Calvin's Academy in Virginia?

The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. -- Inscribed on the library of the Academy of Geneva

Although Thomas Jefferson's hatred of John Calvin and Calvin's God is well-known,* it is less well-known that he once viewed with great favor a proposal put forward by François D'Ivernois (1757-1842) to transplant Calvin's Academy from Geneva to Northern Virginia. A 1794 attempt by revolutionaries to overthrow Geneva's government which targeted the faculty and ministers with imprisonment led D'Ivernois to reach out to American contacts later that year, including both Jefferson and John Adams, to negotiate for the school's relocation to the States. The plan fell apart due to a return to the status quo in Geneva as well as a lack of support from the Virginia legislature, which never voted on the proposal but conveyed in back channels to Wilson Nicholas, a confidante and go-between of Jefferson, its reasons, which in turn Jefferson reported to D'Ivernois.

In a letter to D'Ivernois dated February 6, 1795, Jefferson wrote:

Your proposition, however, for transplanting the college of Geneva to my own country, was too analogous to all my attachments to science, & freedom, the first-born daughter of science, not to excite a lively interest in my mind, and the essays which were necessary to try it's practicability.

He then listed the reasons for the lack of support from the Virginia legislature:

The reasons which they thought would with certainty prevail against it, were 1. that our youth, not familiarized but with their mother tongue, were not prepared to receive instructions in any other; 2d. that the expence of the institution would excite uneasiness in their constituents, & endanger it's permanence; & 3. that it's extent was disproportioned to the narrow state of the population with us.

George Washington later wrote to Jefferson (March 15, 1795) about the matter and listed further reasons for the lack of support:

Hence you will perceive that I have, in a degree, anticipated your proposition. I was restrained from going the whole length of the suggestion, by the following considerations: 1st, I did not know to what extent, or when any plan would be so matured for the establishment of an University, as would enable any assurance to be given to the application of Mr. D'Ivernois. 2d, the propriety of transplanting the Professors in a body, might be questioned for several reasons; among others, because they might not be all good characters; nor all sufficiently acquainted with our language; and again, having been at variance with the levelling party of their own country, the measure might be considered as an aristocratical movement by more than those who, without any just cause that I have been able to discover, are continually sounding the alarm bell of aristocracy. and 3d, because it might preclude some of the first Professors in other countries from a participation; among whom some of the most celebrated characters in Scotland, in this line, I am told might be obtained.

It was not Reformed orthodoxy that appealed to Jefferson; the Genevan Academy by that time had forsaken theological orthodoxy for "enlightenment" and devoted itself to the pursuit of science instead. There was no plan to establish a bastion of Calvinism in Virginia, but Jefferson did earnestly desire to build public education in the young United States, and just as he appreciated Calvin's political theories of resistance, he appreciated the Academy of Calvin as it existed in 1795, if not 1559. He went on to establish the University of Virginia in Charlottesville some years later, which was ahead of its time in banning the teaching of theology altogether.**

As a Virginian, I hope that one day a home-grown institution along the lines of Calvin's vision more than Jefferson's will be planted "over the river and under the shade of the trees."

*Jefferson letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823:

I can never join Calvin in addressing his God. He was indeed an Atheist, which I can never be; or rather his religion was Daemonism. If ever man worshipped a false god, he did. The being described in his 5. points is not the God whom you and I acknowledge and adore; but a daemon of malignant spirit. It would be more pardonable to believe in no God at all than to blaspheme by the atrocious attributes of Calvin.

Jefferson letter to William Short, April 13, 1820:

The Presbyterian clergy are the loudest, the most intolerant of all sects; the most tyrannical and ambitious, ready at the word of the law-giver, if such a word could now be obtained, to put their torch to the pile, and to rekindle in this virgin hemisphere the flame in which their oracle, Calvin, consumed the poor Servetus, because he could not find in his Euclid the proposition which has demonstrated that three are one, and one is three, nor subscribe to the proposition of Calvin, that magistrates have a right to exterminate all heretics to the Calvinistic creed. They pant to re-establish by law that holy inquisition which they can now only infuse into public opinion.

**Jefferson letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, October 7, 1814:

I agree with yours of the 22d, that a professorship of Theology should have no place in our institution.

Jefferson letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, November 2, 1822:

The atmosphere of our country is unquestionably charged with a threatening cloud of fanaticism, lighter in some parts, denser in others, but too heavy in all. I had no idea, however, that in Pennsylvania, the cradle of toleration and freedom of religion, it could have arisen to the height you describe. This must be owing to the growth of Presbyterianism. The blasphemy of the five points of Calvin, and the impossibility of defending them, render their advocates impatient of reasoning, irritable, and prone to denunciation....

