Professional Documents
Culture Documents
JCR Vol. 14 No. 01: Symposium On Reconstruction in The Church and State
JCR Vol. 14 No. 01: Symposium On Reconstruction in The Church and State
Fall 1996
Number 1
The Journal of
Christian
Reconstruction
Symposium on Reconstruction
in Church and State
A C HA L C E D O N P U B L I C AT I O N
Copyright
The Journal of Christian Reconstruction
is published as often as Chalcedon resources permit.
Volume 14 / Number 1
1996
Usage: Copies of this file may be made for personal use by the original
purchaser of this electronic document. It may be printed by the same on a
desktop printer for personal study. Quotations may be used for the purpose
of review, comment, or scholarship. However, this publication may not be
duplicated or reproduced in whole or in part in any electronic or printed form
by any means, uploaded to a web site, or copied to a CD-ROM, without written
permission of the publisher.
Chalcedon Foundation
P.O. Box 158
Vallecito, California, 95251
U.S.A.
To contact via email and for other information:
www.chalcedon.edu
Chalcedon depends on the contributions of its readers,
and all gifts to Chalcedon are tax-deductible.
Opinions expressed in this journal do not necessarily reflect the views of
Chalcedon. It has provided a forum for views in accord with a relevant, active,
historic Christianity, though those views may have on occasion differed
somewhat from Chalcedons and from each other.
Table Of Contents
Editors Introduction
Andrew Sandlin 1
The Reconstructive Task
Christian Reconstruction as a Movement
Rousas John Rushdoony 5
Reconstruction in Economics
Reform of Limited Liability Law
Stephen Perks 195
Reconstruction in Theology
The Dispensational View of the Church Age and Its Effect on
Table Of Contents
Reconstruction in Philosophy
No Other Foundation: Christian Epistemology in the
Postmodern Age
Jospeh Braswell 253
Book Reviews
The True Origin of FreedomArchie P. Jones reviews The Theme is
Freedom: Religion, Politics, and the American Tradition (by M.
Stanton Evans)
263
The Myth of Political Polytheism
Archie P. Jones reviews Political Polytheism (by Gary North) 271
Editors Introduction
Crediting the recent resurgence of Christian political activity
merely to a reaction of the religious right to the liberals
decades-long hegemony in the political sphere does not do justice
to the ideational, or, more correctly, theological factors propelling
Christian politics. While it would be simplistic to attribute the
surge of Christian politics to a single cause, it is safe to assume that
the revival of Reformed orthodoxy plays a crucial role.
H. Henry Meeter notes that,
[t]he Bible is the Calvinists rule of faith and practice in everything[;]
therefore it is also his rule in the realm of politics. This is easy
to comprehend. According to the Calvinist, God is Sovereign
everywhere. Therefore his Word is law also for the political world.
Since the Bible is, as Gods Word, his rule of faith and conduct, the
Calvinist consults it for guidelines in his political activities.1
This Calvinistic conviction undergirds R. J. Rushdoonys
seminal Institutes of Biblical Lawthe Bible is authoritative in
all spheres, including the political. Simply put, the re-emergence
of Christian political involvement is spurred by the recognition
not only that the Bible and Christian faith have something to say
about politics and the state, but that they are the only unmovable
anchor of politics and the state. This is nothing more nor less than
the recovery of a standard Reformed tenet.
Alternatively, it is a mistake often made by the uninformed
(and sometimes by the informed, who seemingly wish to slander)
to assert that Chalcedon and those of like mind devote their
main energies to overthrowing the present political order and
imposing a top-down political dictatorship. Even the director of
the principal Christian political organization in the United States
got into the misrepresentation act, writing lately: [Christian]
reconstructionism is an authoritarian ideology that threatens
the most basic civil liberties of a free and democratic society.
Nothing could be further from the truth. We affirm that man
and societies are changed mainly by regeneration, not revolution
1. The Basic Ideas of Calvinism (Grand Rapids, MI: 1960, fifth ed), 97.
Editors Introduction
Editors Introduction
10
1.
THE
RECONSTRUCTIVE
TASK
11
Christian Reconstruction
as a Movement
Rousas John Rushdoony
12
13
For example, because of a false faith that the Lord will take care of
them, church members exceed the ungodly, it is said, in their per
capita and per family debt. Some churches see it as evidence of
faith to plunge into heavy debt on some ambitious venture. Gods
law limits debt to six years (Deut. 15:16, 1218, etc.), and as a
general rule, to Owe no man any thing, but to love one another
(Rom. 13:8). To cite this law to some men is to incur their hate! It is,
however, very obviously the law of the Lord. Debt has become the
modern form of slavery. Proverbs 22:7 tells us that the borrower
is servant [or, slave] to the lender. Slavery is property rights in
the labor of another man, and the banks now have property rights
over most church members. {7}
We have another law now also much disregarded:
Thou shalt not remove thy neighbors landmark, which they of old
time have set in thine inheritance, which thou shalt inherit in the
land that the Lord thy God giveth thee to possess it. (Deut. 19:14)
Cursed be he that removeth his neighbors landmark. And all the
people shall say, Amen. (Deut. 27:17)
Remove not the old landmark; and enter not into the fields of the
fatherless: For their redeemer is mighty; he shall plead their cause
with thee. (Prov. 23:1011)
14
proper recipient of the tithe, when the tithe is properly to the Lord.
The tithe (Lev. 27:3032; 1 Cor. 9:1214; Mal. 3:812; Prov. 3:910,
11:24f; Matt. 23:23; Heb. 7:18) was paid, if not administered by
the individual, to the Levite, who then tithed a tenth to the priests
for worship. The regular tithe is cited in Deut. 14:22; the poor
tithe is in Deut. 14:28, and Amos 4:4; and the rejoicing tithe in
Deut. 14:2226. God places the basic tax and power in the hands
of the family. The sanctuary received a tenth of the tithe, so that
the church cannot be a superpower, and the civil government is
limited to half a shekel for each male from twenty years of age
and above (Ex. 30:1116). This means a very limited state, given
to justice and national defense. The basic task of government is
thus reserved to the families, who must govern their own, care
for their own, and extend charity to the needy. Society is to be
organized into families, ten families with a captain or elder
over them, then another over fifty families, over hundreds, over
thousands, and so on up (Deut. 1:918). In the English-speaking
world, the hundred courts were once the basic governing body, {8}
well into the eighteenth century. The emphasis was thus on selfgovernment and local grass-roots responsibility. The restoration of
family government is thus basic.
Two major steps in this direction have been Christian schools
and home schools. Together with tithing, they are creating a very
different kind of family community.
There is another factor basic to reconstruction: restitution.
Immediately after the giving of the Ten Commandments in Exodus
20:117, we have in Exodus 21 and especially in Exodus 22 the law
of restitution. The penalty for crime is not prison but restitution,
up to fivefold, depending on the offense, and involuntary servitude
to make restitution if it is not at once forthcoming. Crime is thus
punished to require the restoration of godly order. Justice must
flow from the daily lives of the people; super imposition is not
enough.
Because justice must begin in the family, the requirement is that
the family take the lead in filing charges against an incorrigible
member (Deut. 21:1821), because the familys primary loyalty
must be to Gods order rather than to an evil blood member. The
priority of the family to the processes of justice is thus underscored.
From the biblical point of view, all modern forms of civil
15
16
out her hand to the poor; yea, she reacheth forth her hands to the
needy (Prov. 31:20).
The family in Scripture controls welfare, property, education
(with help from the Levites), inheritance, children, cares for its
aged members, and is the basic social force and government.
Wherever the family is weakened, the social fabric decays.
Christian reconstruction is in essence a family movement. To
make it primarily a matter of reform in church and state is to miss
the point of the biblical mandate.
The Book of Proverbs is a commentary on the law. It is addressed
to young men, to my son (Prov. 1:10), because a superimposed
law can never accomplish what a law written in our being can do.
The prediction of Jer. 31:3134 (restated in Ezek. 36:2527) tells
us:
31. Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new
covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
32. Not according to the covenant that I made with their
fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring
them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they
brake, although I was a husband unto them, saith the Lord:
33. But this shall be the covenant that I will make with
the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord, I will
put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their
hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
34. And they shall teach no more every man his neighbor, and
every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for they shall all
know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith
the Lord: for I will forgive them their iniquity, and I will remember
their sin no more. (Jer. 31:3134) {10}
17
18
19
We are saved to serve, and not simply within the sphere of the
family and church.
St. Paul tells us in 1 Cor. 15:2427, that, before the end, when the
last enemy, death, shall be destroyed, all Christs enemies and all
things must be put under his feet, under his dominion.
According to Lucien Joseph Richard, John Calvin envisioned
an integration of holiness and virtue into the political order.4 He
saw sanctification as world transformation, in Richards words.
According to Richard,
Calvins epistemology demanded a reinterpretation of traditional
ecclesiological models. In the Roman tradition, the Church
recognizes the Spirit not as an immanent possession subject to
its direction but as a transcendent reality by which it is directed.
For Calvin the action of the Holy Spirit occurs principally in the
individual and not in the Church. The Spirit acts towards the
individual independent of the community. The Testimonium
Spiritus Sancti is individual. It gives the individual the certitude of
3. Ibid., 2.
4. Lucien Joseph Richard, The Spirituality of John Calvin (Atlanta, GA, 1974),
179.
20
Ibid., 181.
Ibid., 177.
Ibid., 114.
Ibid.
Armando Valladares, Against All Hope (no loc.).
21
22
23
and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith
(1 John 5:4).
When God created man, he created him in his own image
(Gen. 1:2628). Today, too often church, state, school, psychology,
psychiatry, and the media seek to turn man into a moral zero.
Gods work cannot be undone by man, and the outcome will be
the Lords victory.
24
The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord,
and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever. (Rev. 11:15)
This is a necessary result of the fact that the Lord Jesus Christ is
the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of
lords (1 Tim. 6:15).
Thus, we have seen, first, that all law is the will of the sovereign
or lord. In the modern era, we have returned to the faith of ancient
paganism, a belief in the lordship of the state, or its ruler, or the
office. We therefore look to the state for law rather than to the
word of God. This is apostasy.
Second, all law expresses the nature of the lord or sovereign.
Gods law reveals his holiness, righteousness or justice, knowledge,
and dominion. These are Gods communicable attributes. The
Westminster Shorter Catechism tells us,
God created man male and female, after his own image, in
knowledge, righteousness, and holiness, with dominion over the
creatures.
The texts for this are:
So God created man in his own image, in the image of
God created he him: male and female created he them...
and God said unto them... have dominion over the fish of
the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living
thing that moveth upon the earth. (Gen. 1:2728) {17}
And have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge
after the image of him that created him. (Col. 3:10)
And that he put on the new man, which after God is created in
righteousness and holiness. (Eph. 4:24)
Now this is a very important fact. The law of God represents the
nature of God. Because man is created in Gods image, with these
communicable attributes, everything in redeemed mans being
responds to Gods law. The Spirit-filled psalmist could thus sing,
O how love I thy law! it is my meditation all the day. Thou through
thy commandments hast made me wiser than mine enemies: for
they are ever with me. I have more understanding than all my
teachers: for thy testimonies are my meditation. I understand more
than the ancients, because I keep thy precepts. I have refrained my
feet from every evil way, that I might keep thy word. I have not
25
departed from thy judgments: for thou hast taught me. How sweet
are thy words unto my taste! yea, sweeter than honey to my mouth!
Through thy precepts I get understanding: therefore I hate every
false way. (Ps. 119:97104)
26
27
From whence come wars and fightings among you? come they not
hence, even of your lusts that war in your members? Ye lust, and
have not: ye kill, and desire to have, and cannot obtain: ye fight and
war, yet ye have not, because ye ask not. Ye ask, and receive not,
28
29
30
31
32
death shall be disannulled, and your agreement with hell shall not
stand; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, then ye
shall be trodden down by it. (Isa. 28:1418)
Neither shall modern mans covenant with death and hell stand.
God has his own sovereign purpose for this earth and for mankind.
It is set forth in Jesus Christ, who is the firstfruit of the new
creation. He shall put down all rule and all authority and power,
For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet (1
Cor. 15:2425). Only after Christ is fully in {24} power through
us over all the earth will he return, and then the last enemy, death,
shall by destroyed (1 Cor. 15:26).
We therefore have a calling, to put all things under Christ. This
is what Christian reconstruction means. Christ must reign, and
the means of rule in any society, whether a family, a church, an
association, a company, or a country, is law. Law provides the rules
for living. This is the first and basic aspect of law, that it sets forth
the required ways of conduct, the rules for living in community.
Law is therefore always a religious fact: it sets forth a groups belief
in what is ultimately right and wrong. It is the standard whereby
men must live: Without law, a group can function only on the
most primitive level, struggling for the barest survival.
Then, second, there can be no community without law. If all men
are a law unto themselves, then we have anarchy, not community.
The basic ingredient of a community is a common faith and law.
As humanism has broken down Christian community, it has
seen a progressive rise of lawlessness and disorder because it
has not been able to provide an authoritative faith and law. The
humanistic state has had to substitute for Christian faith and
morality coercion and legalized violence. The more advanced the
humanism, as in Marxist states, the more intense and brutal the
coercion. The religious aspect of law means that there is a moral
law mutually agreed on by all members of society. That mutual
agreement means that only a small minority of dissidents are the
source of trouble. Humanism, however, makes every man his own
god, and, with most men saying, My will be done, lawlessness
prevails. Now that humanism is infecting every country and
continent, this means that an intense effort to stem the decay
by an enforced return to Islamic faith is under way; its coercion
33
The chorus, Bring them in, was and is sung after each verse. This
hymn has a long history of use for home and foreign missions.
It is a vivid expression of faith in the necessary communion and
community in Christ to which people out of all tribes, tongues,
and nations are called.
There is a third aspect of law. It not only provides the rules for
living, and the religious roots of community in one faith, but it also
provides rewards and punishments. These apply, in biblical faith,
to both this world and the world to come. Gods law provides for
various penalties in society for violations, up to the death penalty;
it provides for censure and excommunication from the church. In
the world to come, it tells us that there is a heaven, and there is a
hell. Early in his writings, Karl Marx recognized that the socialist
34
state must create a hell for those who disobeyed its will, and this
the Soviet slave labor camps, and other like punishments in other
states, have done.
The fact of law means blessings and curses, protection and
punishment, and heaven and hell, in some form in every society. As
Gods law has gone out of fashion in twentieth-century preaching,
so too has any preaching about hell. Not surprisingly, a recent poll
in the United States showed that almost everyone expects to go to
heaven!
Emory Storrs observed a few generations ago, When hell drops
out of religion, justice drops out of politics.14 By abandoning
Gods law, we have cheapened heaven, made hell obsolete, and we
have forgotten about justice.
Then, fourth, the word law or torah in Hebrew has a reference to
our Lord. A century ago, Girdlestone wrote:
...In 2 Sam. 7, there is recorded, first, the promise of God to keep
an unfailing covenant with the seed of David, whose throne
should be established for ever; and secondly, Davids expression
of thankfulness on account of this promise. In the opening of his
song of praise (vv. 1819) he says, Who am I, O Lord God? and
what is my house, that thou hast brought me hitherto? And this
was yet a small thing in thy {26} sight, O Lord God; but thou hast
spoken also of thy servants house for a great while to come. And
is this the manner of man, O Lord God? The parallel passage (1
Chron. 17:17) runs thus: For thou hast also spoken of thy servants
house for a great while to come, and hast regarded me according
the estate of a man of high degree. The word translated manner in
the one passage and estate in the other is torah which is generally
rendered law. The first passage might be rendered, And this is the
law (or order) of the man, and the second, Thou hast regarded me
according to the law (or order) of the man from on high.
Some versions have rendered these passages so as to bring out
more distinctly a reference to the Messiah. Thus in Luthers version
of 2 Sam. 7:19, we read, That is the way of a man, who is God
the Lord; whilst his rendering of 1 Chron. 17:17, is, Thou hast
looked upon me after the order (or from) of a man who is the Lord
on High. The words are grammatically capable of this rendering;
14. Cited by Harry Bruis, The Doctrine of Eternal Punishment (Phillipsburg,
NJ, 1957), 122.
35
but it is more in accordance with the context, and also with the
structure of the passage, to regard the name of the Lord God as in
the vocative case, in accordance with the rendering given by our
translators.15
Briefly, this means that not only is the law the expression of Christs
being and nature, but the very word law or torah is used to refer
to the Messiah. To denigrate the law is thus to denigrate Jesus Christ,
God the Son.
Moreover, Girdlestone made clear that the words righteousness
and justice are equally valid translations of the Hebrew tsadak;
our English creates a distinction where none exists in the Bible.
Girdlestone added with respect to righteousness:
This quality indeed may be viewed, according to Scripture, in two
lights. In its relative aspect it implies conformity with the line or
rule of Gods law; in its absolute aspect it is the exhibition of love to
God and to ones neighbor, because love is the fulfiling of the law;
but in neither of these senses does the word convey what we usually
mean by justice. No distinction between the claims of justice and
the claims of love is recognized in Scripture; to act in opposition to
the principles of love to God, and ones neighbour is to commit an
injustice, because it is a departure from the course marked out by
God in His law.16
We are surrounded by the decaying culture of the humanistic
West. The purpose and meaning of Christian reconstruction is
very simply this: bringing back the King (2 Sam. 19:10, 12). {27}
36
We are all familiar with the words of Matt. 28:1820, but we forget
why they are called the Great Commission. Great in reference
to what? If this were the only such order to the covenant people
of God, it would simply be called the Commission. Our Lord,
however, called out twelve disciples to create a new Israel of
God (Gal. 6:16). The Commission he gave to them was great in
comparison to the one given by God to an earlier Jesus or Joshua.
