Precursor to the American Revolution

Some of our readers may be unfamiliar with this part of American history. The battle of the Regulators (or the Battle of Alamance), came about as a result of population shifts in North Carolina, with an influx of merchants and lawyers and a consequent shift in political power. The larger portion of the population were farmers, but when crops failed over the course of some ten years, merchants turned to lawyers to pursue the debts owed. Farms were lost and resentment among the farmers grew. With an unjust system of taxation and political power now resting in the hands of a small group of sometimes corrupt officials, three-quarters of the North Carolina population came to support the uprising known as the War of Regulation.

Here, in his classic Sketches of North Carolina (1846), William Henry Foote tells us something of how North Carolina’s Presbyterians were involved in this conflict:

At a meeting of Hanover Presbytery, held at Buffalo meeting-house, March, 1770, a petition was prepared for Synod, asking for a Presbytery for Carolina and the South. This petition was granted in May, and the Rev. Messrs. Hugh McAden, Henry Pattillo, James Criswell, David Caldwell, Joseph Alexander, Hezekiah Balch, and Hezekiah James Balch, were constituted a Presbytery by the name of Orange, to meet at the Hawfields; and the Rev. Henry Pattillo, the pastor, to open the Presbytery with a sermon. This Presbytery flourished greatly, its congregations growing numerous, and eventually there were three Presbyteries in the State of North Carolina, in the bounds occupied by this initial Presbytery, besides those in South Carolina, which, for a time, were reckoned as belonging to its boundaries.

Dr. Caldwell and Mr. Pattillo were near neighbors for a few years. Whether Mr. Pattillo taught school during the five or six years he preached at the Hawfields, is not distinctly known; that he did after his removal, and for a long time, is well known; and, also, that his circumstances required him to have a greater income than just his salary as a pastor. The probability is that he pursued a course similar to that pursued by Dr. Caldwell. The famous Regulations battle, May 16, 1771, took place in the region lying between their respective fields of labor. Both congregations were deeply and generally involved in the troubles that brought the contest, and partook fully of the spirit that prompted the resistance, and were sharers in the battle. Of the part that Mr. Pattillo took we have no account left, either in manuscript or tradition; but from his after history, which is well known, we feel at no loss to conjecture. Dr. Caldwell sympathized with his congregations in their troubles, and in their resistance. That such men as Pattillo and Caldwell were the ministers of four large congregations, which embraced the space of country in which the principal localities of the Regulation difficulties were found, entirely forbids the idea that the Regulators, as a body, were untaught and savage, or unprincipled men. The congregations of these men read their Bibles, heard no indifferent preaching on the Sabbath, and had committed the admirable formulary–the Shorter Catechism of the Westminster Assembly, which they were taught to believe, and to reduce to practice; and if they read few other books, and seldom saw a newspaper, it is evident they understood the laws of Nature and the laws of God, and were ready to defend the privileges and rights which the king’s officers trampled on then, vbut all the world concedes now.

When the governor was marching against the encampment or gathering of the Regulators, with the evident intention of giving them battle, the cool calculating mind of Caldwell clearly saw that the probability of success was entirely with the governor. With him were officers that had seen service; and some field ordinance, and men that had been disciplined; on the other side the side of his friends, was courage, a sense of oppression, confidence in the right of their cause, and a belief that the governor would not attack them, and could not beat them if he did,—but no discipline, no field ordinance, no experienced military officer, not even a commander-in-chief, or a council of commanders,—every man obeyed whom he chose, and few chose to command.

Dr. Caldwell visited both parties, for the purpose of proposing terms of accommodation, and was treated with respect by Tryon. On the morning of the battle he had an interview with both, still hoping to prevent the effusion of blood; and warned by an old Scotchman, who understood the movements in the governor’s line, he had left the ranks of the Regulators but a few moments before the firing began. There were many brave spirits from the congregations of Buffalo and Alamance, in that battle, whom no remonstrance could drive from the ranks and fortunes of their fellow Regulators. That the loss of that battle was not owing to want of courage, may be argued from the spirit displayed by the people of these congregations during the war which, in a few years, succeeded.

The battle was lost to the Regulators, and in the murderous executions that followed, there was evidence that some, at least, of the Regulators, knew how to die like men and Christians. It is by no means improbable that the proportion of such in the camp, was equally as great as in the prison. That there were unprincipled men among the Regulators is well known, and was regretted then as much as criticized now; but that the mass were men of principle and morals, true friends of their country, and lovers of liberty and law, there is less doubt now than there was then. If living in log cabins, with none of the luxuries of life, makes men vulgar, and lawless, and ignorant, then these men were all their enemies charged upon them, and merited neither success nor sympathy. But if devotion to principles and country makes men patriots, then the graves of the Regulators are the bed of the “Sons of Liberty.”