In our university you know there is no Professorship of Divinity. A handle has been made of this, to disseminate an idea that this is an institution, not merely of no religion, but against all religion. Occasion was taken at the last meeting of the Visitors, to bring forward an idea that might silence this calumny, which weighed on the minds of some honest friends to the institution. In our annual report to the legislature, after stating the constitutional reasons against a public establishment of any religious instruction, we suggest the expediency of encouraging the different religious sects to establish, each for itself, a professorship of their own tenets, on the confines of the university, so near as that their students may attend the lectures there, and have the free use of our library, and every other accommodation we can give them; preserving, however, their independence of us and of each other. This fills the chasm objected to ours, as a defect in an institution professing to give instruction in all useful sciences. I think the invitation will be accepted, by some sects from candid intentions, and by others from jealousy and rivalship. And by bringing the sects together, and mixing them with the mass of other students, we shall soften their asperities, liberalize and neutralize their prejudices, and make the general religion a religion of peace, reason, and morality.

Treaty of Tripoli

Piracy is an age-old scourge which has re-asserted itself in the 21st century. In the late 18th century, the young United States of America found itself in conflict with pirates on the Barbary Coast of the Mediterranean from the Muslim states of (what is now) Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia and Libya. These pirates were also slave traders who sold Christians into slavery with particular relish. Under George Washington's administration, U.S. Consul-General to the Barbary States Joel Barlow was designated to negotiate a series of peace treaties. One of them, the 1796-1797 Treaty of Tripoli (Tripoli, Libya) stands out for its notorious Article 11.

Article 11 of the English translation of the document reads:

ARTICLE 11.

As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,-and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

This article has been the source of much discussion as to the views of America's Founding Fathers concerning whether America was founded constitutionally as a Christian nation. Several points must be noted:

1) The English translation of the document by Joel Barlow varies considerably from the wording of the Arabic original. There is some question as to whether Article 11 in fact exists in the Arabic original at all.

2) A copy of the treaty bearing George Washington's signature is clearly a fraud, since it was negotiated during his administration but not ratified and signed until John Adams was in office.

3) Gary DeMar points out that treaties involving the United States and Great Britain were signed in 1783 and 1822 which refer to a Trinitarian God in the preface, which would indicate some measure of profession of Christianity by our nation.

4) The 1796-1797 Treaty of Tripoli was read aloud to the U.S. Senate prior to a recorded vote which was unanimous in its approval and ratification of the document -- in its form as an English translation, the third such unanimous recorded vote by Congress in American history.

5) The 1796-1797 Treaty of Tripoli was broken by continued pirate attacks, and had to be renegotiated under Thomas Jefferson's administration; the 1805 Treaty of Tripoli omits the aforementioned language that America "is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion," it does include the following statement:

ARTICLE 14^th

As the Government of the United States of America, has in itself no character of enmity against the Laws, Religion or Tranquility of Musselmen, and as the said States never have entered into any voluntary war or act of hostility against any Mahometan Nation, except in the defence of their just rights to freely navigate the High Seas: It is declared by the contracting parties that no pretext arising from Religious Opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the Harmony existing between the two Nations; And the Consuls and Agents of both Nations respectively, shall have liberty to exercise his Religion in his own house; all slaves of the same Religion shall not be Impeded in going to said Consuls house at hours of Prayer.

What can be said about these facts? John Eidsmoe has an appendix on the subject in Christianity and the Constitution: The Faith of Our Founding Fathers, pp. 413-415, and he also addresses the issue in response to William Edgar argument for National Confessionalism in Gary Scott Smith, ed., God and Politics: Four Views of the Reformation of Civil Government (Theonomy, Principled Pluralism, Christian America, National Confessionalism), p. 226. He considers Edgar's reference to this treaty to be "grasp[ing] at straws in order to debunk America's Christian heritage." David Barton in Original Intent: The Courts, the Constitution and Religion, pp. 126-130, and Gary DeMar in America's Christian History, pp. 131-144, are equally dismissive of the relevance of this treaty.

DeMar's theory is that to the extent Article 11 is worth addressing it may reflect an effort to smooth over the negotiation process by alleviating fears that America would engage in a Crusade against the Dey of Tripoli.

A survey of the state constitutions, charterse, national pronouncements, and official declarations of the thirteen state governments would convince any representative from Tripoli that America was a Christian nation by law. The American consul in Algiers, Joel Barlow, had to construct a treaty that would assure the Dey of Tripoli that troops would not be used to impose Christianity on a Muslim people.
...
Tripoli may have feared a crusade-like invasion from the American navy. (Muslims well remembered the Crusades and the expulsion of Muslims from Grenada by Ferdinand and Isabella.) America was not founded as a Christian nation in the same way that Libya was founded as a Muslim nation. "Christianity was not an American state religion and therefore the United States government bore no official hostility toward Mohammadanism." The Dey of Tripoli had to be convinced that America would not impose its Christianity on the Muslim people by force. "Could it have been that in Article 11, America was assuring Tripoli and all of the Barbary states that the United States did not have a state church system and would therefore not attack Tripoli for religious reasons of forced conversion?" This seems to be the best explanation of the phrase found in Article 11 of the Treaty (ibid, pp. 137-138).

