2019 1995 Issue 8 - The Causes of the War of Independence Part 3, The Spiritual Issues Part 2 - Counsel of Chalcedon
1/4
THE CAVSES OF
THE
WAR
OF
INDEPENDENCE 1I1l
THE
SPIRITVAL ISSVES
1
The Absolute
Sovereignty of God
Ciod alone possesses absolute
authority over all
areas
of
life
and
for the
king or parliament
to claim such authority is
tyranny and blasphemy. To
acquiesce to a
tyrannical usurpa-
tion of
God's prerogatives
would be to deny Christ and
His
absolute
Lordship over all
things
.
To
lend
legitimacy
to
ungodly
usurpation
by co
operating with it or by our
silence
condoning
it
is
to
deny
the iod who
rules
over
us.
The political
slogans of Calvin
ism were
The crown
rights
of
King
Jesus
and
Ciod
alone has
dominion. The Dutch theolo-
gian and political leader,
Abraham
Kuyper
describes the
influe
nce
of this doctrine of the
sovereignty of
Ciod
over the
political
views
of a people:
the Calvinistic confes-
sion
of
the
Sovereignty of Ciod
holds good
for
aU the world,
is
true for aU nations, and
is
of
force in aU authority which man
ex
ercises ov
er
man .
It is
therefore a political faith which
may be
summarily expressed in
these three
theses:
1. Ciod only
- and never any creature -
is
posse
ssed
of
sovereign
rights, in
the destiny
of
nations, because
Ciod
alone
cre.
ated
them, main
tains them by His Almighty
power, and rules them by His
ordinances. 2.
Sin has, in the
realm
of politics
,
broken
down
the direct govemment of Ciod,
and therefore the exercise of
authority, for the purpose
of
government.
has
subsequently
been invested in
men
,
as
a
mechanical
remedy.
And 3.
In
whatever form this authority
may reveal itself, man never
possesses power over
his
fellow
man in any other way than by
the authority which descends
upon him
from
the majesty of
God.
Calvinism protests against
State-omnipotence, against the
honible
conception
that no right
exists
above
and beyond
exist-
ing
laws,
and against
the pride
of
absolutism,
which
recognizes
not
constitutional
rights,
except
as
the
result
of princely
favor
. (j.e.,
freedom
and rights are
not grants from
the
king
, but
gifts
from God]
Calvinism is to
be praised
f
or
having built a .
dam across this
absolutistic
stream, not by appealing to
popular force,
nor to the halluci
nation
of
human
greatness,
but
by
dedUcing those rights and
liberties of social life from the
same
source from
which the
high
authority
of
government
flows
-
even
the absolute
sovereignty
of
Ciod.
[quoted
by
Archie Jones, op. cit., pp.
20
,21)
The acknowledgment of
Ciod
's sovereignty
is
central to
the preservation of liberty. s
William Penn said,
If
men will
not be governed by Ciod they
must
be
governed by tyrants.
2. The Total (Radical
Depravity of Man
Man
does
not have a basi
cally good nature but a sinful
nature.
AI human authority
must be limited not only be
cause Ciod alone
is
absolutely
sovereign, but also because man
is
sinful
and cannot be trusted.
This
view was held
in some
September, 1995 THE COUNSEL ofChalcedon
11
-
8/12/2019 1995 Issue 8 - The Causes of the War of Independence Part 3, The Spiritual Issues Part 2 - Counsel of Chalcedon
2/4
degree by all the founding
fathers, Jefferson included: Free
government is founded on
jealousy, not in confidence; it
is
jealousy and not confidence
which prescribes limited consti-
tutions, to bind those we are
obliged
to
trust with power.
In
questions of power,
let
no more
be heard of
confidence
in man
but bind him down from
rnischief by the
chains
of the
constitution.
John Adams
concurred:
EvelY rnan hates to have a
superior, but no man is willing
to
have an equal; every man
desires to be superior to all
others
We
may
look
as wise
and moralize as gravely as we
will, we may call this desire of
distinction childish and
silly,
but we cannot alter
the
nature
ofrnen
Even Samuel Adams, gener
ally viewed as among the more
theologically radical of the
founders makes this statement:
the depravity of mankind that
arnbition and lust of power
above the law are predomi-
nant passions in the breasts of
most men. (all the above are
quoted by John
Robbins, op.
cit.,
p. 53
This reality demanded a
separation of powers.
Listen
to
James Madison:
But the
great
security against a gradual
concentration of the several
powers in the same department
consists in giving to those who
administer each department the
necessalY constitutional means
and personal motives
to
resist
encroachments of the others . . .
Ambition must be made
to
counteract ambition
It may
be a reflection on human nature
that such devices should be
necessary to
control
the abuses
of government.
But
what
is
government itself but the
greatest of all
reflections on
human nature
If
mi n were
angels, no govemment would
be
necessalY. If
angels were
to
govern men, neither extemal
nor internal controls on govem
ment would be necessary. In
framing
a govemment which
is
to be administered by men over
men, the great difficulty
lies
in
this: you must first enable the
government
to
control the
governed, and in the next place
oblige it
to control
itself. (The
Federalist, no. 51)
Benjamin Rush in his Ob
servations on the (jovernment
of Pennsylvania puts
it
this
way, Absolute power should
never be trusted to man.
