Continuing on with our Saturday series of Election Day Sermons, our guest author, Dr. David W. Hall examines today a sermon by the Rev. Samuel Sherwood. I do appreciate Dr. Hall’s labors on our behalf, and these Saturday posts provide a great opportunity, all the more relevant in this current year, to learn much about how Christians moved about in the political waters of colonial and early U.S. history.

“The Church’s Flight into the Wilderness” by Samuel Sherwood (Jan. 17, 1776)

An American sermon on a choice morsel from the book of Revelation . . . associating corruption with hierarchies . . . and warning the church to resist sycophantic governments in league with that . . . and, further, that sermon was not from a late 20th century evangelical pulpit but rather from a Connecticut Congregationalist minister almost a century before Republicans even existed as a permanent party.

Samuel Sherwood (1730-1783) was a graduate of Yale and Princeton (at the time under the leadership of his uncle Aaron Burr), who pastored in Weston (CT) from 1757 to his death in 1783. Next to this sermon, his other published sermon (also of political import) was his Aug. 31, 1774, sermon, “Containing, Scriptural Instructions to Civil Rulers, and all Free-born Subjects,” which was a clear apology for American autonomy.

The final straw for Sherwood’s excursus was the 1774 Quebec Act—legislation which sought to establish Catholicism for all territories west of the Appalachian mountain range by assigning the governance of that tract to Canadian authorities. Sherwood, in this sermon, identified Roman Catholicism as a tentacle of the apocalyptic antichrist (Rev. 12:14-17) that would destroy or corrupt the church. Instead, Protestantism was, he thought, both more biblical and more likely to ensure religious and civil liberties. He praised “the honorable congress” as having the right to trade with any nations, thinking also that “the spirit of liberty might spread and circulate with commerce.”

The first point of this sermon is to warn against the rise of the serpent, which Sherwood associates with Romanism in general and Anglican bishoprics in particular, which were captivated by that ideology. His second observation is that the American colonies were threatened by this ecclesiastical encroachment, warning against the “poisoned liquor” which would “intoxicate and inflame mankind to spiritual fornication.” These ecclesiastical low-lifes were “inferior kind of animals,” who were viewed by this preacher as “peeping and croaking in the dark holes and corners of the earth,” most likely representative of “popish, jesuitical missioners, or the tools and emissaries in general, of anti-christian, tyrannical power, who are the spirits of devils, and have free access to the kings of the earth.” Under this second heading, he takes a historical digression, accusing the Jesuits of persistent evil that was only stemmed in part by the Reformation.

Third, he concludes that biblical prophecies “may rationally” point to many fulfillments in “the state of Christ’s church, in this American quarter of the globe; and will sooner or later, have their fulfillment and accomplishment among us.” He specified:

THESE United Colonies have arisen to such a height as to become the object of public attention thro’ all Europe, and of envy to the mother from whence they derived; whose unprovoked attack upon them in such a furious hostile manner, threatening their entire ruin, is an event that will make such a black and dark period in history, and does so deeply affect, not only the liberty of the church here in the wilderness, but the protestant cause in general, thro’ the christian world, and is big with such consequences of glory or terror, that we may conjecture at least, without a spirit of vanity and enthusiasm, that some of those prophecies of St. John may, not unaptly, be applied to our case, and receive their fulfilment in such providences as are passing over us.

His thesis was a version of American exceptionalism, advocating that God raised up the colonies in order to protect the church. His glossary was:

The Serpent = British Parliament;

The Woman = The true church;

The Wilderness = The American colonies.

He employed coded terms like “despotism,” “tyranny,” and “arbitrary power” (staples from Calvinist political theory for the previous two centuries) to castigate the British crown and clergy. Moreover, he clearly believed that biblical passages could be applied to contemporary political matters. Not only did he dedicate this sermon to John Hancock and various aldermen but also to: “the brave GENERALS of our armies, and patriotic HEROES, who are spirited by Heaven to exert their superior abilities in the most noble and generous manner, for the defence of our distressed country, bleeding under the cruel and murderous hand of unexampled tyranny and oppression; whom God in his providence, has raised up to be his glorious instruments, to fulfil scripture-prophecies, in favour of this church, and American liberty, to the confusion of all her enemies; the ensuing discourse is most affectionately inscribed and dedicated.” How’s that for not taking a position!