Words to Live By:
These are not easy matters to sift and discover. While some among the Regulators were executed, the majority were made to swear out an oath of allegiance. As Foote notes,

“these men had knowledge, and they had a conscience; they dreaded the judgment of Him who has said that liars shall not have a portion in the heavenly inheritance. When the Declaration of Independence was made, and the war of the Revolution was begun, . . . the contest in many a brave man’s mind between his love of liberty and his sense of obligation. By his oath he had saved his property, and perhaps his life; by his condition his heart was with his countrymen. Must he serve his king or join with his countrymen? Here the patriotism and cool calculation of Dr. Caldwell manifested itself. He argued with his people that allegiance and protection were inseparable; that as the king had not protected them from the rapacity which had driven them to rebellion on a former occasion, and was not able to assert his authority over the country now, their oath of allegiance, which had been exacted by force, was no longer binding. The independent State of North Carolina demanded their services, and the Congress of the United Colonies called for their aid; to fight for the king would be to resist the established government. With some the argument was satisfactory; they took up arms and served through the war; others remained neutral; and some few took arms for the king. The active tories were from another race of people in Orange.

 Scripture bears clear instruction when it says

Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves. For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same; — Romans 13:1-3.

But the American Revolutionary War must be understood in the context of Great Britain’s history over the previous 100-150 years. So, when Samuel Rutherford, who knew Romans 13 quite well, wrote his classic Lex Rex, he offered the following reasoning to support a measured resistance to authority (and here we see evidence that Dr. Caldwell was familiar with Lex Rex):

For the lawfulness of resistance in the matter of the king’s unjust invasion of life and religion, we offer these arguments.

Arg. 1: That power which is obliged to command and rule justly and religiously for the good of the subjects, and is only set over the people on these conditions, and not absolutely, cannot tie the people to subjection without resistance, when the power is abused to the destruction of laws, religion, and the subjects. But all power of the law is thus obliged, (Rom. xiii. 4 ; Deut. xvii. 18-20 ; 2 Chron. xix. 6 ; Ps. cxxxii. 11, 12 ; lxxxix. 30, 31; 2 Sam. vii. 12 ; Jer. xvii. 24, 25,) and hath, and may be, abused by kings, to the destruction of laws, religion, and subjects. The proposition is clear.
1. For the powers that tie us to subjection only are of God.
2. Because to resist them, is to resist the ordinance of God.
3. Because they are not a terror to good works, but to evil.
4. Because they are God’s ministers for our good, but abused powers are not of God, but of men, or not ordinances of God ; they are a terror to good works, not to evil ; they are not God’s ministers for our good.

Arg. 2: That power which is contrary to law, and is evil and tyrannical, can tie none to subjection, but is a mere tyrannical power and unlawful; and if it tie not to subjection, it may lawfully be resisted. But the power of the king, abused to the destruction of laws, religion, and subjects, is a power contrary to law, evil, and tyrannical, and tyeth no man to subjection : wickedness by no imaginable reason can oblige any man. Obligation to suffer of wicked men falleth under no commandment of God, except in our Saviour. A passion, as such, is not formally commanded, I mean a physical passion, such as to be killed. God hath not said to me in any moral law, Be thou killed, tortured, beheaded ; but only, Be thou patient, if God deliver thee to wicked men’s hands, to suffer these things.

As I said, these are not easy matters to decipher, but our point here is to relate the history, that we might learn from it.

STUDIES IN THE WESTMINSTER SHORTER CATECHISM
by Rev. Leonard T. Van Horn

Q. 82. Is any man able perfectly to keep the commandments of God?

A. No mere man, since the fall, is able, in this life, perfectly to keep the commandments of God; but doth dally break them, in thought. word and deed.

Scripture References: I Kings 8:46. I John 1:8-2:6. Gen. 8:21. James 3:8.

Questions:

1. What does it mean to “perfectly to keep the commandments of God?”

It would mean that a person would have to live the life of perfection, not falling in one word, thought or deed.

2. Has anyone ever been able to keep the commandments of God?

Adam was able to keep them before the fall but since the fall, no mere man has ever been able to keep them.

3. Why is it that man, saved man, can not perfectly keep the commandments of God?

Man can’t keep the commandments because the Bible teaches that “All have sinned and come short of the glory of God” and believers have the remains of the corruption still in them while they are in this world.