There is a significant problem with this theory, however; if Article 11 exists only in the English translation and not in the Arabic, one wonders how it would serve to reassure the Dey of Tripoli of anything.

The concession by DeMar that America is not a Christian nation in the official sense of that term is consistent with U.S. Supreme Court Justice David Brewer's proclamation in the case of Holy Trinity Church v. United States (1892) that (after listing a series of references and allusions to Christianity in official U.S. documents) "these and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation." (See also David J. Brewer, The United States: A Christian Nation, with an introduction by Gary DeMar.) It is also consistent with the understanding of Article 11 that the United States is in fact, as it plainly states, "not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; [and] it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen." America, it is admitted by "Christian America" proponents is not constitutionally and officially Christian; to be described as Christian, one must reach for a volume of unofficial utterances to substantiate that conclusion. If this be granted, then let it be granted also that the 1796-1797 Treaty of Tripoli simply affirms this too, that America is officially not a Christian nation, and as such has no official enmity grounded in religion with Muslim nations.

The heart of the matter is how one understands a nation to be "Christian." Brewer, for example, makes all sorts of acknowledgments that America is not Christian as understood in the conventional sense of the word, yet concludes that it is in some way actually Christian.

But in what sense can it be called a Christian nation? Not in the sense that Christianity is the established religion or that the people are in any manner compelled to support it....Neither is it Christian in the sense that all its citizens are either in fact or in name Christian. On the contrary, all religions have free scope within our borders. Numbers of our people profess other religions, and many reject all. Nor is it Christian in the sense that a profession of Christianity is a condition of holding office or otherwise engaging in the public service, or essential to recognition either politically or socially. In fact, the government as a legal organization is independent of all religions.

Nevertheless, we constantly speak of this republic as a Christian nation -- in fact, as the leading Christian nation of the world. (ibid, pp. 13-14).

What follows is a catalogue of references to Christianity in the colonial history of the United States and allusions to Christianity in connection with its birth as a nation through the Declaration of Independence and Constitution which are increasingly obscure as the effort to prove that the "Sundays excepted" within the constitutional requirements for legislation to become statutory law helps demonstrate somehow that America is a Christian nation shows (ibid, pp. 13-30).

To return to the Treaty of Tripoli specifically, the historical record of this treaty's negotiations and translation, it is to be admitted, is murky, and clouded unnecessarily by George Washington's alleged signature, but the fact remains -- a fact not addressed head-on by Eidsmoe or DeMar or Barton -- regardless of what the original Arabic document said, it was the English translation that was read aloud (it is a relatively short document), and unanimously approved and ratified, which included Article 11 as we see it here today. In fact, upon signing the treaty in 1797, John Adams issued the following statement:

Now be it known, That I John Adams, President of the United States of America, having seen and considered the said Treaty do, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, accept, ratify, and confirm the same, and every clause and article thereof. And to the End that the said Treaty may be observed and performed with good Faith on the part of the United States, I have ordered the premises to be made public; And I do hereby enjoin and require all persons bearing office civil or military within the United States, and all other citizens or inhabitants thereof, faithfully to observe and fulfill the said Treaty and every clause and article thereof.

So, again, what inferences can we draw from all of this? Clearly, it is the English translation of the treaty that must be reckoned with, and it was approved two branches of the United States government without any dissent being recorded, only full approbation. The faith of George Washington and John Adams and Joel Barlow aside (I will aim, Lord willing to address Washington and Adams' religious views in the future on this blog), William Edgar well notes the following:

This treaty clause does not by itself prove that the Founding Fathers had adopted a clearly defined secularist philosophy of government. It does show, though, that the first leaders of our country were ready to exploit the Constitution's silence regarding Christianity to smooth the way to peace with a Muslim state.

In our day, for reasons of political expediency we have forged alliances with Pakistan, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, and so many others such nations, and even helped to rebuild Iraq as a Muslim nation constitutionally speaking. We have even recently resumed normal diplomatic relations with Libya following the state-sponsored bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 in 1988. There is nothing in our national charter to prohibit this, nothing to hold us back from aligning ourselves with those nations who have raged, conspired and taken counsel against the Lord and his anointed (Ps. 2.1-3). But ought we to bind ourselves to aid the ungodly, as Jehoshaphat joined in affinity with Ahab (2 Chron. 18.1)? How much greater by far would it be for America to take the path of wisdom and kiss the Son (Ps. 2.12)? "This is the great duty of the Christian religion; it is that which is required of all, even kings and judges, and it is our wisdom and interest to do it" (Matthew Henry). It is a duty not only of individual persons to confess Christ as King, but also magistrates in their official capacity, and nations, which are political and moral bodies of persons who are subject to the King, to confess with a kiss their allegiance to Him. A nation that is truly Christian is, or ought to be, at enmity with nations that openly fight against God and not to seek peace with such at the expense of kissing the Son. Huguenot minister Matthieu de Larroque (1619-1684), quoted by Rene Voeltzel, Vraie et Fausse Eglise en les theologiens protestants francais du dix-septieme siecle:

It is much more advantageous for the Christian to be sometimes at war with man in order to have peace with God than to always be at peace with man and thus be continually at war with God.

