

Liberty Displaying the Arts and Sciences, or The Genius of America Encouraging the Emancipation of the Blacks by Samuel Jennings, 1792, Library Company of Philadelphia.
- Introduction
- The Ancient Israelites and Greco-Romans: Man’s Common Moral Responsibility
- Medieval Christian Thought: Man’s Common Nature
- The Reformation Period: Man’s Equal Standing and Common Dominion
- The Puritans in America: An Early Application of Civil Equality with the Mayflower Compact
- The Modern Enlightenment: Man’s Equal, Natural Rights and Government by Consent
- The Great Awakening: Man’s Common Moral Condition
- The American Founders and the Declaration: Man’s Equality in Rights and Under Law
- The U. S. Constitution of 1787: The New Republic and the Problem of Slavery
- The American Civil War: Equal Rights, Equal Protection of Law, and the Abolition of Slavery
- Conclusion
Introduction
One important principle that the American Founders recognized in the Declaration of Independence of 1776 when they formed the United States was the equality of man. Equality is a state of being equal or the same. Though differing in their abilities and traits, the Founders saw, men are equal in the eyes of God.[1] The idea of man’s equality was largely influenced by the Bible and a God-oriented, Western worldview—as developed in the ancient, medieval, Reformation, modern Enlightenment, and early American periods. With this view, the Founders asserted in the Declaration, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” They also declared Americans’ right “to assume among the Powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God entitle them.”[2] The Founders greatly valued the idea of man’s equality because it was the philosophical basis for man’s natural rights of life and liberty and for government by consent. Indeed, it was a guiding lamp for America’s government based on popular sovereignty or the people’s rule. To be sure, the institution and practice of slavery that existed in early America from the 1600s to 1800s did not reflect the American ideal of equality as espoused in the Declaration. Its violations of equality and rights became a moral problem that culminated in the American Civil War, as will be discussed later. The Declaration’s principle of equality, however, ultimately led to equal rights and protections for all future Americans.
The Bible and God-oriented Western thought in many ways shaped the Founders’ understanding of man’s equality by revealing that all men are equal before God in distinct ways. More specifically, the Bible reveals that man is equal in common origin, nature, dominion, moral condition, and moral responsibility. On man’s common origin, Genesis 2:7, 21-22 teaches that God created mankind from one man, the first man, Adam: “The Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being. … Then the Lord made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man.”[3] The disciple Luke confirms in Acts 17:26, “He [God] has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth.”[4] On man’s common nature and dominion, Genesis 1:26-28 says that God made man, unlike other creatures, in His image, and so man has a unique dignity and dominion on earth: “‘Let us [God] make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule…over all the creatures.’” On man’s common moral condition, Genesis 3 reveals man’s sinful state through the Fall of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. The Apostle Paul in Romans 3:23 confirms man’s sinful condition, saying that “all fall short of the glory of God.” On man’s common moral responsibility, God consequently gave man a moral sense or law of good and evil as shown in Genesis 3:22: “God said, ‘The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil.’” In Genesis 4:7, God instructs man to “do what is right” and avoid sin or, as Psalm 34:14 says, to “turn from evil and do good.” Paul in Romans 2:14-15 confirms the moral law for mankind which is “written on their hearts.” Founding-era Americans understood from these teachings how men are equal in God’s eyes, and they drew from them to support their view that men in civil society are equal under law and in rights. Though other sources contributed to the American view of equality, this essay focuses primarily on the influence of the Bible and God-oriented Western thought on this principle.
The Ancient Israelites and Greco-Romans: Man’s Common Moral Responsibility
The ancient Israelites from 1800s-100s BC and the ancient Greco-Romans from 700s BC-400s AD laid important groundwork for the Western idea of equality among men. In particular, they believed that their people shared a common moral responsibility in being subject to moral law. …
The ancient Israelites understood man’s common moral responsibility from the Hebrew Scriptures—the Old Testament of the Bible—authored between the fifteenth and first centuries BC. The Israelites believed from Genesis 3 and 4 that all men are subject to God’s moral law. They further saw from the books of Exodus and Deuteronomy that all their people were also subject to certain God-given religious, ceremonial, and civil laws. These laws applied to everyone. In Deuteronomy 1:17, the prophet Moses tells the people, “You shall not show partiality in judgment; you shall hear the small as well as the great.” With such beliefs about man’s common moral responsibility, the Israelites practiced Rule of Law in which all the people were subject to and treated equally under the same law.