He preached:

Whenever a spirit of despotism has run high, and a lusting ambition after arbitrary power and lawless dominion has prevailed; when the dragon dare venture to put on and wear his long horns; the woman in the wilderness has felt the grievous distressing effects. At such seasons, jesuitical emissaries, the tools of tyrannical power, have been employed to corrupt her doctrines, and lead her into the belief of the darling doctrines of arbitrary power, passive obedience and nonresistance; who, like the frogs that issued out of the mouth of the false prophet, who are said to have the spirit of devils, have been slyly creeping into all the holes and corners of the land, and using their enchanting art and bewitching policy, to lead aside, the simple and unwary, from the truth, . . .

One may not agree with all his interpretations of the Revelation, nor with each of his applications, but Sherwood clearly saw the scriptures as living and as applicable to his day. And his sermon was neither viewed as establishing a religion nor as running afoul of the rights of the church to freely express her opinion on a current matter. Furthermore, he heralded the call for the church to resist tyranny.

The final section of this sermon is “improvement” or specific applications. Among these, he moves from Rev. 12 to his own day, perorating the government which was “claiming an absolute power and authority to make laws, binding in all cases whatever, without check or controul from any; which has proceeded in the exercise of this despotic, arbitrary power, to deprive one of them, of their most essential and chartered privileges; sent over fleets and armies to enforce their cruel, tyrannical edicts . . .”

He concludes: “Liberty has been planted here; and the more it is attacked, the more it grows and flourishes. The time is coming and hastening on, when Babylon the great shall fall to rise no more; when all wicked tyrants and oppressors shall be destroyed for ever. These violent attacks upon the woman in the wilderness, may possible be some of the last efforts, and dying struggles of the man of sin.”

Reiner Smolinski comments on this January 1776 classic, “The Church’s Flight into the Wilderness,” preached with Gov. John Hancock in attendance: “Sherwood freely mixes millenarian metaphors and political ideology to incite his listeners to action. Like many of his predecessors, Sherwood readily adapts the mythology of New England’s Puritan past to fit the new situation. The apocalyptic flight of the Woman into the howling wilderness of America a century and a half earlier was now reaching its climax in the cosmic battle against the British Antichrist. In this final stand against the English Gog of Magog, Sherwood invokes the Spirit of his Puritan ancestors and calls on all Protestants, all true Americans, to rise in defense of the Church: their sacred rights of religious freedom, political liberty, and the pursuit of property.” [http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1021&context=etas]

This sermon, which is worth accessing for reflections in the coming year, is available online at: http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/etas/21/. A published paper copy is available in the excellent anthology by Ellis Sandoz, Political Sermons of the American Founding Era (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 1998).

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

“Divine Judgments upon Tyrants” by Jacob Cushing  (April 20, 1778)

What is God’s view on certain political matters or events? That is a question often asked . . . and often mocked. Centuries earlier, however, preachers and their audiences were more sympathetic with the notion that God might actually have moral opinions on the acts of human beings. Earlier preachers like Jacob Cushing were not as timid as some today.

Jacob Cushing (1730-1809) was a graduate of Harvard in the mid-18th century, and he served as a pastor in Waltham, Massachusetts, nearly a half century, from 1752 on. He had 15 sermons published and kept a full diary that supplements his sermons. This was his only political treatise that was published and it was in commemoration of the tyrannical acts at Lexington on April 19, 1775—the first day in America military history that would live in infamy.

In this sermon (based on Dt. 32:43)—his only political sermon published—Cushing begins with a sound foundation, i. e., that God is not the deity of Deism; rather, he is the God who is quite involved in his creation and is neither so distant nor impotent as to carry moral suasion.

His sermon commences with the words “That there is a God” is not only the “prime foundation of all religion,” but if he is a particular type of God, his omnipotent actions will be flow into human events in public squares as well. A God devoid of providence, thought Cushing, was a solitary fiction who would yield little but “gloomy apprehensions.” Instead, God’s providence excites our gratitude and comforts during affliction. He is the sovereign God who “interests himself in the affairs of mankind,” and rational beings should consider how is providence is meted out.

