Colonial Submission and Resistance to Higher Powers

Jonathan Mayhew of Massachusetts on January 30, 1750 published a sermon called: Concerning Unlimited Submission and Non-Resistance to the Higher Powers with Some Reflections on the Resistance Made to King Charles I. The American colonies were abuzz with discord and debate against mother England for her oppressive rule. Mayhew's sermon text was taken from Romans 13:1, in which he said, “It is the duty of Christian magistrates to inform themselves what it is which their religion teaches concerning the nature and design of their office. And it is equally the duty of all Christian people to inform themselves what it is which their religion teaches concerning that subjection which they owe to the higher powers.”

In expounding the passage, he continued, “Since, therefore, magistracy is the ordinance of God, and since rulers are by their office benefactors to society, by discouraging what is bad and encouraging what is good, and so preserving peace and order amongst men, it is evident that ye ought to pay a willing subjection to them…Ye are under an indispensable obligation, as Christians, to honor their office, and to submit to them in the execution of it…And here is a plain reason also why ye should pay tribute to them, - for they are God’s ministers, exalted above the common level of mankind, - not that they may indulge themselves in softness and luxury, and be entitled to the servile homage of their fellow-men, but that they may execute an office no less laborious than honorable, and attend continually upon the public welfare.”

Mayhew, a Tory, went on to stress that civil disobedience to appointed rulers was not merely a political sin, but a heinous offense against God and religion. Obedience was required under all forms of government, which has been instituted for the good of society. The question Mayhew then asked was this, “To what extent is that subjection.”  Some have said disobedience is authorized under certain conditions, such as great oppression when humble remonstrance fails to have beneficial effect; and when the public welfare cannot be otherwise provided for and secured because of tyranny.  Others have said that Scripture in general and the Romans 13 passage in particular makes all resistance to princes a crime.

Colonial America at the time had debates over the meaning of Romans 13. The “argument by comparison” that some colonials presented in order to prove that blind obedience to government statutes and sovereign rule is not biblical stated the following reasons:

(1)    If Scripture commands children, wives, servants to obey, it is not in total submission, but in accordance with the principles of God.  Obedience is never blind, but in concurrence with the Word of God.

(2)    Servants are told to render good service to the Lord, and not to men (Eph. 6:7) and masters are to do likewise and to give up threatening their servants (Eph. 6:9). Civil magistrates and kings are masters and are to rule for the Lord, especially if they claim Christianity. Violating scriptural principles leaves them open to correction.

(3)    The apostle Paul never intended to teach children, servants, and wives to blindly submit in all cases.  Although Eph. 5:24 tells wives to submit in everything, Paul did not intend for them to break commandments in so submitting. If this argument could be made in the case of family authority, then it should also apply in the case of governmental authority.

Mayhew also commented on absolute statements, “The use of absolute expressions is no proof that obedience to civil rulers is in all cases a duty, or resistance in all cases a sin.  I should not have thought it worthwhile to take any notice at all of this argument, had it not been much insisted upon by some of the advocates for passive obedience and non-resistance; for it is in itself perfectly trifling, and rendered considerable only by the stress that has been laid up it for want of better.”

Other colonials offered what was called an “argument in opposition” to complete subjection to the British authorities. They qualified the directive of Peter to submit to every ordinance (1 Peter 2:13) by saying that if the statement was an unequivocal decree, then the same could be said of wives submitting to their husbands in everything (Eph. 5:24). Submission, however, is qualified by submitting as to the Lord. Peter in the next verse says that the reason governors are sent by the king is for punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do right (1 Peter 2:14).  This qualification puts a restriction on “every ordinance.”  Submission must be consistent with the ordinances of God.  Obedience and non-resistance therefore is not an absolute duty of a citizen.

The rulers of whom Peter speaks are rulers whose laws and enactments benefit society. They deserve the complete submission of the people. Therefore, Peter says to act as freemen, and not to use freedom to cover evil. Freedom suggests that the people live under a beneficent ruler who has the common good in mind. Mayhew compared a worthless preacher to a worthless magistrate.  “Suppose,” he says, “that the preacher doesn’t do anything, but demands thousands per annum, should he not be told plainly that he is low-esteemed and will not be given the just reward of a faithful minister of the gospel? Should he not be removed?  In like fashion, a civil magistrate who performs counter to the design of his office in that he is injuring and oppressing his subjects when he should be defending their rights and doing them good should not be honored, obeyed, and rewarded.”  He then confirmed that Paul’s exhortation to submit to leaders was “built wholly upon the supposition that they do, in fact, perform the duty of rulers.”