The Greco-Romans understood man’s common moral responsibility apparently from nature and reason. The Greeks believed, as philosopher Aristotle expressed in his 300s BC Treatise on Rhetoric, that all men have a “universal sense of right and wrong.”[5] The Romans likewise believed, as statesman Marcus Tullius Cicero conveyed in his c50 BC Treatise on the Laws, that all men are subject to a moral law which they called the “Law of Nature” or “right reason” and recognized as “the common property of God and man.”[6] The c170-228 AD Roman jurist Ulpian notably stated that “as far as concerns the natural law all men are equal.”[7] Applying this belief to civil law, the Roman’s first body of written laws for their Republic in 451 BC—the Twelve Tables—gave the same laws for all citizens regardless of class. It stated that “laws of personal exception shall not be proposed.”[8] Ultimately, the Roman concept of equality under law, including Ulpian’s statement on natural law, reappeared in Byzantine Roman Emperor Justinian I’s 529-565 AD Corpus Juris Civilis or Body of Civil Laws which became the basis of Roman law in the Christianized Eastern Roman Empire and in medieval Western Europe.[9]
The ancient Israelites and Greco-Romans recognized an equality among men in their common moral sense of and responsibility to a moral law—to a degree not often seen in other parts of the world at that time—based on the Bible, nature, and reason. In accordance with these views, the Greco-Romans asserted that citizens—though differing in abilities and occupations—were equal under civil law and in rights including liberty.[10] The Greeks, as Aristotle stated in his 350 BC Politics, held that “the rights and liberties of the many, are duly respected and impartially maintained.”[11] The Romans, as Cicero affirmed in his 54-51 BC Commonwealth, believed that though men’s fortunes and faculties are not the same, “rights at least should be equal, among those who are citizens of the same republic.”[12] Ulpian thus stated that “by natural law all were born free.”[13] These views and practices influenced the Western idea of man as differing in many ways but equal under law and in rights. “The most important classical element of equality,” says Scott Robinson in his 2020 essay Equality, “was its insistence that we are equal members of a community, or equally human, even if not equal in every capacity.”[14]
Medieval Christian Thought: Man’s Common Nature
The teachings of the Bible and Judeo-Christian thought which spread through Roman civilization in the late ancient and medieval eras strengthened the Western view of man’s equality. The Bible-based writings of influential Christian figures including Augustine, Pope Gregory I, and Thomas Aquinas supported man’s equality, most notably, in recognizing man’s common nature in being created in God’s image, with reason.
North African Christian bishop and theologian Augustine of Hippo, who lived from 354 to 430 AD, adapted ancient Greco-Roman classical thought to Judeo-Christian teaching and helped to make the Bible and Christianity known and understood in the formerly pagan Roman empire. In his 426 AD City of God and c400 AD Confessions, Augustine explained from Genesis 1:26-28 man’s “similarity of nature” in being made “in that very image and likeness of Thee [God] (that is, [with] the power of reason and understanding) on account of which he [man] was set over all irrational creatures.”[15] He further pointed out that while men have dominion over other animals, they are equal among other men, saying that God “did not intend that his rational creatures, who were made in His image, should have dominion over anything but the irrational creation, –not man over man, but man over the beasts.”[16]
Pope Gregory I was an influential Christian Bishop of Rome from 590-604 AD who initiated missions to Christianize the Germanic peoples and Anglo-Saxons of Europe. In his 578-595 AD Exposition on the Morals of Job or Commentary on Job, Gregory, reflecting Augustine, affirmed man’s common nature as expressed in Genesis 1:26-28 and confirmed in Genesis 9:1-2:
All of us men are equal by nature…. … [O]ur old fathers [in the Bible] are recorded to have been not so much kings of men, as shepherds of flocks. When the Lord said to Noah and his sons [in Gen 9:1-2], Be fruitful and multiply, and replenish the earth, He adds, And the fear and dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth. He says not ‘be upon the men’…. Since man is by nature set over the irrational animals, but not over the rest of mankind, and therefore it is said to him that he should be feared by the beasts and not by men; because it is to swell with pride against nature, to desire to be feared by an equal.[17]
R. W. Carlyle and A. J. Carlyle noted in their 1903 History of Medieval Political Theory in the West that Gregory’s assertion here of man’s natural equality became well-known and was often cited in medieval literature.[18]
Italian churchman and theologian Thomas Aquinas of 1225-1274 AD was another important figure who influenced Western, Judeo-Christian thought in the Middle Ages and thereafter. In his 1265-1274 AD Summa Theologica, Aquinas, like Augustine and Gregory, also upheld man’s common nature. Aquinas similarly observed from Genesis 1:26-28 that “man is said to be after the image of God…according to his intelligence and reason” and thus “excels all animals.”[19] Echoing Gregory, Aquinas asserted with this understanding that “by nature all men are equal.”[20] While men rule over the animals, a man does not have natural dominion or rule over another man, he explained, since “one [human] soul is not set over another in the order of nature.”[21]
The Bible-based views of man’s common nature—of being made in God’s image, with reason—as emphasized by influential medieval Christian thinkers like Augustine, Gregory, and Aquinas, gave support to the Western idea of man’s equality under law and in rights. Indeed, Aquinas asserted in his c1460 Commentary on the Sentences of Peter Lombard that though men differ in traits, all men in a state of innocence are equal in rights including liberty: “By nature all men are equal in liberty, but not in other endowments. One man is not subordinate to another as though he were a utility.”[22] Such views informed Western political thought during the Reformation, Enlightenment, and early American periods.