He urged his audience to reflect on “the murderous war, rapine, and devastation” three years earlier on April 19, 1775. From the outset his purpose was practical, urging: “Under this visitation, or the greatest trials imaginable, we have abundant consolation, that God rules in the armies of heaven and among the inhabitants of this earth.” Specifically, that God would avenge the blood of his servants—the concluding words of Moses’ song in Deuteronomy 32—is designed to assure his people and to fortify them in resisting tyrants. This Deuteronomy prophecy is not limited to Israel, he preached, but applies to all God’s “chosen, though oppressed and injured people in all generations, that he will recompense their wrongs”—plead their cause—and do justice upon their enemies.

His subheadings, then, are:

1. That in his righteous providence, God sometimes allows “the sons of violence to oppress his saints and people.” God over-rules all things and at times chastises or reforms his imperfect church and people with oppressors. God’s variety of workings includes even the use of “revolting, sinful people.” These conditions should be met with humility and prayers for God’s mercies.
2. God will avenge his people, eventually and particularly, against tyrants. God’s adversaries will not escape his providential vengeance. One method of confirming this is to review the biblical record to ascertain where and how God has overthrown a variety of enemies and tyrants “through the powerful influence of a wise providence.” Here Cushing cites the examples of Edom, Haman, Babylon, and times of persecution.
3. Next, Cushing reminds his listeners of the promise in Deuteronomy 32, namely, that God will also show kindness and compassion to the penitent—in stark contrast to his providential judgment against tyrants. Again, he cites numerous biblical instances of this, and assures his readers that “the intention of God’s severe dispensations” is “not the destruction of his people but their amendment.”

By way of application (“improvement”) he includes the following:

• That God will render vengeance to his adversaries, and do justice to the enemies of his church.
• That God will be merciful to his people, his humble, penitent, praying people, and will in his own way and time, avenge, the blood of his servants.
• That therefore we have abundant cause to rejoice with his people; and to yield cheerful and constant obedience to him.

The sermon concludes with some graphic language that was, indeed, intended to “stir up minds.” It seemed clear to this 18th century preacher that the British marauders fulfilled this Deuteronomic passage and that little new could be added to inspire his listeners about that “awful day.” Here’s the word picture he drew: “. . . the enemy came upon us like a flood, stealing a march from Boston, through by-ways, under the darkness and silence of the night; and cowards and robbers, attacked us altogether defenceless; and cruelly murdered the innocent, the aged and helpless.” Accordingly they are described by the prophet, as persons whose hands are defiled with blood; adding, “their works are works of iniquity, and the act of violence is in their hands. Their feet run to evil, and they make haste to shed innocent blood; their thoughts are thoughts of iniquity, wasting and destruction are in their paths.”

Still, Cushing observed “the kindness of our almighty Preserver, that no more were slain by the hand of violence; and that . . . the hand of God was visible in these things; and power and goodness of God manifested in our deliverance, from the enraged, disappointed enemy, is to be devoutly retained in memory, and thankfully acknowledged.” He further appropriated the words of Psalm 124 to the American patriots, and applied the opening words of that psalm, “to ourselves and circumstances, with a little variation; ‘If it had not been the Lord, who was on our side, now may New England say: If it had not been the Lord, who was on our side, when men rose up against us; then they had swallowed us up quick, when their wrath was kindled against us,’ and began to break out in fierceness: In their furious rage they would have suddenly devoured us, and laid waste the country.”

God’s infinite mercy prevailed, and the “barbarous savage enemies were put into fear; they were made to flee before us, and hastily to retreat (as wild beast to their dens) before a few scattered, undisciplined freemen: Not to our courage or conduct, but to God’s name be all the praise and glory.” Toward the end, he exhorted:

If this war be just and necessary on our part, as past all doubt it is, then we are engaged in the work of the Lord, which obliges us (under God mighty in battle) to use our ‘swords as instruments of righteousness, and calls us to the shocking, but necessary, important duty of shedding human blood’; not only in defence of our property, life and religion, but in obedience to him who hath said, ‘Cursed be he that keepeth back his sword from blood.’