Mayhew reasoned that it was blasphemy to call tyrants the ministers of God.  Whether they know it or not, they are appointed to their position by God and therefore rule under His hands.  God may use magistrates as an instrument of judgment, but to say that the evil ones sit as God’s ruler for evil is to say God is the creator of evil. “Rulers have no authority to do mischief,” he declared. If rulers do evil, they are serving the devil and not pleasing God.  To interpret Paul as saying that resisting authority opposes the ordinance of God, bringing condemnation on oneself (Rom. 13:2) was akin to saying that serving the Devil is what God wants when the rulers are evil.

Mayhew asked, “Is resisting those who resist God’s will the same thing with resisting God?”  The qualification comes in verse 3 of Romans 13 in which Paul says that “rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil.”  The inference is that the rulers are fair and just and are serving the common good, thereby serving God. Verse 4 says that the magistrate is a minister of God for good.  If he is doing evil, he is not God’s minister, but Satan’s.  God may still be sovereign and in control, but a distinction must be made between the evil ruler pleasing Satan and the good ruler pleasing God.  To submit to evil would be serving Satan.  So submission is not absolute, but rather conditional. Submission is first to the Lord and secondarily to those appointed as our rulers.
Much of the American pulpit prior to the American Revolution was known as the "Black Regiment" because while draped in black, they preached their congregations to resist the tyranny of King George. They were a formidable cadre of  men preparing their sheep for the struggle that lay ahead.

Federalism

The word “federalism comes from the Latin “foedus” meaning covenant, compact, or treaty.  One of the arguments that the United States was a Christian nation comes from the concept of federalism being derived from the teaching of Scripture. Heavily influenced by John Knox and his Book of Order, America may have been founded under the principles of “covenant” with the God of the Universe. It was to be a government by representation as indicated in Deuteronomy 1:13. Here, Moses reminded the Israelites of choosing wise and discerning men to represent them. The government of the United States would be a government “of the people, by the people, and for the people.” Without wise and discerning men to represent us, we will become as bait for the wolves. In fact, Thomas Jefferson once said, "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." In other words, an ignorant people have never be free.

The three divisions of government sound very similar to Isaiah 33:22, which describes God as a judge, lawgiver, and king.  Hence, the judiciary, the congress, and the executive branch of government reflect various aspects of the character of God. The Scottish Covenanters had a great influence in the founding of American government. Part of it came through the teaching of John Witherspoon who was President of Princeton during the Revolutionary War period of America. He influenced two thirds of the signers of the Declaration of Independence and many others who became part of the integral founding and ruling of Colonial America to include James Madison, a Virginian sent to Princeton to be educated under Witherspoon.

The dual nature of government in obeying God and magistrates was a Covenanter principle. The principle was derived from Matthew 22:38-40 in which Jesus said that the foremost commandment is to love God with all your heart, soul, and mind; and to love your neighbor as yourself.  Since Jesus was King over all peoples and nations, subjects answered to Him. Obedience was to God and the men that were appointed by God to run the nation (Rom. 13:1ff). The idea of Church and State coexisting for mutual benefit was derived from the Covenanter principle known as the “Mediatorial Kingship of Jesus Christ.” It could be diagrammed as follows:

                                          CHRIST

                                                         (over)

                                   CHURCH      (and)         STATE

                                                         (over)

                                                      PEOPLE

God in Christ is the ruler of all nations (Psalm 47:8). Christ does not cease to rule over the state because governments fail to recognize Him.  He is the King of the Universe and laughs at unbelieving nations, holding them in derision (Psalm 59:8). The State exists because of Him who is no respecter of nations (Isa. 40:17), but He does rule over them; and those who are magistrates have an obligation to rule under Him according to His dictates, which are found only in Scripture (Rom. 13:1ff). The State therefore exists to rule for the common good and to protect the Church and its teachings about Christ and religion. The Church exists to teach the State how to rule for the common good in accordance with the principles of Scripture. The Church is charged by Christ to teach the values and morality of the Christian religion and the State is to protect the right to do so. Civil government therefore is a divine institution and is subject to the law and authority of Christ.  Nations claiming to be Christian have by covenant declared so.  Christ has authority over nations, governors, and legislatures, and it is their duty to serve and obey Him.  Ignorance of the Word is no excuse.

It is sad that our own United States no longer recognizes Him who is King over all nations. We may pay a price for relegating the Lord of the Universe to a position of scorn and disparagement. A lion has gone up from his thicket, a destroyer of nations has set out; he has gone out from his place to make your land a waste; your cities will be ruins without inhabitant (Jer. 4:7 ESV).

Religious Influence in the Early History of our Nation

If the atheists and progressives had their way, God would be eliminated from all facets of life. However, they are content to have God eliminated from the public forum. These same people quote the Constitution, pointing out that there is complete separation of Church and State. This is the law of the land since Hugo Black’s decision in the Case of Everson vs. The Board of Education in 1947. We may argue the rationale behind the decision, but we will become mired in polemics. The Law of the Land is anything the  Supreme Court adjudicates it to be. But was that the intent of the Founding Fathers? Did they want God completely out of government? History says they did not!