Rebellion to Tyrants is Obedience to God (Part 3)

This is a continuation in a study of sources upon which the U.S. Declaration of Independence was drawn from, extracted for consideration as the Fourth of July commemorations draw near.

* July 26, 1581 - The Act of Abjuration, or Dutch Declaration of Independence, was signed, whereby the Dutch Low Countries declared their independence from Spain (read it online here).

As it is apparent to all that a prince is constituted by God to be ruler of a people, to defend them from oppression and violence as the shepherd his sheep; and whereas God did not create the people slaves to their prince, to obey his commands, whether right or wrong, but rather the prince for the sake of the subjects (without which he could be no prince), to govern them according to equity, to love and support them as a father his children or a shepherd his flock, and even at the hazard of life to defend and preserve them. And when he does not behave thus, but, on the contrary, oppresses them, seeking opportunities to infringe their ancient customs and privileges, exacting from them slavish compliance, then he is no longer a prince, but a tyrant, and the subjects are to consider him in no other view. And particularly when this is done deliberately, unauthorized by the states, they may not only disallow his authority, but legally proceed to the choice of another prince for their defense. This is the only method left for subjects whose humble petitions and remonstrances could never soften their prince or dissuade him from his tyrannical proceedings; and this is what the law of nature dictates for the defense of liberty, which we ought to transmit to posterity, even at the hazard of our lives. And this we have seen done frequently in several countries upon the like occasion, whereof there are notorious instances, and more justifiable in our land, which has been always governed according to their ancient privileges, which are expressed in the oath taken by the prince at his admission to the government; for most of the Provinces receive their prince upon certain conditions, which he swears to maintain, which, if the prince violates, he is no longer sovereign.

* 1603 -- Johannes Althusius published Politica.

Chapter XXXVIII - Tyranny and Its Remedies
...
When a ruler has failed only in some part of his office or government, however, he is not immediately to be called a tyrant. Regarding such a person one must consider that even the best at some time or other are weak in the performance of their offices, and are not for this reason to be thought of and treated as tyrants, provided the foundations and bonds of the universal association remain safe and unharmed, and are not shaken, assaulted, or upset by vices or faults of princes. Nor is one to be treated as a tyrant who, having already started on the road to tyranny, nevertheless does not obstinately and insanely persist on it. For the wicked life of a magistrate does not invalidate his royal authority, just as a marriage is not dissolved by every misdeed committed by one mate against another — unless it is the misdeed of adultery, because this is directly contrary to the nature of marriage. So not every misdeed of a magistrate deprives him of his sceptre, but only that in which he, having accepted and then neglected the just rule of administration, acts contrary to the fundamentals and essence of human association, and destroys civil and social life....

* 1613 -- David Pareus' Commentary on Romans (see David Pareus, Operum theologicorum, Vol. II, pp. 246-263) was published, a book that was burned publicly at Oxford and Cambridge in 1622 by order of the British Privy Council because of its exposition of Romans 13, which upholds the Calvinist theory of resistance to tyranny.

* August 4, 1642 - The British Parliament, already engaged in a civil war with King Charles I, issued its Declaration of the Lords and Commons to Justify Their Taking Up Arms (found online in part here, and in full at John Rushworth, ed., Historical Collections of Private Passages of State, Weighty Matters in Law, Remarkable Proceedings in Five Parliaments (1680-1722), vol. 4, pp. 761-768; or online at 'House of Lords Journal Volume 5: 2 August 1642', Journal of the House of Lords: volume 5: 1642-1643 (1802), pp. 256-260). This document, sometimes referred to as the Puritan Declaration of Independence, was directly influential upon the 1775 Second Continental Congress as mentioned below.

We the Lords and Commons in Parliament assembled, having taken into serious Consideration, the present State and Condition of imminent Danger in which the Kingdom now stands, by reason of a Malignant Party prevailing with his Majesty, putting him upon violent and perilous Ways, and now in Arms against us, to the hazarding of his Majesty's Person, and for the Oppression of the true Religion, the Laws and Liberties of this Kingdom, and the Power and Priviledge of Parliament: all of which every honest Mand is bound to defend, especially those who have taken the late Protestation, by which they are more particularly tied unto it; and the more answerable before God, should they neglect it:

Wherefore we finding ourselves ingaged in a Necessity to take up Arms likewise for the Defense of these, which otherwise might suffer and perish, And having used all the good ways and means to prevent Extremities, and preserve the Peace of the Kingdom (which good endeavors of ours the Malignity of our Enemies hath rendered altogether successless and vain) do now think fit to to give this Account unto the World, to be a Satisfaction unto all Men of the Justice of our Proceedings, and a Warning unto those who are involved in the same Danger with us, to let them see the Necessity and Duty which lies upon them, to save themselves, their Religion and Country, for which purpose we set out this ensuing Declaration.
...
Therefore, we the Lords and Commons, are resolved to expose our Lives and Fortunes for the Defence and Maintenance of the true Religion, the King's Person, Honour and Estate, the Power and Priviledge of Parliament, and the Just Rights and Liberties of the Subjects.
...
And we do here require all those who have any sense of Piety, Honour or Compassion, to help a distressed State, especially such as have taken the Protestation, and are bound in the same Duty with us unto their God, their King and Country, to come into our Aid and Assistance: This being the true cause for which we raise and Army, under the command of the Earl of Essex, which whom in this Quarrel we will live and die.