4. Does the Bible state in any place that perfection is impossible for the Christian?

Yes, the Bible teaches this in James 3:2 where it states, “For in many things we offend all”. Paul_also teaches this in Philippians 3: 12.

5. Does not the Bible teach in I John 3:9 that a Christian does not sin?

The meaning of this verse L~ that the believers do not delight in sin nor do they continually partake of it, for they show evidences of the saving grace of God in their souls.

6. Are sinful thoughts included in the breaking of God’s law?

Yes, for so the Bible teaches as in Matt. 5:28 and Matt. 15:19.

7. What may we learn from this Question as believers in Christ?

We may learn to always depend upon the grace of God, recognizing that in ourselves we are nothing; to know that perfectionism is impossible; to always mortify sin by the help of the Holy Spirit; to avoid occasions of sins.

COMFORT IN OUR FAILURES
Whenever I read this Question of the Catechism there is, at first, the thought in my mind that the standard of God is so high and my failings are fa plain that there is little hope. But then as I turn to the Word of God – where we should all turn in the midst of despair – I once again find comfort in the midst of my failures, for I read, “If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” Then I am reminded once again ‘chat I am not living under the Covenant of Works but the Covenant of Grace. And in that Covenant my Bible teaches me that God will accept my striving with sin, my daily combat with it even though at times I might fail.

However, there is a danger lurking here for believers. In the midst of the comfort the believer might make two mistakes:
(1) Falling into the age-old, false doctrine of sinning that grace may abound—and Paul answers that one very plainly in Romans 6—and thus rationalizing himself into excusing himself
(2) Forgetting that though perfection is impossible, perfection means one hundred per cent and any fraction below that is not perfection!

The very Bible that tells us that Perfectionism is an impossibility also tells us that we must strive daily, fight the good fight of faith, resist the devil, be over-comers. All of these mean that we must stay in the battle against sin with all that is within us, surely depending on the grace of God for help. God, in the Word, does not give us any cause to relax in the warfare simply because He has told us that we can’t be perfect. As a Christian once told me, “You must be sure that each day you raise your standard a little bit higher than the day before if you want God to be pleased with you.”

As believers in Jesus Christ we do have comfort in the midst of our failings, for He has promised to forgive if we confess. But in the framework of that comfort is the teaching from the Word of God that as believers we will strive to the highest standard that is possible within us. We know we are not able to reach perfection, but sometimes we limit our height by our lack of striving. Our Lord is looking for us to press forward toward the mark of the high calling in Christ Jesus. When He sees us doing this, He is willing to forgive us for the sins we are prone to commit.

Published By: The Shield and Sword, Inc..
Dedicated to instruction in the Westminster Standards for use as a bulletin insert or other methods of distribution in Presbyterian churches.
Vol. 5, No. 11 (November, 1966).
Rev. Leonard T. Van Horn, Editor.

Our good friend Dr. David W. Hall continues to use his time to best advantage and returns today with another entry in our Election Day Sermon series. This sermon has particular relevance to the modern situation—very much needed regardless of who the nominees may be—and so should be read carefully if you intend to vote this November. 

“An Election Sermon”
by Samuel Cooke (May 30, 1770)

The Rev. Samuel Cooke (Harvard, class of 1735; d. 1783) preached this sermon to Her Majesty’s Council, the militia, and the Massachusetts House of Representatives in Cambridge, MA in 1770. Among the Councillors elected at that meeting were Samuel Adams (clerk) and John Hancock, whose signature has become notorious.

At the time of the Declaration of Independence, Calvinistic Americans denounced the tendencies that entrusted too much power to human agents, fearing their sinful yearning for control. Skepticism about the goodness of human nature was prevalent among the founders of the American nation: “Hostility to unchecked power was the leading idea in all debates about the Constitution, expressed in one fashion or another by all the major actors. A fair statement of the composite view is that the impulses and disorders of human nature which made government necessary also made it dangerous. Hence the need for checks and balances, divided powers, and safeguards of all descriptions.”¹ James Madison, educated at Princeton, a hotbed of Reformation thought, said in Federalist #51 that, “It may be a reflection on human nature that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature?”

Checks and balances were also the topic of numerous sermons. One by Samuel Cooke in 1770 argued as follows: “In the present imperfect state, the whole power cannot with safety be entrusted with a single person; nor with many, acting jointly in the same public capacity. Various branches of power, concentring in the community from which they originally derive their authority, are a mutual check to each other in their several departments, and jointly secure the common interest.” Cooke preached the following to a listening audience that included John Hancock and Samuel Adams: “Rulers are appointed guardians of the constitution in their respective stations, and must confine themselves within the limits by which their authority is circumscribed.” Cooke announced that a free state could not continue unless its branches and connections remained at liberty.