(quoted
by Robbins,
op.
cit" p. 55) This
view of human nature was
formative
in the founding of
this
Republic.
Lord
Bryce, in his
The American Commonwealth
observes : Someone has
said
that the American government
and Constitution are based
on
the theology of Calvin and the
philosophy of Hobbes.
This
at
least is true, that there is a
hearty Puritanism in
the
view
of human nature which
per
vades 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 . The
aim of the Constitution seems
12 THE COUNSEL
of
Chalcedon September, 1995
to
be not so much
to
attain great
common ends by securing a
good
government as
to aver
the
evils which will flow, not
merely from a bad government,
but
from
any government
strong enough to threaten the
pre-eXisting communities of the
individual citizen. (quoted by E
L Hebden Taylor, The Rock
from Which America Was
Hewn, The Journal of Christian
Reconstruction,
vol. III, Sum
mer, 1976, no. 1, p.181)
The doctrines of
the
sover
eignty of (jod and the depravity
of man led to
some
very impor
tant conclusions, as Archie
Jones points
out: Because
(jod
is sovereign over all things, His
law, given to man in Scripture,
is universally valid and binding
on man, and on man's institu-
tions.
Thus, there can be no
divinization of the community,
as in
the (jreek polis, to justify
total control of
the
life of
the
individual in
the
name of
the
common
good
. Nor
is
there the
Platonic notion, poorlyapproxi-
mated in modem messianic
ideologies,
of justice as the
subjection of all things to the
will of that mythical being, the
wise man. Uones,
op.
cit., p. 21)
3. This led to a revival
of Covenantalism
This idea as
set forth by the
Puritans maintained: a. The
King
is under the authority of
the Law of (jod, and
b.
The
people were subject to the
legitimate authority of the
King.
They
followed
Calvin, The
Lord
therefore
, is
the King
of
Kings, who, when he has
-
8/12/2019 1995 Issue 8 - The Causes of the War of Independence Part 3, The Spiritual Issues Part 2 - Counsel of Chalcedon
3/4
opened his sacred mouth, must
alone
be
heard,
before
all
and
above all men; next to
him
we
are
subject
to those men who
are
in
authority
over us,
but
only in
him.
If
they command
anything against
him,
let it go
unesteemed.
(Institutes of
the
Christian
Religion,
Book
IV,
sec.
32)
These in tum led to a
third
point: c.
a
just
govem
ment
is
founded on a compact
between
ruler(s)
and
in
1766,
was
made without
our
consent.
The Declaratory Act
was
passed by Parliament at the
time
of
the
repeal of
the
Stamp
Act to verify their belief that the
King and Parliament
had
full
power and authority to
make
laws and statutes of sufficient
force and validity
to
bind the
colonists in
aU
cases what
soever.
one statute it is
declared,
that
parliament can of right
make
laws to bind us in all cases
whatsoever. What is to defend
us against so enormous,
so
unlimited a powerl Not a
single man of
those
who as
sume it, is chosen
by us;
or is
subject
to
our
control or influ
ence;
but,
on the contrary, they
are
all
of
them exempt
from
the
operation of such laws, and an
people,
under
divine
law. Any act
contrary
to the constitution
is
illegal, and
so
null and
void. No one
is
bound
to
obey
an
unconstitutional act,
so
there is
a right to
resist
encroachments of
These
truths
solidified
the conviction
th t
tyr nny
h d to be
resisted
wherever
it
w s
found.
American revenue, if
not diverted from the
ostensible purposes for
which
it
is raised,
would actually lighten
their own burdens in
proportion,
as
they
increase ours. We
saw the misery to
which such despotism
would
reduce us.
We
for ten years inces-
one s rights
to
life,
liberty, and the fruits
of
one s
labor Uones, op.
cit.,
p. 36)
These truths solidified the
conviction that tyranny had to
be resisted wherever it was
found.
The colonists defended
their actions against
England as
a defense against tyrannical
usurpation on the part of the
King and Parliament. John
Adams wrote, By what law
did
the
English
Parliament
claim
sovereignly over
Americal By the law of Cjod
in the Old and New Testa
ment,
it has none; by the law of
nature and
nations,
it
has none;
by
the
common
law
of England,
it has
none,
for
the common
law and the authority
of
Parlia
ment founded on it never
extended beyond the settlement
of the colonies
for
this purpose;
and the Declaratory Act, made
Adams went on
to
say that
Cjreat Britain could subordinate
the colonies to Parliament only
by the law of
brickbats
and
cannon balls, which can be
answered only by brickbats and
balls. (quoted by Cjary North,
The
Declaration
of Indepen
dence
s
a Conservative
Document, The Joumal of
Christian Reconstruction, voL
III, Summer, 1976, no. 1, p.
