1995 issue 8 - the causes of the war of independence part 3, the spiritual issues part 2 - counsel...

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


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


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


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

1995 issue 8 - the causes of the war of independence part 3, the spiritual issues part 2 - counsel...

Documents