The Reformation Period: Man’s Equal Standing and Common Dominion
The principle of man’s equality became more prominent during the period of the Protestant Reformation in Europe in the 1500s and 1600s. For the Reformation’s teachings upheld the equal standing of Christian believers in the church and thus indirectly supported the idea of citizen equality in the civil state. Also, separately, Catholic and Protestant Christian political reformers drew on the Bible-based idea of man’s common dominion on earth to directly argue for citizens’ equal rights, popular sovereignty, and government by consent in the civil state.
The Reformation was a Christian religious movement that sought reform of or separation from the Catholic Church which many thought had become heretical and corrupt at this time. While Protestant religious reformers upheld man’s common nature, many questioned the authority and infallibility of the pope and church councils as well as the body and role of the clergy. Their views of the church—of Christ as sole head and mediator of the church, Sola Scriptura, and the priesthood of all believers—promoted the equal standing of Christians in the church.
Firstly, Protestants upheld Christ as sole head and mediator of the church. While Catholics believed from Matthew 16:13-19 that the Apostle Peter was the first pope or head of the church because Jesus gave to him exclusively “the keys of the kingdom of heaven;” Protestants believed, as French Protestant pastor John Calvin argued in his 1536 Institutes of the Christian Religion, that Peter represented the church, and so his spiritual power is given to all believers.[23] Calvin supported the reformed view from 1 Peter 5:1 where Peter calls himself a “fellow elder.”[24] Peter, Calvin says, had “no more power over the rest than they had over him.”[25] Calvin affirmed from Ephesians 4:15 that “the church has Christ for its sole head…, for ‘Christ is the head.’”[26] Protestants thus asserted that all believers have spiritual power under Christ who is the sole head and mediator of the church.
Secondly, many Protestants believed in Sola Scriptura, Latin for “scripture alone,” the idea that the Bible as the inerrant Word of God is the final authority on Christian faith, doctrine, and practice. While Catholics believed that the Bible and church tradition are both authoritative on religious and church matters, and that the Bible needs to be interpreted correctly by the pope and bishops; many Protestants believed that the Bible alone is the final authority on religious and church matters and can be interpreted by all spirit-filled believers. Such discernment by all believers can help prevent errors, heresies, and corruptions in the church. Citing 1 Corinthians 14:30, John 6:45, and Galatians 2:11, German monk Martin Luther explains in his 1520 Appeal to the Ruling Class,
St. Paul says, 1 Corinthians 14 [:30], “If something superior be revealed to anyone sitting there and listening to another speaking God’s word, the first speaker must be silent and give place.” What would be the virtue of this commandment if only the speaker, or the person in the highest position, were to be believed? Christ Himself says, John 6 [:45], “that all Christians shall be taught by God.” … Who could enlighten Christian people if the pope erred, unless someone else, who had the support of Scripture, were more to be believed than he? …
…St. Paul upbraided St. Peter as a wrongdoer [Gal. 2:11]. Hence it is the duty of every Christian to accept the implications of the faith, understand and defend it, and denounce everything false.[27]
Many Protestants thus promoted the authority of the Bible alone and the interpretation of the Bible by all believers in the church.