It is the same commission made great because it encompasses
not only the Promised Land, Canaan, but the whole earth. It thus
carries the same promises expanded:
Now after the death of Moses the servant of the Lord it came to
pass, that the Lord spake unto Joshua the son of Nun, Moses
minister, saying, Moses my servant is dead; now therefore arise, go
over this Jordan, thou, and all this people, unto the land which I
do give to them, even to the children of Israel. Every place that the
sole of your foot shall tread upon, that have I given unto you, as I
said unto Moses. From the wilderness and this Lebanon even unto
the great river, the river Euphrates, all the land of the Hittites, and
unto the great sea toward the going down of the sun, shall be your
coast. There shall not any man be able to stand before thee all the
days of thy life: as I was with Moses, so I will be with thee: I will
not fail thee, nor forsake thee. Be strong and of a good courage:
for unto this people shalt thou divide for an inheritance the land,
which I sware unto their fathers to give them. Only be thou strong
and very courageous, that thou mayest observe to do according to
all the law, which Moses my servant commanded thee: turn not
from it to the right hand or to the left, that thou mayest prosper
whithersoever thou goest. This book of the law shall not depart out
of thy mouth; but thou shalt meditate therein day and night, that
thou mayest observe to do according to all that is written therein:
for then thou shalt make thy way prosperous, and then thou shalt
have good success. {28} Have not I commanded thee? Be strong and
of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the
Lord thy God is with thee whithersoever thou goest. (Josh. 1:19)
It is not only an obvious fact that the Great Commission is an
abridged restatement of Joshuas Commission, but also that the
words of the first are repeatedly restated by our Lord.
First, there are the parallels, beginning with the mandate to
conquer; in Joshuas case, the Promised Land is Canaan; in our
Lords commission to us, the whole world is to be conquered for
37
him.
Second, the commandment in both cases is from the Lord, and,
in Matt. 28:18, the whole Trinity is specifically cited. Coming from
the same source, the two commissions are thus essentially related.
Third, it is assumed in the Great Commission that they shall
teach all nations and command them to observe all things
whatsoever I have commanded you. Joshua is commanded to
observe the law of God and to turn not from it to the right hand
or to the left, that thou mayest prosper whithersoever thou goest.
Fourth, the Lord promises to be with his faithful servants: and,
lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Joshua
is told, the Lord thy God is with thee whithersoever thou goest.
This is the same promise in both cases.
Fifth, both commissions begin with an assurance that the
commanding Lord has total power:
Every place that the sole of your foot shall tread upon, that I have
given unto you, as I said unto Moses. (Josh. 1:3)
...all power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. (Matt. 28:18)
38
39
40
have chosen you. Our salvation and our calling is Gods choice, his
election or predestination. God is the Lord: {31} Known unto God
are all his works from the beginning of the world (Ac. 15:18). All
are his works, totally known and ordained by him. He has chosen
us and ordained us. Second, his purpose is this: that ye should go
and bring forth fruit. God orders our calling and its results. We
are redeemed by his sovereign grace to be productive. Third, not
only are we ordained to be productive, but that your fruit should
remain. All the results of our ordained work in the Lord endure
throughout all eternity. Go ye therefore in this confidence:
But thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our
Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore, my beloved brethren, be ye stedfast,
unmoveable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, forasmuch
as ye know that your labour is not in vain in the Lord. (1 Cor.
15:5758)
We know that our labor is never in vain in the Lord because he
calls us and ordains us. Remember, St. Paul, who wrote these
words, had been persecuted, beaten, and imprisoned, but he knew
his labors were going to be fruitful long after his time because God
said so. The God who commissioned St. Paul and us had declared
through Isaiah,
For as the rain cometh down, and the snow from heaven, and
returneth not thither, but watereth the earth, and maketh it bring
forth and bud, that it may give seed to the sower, and bread to the
eater: So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it
shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which
I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it. (Isa.
55:1011)
When we proclaim the whole word of God, all of it, it cannot
return unto him void, because he has ordained that it shall bring
forth fruit, and that fruit, that work, shall endure.
Fourth, we are promised, whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father
in my name he will give to us when we go forth in his name,
word, and Spirit, and when we ask in terms of his kingdom. We
are to teach men and nations to observe all things that the Lord
commands of them. Chapters 1418 of Johns Gospel must be
seen as a preparation of the disciples by our Lord for his death,
resurrection, ascension, and their Great Commission.
41
42
some time in history were able to work for or earn their salvation.
Now if I work for someone and do what he requires, he is in my
debt and must pay me. To apply this notion to God is monstrous.
God who made all things needs nothing: He does not need our
works, our obedience, our faith, or anything from us.
Our Lord bluntly rebuked this doctrine in his disciples, saying,
But which of you, having a servant plowing or feeding cattle, will
say unto him by and by, when he is come from the field, Go and
sit {33} down to meat? And will not rather say unto him, Make
ready wherewith I may sup, and gird thyself, and serve me, till I
have eaten and drunken; and afterward thou shalt eat and drink?
Doth he thank that servant because he did the things that were
commanded him? I trow not. So likewise ye, when ye shall have
done all those things which are commanded you, say, We are
unprofitable servants: we have done that which was our duty to do.
(Lk. 17:710)
The word translated here as servant is the Greek doulos, which in
this context apparently means slave. Even then, the full force of our
Lords meaning pales, because there is nothing in our world that
provides a full analogy to what he tells us. The Lord God made us:
We are totally his creation; we are completely in his debt, and he
owes us nothing. The world and all the peoples thereof exist only
by his sovereign grace. There can be no covenant of works with
God.
Covenants are treaties of law, and they are of two kinds. First, a
treaty or covenant between equals is a treaty of an agreed upon law
which both observe. Second, a treaty or covenant between total
unequals such as God and man is an act of grace by God, and
the law he gives us thus is an act of grace. Thus, there can be no
separation between law and grace: They come from God in his
mercy, his covenant mercy.
But we have broken that covenant law; in Adam, we all sinned,
and we all are partakers of Adams nature, the will to be as God, to
be our own lawgiver and lord (Gen. 3:5). We are told by St. Paul,
But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made
nigh by the blood of Christ. For he is our peace, who hath made
both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition
between us; Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law
of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself
43
Jesus Christ has made peace with God for both Jews and Gentiles
and has abolished by his atoning death the enmity of the law. As
long as we are fallen men, the law is our enemy, a sentence of death
against us rather than our covenantal way of life. There is one Spirit
working now in both Jews {34} and Gentiles who are redeemed in
Christ, and they are on the same terms before God in the Holy
Spirit. All this is true because Jesus Christ is our peace.
The key word in this text is peace. This word has been much
abused and sentimentalized in our time. The biblical word has no
relation to the word used to indicate the end of war, nor to the
pacifistic use of the Hebrew shalom by hippies in the 1960s and
1970s. Girdlestone said of the biblical meaning,
We now come to one of the most notable words used to represent
the idea of perfection, namely, Shalom. It is used of a perfect heart
in fourteen passages. Its usual signification is peace, the name
Salem or Shalem being derived from it. Thus we read in Isa. 26.
3, Thou wilt keep him in perfect peace (Shalom Shalom). The
root may have originally signified oneness or wholeness, and so
completeness. Not only does it represent the ideas of peace and
perfection, but also of compensation or recompense.
The following renderings have also been given to the verb in the A.
V.: to be ended, to be finished, to prosper, to make amends, to pay,
to perform, to recompense, to repay, to requite, to make restitution,
to restore, to reward.17
Now we can understand what Paul says, and what all of Scripture
means, when it speaks of peace. It commonly means, and very
plainly in Eph. 2:1318, where Paul speaks of our reconciliation to
God by means of our Lords atonement, restitution. Jesus Christ
makes restitution to the Father for our sins.
Now Gods law is about righteousness or justice, and at the
heart of the law is the fact of restitution. The sacrificial system
17. Girdlestone, op cit., 95.
44
45
When we were dead, that is, legally sentenced to death by the law
we had broken, the handwriting of ordinances that was against
us, Jesus Christ nailed that death penalty to the cross in his own
person to triumph over sin and death for us.
The essence of the law is the necessity for restitution and
restoration, for peace with God so that there might be peace
among men. The goal of the law is peace, and Christ is our peace.
Therefore we are no longer under condemnation but under grace.
We pass from enmity and continual warfare against God to peace
and grace. In Pauls words, {36}
Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we
establish the law. (Rom. 3:31)
Any war against the law of God becomes thus a war against his
atonement, his restitution, his grace, his peace. It is an abandonment
of biblical faith for humanism, because the emphasis then becomes
a humanistic pietism. Meaningless spiritual exercises, pious gush,
and a retreat into the church as a refuge from the world replace
Christian power.
Harold J. Berman, in describing the Western legal tradition,
sees its origin in a number of Christian doctrines, most notably
the Last Judgment and the classical doctrine of the atonement as
formulated by St. Anselm, atonement as the satisfaction of Gods
law or justice. God cannot forgive mans sins freely, as a matter
of lawless grace, because this would leave the fallen condition of
the universe undisturbed, uncorrected. There would then be no
justice, no peace. Mercy, said Anselm, is the daughter of justice;
it is derived from justice and cannot work against justice.1
Christendom rested on the foundation of biblical law. The
preamble to the city law of Schleswig began, By law shall the land
be built.2 By this was meant Gods law, biblical law, the only true
source of law and justice.
1. Harold J. Berman, Law and Revolution, The Formation of the Western Legal
Tradition (Cambridge, MA), 79.
2. Ibid., 515.
46
47
48
49
50
51
7. Ibid., 34.
8. Raymond Aron, The Opium of the Intellectuals, trans. Terence Kilmartin
(New York, NY, 1962), 38.
9. Rudolf Vierhaus, Conservatism, in ed., Philip P. Weiner, Dictionary of the
History of Ideas (New York, NY [1968], 1973), 1:483.
52
53
11. Jaroslav Pelikan, The Vindication of Tradition (New Haven, CT, 1984), 19
and passim.
12. Rousas John Rushdoony, Salvation and Godly Rule (Vallecito, CA, 1983),
144, 145.
54
2.
RECONSTRUCTION IN
CHURCH AND STATE
55
Introduction
John Owen (16181683) graduated from Oxford at the age of
sixteen in 1632. Three years later he distinguished himself as a
Nonconformist when he withdrew from doctoral studies there in
protest to Roman Catholic forms being forced on the students by
Chancellor William Laud. At that time, and since Henry VIII, the
Anglican or Episcopal church was the official church of England,
under the control of the monarch. When Charles I appointed
William Laud as Archbishop of Canterbury in 1633, battle lines
were drawn more clearly between the Nonconformists of the day
and the monarchys state church. In this climate, and throughout
his life, John Owen championed the cause of religious liberty
based on liberty of conscience and worked for the establishment
of Christian magistracy to fulfill Gods purposes.
In the absence of a Christian state anywhere on earth today and
in light of the increasingly intolerant positions taken by secularhumanist states toward biblical Christianity (moreover, considering
their increasing toleration and protection of gross immorality,
blasphemy, witchcraft, etc.), John Owens views challenge
Christendom today to work toward establishing a biblicallybased society. It is, therefore, the purpose of this extended essay
to discover Owens understanding of the conscience as a basis for
liberty; to see how Owen struggled to define religious toleration,
and how he applied his views under Cromwell; to examine how
his views on ecclesiology and eschatology helped him to formulate
a role for the civil magistrate; and, finally, to consider the merits of
Owens views to modern society.
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
Owen pointedly asserted that while a man may obey the magistrate
in matters concerning the order of worship, his obedience is civil,
and not religious. Likewise, his compliance with the magistrates
commands is strictly civil obedience and not genuine worship.
Owen insisted that the state has no authority over mans conscience.
He forcefully argued that no law has the authority to dictate genuine
worship because genuine worship proceeds directly from the
consciences response to God and his word. A man may, however,
for the sake of conscience, obey the magistrates command in so far
as his conscience is under Gods authority.
The kind of authority which addresses mans conscience to
religious obedience is none else than God and his word:
God doth exert his authority immediately, and that either directly
from heaven, as in the giving of the law, or by the inspiration
of others to declare his will; unto both which his word written
answereth. Now whatever is done in obedience to the authority of
God thus exerting itself is a part of that religious duty which we
owe to God... [so that] the duty performed is religious obedience,
relating directly to the will and command of God.... for though it
be acknowledged that those who do command have their authority
from God, yet unless the thing commanded be also in particular
appointed by God, the obedience that is yielded is purely civil, and
not religious. (Owen 1965i, 4344)
Always anxious to preserve the sanctity and majesty of the office
of the civil magistrate, Owen exhorted believers to obey all civil
commands including the laws concerning worship to a limited
extent; but he always sought to expose the ludicrousness of prelates
who exercised ecclesiastical rule under the sanction of civil power.
Thus he wrote about the imposition of liturgies:
The truth is, the church in this sense is the king, or the king and
parliament, by whose advice he exerts his legislative power. By their
authority was the liturgy composed,... In this sense we acknowledge
the power ordaining and imposing this liturgy to be of God, to be
{52} good and lawful, to be obeyed unto the utmost extent of that
63
obedience which to man can be due, and that upon the institution
and command of God himself; but yet, supposing the liturgy to fall
within the precincts and limits of that obedience, the observance
and use of it, being not commanded by God, is purely an act of
civil obedience, and not religious, wherein the conscience lies in no
immediate subjection to Jesus Christ.... and this seems inconsistent
with the nature of the worship of God. (Owen 1965i, 44)
64
Strength of Conscience
The precious jewel of conscience must be guarded and kept
pure by adherence to the word of God. Conscience in conformity
with the word of God, far from being weak, has all the strength
that the authority of God can have in a man, because it is Gods
authority in man. As such, it cannot be a source of unbelief or
error. In his Vindication of Nonconformists,
Owen wrote that there is no such thing as an erroneous
conscience:
...we seek for no shelter nor countenance from what is pleaded by
any concerning the obliging power of an erroneous conscience,...;
for we acknowledge no rule of conscience in those things which
concern churches, their state, power, order, and worship, but divine
revelation only,that is, the Scripture, the written word of God,
and sure enough we are not deceived in the choice of our rule, so
as that we desire no greater assurance in any concerns of religion....
Wherefore, we seek no relief in, we plead no excuse from, the
obligation of an erroneous conscience, but do abide by it that our
consciences are rightly informed in these things; and then it is
confessed on all hands what is their power, and what their force to
oblige us, with respect unto all human commands. (Owen 1967e,
339340)
For Owen, the voice of conscience spoke only what was right,
either accusing or excusing all of mans thoughts in terms of the
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
Valens, that he should let all sects alone, because it was for the
glory of God to be honored with diversities of opinions and ways
of worship, Owen said such advice was most abhorrent. Still
he conceded that in the absence of any toleration for believers,
Themistius advice was well conducing at that time to the peace of
the churches (Owen 1967c, 186)!
Holy Scripture, especially Old Testament law, is clearly the
standard for determination of sin and error. Speaking absolutely,
all error is intolerable. But not all error is equally intolerable. Owen
believed that some errors, though intolerable in the church, may
be tolerated by the state. In general, those errors which threaten
the peace of society are not to be tolerated by the state. Owens
general prescription for toleration of error is found in his tract,
Of Toleration:
Errors, though never so impious, are yet distinguished from peacedisturbing enormities. If opinions in their own nature tend to the
disturbance of the public peace, either that public tranquility is not
of God, or God alloweth a penal restraint of those opinions. It is a
mistake, to affirm that those who plead for toleration do allow for
punishment of offences against the second table,not against the
first. The case is the same both in respect of the one and the other.
What offences against the second table are punishable? Doubtless
not all, but only such as, by a disorderly eruption, pervert the
course of public quiet and society; yea, none but such fall under
human cognizance. The warrant of exercising vindictive power
amongst men is from the reference of offences to their common
tranquility.... If any of them [offences against the first table] in their
own nature (not some mens apprehensions) are disturbances of
public peace, they also are punishable. (Owen 1967c, 164)
Here as elsewhere,1 Owen affirmed the Ten Commandments to
be perpetually binding on all men. However, he noted that Scripture
does not require penal sanctions against all error. Although some
kind of sanctions are prescribed for many kinds of errors and sins,
the Scriptures do not enjoin either civil or ecclesiastical authorities
to make sin-chasing or heresy-sniffing the primary purpose of
their respective institutions. For example, Owen demonstrated
that the Old Testament penalty for blasphemy, rebellion, and
1. See for example, Owens Greater Catechism, Chapter 7, Questions 7 and
2 (Owen 1965a, 476).
73
74
75
76
itself:
Popish religion, warming in its very bowels a fatal engine against
all magistracy amongst us, cannot upon our concession plead for
forbearance; it being a known and received maxim, that the gospel
of Christ clashes against no righteous ordinance of men. (Owen
1967c, 165)
Then, when Romes errors were brought secretly into the Church
of England, Owen attacked these as if the Church of England were
the Church of Rome:
Heedless and headless errors may breed disturbance enough, in
scattered individuals, unto the people of God, but such as tend
to a peace and association cum ecclesia malignantium, tending
to a total subversion of the sacred state, are far more dangerous.