Moreover, he also addressed the militia and called on them to cultivate “a martial spirit, and to strive to excel in the art of war.” Most importantly, he called for “honorable and shining character,” befitting true Christians. He set in perspective the fleetingness of this life and called on his hearers to be willing to suffer. And he exhorted them to devoutly worship, honor, and fear the true Lord of all armies. While enemies had a temporary victory, ultimately the Lord of hose would honor all his promises—and his curses—and care for his people. Their calling was to faithful “duty, interest, liberty, religion and life, every thing worth enjoyment, [which] demand speedy and the utmost exertions.”

Cushing was quick to cite two previous anniversary sermons, one by Rev. Clark in 1776, and the other by Rev. Cooke, his spiritual father (see in these posts), from 1777. With this, and along with the previous post in this series by Henry Cumings, a homiletic tradition of commemorating certain providential days that will go down in history as infamy is being established.

The full sermon is posted at: http://consource.org/document/divine-judgments-upon-tyrants-by-jacob-cushing-1778-4-20/. It is also contained in Ellis Sandoz’s Political Sermons of the American Founding Era.

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

“An Anniversary Sermon at Lexington” by Henry Cumings  (April 19, 1781)

Pastor Henry Cumings [1739-1823] was a Congregationalist pastor in Billerica, Massachusetts for his entire ministry. After graduating from Harvard in 1760, he later was honored with a doctorate by Harvard in 1800. He was an outspoken revolutionary leader who preached against the ‘tyranny’ of Great Britain. He held to much of orthodox Christianity but may have been swayed by Unitarianism later in life. Nothwithstanding, he denounced Deism and the French Revolution.

Cumings was selected to be a delegate to the 1780 constitutional convention in Massachusetts—interestingly, at a period when most Americans still were not excessively phobic of a putative wall demanding separation. This sermon was preached at Lexington on April 19th, on the 6th anniversary of the onset of the Revolutionary war. Such anniversary observations became commonplace, and the American clergy were frequently the broadcasters both of British tyrannies and American rights. The printed version of this sermon features quotes from the OT by Samuel (“Hitherto hath the Lord helped us.”) and Solomon (“Surely the wrath of man shall praise thee: the remainder of wrath shalt thou restrain.”). The text for the sermon was Psalm 76:10: “Surely the wrath of man shall praise thee; the remainder of wrath thou shalt restrain.”

Cumings began this anniversary sermon by acknowledging that although God permits evil, he also is fully competent to govern, guide, and correct all events. At the same time, he also will bring correction, and it “cannot be doubted, but the infinitely wise GOD knows how to promote his own glory, by those ungoverned lusts of envious, discontented and proud mortals.”

Sounding distinctively Augustinian, Cumings recognizes that we live in a hate-filled world—one which is fallen and characterized by the wrath of man. Despite the pride and violence, he comforted: “We may rest assured, that the supreme governor of the world, will not suffer the wrath of man, of a weak and impotent mortal, (how much soever advanced above his fellow mortals) to overthrow his government, or defeat the counsels of his wisdom; but will cause it to praise him.”

He, then, reviewed instances of sacred history in which God permitted the wrath of man to have temporary sway. Among the examples from biblical history, he mentions Joseph at Potiphar’s hand, Moses and Pharaoh, rulers like Solomon and Rehoboam, and Esther’s deliverance. In these instances, “The haughty tyrant, who endeavours to advance his oppressive schemes, and to set himself up above all law and justice, by severities and cruelties, dictated by wrath, does thereby frequently work out his own disappointment, and is forced eventually to acknowledge his impotence, and to own a power above himself.”

Nevertheless, the wrath of man is not the absolute determinant; it is circumscribed by God’s governance: “SHOULD GOD permit the wrath of man to do all that it designs, what havock and devastation, what mischief and wretchedness, would it spread through the world? This world, at best, is a very turbulent scene; but it would be much more so, did not providence lay restraints upon the lusts and passions of ill-designing men, and prevent their going to such lengths in mischief, as they wish.”