Thirdly, many Protestants upheld the priesthood of all Christian believers. While Catholics saw the clergy as priests who minister to and intercede for others, many Protestants saw all believers as priests with ministerial responsibilities. Luther supported the reformed view from 1 Peter 2:9, stating that “our baptism consecrates us all without exception, and makes us all priests. As St. Peter says, 1 Pet. 2, ‘You [believers] are a royal priesthood and a realm of priests.’”[28] Calvin similarly saw that all believers, though differing in abilities and callings, have a ministry function based on Ephesians 4:16 which says, “From Him [Christ] the whole body…grows and builds itself up in love, as each part does its work.”[29] Many Protestants thus upheld the ministry of all believers in the church.
With such beliefs, many Protestants favored democratic forms of church governance such as Congregationalism in which local churches were governed by their members, and elected elders served as moderators. Elders were elected, Luther says, for “only by the consent and command of the community should any individual person claim for himself what belongs equally to all.”[30] The Protestant view of the equal standing of believers in the church indirectly advanced the idea of the equal standing of citizens in the civil state.
Also during this period, but separately, Catholic and Protestant political reformers drew from Genesis 1:26-28 and Judeo-Christian thought on man’s common dominion—to “subdue” the earth and to “have dominion…over every living thing”—to support popular sovereignty in the civil state.[31] For example, Italian Jesuit Cardinal and counter-reformer Robert Bellarmine in his 1586-1593 Disputations on Controversies of the Christian Faith upheld man’s common dominion by quoting Augustine: “The Fathers clearly teach this: ‘God, having made man a rational being in His own Image, was unwilling that he [man] should dominate except over irrational beings, not man over man, but man over beasts.’”[32] Quoting Pope Gregory, he reiterates, “When he [Gregory] says, ‘All men are equal by nature,’ …he rightly infers that one [man] should not be dominated over by another, as man dominates over the beasts…. Hence he adds: ‘For it is against nature to act proudly or to wish to be feared by one’s equals.’”[33] Bellarmine concluded that as all men have equal dominion, all men have a right to freedom. Consequently, earthly political power is given by God to the whole people of a nation, not to any particular person. He explains, “In a commonwealth all men are born naturally free: consequently, the people themselves, immediately and directly, hold the political power so long as they have not transferred this power to some king or ruler.” [34] He further expounds,
This [political] power resides…immediately in the whole state, for this power is by the Divine law, but Divine law gives this power to no particular man, therefore Divine law gives this power to the collected body. Furthermore, in the absence of positive [man-made] law, there is no reason why, in a multitude of equals, one rather than another should dominate.[35]
As another example, Scottish Presbyterian pastor Samuel Rutherford in his 1644 Lex, Rex, or The Law and the Prince similarly drew on man’s common dominion to support government by consent. Like Bellarmine, he argued that because all men have dominion, they all hold political power. Referencing Genesis 1:28 and Matthew 16:18-19, he states, “As for the official authority [of governing] itself, it is virtually in all in whom any of God’s image is remaining since the fall, …as may be gathered from Gen. i.28. …One man alone hath not the keys of the kingdom of heaven.”[36] Thus civil government, Rutherford saw, should be based on consent. “Political society is,” he says, “grounded on the consent of men.”[37] With a Bible-based view of man’s common dominion, Bible-based thinkers like Bellarmine and Rutherford directly advanced radical political ideas of equal rights, popular sovereignty, and government by consent in the civil state.
The religious and political ideas that emerged during the Reformation period played an important role in advancing man’s equality in the Western world. The Bible-based ideas of the equal standing of believers in the church and of man’s common dominion on earth indirectly and directly promoted citizens’ equal rights in the civil state. They also eventually stimulated democratic concepts of civil government based on popular sovereignty and government by consent, though the application took time.[38] “The Protestant emphasis on the ‘priesthood of all believers’ and its strong individualism,” observes Kent Greenawalt in his 2010 essay Religion and Equality, “helped to lay the foundation for broader notions of political and legal equality that emerged from the Enlightenment.”[39] Judeo-Christian and Catholic thought on man’s common dominion also thus became, through thinkers like Bellarmine, foundational to the Western idea of political equality.[40] Such political ideas influenced modern-era thinkers in Europe and America.
The Puritans in America: An Early Application of Civil Equality with the Mayflower Compact
In the 1600s, following the Reformation, when the Pilgrims and Puritans came to America, they brought with them the Western, God-oriented worldview of man as well as their Protestant Christian beliefs and church practices. These religious and philosophical influences shaped their political views on man’s civil equality in rights and under law. When they settled in the colonies of Plymouth, Massachusetts, and Connecticut, they applied equality in their civil governments, starting with the Mayflower Compact.