Now, such {64} were the innovations of the late hierarchists. In
worship, their paintings, crossings, crucifixes, bowings, cringings,
altars, tapers, wafers, organs, anthems, litany, rails, images, copes,
vestments,what were they but Roman varnish, an Italian dress for
our devotion, to draw on conformity with that enemy of the Lord
Jesus? In doctrine, the divinity of Episcopacy, auricular confession,
free-will, predestination on faith, yea, works foreseen, limbus
patrem, justification by works, falling from grace, authority of
a church, which none knew what it was, canonical obedience,
holiness of churches, and the like innumerable, what were they but
helps to Santa Clara, to make all our articles of religion speak good
Roman Catholic? (Owen 1967c, 28)
Curiously, Owen proffered the possibility of toleration for
Rome based on mutual recognition. Such a gospel moderation,
proceeding from the principles of reason, with ingenuity
and goodness of nature, could overcome much of the mutual
intolerance felt by both Protestants and Romanists (Owen 1965h,
25455). In the absence of such overtures, Owen felt constrained
to write much against the Roman church. Yet he lamented that all
of the hundreds of volumes written and all of the legal restraints
against Rome since the Reformation had done very little to curb
Romes influence:
To this end some implore the aid of authority for the enacting of
severe laws for the prohibition of it.... Some write books in the
confutation of the errors of it, and that to very good purpose. But
in the meantime, if there be anything of truth in reports, the work
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
consider what mutual havoc was made among Christians upon the
various sentiments of synods and emperors. Yet this way pleased
the rulers of the church so well, and, as they thought, eased them
of so much trouble, that it was so far improved amongst them, that
at last they left no power in or about religion or religious persons
unto the civil magistrate, but what was to be exercised in the
execution of the decrees and determinations of the church. (Owen
1965i, 310)
89
90
91
92
93
... perhaps the young divine went too far in his claim that one could
see in recent history a clear imprint or reflection of the eternal
counsel of God....
... he understood everything in terms of Gods judgement,
chastisement or deliverance of His saints on earth. He did not think
it important to consider what we may term secondary causes
excessive taxation, {79} patriotism and fear of the future. For him
God was so vitally concerned with every aspect of English life that
he felt the need to explain any changes in that life in terms of God
and His providence only. (Toon 1971a, 21, 32)
94
That Messiah is to rule over all nations is clear, and that without a
carnal sword:
There is nothing more opposite to the spirit of the gospel, than to
suppose that Jesus Christ will take to himself a kingdom by the
carnal sword and bow of the sons of men. (Owen 1967c, 376)
This includes all civil powers in the world:
That the civil powers of the world, after fearful shakings and
desolations, shall be disposed of into a useful subserviency to the
interest, power, and kingdom of Jesus Christ.... Even judges and
rulers, as such, must kiss the Son, and own his sceptre, and advance
his ways. Some think, if you [members of Parliament] were well
settled, you ought not in anything, as rulers of the nations, to put
forth your power for the interest of Christ: the good Lord keep
your hearts from that apprehension! (Owen 1967c, 374)
95
Owen commented:
You see here are glorious promises, in the literal expression, looking
directly to what we assert concerning the subserviency of rulers to
the gospel, and the duty of magistrates in supporting the interest of
the church. (Owen 1967c, 387)
All these and like promises, asserted Owen (Owen 1967c, 388),
belong directly to us and our rulers, if, under any notion, we
belong to the Church of Christ. All kings are to submit to Christ,
and in particular they are to serve his church.
In his Greater Catechism (1616), which Owen wrote for pastoral
purposes, Chapter 6, Question 3, reads:
Question: Wherein chiefly consists the outward providence of
God towards his church?
Answer: In three things;first, in causing all things to work
together for their good; secondly, in ruling and disposing of
kingdoms, nations, and persons, for their benefit; thirdly, in
avenging them of their adversaries. (Owen 1965a, 475)
The providential ordaining of civil authorities, that is, all the
nations of the world, is inescapably related to Gods prior and
ultimate concern for His churchs prosperity.
Hence kingdoms are said to serve the church; that is, all kingdoms.
They must do so, or be broken in pieces, and cease to be kingdoms....
They must nurse the church, not with dry breasts, nor feed it with
stones and scorpions, but with the good things committed to them.
(Owen 1967c, 389)
96
97
account of, the church and nation of the Jews, and what remains
upon the general notion of a church and nation must be everlasting
binding. And this amounts thus far, at least, that judges, rulers,
and magistrates, which are promised under the New Testament to
be given in mercy, and to be of singular usefulness, as the judges
were under the Old, are to take care that the gospel church may,
in its concernment as such, be supported and promoted, and the
truth propagated wherewith they are instructed; as the others took
care that it might be well with the Judaical church as such. (Owen
1967e, 394)
98
Again, said Owen (Owen 1965a, 490), Rule and authority are
as necessary for human society as fire and water for our lives.
Magistrates are to rule on earth in the place of God, as vicegerents:
Indeed, sovereign princes and supreme magistrates are Gods
vicegerents, and are called gods on the earth, to represent his
power and authority unto men in government, within the bounds
prefixed by himself unto them, which are the most extensive that
the nature of things is capable of;... (Owen 1967e, 497)
This assumes that God is still supreme governor of the earth; his
rule is the pattern for rulers.
[God] is still the supreme governor of the world, and let magistrates
take heed how they despise [the] precedent and pattern of the
administration of justice in criminal cases which he hath given and
prescribed unto all mankind. (Owen 1967e, 579)
The Christian State
Though all magistracy is ordained of God, not all magistracy
is Christian; a Christian magistracy acknowledges its authority is
from God, and uses its {84} power to serve God and his church.
Owen worked to establish such a magistracy.
All non-Christian magistracies must ultimately give way to
Christian ones. Owen charged the members of Parliament (Owen
1967c, 385), If once it comes to that, that you shall say you have
nothing to do with religion as rulers of the nation, God will quickly
manifest that he hath nothing to do with you as rulers of the
nation. He continued:
The great promise of Christ is, that in these latter days of the world
he will lay the nations in a subserviency to him,the kingdoms
of the world shall become his; that is, act as kingdoms and
governments no longer against him, but for him. (Owen 1967c,
385386)
Again:
...the Lord engageth that judges, rulers, magistrates, and such like,
shall put forth their power, and act clearly for the good, welfare,
and prosperity of the church.... Hence kingdoms are said to serve
99
the church; that is, all kingdoms. They must do so, or be broken in
pieces, and cease to be kingdoms. (Owen 389)
100
101
1st. That the gospel of Jesus Christ hath a right to be preached and
propagated in every nation, and to every creature under heaven.
Jesus Christ is the Lord of lords and King of kings, Rev. xvii. 14.
The nations are given to be his inheritance, and the utmost parts
of the earth to be his possession, Ps. ii. 8, 9. He is appointed the
heir of all things, Heb. i. 2. God hath set him over the works of his
hands, and put all things in subjection under his feet, Ps viii. 6. And
upon this account he gives commission to his messengers to preach
the gospel to all nations, Matt. xxviii. 19, or, to every creature under
heaven, Mark xvi. 15. The nations of the world being of the Father
given to him, he may deal with them as he pleaseth, and either
bruise them with a rod of iron, or break them in pieces as a potters
vessel, Ps. ii. 9,he may fill the places of the earth with their dead
bodies, and strike in pieces the heads of the countries, Ps. cx. 6,
or, he may make them his own, and bring them into subjection
unto himself;which toward some of them he will effect, Rev. xi.
15. Now, the gospel being the rod of his power, and the sceptre of
his kingdom,the grand instrument whereby he accomplisheth all
his designs in the world, whether they be for life or for death, 2
Cor. ii. 16,he hath given that a right to take possession, in his
name and authority, of all that he will own in any nation under
heaven.... To have free passage into all nations is the undoubted
right of the gospel;...
2ndly. That wherever the gospel is by any nation owned, received,
embraced, it is the blessing benefit, prosperity and advantage of
that nation....
3rdly. The rejection of the gospel by any people or nation to whom
it is tendered, is always attended with the certain and inevitable
destruction of that people or nation; which, sooner or later, shall
without any help or deliverance be brought upon them by the
revenging hand of Christ....
4thly. That it is the duty of magistrates to seek the good, peace,
and prosperity of the people committed to their charge and to
prevent, obviate, remove, take away every thing that will bring
confusion, destruction, {87} desolation upon them: as Mordecai
procured good things for his people and prosperity for his kindred,
Esther x. 3.
5thly....Although the institutions and examples of the Old
Testament, of the duty of the magistrates in the things about the
102
103
104
105
106
107
Conclusion
Summary and Evaluation of Owens Views
John Owen sought to establish a thoroughly biblical
understanding of eccle-statology. He perceived certain truths to
be fundamental to the prosperity of the church and to the wellbeing of the state. Among these were:
1. The conscience is under the immediate authority of Christ.
2. The church is under the immediate authority of Christ.
3. The authority of the state has its ordination in God and its
legitimacy (in part) from the consent of the governed.
4. The gospel has a right to be preached.
5. The gospel age will see the shaking of all nations and their
submission to Christ and his church.
The conscience being the domain of God in every man, however
weak or deceived it may become, is still the only sufficient basis
for genuine religious liberty. The conscience is neither the spring
nor the offspring of an autonomous will, but is the inescapable
God-law in man, answerable to Christ in the Day of Judgment;
therefore, as it is instructed by the word of God, the conscience has
108
109
110
111
112
113
Appendix1
Westminster Confession
Chap. XXIII:Of the Civil Magistrate
III. The civil magistrate may not assume to himself the
administration of the Word and Sacraments, or the power of the
keys of the kingdom of heaven: yet he hath authority, and it is his
duty to take order, that unity and peace be preserved in the Church,
that the truth of God be kept pure and entire, that all blasphemies
and heresies be suppressed, all corruptions and abuses in worship
and discipline prevented or reformed, and all the ordinances of God
duly settled, administered, and observed. For the better effecting
thereof he hath power to call synods, to be present at them, and to
provide that whatsoever is transacted in them be according to the
mind of God.
Savoy Declaration
Chap. XXIV.Of the Civil Magistrate
III. Although the magistrate is bound to encourage, promote, and
protect the professors and profession of the gospel, and to manage
and order civil administrations in a due subserviency to the
interest of Christ in the world, and to that end to take care that men
of corrupt minds and conversations do not licentiously publish
and divulge blasphemy and errors, in their own nature subverting
the faith and inevitably destroying the souls of them that receive
them; yet in such differences about the doctrines of the gospel, or
ways of the worship of God, as may befall men exercising a good
conscience, manifesting it in their conversation, and holding the
foundation, not disturbing others in their ways or worship that
differ from them, there is no warrant for the magistrate under the
gospel to abridge them of their liberty.
Works Cited
Fergusen, Sinclair B. 1987. John Owen on the Christian Life. Carlisle, PA: Banner
of Truth Trust.
1. Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom, vol. 3, 6th ed., (New York, 1919),
720.
114
115
Schaff, Philip. 1888. The Creeds of Christendom. 6th ed. New York: Harper
Toon, Peter, ed. 1970. The Correspondence of John Owen (1616 1683). London:
James Clarke and Co., LTD.
Toon, Peter. 1971a. Gods Statesman: The Life and Work of John Owen. Devon:
The Paternoster Press.
________. 197lb. The Oxford Orations of Dr. John Owen. Linkinhorne,
Callington: Gospel Communications.
________. 1973. Puritanism and Calvinism. Swengel, PA: Reiner Publications.
Walker, Williston. 1893. The Creeds and Platforms of Congregationalism. New
York: Scribner.
Williams, Lloyd G. 1981. Digitus Dei: God and Nation in the Thought of John
Owen: A Study in English Puritanism and Nonconformity, 1653
1683. Ph.D. diss. Drew University. Facsimile by Univ. Microfilms
Intl. Ann Arbor, MI.
Sources Consulted
Asty, John, editor. 1721. A Complete Collection of the Sermons of John Owen.
London: John Clark.
Bahnsen, Gregory L. 1979. Theonomy in Christian Ethics. Nutley, N.J.: The Craig
Press.
Barker, Arthur. 1942. Milton and the Puritan Dilemma, 16411660. Toronto:
University of Toronto Press, 1942.
Baxter, Richard. 1990 The Practical Works of Richard Baxter. Vol. l, A Christian
Directory, with a foreword by J. I. Packer. 19th Century Reprint
by George Virtue, London; reprint, Ligonier, PA: Soli Deo Gloria
Publications.
The Confession of Faith of the Kirk of Scotland: or, The National Covenant.
1962. (Aug. 30, 1639; June 11, 1640); reprint.
Cook, Sarah G. 1972. A Political Biography of a Religious Independent: John
Owen, 161683. Ph. D. diss., Harvard.
Cotton, John. The Keyes of the Kingdom of Heaven. Printed by M. Simmons for
H. Overton. London.
Cross, F. L. and E. A. Livingstone, eds. 1989; The Oxford Dictionary of the
Christian Church. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1974;
reprint, New York: Oxford University Press.
Cunningham, William. 1863. The Westminster Confession on Relation
Between Church and State, in Discussions on Church Principles:
Popish, Erastian, and Presbyterian. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark.
The Dictionary of National Biography. 1917. vols. l22, From Earliest Times to
1900, founded in 1882 by George Smith, edited by Leslie Stephen,
Sidney Lee. Oxford University Press.
Figgis, John Neville. 1965. Erastus and Erastinianism, in The Divine Right of
116
117
________. 19656. The Works of John Owen, Vol. 2. edited by William H. Goold.
Johnstone and Hunter, 185053; reprint, London: The Banner of
Truth.
________. 1965c. The Works of John Owen, Vol. 3. edited by William H. Goold.
Johnstone and Hunter, 185053; reprint, London: The Banner of
Truth.
________. 1967a. The Works of John Owen, Vol. 4. edited by William H. Goold.
Johnstone and Hunter, 185053; reprint, London: The Banner of
Truth.
________. 1965d. The Works of John Owen, Vol. 5, edited by William H. Goold.
Johnstone and Hunter, 185053; reprint, London: The Banner of
Truth.
________. 1967b. The Works of John Owen, Vol. 6, edited by William H. Goold.
Johnstone and Hunter, 185053; reprint, London: The Banner of
Truth.
________. 1967d. The Works of John Owen, Vol. 10. edited by William H. Goold.
Johnstone and Hunter, 185053; reprint, London: The Banner of
Truth.
________. 1965g. The Works of John Owen, Vol. 11.
________. 1966. The Works of John Owen, Vol. 12.
________. 1977. Hebrews The Epistle of Warning. with a preface by Herbert
Lockyer. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Kregel Publications.
________. 1977. Hebrews The Epistle of Warning. with a preface by
Herbert Lockyer. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications.
Packer, J. I. Introductory Essay to John Owens The Death of Death in the Death of
Christ. Dallas, Texas: By Ben K. Howard, M. D.
Pauck, Wilhelm. 1928. Martin Bucers Conception of a Christian State, The
Princeton Theological Review, XXVI.
Pauck, Wilhelm, ed. 1969. De Regno Christi, in Melancthon and Bucer.
Philadelphia: The Westminster Presse
Paul, Robert S., ed. 1963. An Apologetical Narration. Philadelphia: The United
Church Press.
Rushdoony, Rousas J. 1983. Salvation and Godly Rule. Vallecito, CA: Ross House
Books.
Rutherford, Samuel. 1982. Lex Rex or The Law and the Prince. 1644; reprint,
Harrisonburg, VA: Sprinkle Publications.
Schaeffer, Francis A. 1981. A Christian Manifesto. Westchester, IL: Crossway
Books.
Schaeffer, Franky. 1982. A Time For Anger: The Myth of Neutrality. Westchester,
IL: Crossway Books.
Schaff, Philip. 1888. Church and State in the United States. New York: Scribner.
Schlatter, Richard. 1952. Richard Baxter and Puritan Politics. New Brunswick,
118
119
By Theodore Beza
To Kings and Princes the Counsel of David: Ps. 2: Serve the Lord
with fear, and rejoice with trembling. Kiss the Son lest he be angry,
and you perish in the way, for His wrath will soon be kindled.
To the Subjects: 1 Pet. 2:13: Be subject to every ordinance of
man for the Lords sake.
120
121
122
of all his laws to any man soever so as to offer proof that they be
fair and in accordance with the precepts of religion. I answer that
he is not so held; nay more, that it is fair that all virtuous subjects
should regard their lords in the light of virtue and should not
presume of suspect anything unjust concerning them; nay, that
it is not becoming that men in private station should inquire
over curiously even concerning doubtful matters beyond their
comprehension or station in life. If, however, the conscience
of some be at a loss, they can and are even under an obligation
to examine (albeit discreetly and in a peaceful manner) what
elements of reason and justice are to be found in the command by
which they are bidden or forbidden to do something; for the word
of the Apostle abides:13 whatsoever is not of faith [that is while
the conscience is in doubt whether that is being done justly or not]
is sin. But if what is commanded is openly sinful or unjust, then
indeed that which has been said above applies.
123
tyrant, unless at the same time you obey the command of God
as we declared that Obadiah did, who not merely refrained from
slaying the prophets of God, but even protected and nourished
them in defiance of the command of Ahab and Jezebel,17 since the
Lord bids us, each as far as his calling permits, to bring succor
to his brethren in peril. Thus also the Apostles, as we have said
above, not merely did not desist from preaching the Gospel 18 that
they might heed the priests, but on the contrary they steadfastly
preached everywhere since they had expressly received this
command19 from the Lord: Go ye and preach the Gospel to
every creature, etc. Therefore when today we see many Rulers
so bewitched by the Roman Antichrist that they by the sternest
commands compel their subjects to attend the execrable sacrifice
of Mass, the duty of all pious men requires not merely that they
should not carry out that command, but further that they should
in accordance with the example of Elijah and Elisha, even of the
entire pure and true Church of old, join in pious gatherings, there
hear the word of God and have communion of the sacraments as
Christ ordained that it should be done in the Church. The same
principle must also be observed in the duties which men owe to
their fellowmen both by the law of God and by the law of nature,
for example children to their parents, a wife to her husband, the
shepherd to his flock, and in fine one neighbor to another. For it
is not fitting that we should be deterred or led astray from those
duties by means of any commands or threats or even by the most
unjust punishment; only let obedience (which we owe above all to
God who is greater than all these) be not at all excluded from the
performances of duties of this kind which we carry out. {107}
124
125
126
1 Chron. 29:22.
1 Kin. 12:1.
2 Kin. 11:12.
2 Chron. 26:1; 36:1.
2 Sam. 15:113.
2 Sam. 16:18.
Rom. 13:I5.