* 1644 -- Samuel Rutherford published Lex Rex (read it online here) is a major Calvinistic treatise which teaches that the king is under the law, not above it, and that the ruler who becomes a tyrant may lawfully be resisted.

Question XXVIII. Whether or no wars raised by the subjects and estates, for their own just defence against the king's bloody emissaries, be lawful.
...
We hold, that the king using, contrary to the oath of God and his royal office, violence in killing; against law and conscience, his subjects, by bloody emissaries, may be resisted by defensive wars, at the commandment of the estates of the kingdom.

* 1648 -- John Goodwin published Right and Might Well Met to vindicate the British Parliament and its army against charges of rebellion in its resistance to King Charles I.

The first-born of the strength of those who condemn the said act of the Army as unlawful, lieth in this: that the actors had no sufficient authority to do what they did therein, but acted out of their sphere, and so became transgressors of that law which commandeth every man to keep order, and within the compass of his calling.

To this I answer: . . . as our Saviour saith (Matt. 2. 27) that the sabbath was made for man (i.e., for the benefit of man), and not man for the sabbath, so certain it is, that callings were made for men, and not men for callings. Therefore the law of the sabbath, though enacted by God, was of right, and according to the intention of the great Lawgiver himself, to give place to the necessary accommodations of men, and ought not to be pleaded in bar hereunto; in like manner, if the law of callings at any time opposeth, or lieth cross to, the necessary conveniences of men, during the time of this opposition it suffereth a total eclipse of the binding power of it.

* 1649 -- John Milton published The Tenure of Kings and Magistrates (read it online here).

For if all human power to execute, not accidentally but intendedly, the wrath of God upon evil doers without exception, be of God; then that power, whether ordinary, or if that faile, extraordinary so executing that intent of God, is lawfull, and not to be resisted. But to unfold more at large this whole Question, though with all expedient brevity, I shall here set downe from first beginning, the original of Kings; how and wherfore exalted to that dignitie above thir Brethren; and from thence shall prove, that turning to Tyranny they may bee as lawfully depos'd and punish'd, as they were at first elected: This I shall doe by autorities and reasons, not learnt in corners among Scisms and Heresies, as our doubling Divines are ready to calumniat, but fetch't out of the midst of choicest and most authentic learning, and no prohibited Authors, nor many Heathen, but Mosaical, Christian, Orthodoxal, and which must needs be more convincing to our Adversaries, Presbyterial.
...
It follows lastly, that since the King or Magistrate holds his autoritie of the people, both originaly and naturally for their good in the first place, and not his own, then may the people as oft as they shall judge it for the best, either choose him or reject him, retaine him or depose him though no Tyrant, meerly by the liberty and right of free born Men, to be govern'd as seems to them best. This, though it cannot but stand with plain reason, shall be made good also by Scripture. Deut. 17.14. When thou art come into the Land which the Lord thy God giveth thee, and shalt say I will set a King over mee, like as all the Nations about mee. These words confirme us that the right of choosing, yea of changing thir own Goverment is by the grant of God himself in the People.
...
Therfore Saint Paul in the forecited Chapter tells us that such Magistrates he meanes, as are, not a terror to the good but to the evil; such as beare not the sword in vaine, but to punish offenders, and to encourage the good. If such onely be mentiond here as powers to be obeyd, and our submission to them onely requir'd, then doubtless those powers that doe the contrary, are no powers ordain'd of God, and by consequence no obligation laid upon us to obey or not to resist them.

* January 30, 1750 -- Jonathan Mayhew preached his famous sermon, A Discourse Concerning Unlimited Submission and Non-Resistance to Higher Powers, credited by John Adams with being greatly influential in leading to the commencement of the War of American Independence.

Let us now trace the apostle's reasoning in favor of submission to the higher powers, a little more particularly and exactly. For by this it will appear, on one hand, how good and conclusive it is, for submission to those rulers who exercise their power in a proper manner: And, on the other, how weak and trifling and unconnected it is, if it be supposed to be meant by the apostle to show the obligation and duty of obedience to tyrannical, oppressive rulers in common with others of a different character.
...
Thus, upon a careful review of the apostle's reasoning in this passage, it appears that his arguments to enforce submission, are of such a nature, as to conclude only in favor of submission to such rulers as he himself describes; i.e., such as rule for the good of society, which is the only end of their institution. Common tyrants, and public oppressors, are not intitled to obedience from their subjects, by virtue of any thing here laid down by the inspired apostle.