103)
One important
source
which
is
often
overlooked is
the
Dec
laration
of
the
Causes
and
Necessity
ofTaking Vp Arms
which was approved by the
Continental Congress
on
July 6,
1775. Here, the same
argu
ments are set forth:
But why should
we
enumer
ate
our
injuries in detaill By
santly and ineffectually be
sieged the throne as supplicants;
we
reasoned,
we remonstrated
with parliament,
in
the most
mild and decent language. But
administration sensible that we
should regard
these
oppressive
measures
as
freemen
ought
to
do,
sent
over fleets
and armies
to enforce
them. The indigna
tion
of
the Americans was
roused, it is true, but it was the
indignation
of
a virtuous,
loyaL
and affectionate people We
have pursued every temperate,
every
respectful measure:
we
have even proceeded to break
off our commercial intercourse
with our fellow-subjects, as the
last peaceable admonition, that
our attachment to no nation
upon earth should supplant our
attachment to liberty. -This
September, 1995
l
THE COUNSEL
of Chalcedon t 13
-
8/12/2019 1995 Issue 8 - The Causes of the War of Independence Part 3, The Spiritual Issues Part 2 - Counsel of Chalcedon
4/4
we flattered
ourselves,
was the
ultimate
step of
the contro
versy:
but subsequent
events
have
shewn, how
vain
was
this hope of finding moderation
in
our
enemies. . .
The
colonists
had no
desire
to
separate
from
the
Empire:
Lest
this declaration would
disquiet the minds
of
our
friends
and fellow-subjects
in
any part
of
the
empire,
we
assure
them that we mean
not
to dissolve that union which
has so
long and
so happily
subsisted
between us, and
which we
sincerely wish to see
restored.-Necessity
has
not
yet
driven
us
into that
desper
ate
measure, or induced us to
excite
any other nation
to
war
against
them. We have not
raised armies with ambitious
designs of separating
from
Oreat-Britain, and
establishing
independent states. We fight
not
for
glory
or for conquest.
We exhibit
to
mankind
the
remarkable spectacle of
a
people
attacked by
unprovoked
enemies,
without any imputa
tion or
even
suspicion of
offence
. . .
In our own native land
in
defense of
the
freedom
that
is
our birth-right, and which we
eyer enjoyed
till
the late
violation
of
it
-
for
the
protec
c
tion
of OUT property,
acquired
solely by the honest industry of
our fore-fathers and
ourselves,
against violence actually
offered,
we
have taken up
arms.
We shall
lay
them
down when hostilities
shall
.
cease on the
part
of the aggres
sors,
and
all danger of
their
being renewed shall be
re
moved, and
not before.
The colonists
were
as
opposed
to
tyranny
in ecclesias
tical
matters
as
they
were
in
political. One of the factors
which
contributed to colonial
distrust of England, was the
fear
that the
King
and Parlia
ment
might seek to establish
the
Church
of
England in
this
nation. There had
been a
strong desire for bishops among
.
Episcopalians
in
this
country.
It
was
stressed
that
these
bishops
would
perform strictly
adminis
trative functions
but
few
believed it. The
people
feared
the Anglican establishment
would
only serve as
another
oppressive
instrument
in the
hands
of Parliament.
John Adams warned
against
this possibility, if Parliament
can
erect
dioceses
and appoint
bishops, they may introduce
the whole
hierarchy, establish
tithes,
forbid
marriages and
funerals,
establish religions,
forbid dissenters, make schism
heresy, impose
penalties ex
tending to life
and
limb
as
well
as
to liberty
and
property.
quoted
in
Adams,
Yankee
Doodle
Went
to
Church,
p.
101)
Jonathan Mayhew, a
congregationalist minister in
Massachusetts
spoke
and wrote
against the
possibility
of
Angli
can bishops being
appOinted
for
14 f THE COUNSEL
of
Chalcedon September; 1995
America. His pamphlets had a
tremendous influence
as
John
Adams
notes:
t
[Mayhew s
warning] spread a
universal
alarm against
the
authority
of
Parliamen.
.
It
excited
a
general
and
a just apprehension, that
bishops,
and
dioceses,
and
churches,
arid priests,
and
tithes, were to be imposed on
us by Parliament. It
was
known that neither king, nor
ministry,
nor archbishops,
could
appoint
bishops
in
America,
without an
act of
Parliament,
and if Parliament
could tax us
, they
could estab
lish the
Church
of England,
with
all its
creeds, articles,
tests
,
ceremonies,
and
tithes,
and
prohibit all other churches
,
.. quoted
by Murray
Rothbard,
Conceived In Lib-
erty, vol.
p.
7)
Without
the revival
ofthe
theology of the Puritans,
there
would
have
been
no
War
of
Independence.
Perry
Miller
has noted,
a
pure
rationalism
might
have declared the inde
pendence of the American
people
, but
it could never have
inspired them
to fight
for
it.
quoted
by
Jones, op. cit., p. 19)
But
this
faith
empowered
them to stand against
a
seem
ingly unconquerable
foe
with
out
fear
.
This
faith
alone
can
insure liberty.
a