127
States and Powers is with the best of reasoning derived from God
the author of all good. Thus Homer also recognized and freely
testified when he called kings the fosterlings of Zeus and the
shepherds of the lost.32 And therefore, since we are beginning a
discussion concerning the power of Rulers, what shall prevent us
from passing over to that prime origin from which they derived
and from considering to what end they were instituted? For it is
obvious that every discussion of things just or unjust must begin
and end with the end [for which it exists]. For we must judge that
something has been rightly and duly done when it had attained
that end for which it was designed. When {110} therefore the duty
of the rulers is inquired into, all will admit that it is assuredly
right to remind them of their duty and also to admonish them
roundly whenever they stray from it. But when a case occurs of
either restraining tyrants who are such beyond a trace of doubt or
of punishing them in accordance with their deserts, the majority
commend patience and prayers to God so earnestly that they
consider and condemn as mutineers and pseudo-Christians
all those who refuse to bow their necks to torture. Here we are
doubtless on dangerous ground; I would therefore once again
beseech my readers to bear in mind my remarks immediately
preceding lest they draw inadmissible conclusions from what
must be said in the sequel. I admit that I most strongly approve
of Christian patience as laudable beyond all the other virtues
and never sufficiently commended; I admit that men should
be zealously exhorted to it because it contributes largely to the
attainment of eternal bliss: rebellions and all disorder I detest as
awful abominations; in affliction especially I am of opinion that we
should depend upon God alone; prayer accompanied by a serious
recognition of our error I recognize as the true and necessary
remedies for the overthrow of tyranny since this evil is rightly
counted among the scourges sent by God for the chastisement of
the people. But I deny that all these considerations deprive nations
crushed by manifest tyranny of their right to safeguard themselves
against it by means of prayers and repentance as well as other just
32. For Fosterlings of Zeus see Homer passim, e.g. Iliad, XVII, 652; XXIV,
803, and Odyssey, IV, 391; XV, 155, 167. For Shepherds of the lost see Ibid., e.g.
Iliad, II, 85, 105; V, 566; XX, 110, and Odyssey, IV, 24, 532; XX, 106; XXIV, 368,
456.
128
129
35. Lucan, De bello civili, d, 2: Iusque datum sceleri canimus. Cf. the Latin
text of Beza: ius sceleri datum (Ed. Sturm, 36.).
36. Demosthenes, De corona, 180.
37. Jud. 20.
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
the kingdom have received this office from the supreme power
as such that they may be on their guard for the observance and
protection of the laws among those who have been entrusted
to their care, and since they have bound themselves by oath to
perform that duty in all faithan oath from which they cannot be
absolved by any fault of him who from a king has become a tyrant
and quite openly violates those conditions upon which he was
appointed king and the observance of which he undertook upon
oathwould it not be just according to all law, divine and human,
that by reason of the oath taken by them to ensure the observance
of the laws, somewhat greater (liberty of action) should be granted
to these subordinate magistrates than to those [citizens] who
are of entirely private station and without any public office? I
therefore maintain that, if they are reduced to such unavoidable
compulsion, they are certainly bound, even by means of armed
force if they can, to protect against manifest tyranny the safety of
those who have been entrusted to their care and honor, as long
as their public interests have been better consulted and fittingly
provided for in accordance with the collective counsel of the
States-General or the Nomophylakes, that is, of those with whom
all the legislative authority of the kingdom or empire in question
rests. This moreover is not to be factious or a traitor towards your
supreme ruler, but rather to be a most faithful keeper of your
oath towards those whose direction you have undertaken, against
perjury and against the oppressor of a kingdom whose protector
he should have been.
At Rome, Brutus and Lucretius lawfully exercised this right
against Tarquin the Proud who was openly practicing tyranny
although this cause was theirs for private reasons alsowhen the
latter as prefect of the city and the former as tribune of the knights
summoned together the Roman people that by their authority the
tyrant might be expelled from the kingdom and his possessions
confiscated. And there can be no doubt {120} but that had they
been able to seize him, they would also have condemned him
in accordance with the laws which he had violated (whereas he
should have been their upholder); for it is an entirely false maxim
of a detestable flatterer rather than of a subject loyal to his ruler
139
140
1 Sam. 24:7.
2 Sam. 2:14.
1 Sam. 23:913.
1 Sam. 25:28.
2 Chron. 21:810.
141
142
Romulus did not hold sway over this congress of people except by
their consent. Hence it follows that the authority of all magistrates,
however supreme and powerful they are, is dependent upon the
public authority of those who have raised them to this degree of
dignity, and not contrariwise. And let no one use the objection
that such was indeed the first beginning of magistracies but that
subsequently the people completely subjected themselves to the
power and arbitrary will of those whom they had received as their
supreme magistrates and that they gave up their liberty to them
wholly and without any reserve whatever. In the first place I deny
that there is any certain proof of this complete renunciation; nay
on the contrary I maintain that as long {123} as right and justice
have prevailed no nation has either elected or approved kings
without laying down specific conditions.
And if those kings violate these the result is that those who had
the power to confer this authority upon them have retained no less
power again to divest them of that authority. That this may appear
the more clearly, let us inquire whether this cannot be proved
by the uninterrupted usage among the most famous and better
known people throughout the ages.
I. Examples of the Romans in the time of kings
Let us begin with the kingdom and subsequently with the empire
of the Romans though they were not more ancient [than other
peoples]. Titus Livius62 in describing the origins of the Roman
kingship records that since the hundred so-called [interreges] who
were set over the people in turn after the death of Romulus (this
first ancestor of the people) did not find favor with the commons,
it was decided by general consent that henceforth kings should be
elected by the votes of the people and confirmed by the authority
of the Senate.63
The same [author] when speaking of Tarquin the Proud, the
last Roman king, remarks: For he had no other claim to royal
power apart from force since he ruled neither at the command
of the people nor with the authority of the Senators.64 And he
62. see inter alia, Titus Livius, Ab urbe condita, book I, xv, 68.
63. Ibid., book I, xvii.
64. Ibid., book I, xlix, 3.
143
144
145
146
147
148
rather the glory of God, from whom alone all tranquillity comes,
might be such an object of care to both, that rulers and subjects
alike might be content to maintain themselves peacefully. But to
return to the point from where I digressed, the Lord being rightly
incensed against His people, that He might clearly make known
to them what they were to expect from that reckless disposition
by which they were being disturbed, prophesied to them through
Samuel in wondrous words indeed what that right would be which
history calls the royal prerogative, namely, in short, that the king
would arbitrarily seize the persons and possessions of his subjects
and convert them to his own uses, [conduct] which is doubtless
tyrannical rather than royal. For who would dare to doubt seriously
that God alone is competent to thrust His arbitrary will in the
place of reason since nothing can be called just but what God has
first willed? For the will of God alone is the true and certain rule of
all justice, as was maintained from the beginning. But the contrary
happens in the case of men whose reason too should be subject
to and guided by just and inviolable laws, particularly in the case
of those who are placed in authority over others; so that they are
entirely mistaken who interpret Samuels words as if he desired to
be the authority over kings for the commission of any daring deed,
or approved of whatever they did in blind willfulness; equally
accursed is the saying of the notorious incestuous woman Si liber,
licet79 a standpoint which, alas, is excessively bandied about and
acted upon in this present century. Nay rather the works of Samuel
must be interpreted as if he spoke them to rebuke Israel: it suffices
not for you to have God Himself as your monarch as it has thus far
been by some extraordinary favor; but you are demanding another
and such as the other nations have; therefore shall such an one fall
to your lot. But again listen what right he shall claim over you and
with what fairness and justice he shall hold sway over you. That
this was the purport of Samuels words the subsequent course of
history itself has shown.
The Kings of Judah elected by the people
I therefore maintain that though God had expressly elected
149
David, yet he had to be elected80 by the people also and that they
in electing him rightly, {129} as they should, followed the will
of God. The same thing occurred in the case of Solomon81 also
who after being first elected by God, was in the second instance
made king by the people. And in general: although the royal
crown in accordance with the command of God by hereditary
right belonged to the House of David, yet as we have shown above
the people ever elected from among the children of the late king
that one whom it preferred to hold sway. And with this [election]
went a twofold obligation, as appears from the history of Joash.82
For both the king and the people first promised God under
solemn oath to observe His laws both ecclesiastical and political.
Afterwards another mutual oath too was taken between the king
himself and the people. But, someone will say, did the people,
that is the Estates of the people, for that reason have the right
to punish their elected candidate when he failed to perform his
duty? They certainly had that right as can be particularly proved
by four examples.
For if David might defend himself against the tyranny of
Saul, as appeared a while ago, and if the people of Libnah, who
however were but subordinate magistrates, might revolt from
their allegiance to Jehoram, shall I not rightly thence infer that the
royal Estates per se (ipso iure) had many more rights? Relevant
to this point is also the deed that was done by those very Estates
upon the wise counsel of Jehoiada the priest against Athaliah, who
had been appointed queen and had reigned over the kingdom for
six whole years.83 Lastly the example of Amaziah84 is much clearer
still; him the people of Jerusalem pursued even till they slew him.
But if anyone were to think that this was done seditiously and
not lawfully, I would have him attend carefully to the following
arguments. It is nowhere declared that Amaziah was slain by the
slaves of his household,85 as we read happened to his father Joash
80.
81.
82.
83.
84.
85.
2 Sam. 5:14.
1 Chron. 29:22
2 Kin. 11:4, 17.
2 Kin. 11.
2 Kin. 14:1921; 2 Chron. 25:2728; 26:d.
2 Chron. 24:25.
150
2 Kin. 21:23.
2 Chron. 25:27.
2 Kin. 21:24.
2 Kin. 14:5.
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
such conditions; between you and us (there is) One with greater
authority than you.107
Behold how far the Spaniards have held their kings in honor as
they were in duty bound.
XII. Examples from the Holy (Roman) Empire
Why [add] any further [examples]? Everyone knows what the
authority of that most famous gathering of princes in the whole
world (that is of the empire of the seven electors) is in regards
to the election of an emperor as well as his discharge whenever
necessary, as was experienced by the emperors Adolphus in the
year 1296 and Wenceslaus in the year 1400.108 The oath by which
the kings or German emperors then bound themselves was such
as is described in the treatise entitled Speculum Saxonicum.109 For
when a king is elected, he is compelled by means of a public oath
to vouch for fidelity and hominium (or homage as the common
people call it) to the empire, and to promise that he will promote
the administration of justice by all in his power, furthermore that
he will ward off all kinds of injustice and in short that he will with
all zeal and exertion protect the rights of the empire.
XIII. Examples of the Kings of Gaul both before and after their
Union with the Franks
I now come to the Franks. Julius Caesar 110 is our witness that
with them before their arrival in Gaul the kings were responsible
to the Estates of the people; in recounting the words of Ambiorix,
the chieftain of the Eburones (or the people of Liege as their
modern name is) in some speech, he says that his authority is of
such a nature that the multitude (that is the lawfully assembled
multitude) possesses no less rights as against him than he as
against it.111 The same is proved from the words of Vercingetorix,
107. See Ralph E. Giesey, If Not, Not: the oath of theAragonese and the
legendary laws of Sobrarbe (Princeton University Press, 1968).
108. The emperor Adolphus was deposed in the year 1298, not 1296; the
emperor Wenceslaus in 1400.
109. Sachsenspiegel, Landrecht, book III, 54, 2.
110. Julius Caesar, De bello gallico, book V, 8.
111. Ibid., book V, 27: ut non minus habaret iuris in se multitudo, quam ipse
in multitudinem.
158
the king {137} of the Averni pleading his cause in a gathering of the
people as it is reproduced by the same Caesar.112
But afterwards the Gauls and the Franks united under the style
of the Francogalli. And although their kingdom has by striking
favor of God been continued and preserved for a very long time
[yet] at the present time at least, wherever the blame might
attach, it seems so to totter that its most certain and immediate
destruction has to be feared; and yet that can hardly happen
without a mighty revolution in the remaining parts of the world.
But the remarks which I now have to make on that score will, I
strongly suspect, be pleasing and acceptable to some, but to others
most disagreeable and ill-omened. Yet if I maintain nothing that is
not the truth, I hope that God will grant me His favor against all
misrepresentation.
Hence, although the Franco-Gauls elected their kings first from
the house of the Nerobingians, then from the descendants of
Charlemagne, and finally from the successors of Hugh Capet, yet I
maintain that from the beginning they established their monarchy
in such a way that their kings ruled, not by the sole right of
succession,113 but were elected at the same time by the agreement of
the Estates of the Kingdom. After being thus elected Pharamundus
was raised to the royal throne in the year of our Lord 419;114 so
(also) Pippin in the year 751 and his sons Charles and Carloman
in the year 768. And at length in 771 Charles upon the authority
of the Estates succeeded to his brothers portion. Following this
authority he himself afterwards, that is in 812, appointed his son
Louis heir to the empire and in his will he expressly provided, as
Nauclerus who has recorded it testifies,115 that the people, that
is the Estates themselves, should elect as his successor to the
kingship whomsoever of his children they preferred and he also
112. Ibid., book VII, 4.
113. The mention of the right of succession is fureher developed in Chapter
VI of Francois Hotmans, Francogallia. A useful analysis on this point can be
found in Ralph E. Giesey, The Juristic Basis of Dynastic Right to the French
Throne, Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, n.s., 51/5 (1961),
3037.
114. Aimoin De Fleuri, Hist. Francorum, book I, cap. 4 (Migne, Patrol. Lat.,
139, cap. (Mg. 640B).
115. Johannes Nauclerus, Chronica...res memorabliles, vol. II, generatio 28.
159
160
161
all public offices bestowed upon chosen men or taken from them
according to the arbitrary will of a certain limited group of men
or women, noble or baseborn, honest or abandoned, who enjoy
greater authority or influence with the rulers of the state (since
through their ears and eyes alone the latter hear and see)all
these circumstances, I declare, are completely at variance with
the just customs and policy of our ancestors and clearly in direct
opposition to the chief laws upon which the foundations of the
French monarchy rest.
But I now leave it to all lawyers who possess a good conscience
together with knowledge of the law to discuss the question whether
any prescription of however long a period of time can or should
in accordance with any law divine or human find application here.
For the fact that even to this day kings are anointed in solemn
ritual and swear their oathwould that its words were publicly
printed so that they might become known to alland that they
are further wont, after they have secured the kingship, to confirm
their privileges to the communities severally and also their public
charges to the officials of the kingdom (albeit many abuses occur
here which are in no wise to be commended), and lastly the fact
that if the kings are minors the orders and Estates of the kingdom
decide by common resolution to {140} whom its administration
shall be entrusted, all these I say are the present survivals of that
erstwhile authority which the Estates enjoyed and which is now
gradually disappearing. Yet two centuries have not passed since
the will of Charles V, nicknamed the Wise, was annulled by the
Estates themselves, that is in 1380.120 What more? When in 1567
Louis XI, who tried his utmost to transform the French monarchy
into a tyranny (a procedure which the parasites of the palace call
the emancipation of the sovereign of his release from slavery), was
deservedly accused of the worst misgovernment of the kingdom,
thirty (or thirty-six) men were given to him as guardians by the
Estate gathered at Tours that he might allow himself to be directed
and guided by them.121 It is true indeed that he afterwards easily
120. Here Beza is reciting the many details and documentation found in
Hotman, Francogallia, chapter XVII, 137.38 of the Geneva, 1573 ed.
121. For Louis XI and the Estates General of 1468 (not 1467), see the study
by J. Russell Major, Representative Institutions in Renaissance France, 14211559.
162
rid himself of them since, under pretext of the idol of Clery 122
which he worshipped with the greatest superstition, all his oaths
and promises were but sport and jest to him; yet [he did this] with
so much harm to himself and such an unhappy result that apart
from the disgrace with which he is branded even today, he could
enjoy no rest or peace during his lifetime and even at deaths door
experienced what it meant to be feared rather than loved by his
subjects.
And since mention has been made of the violation of an oath,
we would add another most remarkable example. While Charles
VII was yet Dauphin, he had John, the last Duke of Burgundy
descended from the royal stock of France, miserably slain in his
presence in violation of his word of honor and the peace and
friendship but recently confirmed by oath near Melun.123 Although
that Duke fully deserved such a great ordeal, this perjury was
in the end expiated by many thousands of souls in France and
with the ruin of almost the entire kingdom. And King Charles
himself was reduced to such misery, that he was first disinherited
by his father, afterwards saw his deadly enemy invested with the
royal power in Paris and was subsequently himself styled King
of Aquitaine rather than of France. At length however he was
constrained with great dishonor to himself to purchase peace as
appears from the treaty drawn up at Arras. Although the king
himself negotiated with Duke Philip, the son of the murdered
John, {141} as with his subject, yet in that treaty this express clause
is contained, to which, it says, the king himself shall agree
and which he shall approve by his letter of authority. But if this
agreement shall happen to be violated by him, his clients, vassals
and subject, present and future, shall thereafter not be bound
either to obey or to serve him, but shall show every obedience
against him to the Duke of Burgundy rather and his successors; in
short all those very clients, beneficiaries and subjects shall in this
case be regarded as free, disengaged and entirely released from
(University of Wisconsin Press, 1960), chapter III. Cf. Hotman, Francogallia,
Chapter XVIII (140140 of the Geneva 1573 ed.).
122. Allusion to Notre Dame of Clery, which was the favorite chapel of Louis
XI. See Pierre Champion, Louis XI (Paris, 1927), II, 211213.
123. The peace was concluded in Pouilli, close to Melun, July 11, 1419.
163
164
carried out conscientiously their duty and their oath by which they
were bound towards God and their country. And though by means
of the clearest examples of kingdoms and empires both ancient
and modern we have already above demonstrated the practice in
these matters, yet to answer the objection that (the matter) should
be judged by legal arguments rather than by examples, I shall add
as many other grounds as possible to lend greater support to our
point of view.