I now add, farther, that the apostle's argument is so far from proving it to be the duty of people to obey, and submit to, such rulers as act in contradiction to the public good, and so to the design of their office, that it proves the direct contrary. For, please to observe, that if the end of all civil government, be the good of society; if this be the thing that is aimed at in constituting civil rulers; and if the motive and argument for submission to government, be taken from the apparent usefulness of civil authority; it follows, that when no such good end can be answered by submission, there remains no argument or motive to enforce it; if instead of this good* end's being brought about by submission, a contrary end is brought about, and the ruin and misery of society effected by it, here is a plain and positive reason against submission in all such cases, should they ever happen. And therefore, in such cases, a regard to the public welfare, ought to make us withhold from our rulers, that obedience and subjection which it would, otherwise, be our duty to render to them. If it be our duty, for example, to obey our king, merely for this reason, that he rules for the public welfare, (which is the only argument the apostle makes use of) it follows, by a parity of reason, that when he turns tyrant, and makes his subjects his prey to devour and to destroy, instead of his charge to defend and cherish, we are bound to throw off our allegiance to him, and to resist; and that according to the tenor of the apostle's argument in this passage.

* May 20, 1775 - The Mecklenburg Declaration of Independence (although its authenticity has been questioned by some) was signed by the citizens of Mecklenburg County, North Carolina, becoming the first declaration of independence issued within the British colonies (read it online here).

Resolved: That whosoever directly or indirectly abets or in any way way form or manner, covutenances the invasion of our rights, as attempted by the Parliment of Great Britain, is an enemy to his country, to America, and the rights of man.

Resolved: That we, the citizens of Mecklenburg county, do hereby disolve the political bonds which have connected us with the mother country, and absolve ourselves from all allegiance to the British crown, abjuring all political connection with a nation that has wantonly trampled on our rights and liberties and inhumanly shed the innocent blood of Americans at Lexington.

Resolved: That we do hereby declare ourselves a free and independent people, that we are and of right to be, a sovereign and self-governing people under the power of God and the general Congress; to the maintenance of which independence we solemnly pledge to each other our mutual cooperation, our lives, our fortunes, and our most sacred honor.

* May 31, 1775 - The Charlotte Town Resolves were issued by the Mecklenburg County, North Carolina Committee of Safety (read it online here).

* July 6, 1775 - The Declaration of the Causes and Necessity of Taking Up Arms (read it online here), written by Thomas Jefferson and John Dickinson, and issued by the Second Continental Congress, was signed. Thomas Jefferson's Autobiography records his study of the historical collections of John Rushworth, personal secretary to Oliver Cromwell, who is the source of record for the British Parliament's August 4, 1642 Declaration of of the Lords and Commons to Justify Their Taking Up Arms, which is the primary model for the 1775 Continental Congress Declaration.

Our cause is just. Our union is perfect. Our internal resources are great, and, if necessary, foreign assistance is undoubtedly attainable. -- We gratefully acknowledge, as signal instances of the Divine favour towards us, that his Providence would not permit us to be called into this severe controversy, until we were grown up to our present strength, had been previously exercised in warlike operation, and possessed of the means of defending ourselves. With hearts fortified with these animating reflections, we most solemnly, before God and the world, declare, that, exerting the utmost energy of those powers, which our beneficent Creator hath graciously bestowed upon us, the arms we have been compelled by our enemies to assume, we will, in defiance of every hazard, with unabating firmness and perseverence, employ for the preservation of our liberties; being with one mind resolved to die freemen rather than to live slaves.

Lest this declaration should 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 desperate measure, or induced us to excite any other nation to war against them. -- We have not raised armies with ambitious designs of separating from Great-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 imputation or even suspicion of offence. They boast of their privileges and civilization, and yet proffer no milder conditions than servitude or death.

In our own native land, in defence of the freedom that is our birthright, and which we ever enjoyed till the late violation of it -- for the protection of our 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 aggressors, and all danger of their being renewed shall be removed, and not before.

With an humble confidence in the mercies of the supreme and impartial Judge and Ruler of the Universe, we most devoutly implore his divine goodness to protect us happily through this great conflict, to dispose our adversaries to reconciliation on reasonable terms, and thereby to relieve the empire from the calamities of civil war.

Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography, in The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Vol. 1, pp. 6-7:

The next event which excited our sympathies for Massachusetts, was the Boston port bill, by which that port was to be shut up on the 1st of June, 1774. This arrived while we were in session in the spring of that year. The lead in the House, on these subjects, being no longer left to the old members, Mr. [Patrick] Henry, R. H. [Robert Lee, Fr. L. Lee, three or four other members, whom I do not recollect, and myself, agreeing that we must boldly take an unequivocal stand in the line with Massachusetts, determined to meet and consult on the proper measures, in the council-chamber, for the benefit of the library in that room. We were under conviction of the necessity of arousing our people from the lethargy into which they had fallen, as to passing events ; and thought that the appointment of a day of general fasting and prayer would be most likely to call up and alarm their attention. No example of such a solemnity had existed since the days of our distresses in the war of '55, since which a new generation had grown up. With the help, therefore, of Rushworth, whom we rummaged over for the revolutionary precedents and forms of the Puritans of that day, preserved by him, we cooked up a resolution, somewhat modernizing their phrases, for appointing the 1st day of June, on which the port-bill was to commence, for a day of fasting, humiliation, and prayer, to implore Heaven to avert from us the evils of civil war, to inspire us with firmness in support of our rights, and to turn the hearts of the King and Parliament to moderation and justice. To give greater emphasis to our proposition, we agreed to wait the next morning on Mr. Nicholas, whose grave and religious character was more in unison with the tone of our resolution, and to solicit him to move it. We accordingly went to him in the morning. He moved it the same day; the 1st of June was proposed; and it passed without opposition. The Governor dissolved us, as usual.

* July 4, 1776 - The United States Declaration of Independence was adopted by the Second Continental Congress, and signed on August 2, 1776.

Stay tuned tomorrow (DV) for the story of the Patriot Pastor.

Rebellion to Tyrants is Obedience to God (Part 1)

Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men. (Acts 5.29)

"Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God." -- This famous saying of both Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin is said to have been on the epitaph of John Bradshaw (1602-1659), a British judge who presided over the trial of King Charles I, when his body was re-interred in Jamaica (where it was taken by his son to protect it from the fury of the Restoration towards regicides).

"Men must be governed by God, or they will be ruled by tyrants." -- William Penn

"Man will ultimately be governed by God or by tyrants." -- Benjamin Franklin

As our nation draws closer to another Fourth of July commemoration of the U.S. Declaration of Independence, I thought it would be worthwhile to trace some of the known or probable influences of history upon the writing of our national Declaration of Independence and to quote relevant extracts [I am cognizant of the fact that Thomas Jefferson was not a professing Christian, and that many Enlightenment influences among the American Founding Fathers of the late 18th century have affected our nation for ill, particularly with respect to the U.S. Constitution, but this series of posts concerns the major influences upon our other national charter, many of which were Calvinistic].

* c. 410 -- Augustine, Sermon 12 [Ben. 62] on the New Testament (Matt. 8.8 and 1 Cor. 8.10) (the chronology of Augustine's sermons is difficult to pin down precisely):

Do we lift up ourselves unto pride, or tell you to be despisers against the powers ordained? Not so. Do ye again who are sick on this point, touch also that border of the garment? The Apostle himself saith, “Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers, for there is no power but of God, the powers that be are ordained of God. He then who resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God.”

But what if it enjoin what thou oughtest not to do? In this case by all means disregard the power through fear of Power. Consider these several grades of human powers. If the magistrate enjoin anything, must it not be done? Yet if his order be in opposition to the Proconsul, thou dost not surely despise the power, but choosest to obey a greater power. Nor in this case ought the less to be angry, if the greater be preferred.

Again, if the Proconsul himself enjoin anything, and the Emperor another thing, is there any doubt, that disregarding the former, we ought to obey the latter? So then if the Emperor enjoin one thing, and God another, what judge ye? Pay me tribute, submit thyself to my allegiance. Right, but not in an idol’s temple. In an idol’s temple He forbids it. Who forbids it? A greater Power. Pardon me then: thou threatenest a prison, He threateneth hell. Here must thou at once take to thee thy “faith as a shield, whereby thou mayest be able to quench all the fiery darts of the enemy.”

* 1100 -- The Charter of Liberties issued by Henry I of England, upon his accession to the throne, made public his voluntary submission to the principle of Lex Rex, that is, that he as prince was under the law and bound to uphold the law.

* c. 1159 -- John of Salisbury, a friend and biographer of Thomas Becket, himself a martyr for ecclesiastical liberty, wrote Policratus, the first modern European justification of tyrannicide.

For myself, I am satisfied and persuaded that loyal shoulders should uphold the power of the ruler; and not only do I submit to his power patiently, but with pleasure, so long as it is exercised in subjection to God and follows His ordinances. But on the other hand if it resists and opposes the divine commandments, and wishes to make me share in its war against God; then with unrestrained voice I answer back that God must be preferred before any man on earth. Therefore inferiors should cleave and cohere to their superiors, and all the limbs should be in subjection to the head; but always and only on condition that religion is kept inviolate.

* June 15, 1215 -- The Magna Carta, England's first charter of citizen liberties, was promulgated.