From 2 Samuel 23:3-4, Cooke addressed the moral qualities needed for rulers in “He That Ruleth over Men Must be Just, Ruling in the Fear of the Lord.” Although Scripture did not enjoin all the specifics of political form, notwithstanding, Cooke preached: “The ends of civil government, in divine revelation, are clearly pointed out, the character of rulers described, and the duty of subjects asserted and explained; and in this view civil government may be considered as an ordinance of God, and, when justly exercised, greatly subservient to the glorious purposes of divine providence and grace: but the particular form is left to the choice and determination of mankind.”

As societies evolve from simple to complex, “The people, the collective body only,” Cooke said, “have a right under God, to determine who shall exercise this trust for the common interest, and to fix the bounds of their authority; and, consequently, unless we admit the most evident inconsistency, those in authority, in the whole of their public conduct, are accountable to the society which gave them their political existence.” Valid expectations were as follows: “This solemn charge given to rulers is not an arbitrary injunction imposed by God, but is founded in the most obvious laws of nature and reason. Rulers are appointed for this very end—to be ministers of God for good. The people have a right to expect this from them, and to require it, not as an act of grace, but as their unquestionable due.”

Of priorities, “The first attention of the faithful ruler will be to the subjects of government in their specific nature. He will not forget that he ruleth over men,—men who are of the same species with himself, and by nature equal,—men who are the offspring of God, and alike formed after his glorious image,—men of like passions and feelings with himself, and, as men, in the sight of their common Creator of equal importance,—men who have raised him to power, and support him in the exercise of it.”

With great clarity, he said, “The just ruler, sensible he is in trust for the public, with an impartial hand will supply the various offices in society; his eye will be upon the faithful; merit only in the candidate will attract his attention. He will not, without sufficient reason, multiply lucrative offices in the community, which naturally tends to introduce idleness and oppression.” He also opined: “Knowing, therefore, that his conduct will bear the light, and his public character be established by being fully known, he will rather encourage than discountenance a decent freedom of speech, not only in public assemblies, but among the people. This liberty is essential to a free constitution, and the ruler’s surest guide.”

How’s this for a continuation of Reformation era norms: “Justice also requires of rulers, in their legislative capacity, that they attend to the operation of their own acts, and repeal whatever laws, upon an impartial review, they find to be inconsistent with the laws of God, the rights of men, and the general benefit of society. This, the community hath a right to expect.”

Accountability and transparency are seen in the expectations for rulers who “will not fear to have his public conduct critically inspected, but will choose to recommend himself to the approbation of every man. As he expects to be obeyed for conscience sake, he will require nothing inconsistent with its dictates, and be desirous that the most scrupulous mind may acquiesce in the justice of his rule.” Moreover, the desideratum was for a ruler who would be “in a measure above the fear of man, but are, equally with others, under the restraints of the divine law.”

Noting that all rulers were subject to frailty, the key restraining factor, according to Cooke was: “the true fear of God only is sufficient to control the lusts of men, and especially the lust of dominion, to suppress pride, the bane of every desirable quality in the human soul, the never failing source of wanton and capricious power.” Fear of the Lord was, according to these grandparents, a deterrent against immorality and tyranny. Such would refine and improve leaders, who would also be seeking the approval of the citizens, who expected rectitude, justice, and peace. The fear of God, indeed, was the beginning of political wisdom, once upon a time.

One modern historian credited Cooke’s 1770 sermon with the following praise: “Many of the principles on which the Declaration of Independence rests are already here: Civil government is an ordinance of God; only the people have the right to choose who will rule them; government must contain a balance of power with built-in checks; people have a ‘right’ to good government; a ruler will not forget that his subjects are ‘by nature equal’ to himself; the people will be subjected to no restrictions not founded on reason; laws must be clear and explicit . . .

Cooke concludes: “The religion of Jesus teacheth the true fear of God, and marvelously discloseth the plan of divine government. In his gospel, as through a glass, we see heaven opened, the mysteries of providence and grace unveiled, Jesus sitting on the right hand of God, to whom all power is committed, and coming to judge the world in righteousness.”

This sermon is available on line, and may be accessed by clicking here. It is also published in my Election Sermons (2012).

By Dr. David W. Hall, Pastor
Midway Presbyterian Church