Argument from natural law and equity
For to begin with I maintain that there are two propositions
which justice as such or that law of nature upon which alone the
maintenance of all human society depends, does not allow to be
called in question; the first of these is that in all compacts and
covenants which are contracted by mutual and sole agreement
between the parties, those by whom the obligations were entered
into, can of themselves cancel and annul it, whenever reason so
demands. Accordingly those who possess authority to elect a king,
will also have the right to dethrone him. The second [proposition]
is that if there is any just occasion for the annulment of a compact
or covenant by reason of which the obligation would of itself
disappear and be held as naught, it never arises but when the
essential conditions, for which particularly the obligation was
entered upon, are manifestly violated.
Therefore let those who so far exalt the authority of kings and
supreme rulers as to dare maintain that they have no other Judge
but God alone to whom they are held bound to render account of
their deeds, furnish proof that there has been any nation anywhere
which has consciously and without intimidation or compulsion of
some kind subjected itself to the arbitrary rule of some supreme
ruler without the express or tacit addition of the proviso that it be
justly and fairly ruled and guided by him.
But if someone were to furnish an example of peoples who
upon being defeated in war surrendered at discretion and swore
to the conditions dictated by the victors, it would not be enough
for me to answer with the lawyers that [undertakings] extorted by
violence or intimidation which is the rule of consciences does not
165
166
167
nation and people that which justice itself freely grants to private
persons, such as minors, women, people of an unsound mind
and those who complain that they have been defrauded beyond
half the fair value (laesio enormis) particularly if there be proof
of the bad faith of those towards whom such persons have bound
themselves.131 But can anyone be found of worse faith than that
tyrant who is so shameless that he wishes people to believe that
he may do everything, lawful and unlawful, because he either
so covenanted with the people or received such power from his
ancestors? Meanwhile I for my part admit, as has been abundantly
shown above, that in that case the authority of the Estates or
Orders should be invoked and interposed that private citizens may
not be free to undertake and attempt {145} anything against the
public order and that subordinate magistrates may not go beyond
the limits of their calling.
But I put the further question whether the obligation of subjects
towards their kings is greater than that of children towards parents,
of slaves towards their master or of freedmen towards their patron
who set them free. Let us listen particularly what Cicero, guided
by justice and reason, writes concerning the duty of a (dependent)
son whose father strives by violence to seize control of his country:
If a father, he says by open violence attempts to grasp tyrannical
power or to betray his country, shall a son remain silent? No, not at
all; but he shall as suppliant beseech his father not to do so; but if
by his entreaties he does not avail at all, he shall reproach him and
frighten him with threats; but if the matter has already gone so far
that there is reason to apprehend that this country may at length
be overwhelmed, he shall set greater store by the preservation of
his country than by the life of his father.132 Listen what was the
opinion of that man, not merely in agreement with reason but also
carrying the greatest authority.
As regards servants or slaves, there was a proviso in Roman
law that a slave whom his master did not tend in illness should
168
169
170
life and the other who subverts every just method of rule in his
kingdom; for I should not be inclined to think that the supreme
ruler ought to be corrected in the same way as his subjects for
private delicts which are personal in the strict sense of the word,
but yet [I do think] that he can become so abandoned that he can
and should deservedly be visited with penalties and punishments.
How much more fair would it therefore be when the order of the
state is at stake that those upon whom this duty rests should be
free to take precautions and to strive lest the commonwealth suffer
any harm? And if they neglect to do so, let them be regarded as
traitors towards God and their country, to [both of] whom they
have bound themselves by oath. When these distinctions are duly
weighed and brought into relation with the general character of
David as also with the public amends by which he did penance
for his public crimes, no one will be surprised that nothing more
severe was decreed or attempted against him. Moreover it is
in principle an illogical conclusion of the argument to craw the
inference that no punishment should have been inflicted for some
wrong because none in fact was inflicted.
d) But perhaps there will not be wanting those who will furnish
the [example of] the authority of the Turkish emperor over his
subjects. I should wish these to have their answer in a single word:
an empire of that description does not deserve to be called either
kingly or human, but wholly barbarous, tyrannical, uncivilized
and detestable, especially because whereas the other monarchies
and empires, to however many faults they may have been subject,
were still instruments suitable for the preservation of human
society, it is obvious that on the contrary this Turkish tyranny is
an awful scourge of God by means of which God in accordance
with his just judgment threatens this world with its final ruin and
overthrow. {148} Therefore, if there are men to be found today who
are counselors to kings so that these may fashion an example and
an image of their rule from that source, I proclaim with a clear and
loud voice that those Turks should be deemed the public enemies
of humankind and should be cast out in banishment.
e) But to pursue the analogies concerning the right of one
private citizen towards another upon which I set out above: will
any obligation which is more stricti iuris than that of marriage arise
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
f) Here some people also vainly rejoin that this same will of
God finds no application in every [case of] tyranny, since no
tyranny obtains either without or in spite of the will of God.
[Vainly, I say], for I could turn this very argument against the
tyrants: for it is no less dependent upon the will of God that the
tyrants are expelled by their subjects and fellow countrymen, as
has happened to many, than that tyrants frequently oppress their
peoples. But the following will be a truer reply, that is, if we say
that the will of God must be heeded to the extent that He Himself
has deigned to reveal it to us; otherwise there would be no crime
so heinous but what it could be imputed to the Divine will, since
not even those events which are regarded as in the highest degree
fortuitous occur by chance or accidentally. Hence it comes about
that the man who meets with highway robbers, by whom no one
is murdered without the consent of the will of God, has the power
in accordance with the authority of the laws to resist them in just
self-defense which incurs no blame because no one forsooth has
[received] a special command from God that he meekly allow
himself to be slain by robbers. Our conviction is entirely the same
about that regular defense against tyrants which we are discussing.
Yet this then at length ceases to find application when clear proof
emerges of the contrary will of God, as happened in the case of
that deed of Zedekiah about which we spoke but recently, and
before that also in the case of his predecessor Rehoboam;154 for he
would otherwise justly have attacked the other ten tribes revolting
from him had not God expressly forbidden this to be done. But
on the other hand Mattathias155 and his children are celebrated
as deserving of the highest praise because they so courageously
resisted the most cruel tyrant Antiochus when God did not by any
decree forbid it, although without His just judgment Antiochus
would not have attacked the people of God and even have been
acceptable to many and found favor with them. {156}
g) The further objection is raised that the revolt of the Israelites
from Rehoboam, even though he was an unjust oppressor,
deserves the strongest condemnation. I myself too answer that the
Israelites did double wrong by him. [They did so] firstly because
154. 2 Chron. 11:4.
155. 1 Maccabees 1 & 2.
180
1 Kin. 12:1820.
1 Kin. 11:3139.
1 Kin. 12:18.
1 Pet. 2:17.
1 Tim. 2:12.
181
161.
162.
163.
164.
165.
See Rufinus, Hist. eccl. book I, cap. 35; Artemius, Comm. hist., cap. 56.
Matt. 17:27.
Ac. 5:3637.
Rom. 13:7.
John 19:15.
182
183
184
185
186
and Eli172 and although these two offices were afterward separated
by the Lord, this did not happen because they were incompatible
with each other but because one man could scarcely be equal to
the performance of both.
b) Furthermore, when the king is bidden to have with him a
book of law173 that he may practice himself in the reading of it day
and night, that is demanded of him not as of a private citizen but
as of a king and a public magistrate.
c) And among the laws of which the execution is entrusted to the
rulers, those174 are deemed the principal which condemn to death
the despisers of the true religion. The application of these laws we
remark in the case of David175 who by means of fixed laws rendered
inviolable the entire worship of God, and in the case of Solomon
who supplemented the decree of his father against transgressors;176
likewise in the edicts of the Kings Asa, Jehosaphat, Hezekiah, and
Josiah,177 nay even of Nebuchadnezzar and Darius178 when they
were persuaded by the prophet Daniel to worship God.
d) Lastly, when the Apostle179 declares that kings and princes
have been appointed by God to this end not merely that we may
pass life honorably, but also piously, that is, not merely that we
may live as it befits honest and respectable men, and in accordance
with piety towards God, it admits of no doubt but that he has
stated this whole question most succinctly. Hence we observe
that the earliest Councils against heretics were summoned not
{162} upon the authority of the Roman Pontiffs who had not yet
appeared in the character in which they came to light much later
but by the decree of the emperors, [in order that] by means of this
remedy they might hear the case in accordance with the persuasive
arguments of the pious bishops. There are also extant innumerable
constitutions (i.e., laws) and canons of the Church enacted by
172.
173.
174.
175.
176.
177.
178.
179.
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
review from the letter of Art. III, Sec. 2, are unsuccessful. Neither
McCardle nor Yerger, Rossum states, in any way suggests that, if
the (1868) Repealer Act had excepted from the Supreme Courts
appellate jurisdiction in cases arising under Section 14 of the
Judiciary Act of 1789, the Court would have been justified in
invalidating it. {174}
202
203
litigation (i.e., race, religion, etc.), Rossum states, A right itself has
no right to equal protection treatment vis a vis other rights. Rights
dont have rightsonly people do. Considering the Fourteenth
Amendment argument, there is nothing in the text, framing,
debates and other events surrounding that Amendment to suggest
any intent to limit Congress exceptions power. No reference at
all is made to legislative control over the federal judiciary. In the
absence of an express repeal, a constitutional amendment does
not repeal a prior provision of the Constitution unless the two are
so clearly repugnant that they cannot stand together.45
Accordingly, the Supreme Court has in fact held, in addition
to the Francis Wright case, that limitations on the use of judicial
review do not violate the 14th Amendment. In Ohio ex rel. Bryant
v. Akron Metro. Park {176} Dist.,46 the Court upheld the validity
of a state constitution requiring the concurrence of all but one
of the Justices before the Ohio Supreme Court could hold a law
unconstitutional. This unusual curb on the judicial power was
held, in an opinion by Chief Justice Hughes, not violative of Due
Process under the 14th Amendment. Nor was it violative of Equal
Protection even though a statute might be held invalid in one case
and not so in another.
204
205
206
judicial review), Blackstone and John Locke, saw civil law as being
based on the Higher Law of Scripture.62 Thus, R. J. Rushdoony
states that judicial review rests on the religious premise that no
one should obey an ungodly or unconstitutional act, and that
courts have the religious duty to pronounce such laws unlawful.63
Regrettably, these historical rules of construction are often
ignored by federal courts. Thus, severe inconveniences have
arisen. When courts abuse judicial review by declaring as
constitutional rights such ungodly practices as abortion, it is
time for Congress to use its Art. III (a) power. Prudent use
of it by Congress is vital to restoration of federalism and lost
Constitutional liberties. For example, Congress could enact
legislation stripping all federal courts of jurisdiction to consider
state cases involving crime and punishment, abortion, and public
school prayer and Bible study. State Courts would then be free to
enforce the Constitution according to its text as well as the original
and correct understanding.
For Congress to continue its cowardly refrain from utilizing its
exceptions power is in effect to concede that the Constitution,
the permanent will of the People, means instead whatever the
Supreme Court says it means in ordinary litigation between
parties in personal actions, no matter how opposed to the written
text. The people then cease, as Abraham Lincoln said, to be
their own rulers, having, to that extent, practically resigned their
government, into the hands of that eminent tribunal.64
62. Ed. S. Corwin, Origins of Judicial Review: The Higher Law Background
of Amer. Const. Law, 42 Harvard Law Rev. (192829), 149, 365; Blackstone,
Commentaries, Jones ed., 1915, 14243; John Eidsmoe, The Christian Legal
Advisor (Milford, MI, 1984), 40.
63. R. J. Rushdoony, This Independent Republic, (Fairfax, VA., 1978), 26, n. 6.
64. Basler, The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln (1953), 262, 268.
207
The Legacy of
the Legal Theory
of John Calvin
G. Joseph Gatis
Introduction
John Calvin
We know of Calvin from his enemies as well as from his followers
Pope Pius IV says of him, The strength of that heretic consisted
in this, that money never had the slightest charm for him. If I had
such servants my dominion would extend from sea to sea.1 John
Cotten, American, Puritan, and Calvins admirer: I have read the
fathers and the school men, and Calvin too; but I find that he that
has Calvin has them all.2 When Cotten was asked why he studied
into the small hours more than he had previously, he replied,
Because I love to sweeten my mouth with a piece of Calvin before
I go to sleep.3 Some detractors of Calvin regard such admiration
of Calvins works as idolatry, but these naysayers notwithstanding,
his works are impossible to ignore.4
We can learn much of Calvin from his opponents:
1. Otto Scott, The Great Christian Revolution, in The Great Christian
RevolutionThe Myths of Paganism and Arminianism (Vallecito, CA, 1991), 130.
2. Cotton Mather, Magnalia Christi Americana (Hartford, CT: 1853), I:274.
3. Ibid.
4. One seminarian at a large conservative Protestant seminary heard a
Calvinistic student cite a section of Calvins Institutes. The seminarian remarked
in rebuke, alluding to the Apostle Paul at Mars Hill (Acts 17:Iff.)I came to the
shrine of the unknown god, whose name was Calvin. The seminarian proposed
that all Calvinists were actually idolaters who deify the Swiss Reformer.
208
209
210
211
moral good ranges from the doctrine of free will to the doctrine
of the spark of divinity.27 Morton Smith calls Arminianism a
crooked stick through which God can still save.28 Sam Storms
defends Calvinism as the only worthwhile system of salvation
doctrine because the alternative, or Arminianism, is by necessity
synergistic, in that it conceives of salvation as the joint or mutual
effort of both God and man.29 Calvinism stands today as the
great citadel of historic orthodoxy.30 J. Gresham Machen, founder
of Westminster Theological Seminary, recommended Boetnners
work The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination, a work generally
considered to define the parameters of Calvinism.31 Here R. C.
Sproul represents the opinion of Reformed theologians:
Those thinkers who are most widely recognized as the titans of
classical Christian scholarship fall heavily on the Reformed side. I
am persuaded, however, that this is a fact of history that dare not be
ignored. To be sure, it is possible that Augustine, Aquinas, Luther,
Calvin, and Edwards could all be wrong on this matter. Again, that
these agreed does not prove the case for predestination. They could
have been wrong. But it does get attention.32 {183} John Calvin
The Religious / Political Scenario of His Day
A variety of forces shaped Calvins world (15091564)
Renaissance humanism, the printing press, Lutheran reform, the
reform of the 1520s in France, as well as the more radical aftermath
a decade later. Calvin, who made his reputation as a Reformed
theologian, was first of all a humanist scholar. (The term connotes
27. Scholastic theologians distinguish moral good from metaphysical good.
According to them, there is metaphysical good even in Satan, although no moral
good. Scholastic theologians theorize that God created all things good (Gen.
1:24). Further, they see evil as the absence of good. Since Satan, one third of the
angels as well as Adam, and Eve, fell into moral evil yet still exist, they must have
some kind of good. The goodness retained by the fallen beings is metaphysical
good. Since each of these beings lacks moral good, he is evil. The Reformed
branch of Protestantism has argued since the Reformation that mankind is evi1
morally, but not metaphysically.
28. Morton H. Smith, Reformed Evangelism (Clinton MS, 1989), 29.
29. Samuel C. Storms, Chosen for Life (Grand Rapids, MI: 1987), 30.
30. Gregg Singer, John Calvin: His Root5 and Fruits (Atlanta, GA: 1989), 28.
31. J. Gresham Machen, The Christian View of Man (Grand Rapids, MI:
1931), 51.
32. R. C. Sproul, Chosen by God (Wheaton, IL: 1986), 15.
212
213
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid.
214
215
42. Jeannine E. Olson, Calvin and Social WelfareDeacons and the Bourse
Francaise (London and Toronto, 1989), 29.
43. Duke, op. cit., 182.
44. P. Mack Crew, Calvinist Preaching and Iconoclasm in the Netherland5
(Cambridge University Press, 1978); Carlos M. N. Eire, War Against the Idols
The Reformation of Wor5hip from Era5mus to Calvin (Cambridge, 1986), 280.
45. Helga Robinson-Hammerstein, Introduction: Luther and the Laity, in
The Transmission in the Lutheran Reformation (Dublin, 1989), 29.
216
Conclusion
The legal and political scenario of Calvins day involved
upheavals deriving from the force of religion on law. Whole cities,
provinces, and states came under Reformation influence, ranging
from quiet individual conversions to Protestantism to the hysteria
of community iconoclasm. The transformation of these societies,
however, was not in moving away from a religious worldview;
rather, the transformation was a movement of one religion to
another. In Calvins day, secularism, pluralism, and religious
toleration were non-existent. Europe was not in the thrall of the
question Should religion in public life be tolerated? but rather
Which religion should be enforced, to the banning of all others?
Calvin was a driven man, but driving him was a valid question:
What is the true religion? And deriving from the central question
46. Robert Kingdon, Geneva and the Coming of the Wars of Religion in France,
15551563 (Geneva, 1956); Robert Kingdon, Geneva and the Constitution of the
French Protestant Movement 15641572 (Madison, 1967); cf. John T. NcNeill,
The History and Character of Calvinism (New York, 1967), 237352; E. William
Monter, Calvins Geneva (New York, 1975), 165236.
47. Carlos M. N. Eire, War Against the Idols: The Reformation of Worship from
Erasmus to Calvin (Cambridge, 1986), 279.
48. Ibid., 281.
49. Ibid., 280.
217
Statement of Thesis
Calvin concluded that, substantively, a correct political and
legal system derives from the Bible, and procedurally, the system is
applied by democratically elected officials, checking and balancing
one anotherand his views were within a Reformation consensus.