The Pilgrims and Puritans believed, like other Western, God-oriented thinkers, that men are equal before God—in origin, nature, dominion, and moral responsibility—and thus in natural rights. Their philosophical beliefs, in turn, affected their political views on and support for government based on consent. For example, on man’s common nature, Massachusetts Puritan pastor John Wise in his 1717 Vindication of the Government of New England Churches, alluding to Genesis 1:26-28, described man as “the Favourite Animal on Earth, in that this Part of God’s Image, viz. Reason is Congenate with his Nature.”[41] Connecticut colony founder and Puritan pastor Thomas Hooker in his 1648 Survey of the Summe of Church-Discipline, echoing the same verses, saw that “the nature of man was preserved in one man Adam.”[42] On man’s common moral responsibility, Wise observed from Romans 2:14-15 that the Law of Nature is “written on Men’s hearts,” “obliging each one to the performance of that which is Right.”[43] In light of these commonalities, Wise, paraphrasing Ulpian in Justinian’s Corpus Juris Civilis, affirmed that all men are equal in natural rights, for “as Ulpian says, by a Natural Right all Men are born free; and Nature having set all Men upon a Level and made them Equals, no Servitude or Subjection can be conceived without Inequality.”[44] Thus civil government, they saw, must be based on consent. Thomas Hooker was one of the first defenders of consent of the governed in America, arguing in his 1638 Connecticut Court Sermon that “the foundation of authority is laid, firstly, in the free consent of the people.”[45]
The Pilgrims and Puritans also held reformed views that all Christian believers have equal standing in the church and, consequently, saw citizens as equal in the civil state. For example, on believers’ equal spiritual power, Thomas Hooker, referencing Matthew 16:13-19, affirmed that all believers, not just a select few, hold “the keys of the kingdom of heaven” or the power that Christ gave to Peter because, he says, “those which have the same commission share alike in the same and equal power.”[46] On believers’ equal ministry, Thomas Hooker, citing John 20:21, pointed out that all believers are called to share the Gospel of Christ, stating, “Prout me misit pater, ego mitto vos [Just as the Father sent me, I send you.]. It was said to all the Apostles equally, and to all their successors indifferently.”[47] As all believers have a ministerial function, Massachusetts pastor John Cotton noted in his 1645 Way of the Churches of Christ in New England, so all congregations stand in “brotherly equality.”[48] The Puritans thus practiced a congregational form of church government.[49] Alexander W. McClure confirmed in his 1846 Life of John Cotton the Puritans’ reformed religious views of equality in the church: “Following the Scripture rules and precedents, our [Puritan] fathers declared for the equality of all churches, church members, and church ministers.”[50] The Puritans’ views and practices of equality in the church led to their like views and applications of equality in the civil state.
One of the Pilgrims’ first civil applications of equality was seen in their Mayflower Compact of 1620 in which they agreed to form a civil body and to create “just and equal” laws in their colony of Plymouth.[51] While most charters at the time were between a king and subjects, the Pilgrims’ pact was among equals, with God as their King. It thus initiated a self-government among equals. This compact was, observes Donald S. Lutz in his 1990 essay Mayflower Compact, the “first expression” of political equality in America.[52] As Albert C. Addison observes in his 1912 Romantic Story of the Puritan Fathers, “What was right and best in Church could not long be denied the State; and so the ‘New England Way’ inevitably broadened out until it led…into the civic and religious liberty which is now enjoyed.”[53]
The Modern Enlightenment: Man’s Equal, Natural Rights and Government by Consent
In the wake of the Reformation, political thinkers of the Enlightenment period in Europe—including John Locke and Algernon Sidney—arose in the late 1600s and 1700s to challenge the long-held doctrine of the Divine Right of Kings and Robert Filmer’s Patriarcha. Divine Right is the idea that kings derive authority directly from God, not from the people. As such, the people’s consent of the king is not required, and resistance is considered a defiance of God’s will. Locke and Sidney drew from man’s common nature and dominion to refute Divine Right and support man’s natural rights, popular sovereignty, and government by consent. William Blackstone drew from man’s common moral responsibility to support equality under law. Though they articulated their views in more secular terms, these thinkers understood man’s common nature, dominion, and moral responsibility from the Bible and God-oriented thinkers of the ancient, medieval, and Reformation periods.