Thankfully, in all human events, the hand of the Supreme Governor restrains the wrath of man from having total sway: “All nature is at the beck of the great Creator, who, when he pleases, can employ any part thereof, to disappoint the devices of the crafty, and carry the counsels of the froward headlong. What we call second causes, are entirely dependent upon the great first cause, to whom they owe all their force and energy.” The various ways that God checks the wrath of man are explored in the middle part of this famous sermon.

The final part of this sermon, as expected, is given to a discussion of the underlying providence that was at work six years earlier in the massacre at Lexington, Massachusetts. Early American preachers (and this is far from unique to America) were quite specific in their application sections, as this exemplar is. Sounding similar to the catechesis of causes for the revolution chronicled in the Declaration of Independence, Cumings cited the following as political abuses:

The pride, avarice and ambition of Great-Britain, gave rise to the present hostile contests. From this source originated those oppressive acts, which first alarmed the freemen of America; and provoked them, after petitioning in vain for redress, to form plans of opposition and resistance. This conduct of America exasperated the British administration, and roused all their wrath Transported with angry resentments, they proceeded from oppression to open war, in order to frighten and compel us into a submission to those arbitrary and despotic schemes, which they were determined, at all hazards, to carry into execution. But those vindictive and sanguinary counsels and measures, which, in the vehemence of their passions, they adopted, for this purpose, have, by the providence of GOD, contrary to their expectations, involved them in the most perplexing difficulties, by uniting thirteen provinces of America, in that declaration of independence, which they now wish us to rescind.

Applying an OT precedent from Rehoboam, Cumings believed that “The cause was from the Lord.” Even the tyranny of Great Britain was categorized as tyranny, which would justify overthrow. Evil intents, political abuse, tyranny in general or the British oppression in particular did not suggest that God was off the throne. As the hymn puts it, “And though the wrong seems oft so strong, God is the ruler yet.” Pastor Cumings preached, “We have therefore abundant reason to be thankful to the sovereign Ruler of the world, not only that he hath hitherto protected us against the open violence of our avowed foes; but also that he hath guarded us against the treacheries and treasonable conspiracies, of false and disaffected persons, whom we have harboured in our own bosoms; and defeated those hidden and mischievous artifices, which they have used to work our destruction.”

Specifically, the wrath of England, signaled by the April 19, 1775 attack at Lexington “has contributed to bring about and establish our independency.” He exhorted: “And the wrath, which she has thus roused in America, has been wisely managed by Providence, for checking and restraining her rage and vengeance.” Cumings drew these applications:

BUT whatever we may think of the ends of Providence, in ordering such a diversity of tempers among men, this is certain, that GOD will so manage the most disorderly, turbulent and boisterous passions, as to make them promotive of the designs of his government, or lay such restraints upon them, that instead of frustrating, they shall really subserve the purposes of his wisdom. Of this we have had the clearest evidence, in a variety of instances in the course of the present war; which affords substantial ground for a rational hope and trust in GOD, for the future.

Cumings also looks to the future, hoping for an end of the war and full independence for America. Agreeing with Solomon that “righteousness exalteth a nation, [which] asserts no more, than what the experience of all ages has found to be true,” Cumings concludes by citing Job 15:31ff and provides a brief exhortation to the local army.

The memory of those, who have magnanimously jeoparded their lives, and shed their blood in their country’s cause, will ever be dear to us. We particularly retain an honorable remembrance of those, who first fell a sacrifice to British wrath; and feel emotions of sympathy towards their surviving relatives, who cannot but be sensibly affected on this occasion. We would also join with you, in grateful acknowledgments to GOD, who mercifully checked the wrath of our enemies in its first eruptions, and caused it to recoil back on their own heads. We doubt not, but from the warmth of honest resentment; from a love of liberty and of your country, you will persevere to oppose and resist those insolent and haughty enemies, of whose wanton cruelty, you have had too melancholy a specimen, to permit you to expect much mercy at their hands, should they gain their point.