218
219
character and activity of God.57 The next function of the law (third
category) is exhortation, for as Calvin remarks, the law is to the
flesh like a whip to an idle and balky ass, to arouse it to work,58
ready to castigate those who continue to sin. He believed in using
the law in discouraging sin through warning of consequences and
encouraging righteousness with the promise of reward.59
Even if the law meets with suitable hosts, it can turn into an
occasion that condemns them as sinners.60 While Calvin and
Luther agreed on the three uses of the law, Calvin regarded the
third use of the law as a guide for believers as the principal
use.61 In Calvins view the civil magistrate had the authority to
enforce both tables of the Ten Commandmentsthat is pietas and
aequitas.62
220
221
222
223
224
brought death upon us.97 The nature of holy law is both perpetual
and inseparable (perpetuum et inseparabel) from its nature. The
blessing which it offers to us is excluded by our depravity, so that
only the curse remains.98 He further explains, God exhibited a
remarkable proof of his goodness in promising life to all who kept
his lawand this will always remain inviolate (integrum).99
Of course, Calvin sees the bare law as presenting an impossible
challenge to the unregenerate; Jesus Christ alone is able to keep
the law. {194} Accordingly, the wickedness and condemnation of
us all are sealed by the testimony of the law. Yet this is not done
to cause us to fall down in despair, or completely discouraged,
to rush headlong over the brinkprovided we duly profit by the
testimony of the law.100 In Calvins opinion, the laws accusatory
character should not depress but illumine.
Conclusion
Unlike our modern era, Reformation legal theory is monadica
universal God governs universally through a universal law. Modern
Western pluralism views law as a governing entity separate and
distinct from religious organizations. Secular law stops where
organized religion begins. With his Reformation colleagues,
Calvin did not view church and society as compartmentalized.
Rather, one truth, one church, one society, one government, and
one law derived from God through the Bible and nature. Calvins
wholistic worldview and the modern pluralistic one are galaxies
apart.
3.
RECONSTRUCTION
IN ECONOMICS
225
226
Reform of Limited
Liability Law
Stephen C. Perks
Among those who have called for reform of the economy there are
those who have argued also for the abolition of the limited liability
status of joint-stock companies as a necessary concomitant of such
reforms. As we shall see, R. J. Rushdoony links the development
of limited liability and the growth of a fiat money economy and
in The Politics of Guilt and Pity he entitled the chapter on limited
liability Limited Liability and Unlimited Money.1 Likewise, Gary
North in An Introduction to Christian Economics wrote: Monetary
inflation, multiple indebtedness, and limited liability are an unholy
economic trinity; they are eroding the very foundation of Western
culture.2 These are strong words indeed against limited liability,
for while there are in the Bible specific and explicit laws prohibiting
the debasement of money and multiple indebtedness there are
none explicitly addressing the kind of limited liability granted to
joint-stock companies in modern Western law. The issue is much
more complex than that, and thus there are, rather than explicit
laws, general principles and case laws from which we can deduce
the limits of companies and individual shareholders liability. A
careful study of the biblical material relevant to this issue would,
I believe, yield neither the conclusion that shareholders of jointstock companies should be held liable beyond the nominal value
of their shareholding in all circumstances where the companys
actions or failure to act have led to justifiable claims for damages
1. R. J. Rushdoony, The Politics of Guilt and Pity (Fairfax, VA: 1978), 254
62. This is in my opinion one of the most important books available on the
application of the Christian religion to political and social issues and essential
reading for anyone with a vocation in this area.
2. Gary North, An Introduction to Christian Economics (The Craig Press,
1973), 18.
227
228
The fact that mans knowledge is limited means that his liabilities
are of necessity limited. In this broader sense mans liabilities are
limited by many things. For example there are natural limits to
mans liability: e.g. death limits mans liabilities. There are also
manmade limits to his liabilities: For instance, contracts may limit
mans liability. Insurance companies may write clauses into life
insurance policies limiting the liability of the insurance company
under certain circumstances. A common contractual limitation in
life insurance policies stipulates that if the insured commits suicide
within a certain number of years after taking out the policy, the
company is not liable to pay out. Such contracts bring us to the
realm of legal limitations on mans liability. But mans liability is
also limited by Gods law. There are thus divine limits {197} placed
on mans liability.3 However, it is with reference to the restricted
and narrower use of the term that I am concerned here, i.e., in
the sense that the term is applied in law to joint-stock companies
whose shareholders liability is restricted to the nominal value
of their shareholding. My purpose is to establish from biblical
principles and criteria the extent of the validity or non-validity of
this modern idea of limited liability as it is applied to joint-stock
companies in law. It is important that we keep this restricted use of
the term in mind and do not get it confused with the more general
notion and alternative uses of the term.
3. I am concerned here with mans liability to other men in economic matters.
What is said here, therefore, should not be taken as necessarily applicable in
strictly criminal matters. For example, limitations on mans liabilities arising
from sabbath year release of debt and manumission would not necessarily be
applicable to someone making restitution for theft or fraud. Neither am I dealing
with mans liability before God as a sinner under the sentence of Gods law. It
is a fundamental axiom of Christian theology that God holds man accountable
for his sin and that his liability to punishment for the transgression of Gods law
is unlimited precisely because man is finite and thus unable to make sufficient
amends for his sin, which of course has infinite consequences. Only in Christ is
mans unlimited liability for sin before God removed since Christ, as the Godman, has made a propitiation that is sufficient to atone for mans sin and thus able
to discharge the debt incurred by it. In this sense I agree with R. J. Rushdoony
when he writes: The covenant-breaker, at war with God and unregenerate, has
an unlimited liability for the curse. Hell is the final statement of that unlimited
liability. The objections to hell, and the attempts to reduce it to a place of
probation or correction, are based on a rejection of unlimited liability (R. J.
Rushdoony, The Institutes of Biblical Law [Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing
Company, 1973], 668).
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
social club or bingo club, is an entirely different matter than shareownership in a company. Norths argument for limited liability
revolves around faulty exegesis and faulty logic.
Unfortunately, North does not help his case by mixing arguments
regarding limited liability in the narrower sense as applied to jointstock companies whose shareholders liability is restricted to the
nominal value {203} of their shareholding with examples of other
kinds of limited liability such as an employers liability regarding
the risks knowingly taken by an employee doing a dangerous
job and the contractual limits placed on an insurance companys
liability by an insurance policy. The latter two cases are of an
entirely different order than that of the former, and discussion of
these disparate kinds of restriction on a companys liability in the
same sentence and paragraph only serves to confuse the issue of
whether limited liability as applied to shareholders of joint-stock
companies is morally valid and sanctioned by biblical law.
Furthermore, the question at issue between those who would
abolish limited liability and North, who wishes to keep it, is not
whether there should be limits or no limits to mans liability, but
at what point mans liability should be limited. North is correct
when he argues, Man is a limited creature. His knowledge is
therefore limited. Because his knowledge is limited, God limits
mans legal liability.17 But this is a much more general notion of
limited liability than that denominated by the term as it is applied
to joint-stock companies, and it would have been helpful if North
had kept this stricter meaning of the term in mind when voicing
his disagreement with Rushdoony. Those who advocate abolition
of limited liability law as it applies to the shareholders of a
company are not doing so on the premise that mans responsibility
is limited, but rather on the premise that the point at which his
liability should cease must be governed by biblical principles and
and social point of view, at least todayin former centuries when recusancy
laws were common it was a different matter of course. But membership of the
church of Christ is not coterminous with membership of a specific denomination
or institution, and though under normal circumstances Christians should seek
membership in a local institutional church there might be times and occasions
when membership of the body of Christ and obedience to Gods word might
necessitate their withdrawal from an institutional church.
17. North, op. cite, 471.
236
237
238
sell the live ox and divide its price equally; and also they shall
divide the dead ox. (Ex. 21:35)
Or if it is known that the ox was previously in the habit of goring,
yet its owner has not confined it, he shall surely pay ox for ox, and
the dead animal shall become his. (Ex. 21:36)
If a man lets a field or vineyard be grazed and lets his animal loose
so that it grazes in another mans field, he shall make restitution
from the best of his own field and the best of his own vineyard. (Ex.
22:5).
If a fire breaks out and spreads to thornbushes, so that the stacked
grain or the standing grain or the field is consumed, he who started
the fire shall surely make restitution. (Ex. 22:6)
239
animal had previously been docile. The owners liability in this case
is very limited; in fact, the limit of his liability is the nominal value
of his investment since the ox is put to death and cannot be sold
for meat etc. Thus, the Bible clearly establishes a case of limited
liability to some extent analogous to the kind of liability imputed
to shareholders of a limited company. The difference, however
and it is a significant differenceis that limited liability is not a
status applicable in all possible eventualities. The limit of the
owners liability, in other words, is not established by the granting
of a legal status but in terms of the particulars of an individual case
in which a claim might be made against the owner.
Case B.An ox that has no previous record gores another ox to
death. The owner of the goring ox must sell it and split the price
between himself and the owner of the dead ox. They then divide
the dead ox between themselves. In this case the liability of the
owner of the goring ox is limited to less than the nominal value of
his investment since the costs incurred by the incident are borne
equally by the two parties involved, the victim as well as the owner
of the goring ox. The owner of the dead ox receives compensation
only to half the value of the live ox plus half the value of the dead
ox. Generally speaking, the market value of a goring ox will be
lower than that of a docile ox and thus the compensation received
by the victim may well be less than half the value of his loss. If the
ox that gored is a prize bull, however, he might possibly gain more
than this.
Case C.Suppose, however, that a previously docile ox gores
two oxen to death. The Bible does not address this case specifically,
but the principles for determining the limits of the owners liability
and the just settlement of any claim arising from it are already
given in case B. The live ox is sold and the price split three ways,
one part going to each of the three parties involved, or in the
case that the two dead oxen are owned by the same person, two
parts go to the injured party, and the dead oxen are similarly split
three ways. In this case, the compensation received by each of the
parties involved from the sale of the live ox is less than in case B,
i.e., each party receives only a third of the proceeds from the sale
of the live ox {207} compared with half the proceeds in case B, but
each party receives a third of each of the two dead oxen. Were
each dead ox to be split equally between its owner and the owner
240
of the goring ox the latter would come off better than the injured
parties, since each party would receive a third of the value of the
live ox, but the owner of the goring ox would receive half of both
dead oxen, whereas the injured parties would receive only half a
dead ox each. In case B each party receives an equal share of the
proceeds of the sale of the live ox and an equal division of the dead
ox. Thus, in order for this proportionality to be maintained the
dead oxen must be split equally between all the parties involved.
The liability of the owner of this goring ox is in one sense greater
in that he receives less from the division of the price of the live
ox than in case B, but the compensation awarded to the injured
parties is correspondingly less than in case B also.
In these cases the liability of the owner is clearly limited and the
criterion for determining this limitation of liability is the extent
of the owners knowledge. Man is a finite creature; he cannot be
expected to predict the future and he is not to be judged as if
he could. His liability is therefore restricted by the limits of his
knowledge. The case is far different, however, where the owner
had prior knowledge that an ox was dangerous.
Case D.An ox that is known to be dangerous and whose
owner has been warned and yet still he does not take sufficient
care to restrain it so that it gores a freeman, woman or child to
death is clearly a case of criminal negligence. The owners liability
is established by means of the biblical principle of justice: life
for life (Ex. 21:23). In this case provision is made for the death
sentence to be transmuted into compensation (a ransom, v. 30).
The citing of the death penalty, however, serves an important
purpose in establishing the ultimate limits of liability arising from
ownership of property. If in certain cases a man may be liable to
forfeit his life, then he is certainly liable to forfeit his property in
order to compensate his victim, and possibly even his freedom
since he may be forced to sell himself into servitude in order to
raise sufficient money to pay the ransom determined by the court
(Ex. 21:2; cf. Lev. 25:3941; Deut. 15:1214). Consequently, in
compensating a victims family for his death, the owner of the
goring ox with a reputation would be expected to pay in full
241
242
243
244
It is clear from these cases that the Bible limits mans liabilities
but not in the way that modern limited liability law restricts the
liabilities of shareholders of joint-stock companies. The most
important point thrown up by a consideration of these cases is
the criterion used to determine the extent of ones liability arising
from the ownership of property, viz., the extent of the owners
knowledge. Limited knowledge brings limited liability. But cases
D, E, F and I demonstrate that this principle cannot be abused to
the extent that the owner of property need only be informed of the
consequences of his actions or failure to act in order to avoid the
responsibilities of ownership. Thus cases D and E, cases involving
an animal with a reputation for goring, case/ the case involving
an uncovered pit, and I, cases involving accidental damage to
anothers property by straying cattle or fire, place limits on the
application of the limited knowledge principle. That is to say, the
limited knowledge principle is not applicable where an owner
can be reasonably expected to foresee the possible dangerous
consequences of his actions or failure to act and the damage such
failure might cause to others property or lives, even though he
may not have fulfilled that expectation, i.e., even though he may
be ignorant of his responsibilities. In other words, biblical case
law establishes the possibility of negligence as a criterion for
determining the extent of liability as well as the criterion of extent
of knowledge. In fact the negligence principle establishes the limits
of the extent of knowledge principle. {211}
245
246
247
Conclusion
Although there are no proof texts that directly address shareownership as practiced by joint-stock companies today, the
biblical principles relevant to the responsibilities and liabilities
of ownership of property generally support the conclusion of R.
J. Rushdoony and E. L. Hebden Taylorand even G. North in
his earlier writingsthat the limited liability status of modern
companies should be abolished. It would not be valid to conclude,
however, that shareholders in joint-stock companies should
therefore bear unlimited liability for the actions of the company
in all circumstances involving valid claims against the company
for compensation. The extent of a companys liability arising
from any particular case would have to be determined on its own
merits by the courts in terms of the application of the biblical
principles of extent of knowledge and negligence. My own view is
that although limited liability law as it presently stands is contrary
to biblical principles of justice in many cases and thus in need
of reform, it is not as serious in its effects on the economy as the
problems arising from the debasement of currency and multiple
indebtedness. I doubt that it is undermining the foundations of
Western culture, though in many cases it does unjustly undermine
the moral requirements of responsible ownership and the biblical
requirement that compensation be made in full to those adversely
affected by a companys irresponsible actions or failure to act
responsibly. Reform must lead to the recognition in law of the
biblical principles of limitation of liability arising from ownership
of property; it must also enable these principles to be applied
effectively in practice by the courts. This would mean that the
maximum liability of shareholders in a joint-stock company would
be limited by bankruptcy law and that where liability is restricted
as a result of limited knowledge, it would be fixed in financial terms
below, and possibly significantly below, the nominal value of their
shareholding. These reforms would engender responsible attitudes
to ownership on the part of shareholders while at the same time
protecting companies from the unfair and unscrupulous claims
for compensation that they may be likely to incur today without
limited liability status.
248
The Character
of Inflation
Steven Alan Samson
And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that
they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who
believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
(2 Thess. 2:1112)
249
250
In Isa. 64:8, man is likened to clay: But now, O Lord, thou art
our father; we are the clay, and thou art our potter; and we all are
the work of thy hand. In Pr. 7:23, mans heart is likened to a
clay tablet: Keep my commandments and live; and my law as the
apple of thine eye. Bind them upon thy fingers, write them upon
the table of thine heart. The Apostle Paul wrote in 2 Cor. 3:3 that
the Christians in Corinth were the epistle, or message, of Christ,
written not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart.
Jer. 2:22 notes how the iniquity of Israel was similarly marked
or engraved: For though thou wash thee with nitre, and take thee
much soap, yet thine iniquity is marked before me, saith the Lord
God. Thus for better and for worse, our character is stamped
on our hearts. Jer. 17:1 is even more explicit: The sin of Judah
is written with a pen of iron, and with the point of a diamond: it
is graven on the table of the heart. These words might as easily
describe the recording and playing of a phonograph disk.
Like an old Victrola, the life of a man articulates his masters
voice. The quality of the performance reflects the quality of the
recording. Thus it is important for Gods people to be cleansed of
all unrighteousness and to be inscribed by the word of God alone.
As the Reformers put it: Sola Scriptura. And also: Soli Deo gloria.
The glory belongs to God alone. {217}
God is the master craftsman. His injunctions against graven
images in the Bible show that he hates forgeries and counterfeits.
We are the work of his hand. As our author, he holds the copyright.
Anything that suggests otherwise is an abomination.
Proverbs 4:23 says: Keep thy heart with all diligence; for out of
it are the issues of life. The issues of our heart are like a trademark.
They identify our true allegiance. Referring to the coming Messiah,
Mal. 3:23 says: He is like a refiners fire, and like fullers soap.
And he shall sit as a refiner and purifier of silver. Concerning
backslidden Judah, God says in Jer. 9:7: Behold, I will melt them,
and try them. God in his holiness cannot abide impurity. The way
God shapes our lives and tests our mettle is repeatedly illustrated
through analogies with the smelting of gold and silver.
The word gold in the Old Testament is often preceded by
the word pure. Gold is not found in a state of purity. Instead, it
must be refined before it is fit, for example, to be fashioned into
the vessel unto honour mentioned in 2 Tim. 2:20. This vessel
251
252
253
254
255
the gap before me for the land, that I should not destroy it: but I
found none. This is a clear warning to slackers within the church.
Those who seek dishonest gain through inflationary practices
must likewise pay the inescapable consequences. One major effect
of inflation is the stifling of investment. Inflation and other forms
of economic injustice are defrauding the public and decapitalizing
our economy. Like Esau, we are despising our birthrightthe
accumulated cultural capital of past generationsand selling
it for pottage. Our industries are becoming less and less capable
of competing on the world market because they are squeezed
between wages that are often unrealistically high and inflexible,
sliding interest rates, stringent regulations, a scarcity of money
for loans, and a general psychology of uneasiness, or malaise, that
fosters a strong desire for security at the cost of an unwillingness to
assume financial risks without a tax-subsidized safety net at hand.