English theorist Robert Filmer in his 1680 treatise Patriarcha argued in favor of Divine Right based on a particular interpretation of the Bible. He argued from Genesis that God gave Adam, the eldest parent, authority to be king or “lord paramount over his children’s children to all generations.” [54] As such, the king of England, as the eldest parent of an ordained line, had absolute authority to govern over the people without their consent. Filmer paraphrased Bellarmine on man’s common dominion and popular sovereignty as an opposing view: “It is framed [by Bellarmine]: ‘That God hath given or ordained [political] power, is evident by Scripture [in Genesis]; but God hath given it to no particular person, because by nature all men are equal; therefore he hath given power to the people or multitude.’”[55] Patriarcha was relevant because it enabled readers to become familiar with Bellarmine’s Bible-based argument against Divine Right and because Locke and Sidney, who sided with Bellarmine, wrote significant works in response to Filmer.
British philosopher John Locke in his 1689 Two Treatises of Civil Government drew from man’s common nature and dominion to refute Divine Right and to defend man’s natural rights and consent of the governed. While recognizing that men differ in abilities, traits, and merits, Locke believed that all men have rights to life, liberty, and property in large part because they share a common nature and dominion as seen in Genesis 1:26-28. Echoing Bellarmine and Rutherford, Locke says in his First Treatise that “God makes him [man] ‘in his own image after his own likeness,’ makes him an intellectual creature, and so capable of dominion.”[56] Dominion belongs to all men, Locke affirmed, not just to Adam: “Whatever God gave by the words of this grant (Gen. i.28), it was not to Adam in particular, exclusive of all other men; …but a dominion in common with the rest of mankind.”[57] He thus says in his First Treatise that “all men are…naturally equal” and in his Second Treatise that “all men by nature are equal.”[58] Because men are equal in nature and dominion, and God did not make Adam “prince of his posterity” or “lord of mankind,” Locke says, all men have equal rights: “[A]ll that share in the same common nature, faculties, and powers are in nature equal, and ought to partake in the same common rights and privileges.”[59] In such a state, men are, he confirms, “equal and independent, all heirs to Adam’s monarchy, and consequently all monarchs too, one as much as another.”[60] As such, no rank pre-exists among men in which one may justly rule over another without consent.
English Whig parliamentarian Algernon Sidney, like Locke, drew from man’s common nature and dominion to refute Divine Right in favor of man’s natural rights and consent. In his 1698 Discourses Concerning Government, Sidney aligned with Bellarmine and Locke on the idea from Genesis 1:26-28 that men are equal in dominion and thus in rights. Referencing Filmer’s Patriarcha, Bellarmine’s Disputations, and Genesis 1:28, he explains,
He [Filmer] recites an argument of Bellarmine, that “it is evident in Scripture [Gen. 1:28] God hath ordained powers; but God hath given them to no particular person, because by nature all men are equal. Therefore, He [God] hath given power to the people or multitude.” I leave him [Filmer] to untie that knot, if he can…. I take Bellarmine’s argument to be strong…. … The only sort of kings mentioned there [in the Bible] with approbation is such a one “as may not raise his heart above his brethren [Deut. 17:20].” … Such as are versed in scripture not only know that it [Divine Right] neither agrees with the letter or spirit of that book but that it is unreasonable in itself.[61]
Sidney also supported man’s common dominion from Romans 8:17 where the Apostle Paul calls God’s children “heirs of God.” He explains, “If children are heirs, or joint heirs, whatsoever authority Adam or Noah had, is inherited by every man in the world.”[62] Due to man’s equal nature and dominion, he concluded, all men have equal rights and thus liberty. Thus, just government, regardless of its form, must be based on consent.[63] Sidney noted, like Plato and Aristotle, that because men differ in traits, characters, and roles in society, the people should choose the most wise and virtuous to govern.
English jurist and Roman law scholar William Blackstone in his 1765 Commentaries on the Laws of England upheld man’s common moral responsibility to the Law of Nature—in line with the Bible, the ancient Israelite, and Roman law—as the basis for man’s equality under law. He asserted that all men are subject to the Law of Nature which is “binding over all the globe in all countries, at all times.”[64]
During the Enlightenment, political thinkers including Locke, Sidney, and Blackstone defended man’s equality in rights and under law based on man’s common nature, dominion, and moral responsibility as shown in the Bible and in classical and Judeo-Christian thought. They drew from this view of man’s equality to refute Divine Right and to articulate in clear, modern terms an argument for popular sovereignty and consent of the governed in the civil state. These thinkers were widely read by founding-era Americans and strongly influenced American political thought.