WHILE therefore, you are engaged with a laudable zeal in the cause of civil liberty, you will permit me to remind you, that there is another kind of liberty of an higher and nobler nature, which it is of infinite importance to every one to be possessed of; I mean that glorious internal liberty, which consists in a freedom from the dominion of sin, and in the habit and practice of all the virtues of a good life. This is that noble and exalted liberty of the sons of God, of which our saviour speaks, when he says, If the son of God shall make you free, then shall ye be free indeed. And this, once gained, will inspire you with the greatest magnanimity and fortitude, in the cause of outward liberty. For the righteous are bold as a lion.

The word count of this stirring sermon was ca. 8500. It is available in Ellis Sandoz, Political Sermons of the American Founding Era (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 1998) and at  http://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/evans/N13562.0001.001?rgn=main;view=fulltext.

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

“The Essential Rights and Liberties of Protestants” by Elisha Williams (Mar. 30, 1744)

The great grandson of several New England families (John Cotton’s among them), Elisha Williams (1694–1755) graduated from Harvard in 1711. After a brief career of teaching and tutoring in 1722 he became the pastor of a congregational church in Wethersfield, Connecticut, prior to becoming and serving as the Yale rector from 1726-1739. His abilities as a scholar show why Yale was attracted to him, and his acumen shines through in this essay. After 1739, he ended his time at Yale, and some believed he was interested in serving in the Governor’s chair. After his Yale tenure, he served in the Connecticut legislature (1740-1749) and even temporarily as a Connecticut Supreme Court Judge—a pretty uncommon role for a pastor. A year before his death, he served in the Albany Congress with Benjamin Franklin to begin to plan for an American union. This sermon or essay was likely a reaction to a 1742 statute (in a climate of Revivalism) that prohibited pastors from preaching outside of their own pulpit. In what follows, one finds a learned and lucid articulation of the role of government and its interface with religion. Moderns would do well, at least, to be familiar with this.

This message is both one of the earliest and one of the lengthiest of the genre. Delivered a generation prior to military conflicts, this was not a typical sermon (although it is often associated with such because of its overt religious orientation). Williams was attempting to address the challenging relationship of church and state (“the extent of the civil magistrate’s power respecting religion” in his words). Mutually affirming the sole authority of Scripture, while also aware of abuses from an improper union of church and state, Williams set out to defend this proposition: “The more firmly this is established in our minds; the more firm shall we be against all attempts upon our Christian liberty, and better practice that Christian charity towards such as are of different sentiments from us,”

First, he addressed the Origin and End of Civil Government. Williams believed that reason led to certain conclusions (and in this tract he frequently cited “Mr. Lock” as the authority). Among them, humans had a natural freedom defined as: “This natural freedom is not a liberty for every one to do what he pleases without any regard to any law; for a rational creature cannot but be made under a law from its Maker: But it consists in a freedom from any superiour power on earth, and not being under the will or legislative authority of man, and having only the law of nature (or in other words, of its Maker) for his rule.” Flowing from this was the right to property, the right to elect leaders, and also the need for government and constitutions.

Williams’ segue to his second topic is: “Hence then the fountain and original of all civil power is from the people, and is certainly instituted for their sakes; or in other words, which was the second thing proposed, The great end of civil government, is the preservation of their persons, their liberties and estates, or their property.”

The third focal point is: “What liberty or power belonging to man as he is a reasonable creature does every man give up to the civil government whereof he is a member. Some part of their natural liberty they do certainly give up to the government, for the benefit of society and mutual defence (for in a political society every one even an infant has the whole force of the community to protect him), and something therefore is certainly given up to the whole for this purpose.” He identified what is freely given up in order to have good government under two heads: “1st. The power that every one has in a state of nature to do whatever he judgeth fit, for the preservation of his person and property and that of others also, within the permission of the law of nature, he gives up to be regulated by laws made by the society, so far forth as the preservation of himself (his person and property) and the rest of that society shall require.” Secondly, “the power of punishing he wholly gives up, and engages his natural force (which he might before employ in the execution of the law of nature by his own single authority as he thought fit) to assist the executive power of the society as the law thereof shall require.”