God was not to be removed from the daily operation of government. Prayer was a constant activity during the Continental Congress. The Constitution, itself, implicitly regards Sunday as a day of rest by excluding Sunday from the days to be counted in the period that the President has to veto a Congressional bill.  And by common consent, Thanksgiving and Christmas are recognized holidays although they are under attack in our post Christian culture.

Christian mottoes on coins, currency, public buildings, and monuments were also accepted.  “In God We Trust” is stamped on all our coins and is etched over the south entrance to the Senate Chamber in the U.S. Capitol.  Over the west entrance is engraved “Annuit Coeptis” meaning that God has favored our undertakings. Judicial oaths ended with, “So help me, God.” Court decisions also pronounced the place of God in the early growth of our nation.

In People v. Ruggles, an 1811 Supreme Ct. of New York decision, Ruggles was indicted for calling Christ a bastard and his mother a whore.  He was fined $500 and served a 3 month imprisonment term.  Part of the prosecutors argument was that while the Constitution of the State of New York preserved the right of conscience and has allowed for the free discussion of religion, it has nevertheless left the principal engrafted in our common law that Christianity is part of the laws of the State, untouched and unimpaired.  Justice James Kent said that, “Nothing could be more offensive to the virtuous part of the community, or more injurious to the tender morals of the young, that to declare such profanity lawful…We are a Christian people and the morality of the country is deeply engrafted upon Christianity, and not upon the doctrines or worship of those impostors [other religions].”  Basically he said that cursing Christ is cursing the State of New York.

In Updegraph v. The Commonwealth, an 1824 Pennsylvania case, Abner Updegraph on the December 12, 1821, with intent to scandalize, vilified the Christian religion by saying, “That the Holy Scriptures were a mere fable: that they were a contradiction, and that although they contained a number of good things, yet they contained a great many lies.”  He was found guilty of blaspheming and the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania upheld it.

In Vidal v. Girard’s Executors (1844) the U.S. Supreme Ct. stated that Christianity was not to be openly and maliciously denigrated. Stephen Girard, a native of France, died in 1831 leaving $7 million dollars to the city of Philadelphia to construct an orphanage and college where the “purest principles of morality” are to be instilled.  He also stipulated that no clergyman or missionary shall ever hold any positions in the college nor were they allowed on campus as visitors.  Although the plan of education was anti-Christian and repugnant to law, the court ruled in favor of the city keeping the money, for it said that lay people could teach religion, outside of which there were no purer form of morality.  Justice Joseph Story in his opinion for the Supreme Court said, “Christianity…is not to be maliciously and openly reviled and blasphemed against…It is unnecessary for us, however, to consider the establishment of a school or college, for the propagation of…Deism, or any other form of infidelity.  Such a case is not to be presumed to exist in a Christian country.” 

In Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States (1892) an immigration law was interpreted to an absurd degree by the U.S. Attorney’s office to accuse the church of hiring a foreigner as pastor.  The Supreme Court ruled that “No purpose of action against religion can be imputed to any legislation, state or national, because this is a religious people…This is a Christian nation.” The reasoning in this case cited the above three cases.

In Davis v. Beason (1889) the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against bigamy and polygamy among Mormons. Justice Stephen Field (a Lincoln appointee who also sat for the Holy Trinity Case) delivered the Court’s ruling by saying, “Bigamy and polygamy are crimes by the laws of all civilized and Christian countries….” By commenting so, he virtually declared that America was a Christian nation. Such a declaration was also made in U.S. v. Macintosh (1931) in which the reasoning said, “We are a Christian people.”

Other Early Supreme Court Justices made statements and rendered opinions supporting the notion that the United States was a Christian nation. Note the following:

(1)    John Jay (the First Chief Justice) said, “Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.”

(2)    James Wilson (signer of both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution) articulated that “Christianity is part of the common-law.”

(3)    Joseph Story (in his Commentaries on the Constitution) noted, “Probably, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, and of the Amendments to it…the general, if not the universal, sentiment in America was, that Christianity ought to receive encouragement from the State…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, if not universal indignation.”  He also said, “It yet remains a problem to be solved in human affairs, whether any free government can be permanent, where the public worship of God, and the support of religion, constitute no part of the policy or duty of the state in any assignable shape.”

(4)    John Marshall (served on the Supreme Court for 34 years. As a captain, he also fought during the Revolutionary War, serving with Washington at Valley Forge. Later in life, while staying at a road side tavern, he politely listened to arguments for and against the Christian religion by younger men from 6:00PM to 11:00PM.  Finally one of them turned to Marshall and said, “Well, my old gentleman, what think you of these things?”  Marshall then proceeded to talk for an hour answering “every argument urged against” the teachings of Jesus.  The listeners were captivated by his eloquence and energy.  Some thought him a preacher and were astonished to find out he was the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.