The Great Awakening: Man’s Common Moral Condition
In the mid-1700s, a Protestant Christian evangelical revival known as the Great Awakening swept through the thirteen colonies in America. It helped to inform or reacquaint many colonists with the Judeo-Christian teachings of the Bible including man’s common nature and moral responsibility. Through influential revivalists of this period, the Great Awakening strengthened the American view of man’s equality, most distinctly, by teaching about man’s common moral condition.
Revivalists strengthened the idea of man’s equality, firstly, by teaching about every man’s fallen moral state. In his 1758 Doctrine of Original Sin, citing Acts 17:26, Reformed Congregationalist pastor Jonathan Edwards, who was heavily influenced by Calvin, explains,
Things were so wisely established that all should naturally be in one and the same moral state; and not in such exceedingly different states, as that some should be perfectly innocent and holy, but others corrupt and wicked; some needing a Savior, but others needing none…. Such a vast diversity of state would by no means have agreed with the natural and necessary constitution and unavoidable situation and circumstance of the world of mankind; all made of one blood, to dwell on all the face of the earth [Acts 17:26].[65]
Scottish Presbyterian pastor and American Founder John Witherspoon—though perhaps more of a religious unifier than a revivalist—affirmed in his 1700s sermon View of the Glory of God man’s fallen moral condition from Adam, in which “the beauty and excellence of that image [of God]…was stained by sin.”[66] Citing Ecclesiastes 7:20, Romans 3:10, Romans 3:23, and Romans 5:12, he elaborates in his Man in His Natural State,
As it is written, ‘There is none righteous, no not one [Ecclesiastes 7:20; Romans 3:10].’ And again—‘For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God [Romans 3:23].’ You may also see that the apostle [Paul] traces this disorder to its very source—‘Wherefore as by one man [Adam] sin entered into the world, and death by sin: and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned [Romans 5:12].’ … Man is everywhere considered as in a fallen and sinful state. … It is not one man, or a few men, that are in Scripture called to repentance, but all without exception.”[67]
Revivalists reinforced the idea of man’s equality, secondly, by emphasizing every man’s need for God’s redemption in Christ. Citing John 3:3-7, Luke 13:1-5, Matthew 6:12, and Luke 11:4, Edwards explains,
Christ was continually saying…that all men in their original state are sinful…. As, when he declared [in John 3:3-7] that…it was necessary for all to be born again, to be converted, and that otherwise they could not enter into the kingdom of heaven; that [in Luke 13:1-5] all were sinners…, and that everyone who did not repent should perish; withal [in Matt 6:12 and Luke 11:4] directing every one to pray to God for forgiveness of sin.[68]
Just as every person is in a fallen state, Edwards concluded, so can every person be redeemed through faith in Christ. Citing John 20:31, he confirmed in his Concerning Faith, “‘These things are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that…ye might have life through his name.’ …[This] is the faith that all men have that are in a state of salvation.”[69]
In spreading the teachings of the Bible throughout colonial America, the Great Awakening strengthened the American view of man’s equality, most distinctly, in emphasizing man’s common moral condition—including man’s fallen moral state and need for God’s redemption. The revival proclaimed a Gospel of hope and salvation in Christ for all people, regardless of status. True to its tenets, the revival affected all kinds of people as Edwards observed in his 1737 Faithful Narrative: “The work in this town, and some others around us, has been extraordinary on account of the universality of it, affecting all sorts, sober and vicious, high and low, rich and poor, wise and unwise. It reached the most considerable families and persons to all appearance, as much as others.” [70] In these ways, the revival reinforced colonial Americans’ philosophical and political views on mans’ equality prior to the American Revolution.
The American Founders and the Declaration: Man’s Equality in Rights and Under Law
During America’s revolutionary and founding periods, when the American colonists turned their attention to freedom from British control and national sovereignty, the American Founders drew on the idea of man’s equality as a key basis for American independence. Many colonists believed that the British government had violated their rights by imposing oppressive taxes and policies on them without American representation in British parliament. The Founders argued that the colonists were entitled to consensual self-government based on man’s equality in natural rights and under law. They largely understood such equality from man’s common origin, nature, dominion, and moral responsibility as found in the Bible and confirmed by Western thought.