1. We have in the first place granted to God and by this our present charter have confirmed, for us and our heirs forever, that the English Church shall be free and shall have its rights entire and its liberties inviolate. And how we wish [that freedom] to be observed appears from this, that of our own pure and free will, before the conflict that arose between us and our barons, we granted and by our charter confirmed the liberty of election that is considered of prime importance and necessity for the English Church, and we obtained confirmation of it from the lord pope Innocent III — which [charter] we will observe ourself and we wish to be observed in good faith by our heirs forever. We have also granted to all freemen of our kingdom, for us and our heirs forever, all the liberties hereinunder written, to be had and held by them and their heirs of us and our heirs.

* 1265-1274 -- Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologica was written, wherein he opposes tyrannicide but upholds the right of resistance to tyrants. Summa Theologica II-II, q. 42 (Concerning Sedition), a. 2:

A tyrannical government is not just, because it is directed, not to the common good, but to the private good of the ruler, as the Philosopher states (Polit. iii, 5; Ethic. viii, 10). Consequently there is no sedition in disturbing a government of this kind, unless indeed the tyrant's rule be disturbed so inordinately, that his subjects suffer greater harm from the consequent disturbance than from the tyrant's government. Indeed it is the tyrant rather that is guilty of sedition, since he encourages discord and sedition among his subjects, that he may lord over them more securely; for this is tyranny, being conducive to the private good of the ruler, and to the injury of the multitude.

* August 1, 1291 -- The Schweizer Bundesbrief, Switzerland's national charter, was signed, documenting the Eternal Alliance, or League of the Three Forest Cantons. The signers were known as Eidgenossen, or Confederates, a term that has been proposed as the possible etymological origin of "Huguenot."

* April 6, 1320 - The Declaration of Arbroath (signed among others by Thomas Randolph, 1st Earl of Moray (d. 1332) -- whose uncle was Robert the Bruce -- an ancestor of Thomas Jefferson) was a declaration of Scottish independence from England.

But from these countless evils we have been set free, by the help of Him Who though He afflicts yet heals and restores, by our most tireless Prince, King and Lord, the Lord Robert. He, that his people and his heritage might be delivered out of the hands of our enemies, met toil and fatigue, hunger and peril, like another Macabaeus or Joshua and bore them cheerfully. Him, too, divine providence, his right of succession according to or laws and customs which we shall maintain to the death, and the due consent and assent of us all have made our Prince and King. To him, as to the man by whom salvation has been wrought unto our people, we are bound both by law and by his merits that our freedom may be still maintained, and by him, come what may, we mean to stand.

Yet if he should give up what he has begun, and agree to make us or our kingdom subject to the King of England or the English, we should exert ourselves at once to drive him out as our enemy and a subverter of his own rights and ours, and make some other man who was well able to defend us our King; for, as long as but a hundred of us remain alive, never will we on any conditions be brought under English rule. It is in truth not for glory, nor riches, nor honours that we are fighting, but for freedom -- for that alone, which no honest man gives up but with life itself

* 1536-1560 -- John Calvin, while opposing rebellion by individual citizens, upheld the principle of interposition of lesser civil magistrates, Institutes, 4.20.31:

I speak only of private men. For when popular magistrates have been appointed to curb the tyranny of kings (as the Ephori, who were opposed to kings among the Spartans, or Tribunes of the people to consuls among the Romans, or Demarchs to the senate among the Athenians; and perhaps there is something similar to this in the power exercised in each kingdom by the three orders, when they hold their primary diets). So far am I from forbidding these officially to check the undue license of kings, that if they connive at kings when they tyrannise and insult over the humbler of the people, I affirm that their dissimulation is not free from nefarious perfidy, because they fradulently betray the liberty of the people, while knowing that, by the ordinance of God, they are its appointed guardains.

* 1556 -- John Ponet published A Short Treatise of Politike Power (commended by John Adams).

Chapter VI. Whether It Be Lawful To Depose An Evil Governor, And Kill A Tyrant.
...
Now for as much as there is no express positive law for punishment of a tyrant among Christian men, the question is, whether it is lawful to kill such a monster and cruel beast covered with the shape of a man. And first for the better and more plain prose of this matter, the manifold and continual examples that have been from time to time of the deposing of kings, and killing of tyrants, do most certainly confirm it to be most true, just and constant to God's judgment. The history of kings in the Old Testament is full of it.

But now to prove the later part of this question affirmatively, that it is lawful to kill a tyrant: there is no man that can deny, but that the ethnics (although they had not the right and perfect knowledge of God) were endued with the knowledge of the law of nature.

For it is no private law to a few or certain people, but common to all: not written in books, but grafted in the hearts of men: not made by man, but ordained of God: which we have not learned, received or read, but have taken, sucked, and drown it out of nature: where unto we are not taught, but made: not instructed, but seasoned: and (as St. Paul says) man's conscience bearing witness of it.

This law testifies to every man's conscience, that it is natural to cut away an incurable member, which (being suffered) would destroy the whole body.

* 1557-1644 -- The Geneva Bible's marginal notes incurred royal wrath for their opposition opposition to tyranny (see Lewis Lupton's summary of this point here).

To be continued...