Even when inflation is kept relatively low, as it seems to be now,
it is still one elementa very important oneof a paternalistic
mentality that concentrates power in the central government
as it erodes the foundations that support the system. The result
is a deliberate elevationby citizens, politicians, and technical
expertsof short-run gain above godly wisdom and justice. As
Solomon observed in Proverbs 1:32, the prosperity of fools shall
destroy them.
To sum up: Our works are a reflection of our character and the
quality of our faith. Lawful gain is good. Prosperity is a blessing.
But we must keep our priorities straight. Psalm 19:910 says: The
judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether. More to
be desired are they than gold, yea, than much fine gold. We must
build on the tried and true foundation of godly discernment with
pure materials that can withstand the refiners fire. As Paul says in
1 Corinthians 3:1115:
For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is
Jesus Christ. Now if any man build upon this foundation gold,
silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble; Every mans work shall
be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be
revealed by the fire; and the fire shall try every mans work what
sort it is. If any mans work abide which he hath built thereupon, he
shall receive a reward. If any mans work shall be burned, he shall
suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.
256
4.
RECONSTRUCTION
IN THEOLOGY
257
258
William O. Einwechter
Introduction
The title for this essay comes from a chart by Clarence Larkin on
the church age which depicts the growth of heathenism and the
Failure of Christianity to keep pace with that growth. Larkin
says this proves, that as a world-converting power, Christianity is
a failure. Further, he informs us that it is not Gods purpose during
the church age to cover the earth with righteousness, for that can
only happen in the future millennial age. All of this appears in
a book which Larken entitled Dispensational Truth.1 This is the
message of dispensationalism to the church. It is a message, which
in the name of truth, says to believers that it is not Gods purpose
to grant the church victory over the heathen. It teaches the church
not to expect the eventual conversion of the nations and the
increase of righteousness, but rather the continued power of Satan
over the nations, the increase of evil, and the eventual apostasy
of the church. It is, we believe, a pessimistic message that has had
a great impact on the church. In this essay we will document the
dispensational view of the church age, and then seek to show
1. Clarence Larkin, Dispensational Truth (Glenside, PA, 1920), 772.
259
Dispensationalism Defined
Dispensationalism is a form of premillennialism that was first
systematized in England by J. N. D. Darby in the early 1800s. It was
further developed and promoted in this country with the publication
of the Scofield Reference Bible in 1909. Dispensationalists believe
that God is working out his purpose in history through a series
of dispensations or distinguishable economies. Dispensationalism
differs from historic premillennialism in that it sees a clear
distinction between Gods program for Israel as a nation and Gods
program for the church; it seeks to apply a consistently literal
hermenutic; and it believes in the pretribulational {224} rapture
of the church.2 The leading proponents of dispensationalism in
this country have been C. I. Scofield, Lewis Sperry Chafer, John
F. Walvoord, J. Dwight Pentecost, and Charles C. Ryrie. The views
taught by these men and other like-minded dispensationalists
might be properly called traditional dispensationalism. It is this
brand of dispensationalism which is the dominant view of biblical
and prophetic interpretation among evangelical and fundamental
churches in the United States today. This essay will deal with the
views of this traditional dispensationalism.3
In addition, it should be noted that this writer was at one time
a confirmed dispensationalist. He was saved and discipled in
a dispensational church and graduated from a dispensational
college and seminary. Also, having spent seven years in the formal
study of the Bible from a dispensational perspective, he taught
and defended dispensationalism from the pulpit. Therefore,
he is fully aware of this system of theology and writes from a
2. For a fuller discussion concerning the distinctives of dispensational
theology see: Charles C. Ryrie, Dispensationalism Today (Chicago, 1965), 2264;
Renald E. Showers, There Really Is A Difference! (Bellmawr, NJ, 1990), 2753.
3. There have been some recent developments within dispensationalism, but
it is not believed that these developments will significantly alter the pessimism
of this theology concerning the church age. For a study of some of these
developments see Craige A. Blaising and Darrell L. Bock, ed., Dispensationalism,
Israel and the Church (Grand Rapids, MI: 1992).
260
261
262
263
264
When they say that Satan is the god of this age, dispensationalists do
not simply mean {228} that Satan is worshipped by the unsaved, but
they mean that Satan has dominion over this world. Furthermore,
they teach that this dominion will continue until the Second
Coming when Christ will depose Satan from his current position
of power. The dispensational view of Satans authority during this
age is based largely on their view of the Messianic Kingdom. They
teach that Christ came and offered this kingdom to Israel, but
when Israel rejected the Messiah, his kingdom and his rule over
the earth was postponed until the Second Coming.22 This means
that they reject Christs lordship over the nations in the present
church age. Pentecost denies that Jesus Christ in now Lord and
King of the nations.23 He says that it will not be until the Second
Coming that Christ will rule as king over the earth.24 House
and Ice fully concur. They believe that the Messianic Kingdom is
totally future,25 and that until that time, Christs ministry as a
priest is primary. It will only be in the future that his ministry
as King will become central and that he will become King of
the nations.26 Therefore, the doctrine of the dispensationalist is
that Satan has dominion over the nations, and that he is thus the
dominant force in history during this age. Larken says:
The world refused to accept the rule of God when it crucified His
Son, and chose Barabbas instead of Christ, thus exalting Satan to
the position of the GOD OF THIS AGE, for Satan is not spoken
of as the God of any other age than this.27
Showers believes that the world is now under a satanocracy and
that it will continue as such until the return of Christ.28 House
22. For dispensational teaching on the postponement of the Kingdom see:
Pentecost, op. cit., 446463; Ryrie, op. cit., 162165; House and Ice, op. cit., 217
247.
23. Pentecost, Will Man Survive?, 9598.
24. Ibid., 97.
25. House and Ice, Dominion Theology, 220. It seems as though they have
their own form of Dominion Theology. However, in their version it is Satan, not
Christ, who presently rules.
26. Ibid., 236.
27. Larkin, op. cit., 44.
28. Showers, op. cit., 165167. A satanocracy would refer to a state or
nation that is ruled by Satan. Showers must therefore believe that every nation
265
and Ice teach that the church age is a time in which Satan and
his rebellious court refuse to give up their rule.29 They further
claim that Satan is now in control of this worlds institutions.30
Chafer describes Satan as the Christians {229} World-Ruling
Foe.31 And Lindsey concludes, To sum up what the Bible teaches
on this subject, the world-system is organized under Satans
rulership and energized by his power.32 To teach that Satan and
his satanocracy rule the world in this present age and that this
will not end until Christs Second Coming is pure pessimism. Yet,
this is the dispensational view.
266
apostasy. For example, Hiebert says that this text has reference
to apostasy within the circle of the professed Christian Church,
and that by his use of the definite article, in the falling away, Paul
clearly points to the well-known apostasy, the great revolt... which
will characterize Christendom in the end-time....34 Walvoord
predicts that apostasy and open denial of the truth will be evident
in the church just prior to the Lords return.35 Ryrie fully agrees by
saying that there will be a future great apostasy in the church.36
{230}
267
268
269
270
271
272
This constant declaration to the church that we are in the last days
has also tended to increase the pessimism in the church. It tells us
that we are at the end of the church age, that evil will soon grip the
world as the Antichrist takes power, and that there is nothing we
can do about it. Therefore it is futile for the church to even attempt
to turn back the tide of evil in the world. Dispensationalism not
only denies the church any long-term prospects of victory, but
also, through its doctrine of the imminent {235} rapture, it removes
hope for any immediate success as well. If one really believes that
the evil in the world is a sign that the rapture is near, what hope
can there be that the church can overcome evil?
In light of the previous documentation, none can seriously
reject the claim that dispensationalism is pessimistic concerning
the prospects of the church in this present age. To summarize,
dispensationalism teaches that evil will steadily increase as the
church age progresses and draws to a close; that Satan is the god
of this age and his satanocracy is the controlling force on earth
prior to the Second Coming; that the church itself will grow
increasingly apostate, and, except for a small remnant, the church
will be worldly, unfaithful, indifferent, and Christless by the time
of the rapture; that the church will fail to disciple the nations, and
that only relatively few will be saved through the preaching of the
gospel; that during this age the nations of this world are ruled by
Satan and his demons, and thus, the church is at the mercy of
the powers of the world; that the church will participate in the
ongoing defeat of Gods theocratic kingdom and therefore can have
no hope of the victory of Christs kingdom until the millennium;
and that the world is now in its final evil days, Antichrist is at the
door, so it is futile to expect any success in fighting this evil. With
such a view as this is it any wonder that Larkin entitled his chart
on the church age The Failure of Christianity?64
64. A dispensationalist might at this point object and say, yes this is in a sense
pessimistic, but is this not what the Bible teaches? We answer, No! this is not
what the Bible teaches. Note the following Scriptures which declare the victory
of Christ and his church in this dispensation: cf. Ps. 110:17 with Acts 2:2936; 1
Cor. 15:2028; Heb. 10:1213; Eph. 1:10; Lk. 11:1720; Col. 2:15; Heb. 2:14; John
12:3033; Matt. 16:1819; 13:2443; 28:1820; 21:43; 2 Cor. 2:14; 10:35; 1 John
5:4; Rom. 8:37; 16:20. See the footnotes on pages 2 and 3 of this essay for further
study resources.
273
274
275
a closer look at why this is so. In doing this we will gain direct
insight into dispensational views on Christian involvement in the
world. We will see how they apply their views on the church age to
the subject of Christian activism.
276
277
278
279
personal spiritual needs of people.81 House and Ice also state the
dispensational position: Worldwide evangelism is the calling of
the church in this age, not Cultural Christianization. Sadly when
the two are combined the result is not a bright and shining city
on a hill; rather it is Babylon the great, spoken of in Revelation
18....82 Accordingly Pentecost criticizes Calvin and Augustine for
misunderstanding prophecy and Gods purpose for the church in
this age:
The theologian Augustine wrote a volume, The City of God, in
which he described the glory that would belong to the earth when
Gods law is recognized and Gods Son is crowned King on this
earth. Calvin, by establishing a theocracy in Geneva, hoped that he
would see in his day just such a kingdom established on the earth
as the prophets had predicted. Men have desired the fulfillment of
that which the prophets have predicted, but they have not sought
it in Gods way, nor have they based their hopes for a transformed
society in keeping with the revelation of Scripture.83
Calvin and Augustine should have known better and should not
have sought to build the City of God on earth for the glory of their
Lord, becauseand this is what it seems like dispensationalists
are sayingall their efforts to do so contradicted Gods purpose
for this age and only contributed to the building of Babylon the
Great.
Due to his dispensational view of the churchs mission in this
age, David Jeremiah is upset at Christians who are bent on
changing society through political activism. He says, I do not
find any place in the Bible that says that this is the mission of the
church of Jesus Christ. The mission of the church is witnessing
to lost souls about the redemption provided by the Lord Jesus
Christ.84 Of course, we do not deny the centrality of the gospel in
the mission of the church. What we question is the dispensational
view that the mission of the church is limited to evangelism and
81. We agree that the spiritual needs of people are to be given top priority.
However, we disagree that our duty to our neighbor ends there. If we love God
and our neighbor we will seek to reform an evil system that harms people and we
will seek to correct injustices that destroy lives and families.
82. House and Ice, op. cit., 160.
83. Pentecost, Will Man Survive?, 177178.
84. Jeremiah, op. cit., 58.
280
personal discipleship.
In an article on the kingdom of God and social justice, Kunst
discuses the meaning of salvation and concludes that it has
two aspects, the present and the future. According to Kunst the
present salvation for man is liberation {242} from the penalty
and power of sin, while the future salvation is connected with
the second coming of Christ when mans body and the earth will
be delivered. From this distinction between present and future
salvation Kunst concludes that present salvation is spiritual and
has nothing to do with economic, material, or social concerns,
while future salvation deals with the socio-political element.85 He
then concludes that if we ignore this distinction of present spiritual
salvation and future socio-political salvation the church will be in
danger of neglecting its primary mission for this age and be led
into a false effort of trying to bring salvation to the socio-political
realm before Christs Second Coming.86 Walvoord makes a similar
distinction, saying that, It is not Gods plan and purpose to bring
righteousness and peace to earth in this present age. We will never
attain the postmillennial dream of peace on earth through the
influence of the church. This is not what the word of God indicates
as the outcome of our present activity and it is not according to
the purpose of God.87 Gods purpose in this age, says Walvoord,
is individual salvation; Gods purpose for the future age is political
and social salvation through the personal rule of Christ on earth.
Dispensationalism limits the Great Commission to evangelism
and personal discipleship. It teaches that Christs salvation applies
only to spiritual concerns in this age and that his salvation presently
has nothing to do with economic, material, or social concerns.
Therefore dispensationalists believe that any attempt to bring the
social and political realms under the lordship of Christ is futile
and a misreading of Gods purpose for the church in this age. Is it
not evident that such teaching would tend greatly to discourage
Christian political and social action? After all, who in the church
85. Theo J. W. Kunst, The Kingdom of God and Social Justice, Bibliotheca
Sacra (April-June 1983), 140:113.
86. Ibid., 113.
87. John F. Walvoord, Why Are the Nations in Turmoil? in Prophecy and the
Seventies, ed. Charles L. Feinberg (Chicago, 1971), 211.
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
you are in the last evil days of this age, you will certainly have
no motivation to take on the daunting task of Christian political
and social reform. You may find some motivation to seek some
immediate goal of electing a particular person to office, or to seek
the passage of a particular law, or to protest abortion, but you will
not seek any comprehensive Christian reconstruction of your state
or nation. Why? There simply isnt enough time, after all, its 11:59
and Counting!
The effect of the dispensational view of the church age has
tended greatly to discourage meaningful, comprehensive
Christian political and social action. How could it be otherwise?
Dispensationalism teaches that such action is doomed to failure;
that such action is not the calling of the church in this age; that
such action is dangerous to the priority to develop ones own
spiritual life; that such action is contrary to the defensive posture
of the church; that such action denies the true hope of the church,
which is escape from the world through the rapture; and that such
action makes no sense since we are in the final moments of the last
days.
Conclusion
It has been our purpose in this essay to document the
traditional dispensational view of the church age. We believe that
this has shown that Larkin was simply setting forth consistent
dispensational teaching when he labeled his chart on the course
of the church age The Failure of Christianity. The dispensational
view on the church age is pessimistic, for it teaches that the church
can have no hope that Christs kingdom will triumph over Satans
kingdom, that truth will triumph over error, that righteousness
will triumph over unrighteousness, or that the church will triumph
over the heathen through obedience to the Great Commission.
In dispensational theology all such triumphs are future. The
millennial age is the age of victory. The church age is an age of
defeat because God has decreed that it be that way.
We have also sought to set forth the effect of the dispensational
view of the church age on Christian political and social action.
The effect is undeniableit greatly discourages such action. A
dispensationalist who is consistent with his theology will see
289
290
are in power. But this failure is not due to divine decree. It is due
to disobedience to Christs commands to disciple the nation and
teach them to observe all things that I have commanded you.
The church has chosen escape over biblical responsibility.
There have been some hopeful signs, however, that the theology
of dispensationalism is losing favor in the church. This writer,
who at one {251} time was an ardent dispensationalist, is one of
many who have come to see the serious errors of that theology
concerning its teaching on the kingdom of Christ, the mission of
the church, and the course of this present age. Many are beginning
to reject dispensationalism and return to the true biblical theology
of the victory of Christ and his kingdom in this present age. Many
have come to agree with C. H. Spurgeon:
David was not a believer in the theory that the world will grow
worse and worse, and that the dispensation will wind up with
general darkness, and idolatry. Earths sun is to go down amid
tenfold night if some of our prophetic brethren are to be believed.
Not so do we expect, but we look for a day when the dwellers in
all lands shall learn righteousness, shall trust in the Saviour, shall
worship thee alone, O God, and shall glorify thy name. The modern
notion has greatly damped the zeal of the church for missions, and
the sooner it is shown to be unscriptural the better for the cause of
God. It neither consorts with prophecy, honors God, nor inspires
the church with ardor. Far hence be it driven.115
It is also interesting to note that many who still hold to the basic
teachings of dispensationalism have begun to become active in
the political and social realms. But they must be shown that their
involvement is not because of their dispensationalism but in spite
of it. They have become involved because they are alarmed at the
rise of evil and the increasing loss of true God-given rights that is
taking place in our nation. They know instinctively that it is not
honoring to Christ to abandon this entire culture to the Devil and
the powers of darkness. They know, in spite of what their teachers
are telling them, that it is not loving our neighbor to turn him
over to the abuses of corrupt ideology and oppressive, unjust
humanistic law and to say to him, in effect, that we would like
115. From an exposition of Psalm 86:9, All nations whom thou hast made
shall come and worship before thee, O Lord; and shall glorify thy name, in The
Treasury of David, 1874. As cited by Iain Murray, The Puritan Hope, xiv.
291
to help but that it is not Gods program in this age for the church
to conquer such evil and seek to establish a just and righteous
government that rules according to biblical law.
It is our prayer that dispensationalists will come to see the
serious error of their pessimistic view of the church age. How
can any theology that surrenders this entire age to evil and the
powers of darkness (except for the salvation of a few souls) be
sound doctrine? One test of true doctrine is its fruit (Matt. 7:15
20). If the fruit is bad the tree is bad and it needs to be cut down.
Is the fruit of dispensational theology concerning the church age
and the kingdom of Christ good or bad? Is a doctrine sound that
encourages Christian retreat from the very fabric of society, that
causes the church to {252} lose its salt and hide its light, and that
tells the church that its hope in the present crisis is not a revival
but escape through the rapture?