Returning to the central question of the government’s duty toward religion, Williams asserted: “Should a government therefore restrain the free use of the scriptures, prohibit men the reading of them, and make it penal to examine and search them; it would be a manifest usurpation upon the common rights of mankind, as much a violation of natural liberty as the attack of a highwayman upon the road can be upon our civil rights.” Nevertheless, there was not to be creedal coercion by the civil governor; each citizen (assumed to be a believer) retained the right of private, independent judgment. Later Williams will deduce that “the civil authority has no power to make or ordain articles of faith, creeds, forms of worship or church government.” To do such would be to establish religion; and these explicit limitations should be allowed to define the originalist meaning of “establishment.” In an extended comment, he sets forth this view:

But here you will say, ‘Tho’ they have no authority to establish a religion of their own devising, yet have they not authority to establish a pure religion drawn out of the sacred scriptures, either by themselves or some synodical assemblies, and oblige their subjects upon (at least) negative penalties to receive the same[?]’ This I shall endeavour fairly to consider when I have observed, that if by the word establish be meant only an approbation of certain articles of faith and modes of worship, of government, or recommendation of them to their subjects; I am not arguing against it. But to carry the notion of a religious establishment so far as to make it a rule binding to the subjects, or on any penalties whatsoever, seems to me to be oppressive of Christianity, to break in upon the sacred rights of conscience, and the common rights and priviledges of all good subjects. For let it be supposed as now pleaded, that the clergy or a synodical assembly draw up the articles and form of religion, agreeable in their judgment to the sacred scriptures, and the reception of the same be made binding by the civil authority on their subjects; It will then follow, That all such establishments are certainly right and agreeable to the sacred scriptures.

He continued to maintain that it was impossible “that any can have right or authority to oblige Christians to believe or practice any thing in religion not true or not agreeable to the word of God: Because that would destroy the sacred scriptures from being the only rule of faith and practice in religion to a Christian. If the sacred scriptures are his rule of faith and practice, he is oblig’d and that by God himself, to believe and practice accordingly.” With impressive clarity, he asserted:

No man therefore, or order of men, can have any right or power to oblige the Christian to believe or do any thing in religion contrary to, or different from, what God has obliged him: The position of the one is the removal of the other. This then is certain, that if this proposition be true, that a humane religious establishment is a rule binding to Christians, or that the civil authority have power to oblige their subjects to receive them; then they are always right and agreeable to God’s word; but the latter is not true; therefore the proposition is false. Humane establishments in matters of religion, carry in them no force or evidence of truth. They who make them are no ways exempt from humane frailties and imperfections: They are as liable to error and mistake, to prejudice and passion, as any others. And that they have erred in their determinations, and decreed and established light to be darkness, & darkness to be light, that they have perplexed the consciences of men, and corrupted the simplicity of the faith in Christ, many councils and synods and assemblies of state are a notorious proof. . . . If therefore the civil authority has a power to make a religious establishment binding to the subjects; those six articles [ed. from Henry VIII in 1540] were true, tho’ they contained abominable absurdities, and amazing falshoods; and the people were obliged to believe them, and those who suffered for disbelieving them suffered justly.

Sounding a note that would be amplified a few decades later, this preacher affirmed that, “Every society ought to be subject only to its own proper legislature.” On the flip side of that autonomy, no ruler could coerce the conscience of religious subjects, for “The ground of obedience cannot be extended beyond the ground of that authority to which obedience is required.”

Williams showed his Protestant heritage, affirming an idea popularized centuries earlier by Beza, by Mayhew shortly thereafter, and others, namely “that every law not contrary to a superior law is to be obeyed.” In this fashion, submission was limited.

Since this piece is so long, there is much more that can be profitably read. Thus, we are happy to commend this piece of early American political theology to readers. Find it available in Ellis Sandoz, Political Sermons of the American Founding Era (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 1998); or it is online at: http://consource.org/document/the-essential-rights-and-liberties-of-protestants-by-elisha-williams-1744-3-30/.

by Dr. David W. Hall, Pastor
Midway Presbyterian Church
Powder Springs, Georgia

Image source: Title page of sermon by Elisha Williams, as displayed on the Princeton University Digital Library, at http://pudl.princeton.edu/objects/q811kk37n