We call on the church to return to a truly biblical theology of the
church age: A theology that believes that Jesus Christ has already
bound the strongman (Matt. 12:2730); That believes that the
ruler of this world has been cast out (John 12:31); That believes
that Jesus Christs death and resurrection marked his mighty
victory over all the powers of darkness (Col. 2:15); That believes
that Christs ascension marked his enthronement as king of kings
and the inauguration of his Messianic kingdom (Ps. 2:49; 110:1
7; Dan. 7:1314; Ac. 2:2936; Col. 1:13; Rev. 1:5); That believes
that the increase of Christs kingdom shall have no end until all
the ends of the earth worship him (Isa. 9:67; Dan. 2:44; Mal. 2:14;
Matt. 13:3133); That believes that the Great Commission is more
than evangelism and personal discipleship (Matt. 28:1820); That
believes that the church through the Holy Scriptures and the gift
of the Holy Spirit has been given all necessary power to pull down
the strongholds of the enemy and fulfill the Great Commission
to disciple the nations (Ac. 1:8; 2 Cor. 10:35; Eph. 6:1018);
That believes that Jesus Christ will not leave his place at the right
hand of the Father until all of his enemies are made his footstool
(Ps. 110:1; 1 Cor. 15:2028; Heb. 10:1213; Eph. 1:10); And that
believes that the church is the agent of Christ in this war that will
witness the defeat of Christs enemies (Ps. 110:3; Matt. 28:1820;
Rev. 19:14).
History, according to Scripture, will not write over the church
292
5.
Reconstruction in
Philosophy
293
294
No Other Foundation
Christian Epistemology in
the Postmodern Age
Joseph P. Braswell
No Other Foundation
295
this mean that we are irrationalists, that we have sold our souls
to relativism? By no means! We have merely dispensed with
rationalism in order to be true presuppositionalists and think as
Christians ought to think.
Thomas Kuhn, Alasdair Maclntyre, Richard Rorty,1 and others
who have devastatingly critiqued modernism (the Enlightenment
rationalism) have done us a great service. We must give heed to
their emphasis upon the {254} sociology of knowledge and repudiate
every vestige of classical foundationalism in our epistemology
and apologetics. The critique of rationalistic evidentialism that
has undercut the Enlightenment modernism merely serves to
underscore with renewed emphasis the continuing relevance of the
thought of Cornelius Van Til and his presuppositional apologetic.2
What does Christianity have to say regarding contextualist
epistemology,3 and how does the Christian-theistic paradigm offer
1. Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Chicago, 1970);
Alasdair Maclntyre, Whose Justice? Which Rationality? (Notre Dame, 1988);
Richard Rorty, Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature (Princeton, NJ, 1979).
2. R. J. Rushdoony, By What Standard? An Analysis of the Philosophy
of Cornelius Van Til (Birmingham, AL [1958], 1974) remains an excellent
introduction to Van Til in all the breadth of his thought (including a bibliography
of Van Tils writings). Critical discussions (and a Van Til bibliography) of his
thought can be found in the Van Til Festschrift, Jerusalem and Athens, ed. E. R.
Geehan (Presbyterian and Reformed, 1971). A recent extension and application
of the Van Tillian apologetic is offered in John Frame, Apologetics to the Glory of
God (Phillipsburg, NJ, 1994).
3. In contrast to the foundationalist quest for a foundation of absolutely basic
beliefs (axiomatic and self-evident, not requiring an inferential justification from
other beliefs), contextualism speaks only of contextually basic beliefs. What is
to be considered a basic belief (requiring no justifying argument), as well as
what constitutes sufficient evidence to justify nonbasic beliefs (those subject
to doubt), is relative to the specific and concrete issue-context that defines our
actual epistemic situation and determines the appropriate objector-group
(something like peer review). What is considered basic in one context may
require justification in another. See David B. Annis, A Contextualist Theory
of Epistemic Justification, in Empirical Knowledge: Readings in Contemporary
Epistemology, ed. Paul K. Moser (Totowa, NJ, 1986), 203213.
Contextualism is coventionalist in nature. The term conventionalism merely
underscores the role of social conventionsthe goals and constituant and
regulative rules (cf. e.g., Wittgensteins game analogy in speaking of languagegames: specific ways of linguistically behaving in a meaningful manner that are
correlative to, and derive their meaning from, distinct forms of social life)that
establish the contexts. There is an institutional (sociological) determinant to
what counts as justification within a given community, which is shared goals,
296
No Other Foundation
297
298
No Other Foundation
299
300
our ideas) reached a critical impasse when, after the failure of the
Rationalist tradition to find more than relations, the Empiricist
tradition that began with Lockean representationalism gave way
to Humean skepticism, waking Kant from his dogmatic slumbers
in the attempt to epistemically justify Newtonian science.
Kants Copernican Revolution reversed the relation between
subject and object in epistemic justification and set forth the
transcendental conditions necessary to make experience possible
and thereby determine the form and structure of any possible
experience. In the process, he redefined the transcendentally
ideal as being synonymous with the empirically real, thereby
banishing, by his adoption of a metaphysics without ontology,
the inherently unknowable things-as-such that lie forever beyond
the outer limit of the manifold of sensibility, and thereby confining
knowing-activity to that realm where the objects presented to us
are phenomenal. Strictly speaking, to be is to be known (by man),
and to be known is to be apprehended within the limits set by
human reason in its task of conceptualizing percepts (conforming
the object to the subjects a prioris).
Kant, however, sought after universal and necessary (a priori)
conditions of experience-as-such, transcendental structures
of experience valid for all men for all time. In our day those
conditioning factors that process and rationalize our experience
have come to be viewed as historico-culturally determined,
varying among different societies. Necessity is relative to a given
schema; the apriority in certain synthetic statements depends upon
the conceptual framework employed. Schemata change; ways of
perceiving are not absolute and timelessuniversal and necessary.
Kants so-called synthetic a prioris were determined by the tradition
of modern WesternEnlightenmentthought, presupposing
Euclidean geometry, Aristotelian logic, and Newtonian physics as
the transcendentally ideal structures of the {259} empirically real.
In our time we employ non-Euclidean geometries, multivalent and
paraconsistent logics, and both Einsteins relativity and quantum
physics. Thus, the idea of mirroring nature (giving an accurate
description that represents the way nature is or at least how it must
appear) rather than various ways of world-making has collapsed.
Nor does Thomas Reids direct realist alternative to Hume offer
any hope in the face of common senses exposure as being but
No Other Foundation
301
302
No Other Foundation
303
304
Book Reviews
305
Archie P. Jones
306
both true and false answers to these great issues, and does so in a
manner that is readily understandable, interesting, and telling. It
expounds the basic principles on which Western and American
liberty were foundedand on which freedom everywhere must
be established. It is brimming with valuable insights into world
history, Western history, English history, and American history
and politics, and it incisively applies these insights and principles
to the controversies of our day as well as to the key disputes of
earlier times.
Mr. Evanss central thesis is one that is well supported by
an analysis of the various world and life views, religions, or
philosophies held by men, and by the record of the history which
he so masterfully surveys. His thesis is that it is the outworking
of biblical faith and doctrines in world history, Western history
particularly during the medieval periodEnglish history, and
American history which has produced the freedom and other
blessings which people in Western civilization, and particularly
in America, have enjoyed. The foundation of freedom is biblical
faith, {264} not man-centered ancient or modern religions or
worldviews. Christian faith and doctrines have political and
economic implications which have been worked out into political
ideas, institutions and life in the West and in these United States
of America, and these ideas, customs and institutions have, with
ups and downs and through trials and tribulations, become the
foundations of our freedom.
307
308
that the people are not bound to obey the unjust commands or
laws of covenant-breaking rulers, and that the people may resist
or even overthrow covenant-breaking rulers who would be
tyrants. These ideas and principles were expressed not only in
legal commentaries but also in the writings of learned Christian
scholars and theologians.
But such principles were expressed in action as well as in speech
and writing. Nobles and citizens resisted the unjust claims of kings
and queens. Some judges resistance to the power and claims of the
crown in order to maintain the supremacy of the law, and of godly
principles of law, over the unjust designs of the king, gave rise to
the key doctrine of medieval political and legal thought: The king
is under God and under the law. Such a view was expressed in
written documents like the great Magna Carta of England, a key
document of modern constitutionalism.
Thus the influence of the Bible and of Christianity during the
medieval period established the basic limitations on the power
of the state which are the foundation of Western, English, and
American liberty.
Far from jettisoning this precious political heritage, the
Reformation renewed these principles against a revived pagan
theory of kingship which claimed that the monarch should be
accountable to no man, that he should rule without limits on his
power, and that he should be free to make the law whatever he
willed it to be. The religious discord in Europe stimulated Roman
Catholics as well as Protestants to develop or revive traditional
Christian ideas of resistance against tyranny. Still, the heritage
of limited, constitutional government was better preserved in
England than it was on the Continent.
Americas founders, the Pilgrims, the Puritans, and our other
first colonists, came to America at a time when this heritage of
constitutional government and resistance to covenant-breaking
tyrants was at its peak. Thus the people of English colonies
preserved the medieval and Reformation heritage of Christian law,
politics, and limitations on civil government better than did the
English themselves, for in 1688, in the Glorious Revolution, the
British adopted a modern pagan theory which placed Parliament
in the position of absolute power which had been unsuccessfully
claimed by various English kings.
309
310
311
312
313
Must Reading
Evanss principal intended audience for The Theme Is Freedom is
that disparate group of opponents of big government containing
Christians and conservative intellectuals, though he is also
concerned to speak to thoughtful liberals and to men of other
worldviews. He is particularly concerned to get the two main kinds
of conservative intellectuals, traditionalists and libertarians, to
see that in our Christian religious, social, political and economic
heritageand only in that heritageboth the social order loved
by traditionalists and the freedom which hbertarians profess to
314
315
Archie P. Jones
Gary North,
Political Polytheism: The Myth of Pluralism
Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1989;
773 + xxiv pages; $22.50
316
Faulty Methodology
Although North is to be commended for his zeal for the law of
God, his devotion to theonomy is accompanied by a spirit which
317
318
have to suffice.
First, the author approvingly quotes historian Sidney Mead
to the effect that the struggles for religious freedom in the last
quarter of the eighteenth century united rationalists and sectarian
pietists in opposition to right wing traditionalists, then declares
that these struggles resulted in the political triumph of Deism
and Unitarianism over Christianity (400). But if one studies these
struggles for disestablishment of the various state churches, one
discovers that both the leadership and the popular support for
disestablishmentin every statewas overwhelmingly supplied
not by rationalists, Deists and Unitarians but by Bible-believing
Christians of various denominations. Moreover, one also finds
that in some states it was theological liberals and incipient
Unitarians control of the established church hierarchy, or court
decisions in favor of their control, which led the popular, Biblebelieving majority to work for disestablishment. Moreover, if one
studies the consequences of such struggles for religious liberty, it
becomes clear that neither religious neutrality nor secularism
were intended by those who achieved disestablishment.
Second, the Declaration of Independence is said to be a Deistic
document (406), framed by Deists and Masons, which announced
the creation of a new nation in 1776. But, as Willmoore Kendall
pointed out, the Declaration brought forth a bakers dozen of
new nations, not one new nation. Moreover, the vast majority
of the fifty-six men of the Continental Congress who revised
Jeffersons draft of the Declaration and approved its final version
were Christians, not Deists or incipient Unitarians. The views
of this great majority ought to carry more weight than those of
the incipient Unitarians, Jefferson and Franklin. Moreover, John
Adams was not a Unitarian at the time that the Declaration was
framed, and continued to be publicly favorable to Trinitarian
Christianity while President. Furthermore, the author has not
shown that the three men on the committee which framed the
initial draft of the Declaration who were Masons were indeed
influenced by non-Christian or anti-Christian thinking either
in their political and legal thought or in their intentions for the
meaning of the Declaration. Besides, the popular secularist notion
that the Declaration was a Deistic document is disproven by the
document itself, in which its authors appeal for the rectitude
319
320
321
322
323
Regnant Newtonianism?
North argues from what amounts to an assumed spirit of the
timesa supposedly dominant Newtonian worldview, a Deistic
Enlightenment rationalism which, apart from occasional divine
interventions to adjust the workings of the cosmos, left man, law,
politics, and history autonomousto the particular contentions
of his thesis. He reasons from this European view to the beliefs of
Americans (or at least of the American political elite) and to the
ethical, legal and political views of the Framers of the Constitution.
He assumes that this view was so dominant that it must have
affected the beliefs of the Framers in general as well as of those
who were Masons in particular.
But this is the old fallacy of begging the question. What he needs
to prove is (a) that such a world-view was in fact dominant in the
American colonies, states and nation, or at least among American
political leaders (if it was so, then why did the Continental
Congresses produce so many obviously Protestant acts and
resolutions, and why did the states produce manifestly Christian
constitutions?), and (b) that the Framers (and Ratifiersincluding
the Masons among them) actually held to such a view. He needs
to do what John Eidsmoe (whose moderate, judicious work,
Christianity and the Constitution, North neglects to deal with
seriously) has done: to examine carefully the actual thought of the
men involved in the framing (and ratification) of the Constitution.
It will not do for North to base his argument about the supposed
dominance of the Newtonian worldview on the fact that the
Constitution (Article VI) prohibited a religious test for federal
office, since he has not adequately considered, or set forth for his
readers to consider either (a) who proposed the prohibition, or (b)
the arguments of those who supported the prohibition. Whether
or not one believes that a constitution for a Christian people
should contain a religious test oath (or oaths), the fact is that
those who supported the prohibition of a religious test oath had
some quite convincing arguments and that they presented these
arguments as being consistent with Christian purposes. Those
arguments at least should be considered before one jumps to the
conclusion that the prohibition was included in the Constitution
for conspiratorial, anti-Christian reasons.
324
325
326
327
328
329
which the various civil magistrates (at the state as well as at the
central government level) may bring upon each other.
5. So far as succession, continuity and inheritance are concerned,
Christ continuesand will continueto be Lord. On the human
level, the U.S. Constitution, under God, continues to be the
fundamental law of the land. The American people, who continue
to be under Christ but, via the amendment or constitutional
convention process, over the Constitution, continue to be under
the rule of constitutional law. This continuity can be broken, of
course, if the people become apostate. But this is true of any form
of civil government, under any constitution, regardless of any
oath(s) attached to it. It was true of Israel. It has been true since
the fall of man.
330
No Religious Test
Although North makes much of a supposed Masonic conspiracy
as the cause of the Constitutions prohibition of a religious test
for federal office, there is no evidence of such a conspiracy in the
record of the debates of the Constitutional Convention. The ban
was proposed by Charles Pinckney III, an Episcopalian from South
Carolina. It was seconded by Gouverneur Morris, an Episcopalian
from Pennsylvania who deeply believed in the depravity of man,
saw religionparticularly Christianityas the basis of good
morals and good morals as the only possible support of political
liberty. It was also seconded by Pinckneys cousin, General Charles
Cotesworth Pinckney, a devout South Carolina Episcopalian who
for more than fifteen years before his death was unanimously
elected president of the Charleston Bible Society by Christians
of every denomination. None of these Christian statesmen
is mentioned in Political Polytheism. None was a Mason. It is
certainly difficult to believe that they were motivated by Masonic,
anti-Christian aims in moving and seconding the prohibition of a
religious test for federal office.
The motion was passed unanimously by the Framers, virtually
all of whom, as Bradfords research for his biographical sketches of
the Framers, A Worthy Company and in Religion and the Framers:
The Biographical Evidence, indicates, were Christians. (Anyone
who has talked to Bradford about the Framers knows that the good
professor possessed far more evidence about the Framers religious
views than space and time limitations permitted him to include in
his book. That evidence is available via the bibliographies at the
end of the various biographical {283} sketches which compose
the volume.) Clearly, the motivation behind the prohibition of a
religious test for national office can hardly be said to have been
un-Christian, much less anti-Christian.
The issue of the prohibition of a religious test for federal
office was not discussed in all states. But where it was debated
the discussion was not conducted as one between Christians
and non-Christians, much less as one between Christians and
anti-Christian secularists. This hardly indicates a secularist or
pluralistically neutral approach to either religion or the issue of a
prohibition of a religious test for federal office.
331
332
the heart and soul of Norths thesis that the Constitution was a
self-consciously anti-Christian, secularist document. Hence, his
failure to account for (and even to give his readers an account of)
(a) who proposed, seconded and approved the clause and (b) the
arguments of the Christian statesmen who supported the ban on
a religious test for national office, fatally weakens his thesis about
the Constitution.
On the other hand, a knowledge that the men who proposed
and approved the inclusion of the prohibition were Christians,
particularly when coupled with a knowledge that the prohibition
was supported by Christian arguments, makes it evident that the
real purpose behind the prohibition of a religious test was not
covenant-breaking secularism, nor a pluralistic myth of religious
neutrality, but rather the protection of Christian ethics, order, and
liberty.
One may judge these arguments for the prohibition of a
religious test for federal office to be weaker than the arguments
for the inclusion of a religious test. But that does not mean that
either the arguments or the motivations of those who sought to
prohibit religious test oaths for federal office were anti-Christian.
Certainly, North could and should have been more charitable in
his evaluation of this key constitutional provision.
Why Amendment?
Why Reinterpretation?
Why Attack the Framers?
Norths reinterpretation of the Constitution creates some
interesting questionseach of which raises problems for his theory
of the intended meaning of the document. If the Constitution
was what North contends it was, then why have radicals from
the Radical Republicans through the Progressives to the New
Dealers and beyond sought to change its fundamental nature? If
it was intended to be secularist, centralist and unlimited in the
powers it conferred on the national government, then why have the
radicals worked so hard to amend it in order to bring about these
results? Why did they not simply teach us the Framers and Ratifiers
supposed intention to give us a secularist, centralist, unlimited,
anti-Christian document? Similarly, why have radicals of various
333
Conclusion
There is a myth of religious and political pluralism. That myth
maintains not only that such is possible and desirable but also that
such was intended to be basic to our Constitution and fundamental
law. That myth was effectively denied by the overwhelmingly
Christian composition of the Constitutional Convention and the
334
335
336
Finis
337
338
339