On man’s common origin, for example, the Founders acknowledged from Genesis 2:7, 21-22 and Acts 17:26 that mankind, as created by God, originates from one man, Adam. Founder Benjamin Rush in his 1798 Essays Literary, Moral, and Philosophical referred to Adam in Genesis as man’s “great progenitor.”[71] Founder and pastor John Witherspoon recognized man’s origin from Adam as the “children of Adam” and “race of Adam.”[72] Founder and Supreme Court Justice James Wilson in his 1790-1791 Lectures on Law affirmed from Acts 17:26 humanity’s origin from one man: “In civil society, previously to the institution of civil government, all men are equal. Of one blood all nations are made; from one source the whole human race has sprung.”[73] Founder John Adams in his 1778 Defense of the Constitutions of Government similarly recognized that “all men are of the same species, and of one blood.”[74]
On man’s common nature, the Founders recognized from Genesis 1:26-28—and in line with Catholic and Protestant Christian thought as expressed by Augustine, Gregory, Aquinas, Bellarmine, Rutherford, and Locke—that man is made in God’s image with reason. Witherspoon described man “in whom some faint rays…of the divine Image appear by reflection.”[75] Founder Benjamin Franklin noted man’s unique rational nature and dignity from God in his 1728 Articles of Belief and Acts of Religion: “Thou [God] hast created man, bestowing life and reason, and placed him in dignity superior to thy other earthly creatures.”[76] Wilson affirmed man’s unique rational nature: “The power of reasoning is…the characteristic quality, which distinguishes the human race from the inferior part of creation.”[77]
On man’s dominion, the Founders saw from Genesis 1:26-28—and in line with Bellarmine, Rutherford, Locke, and Sidney—man’s rule over the earth. Wilson explained man’s earthly rule by quoting Genesis 1:26-28: “The general property of man in animals, in the soil, and in the production of the soil, is the immediate gift of the bountiful Creator of all. ‘God created man in his own image…and said unto them, be fruitful and multiply, …and have dominion…over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.’”[78] Rush likewise saw from Genesis man’s earthly dominion due to his reason: “It is probable that the dominion of our great progenitor [Adam] over the brute creation…was founded upon a perfect knowledge of their names and qualities, for God appears in this…to have acted by the instrumentality of human reason.”[79] Founder John Adams in his 1774 Novanglus affirmed “the elevated rank they [men] hold in the universe, as men.”[80]
On man’s common moral responsibility, the Founders—in line with Genesis 3:22, Genesis 4:7, Romans 2:14-15, the Israelites, Aristotle, Cicero, Ulpian, Justinian, Roman law, and Blackstone—saw that all men have a moral obligation to the Law of Nature. Wilson recognized that the Creator God has prescribed “a law for our conduct” and, from Romans 2:15, that this Law of Nature is “engraven by God on the hearts of men.”[81] This law, which God reveals and confirms in the Bible, says Wilson, applies to all men: “The law of nature is universal. …The law of nature, having its foundation in the constitution and state of man, has an essential fitness for all mankind, and binds them without distinction.”[82] Revolutionary leader and Founder Samuel Adams in his 1794 letter to the Massachusetts legislature also cited Romans 2:15 on every man’s duty to abide by the Law of Nature: “All men are equally bound by the laws of nature, or…the laws of the Creator:—They are imprinted by the finger of God on the heart of man…. [I]t is confirmed by written revelation.”[83] Rush in his 1792 On the Punishment of Murder likewise affirmed the moral law in man’s heart as described in Romans 2:15, recognizing “the sense of justice so universal among all nations” which is “written by the finger of God upon every human heart.”[84]
From these commonalities seen in the Bible, founding-era Americans saw that all men are naturally equal before God. With such understanding, revolutionary activist James Otis in his 1762 Vindication of the Conduct of the House of Representatives remarked that “God made all men naturally equal.”[85] Witherspoon observed in his 1774 Lectures on Moral Philosophy that “men are originally and by nature equal.”[86] John Adams stated that “all men by nature are equal.”[87] Wilson asserted that “in civil society, previous to civil government, all men are equal”[88]
The Founders explicitly acknowledged the Bible and Western thought as the primary sources for man’s natural equality. On the Bible as a source, Rush stated in his 1786 Of the Mode of Education Proper in a Republic,
The history of the creation of man, and of the relation of our species to each other by birth, which is recorded in the Old Testament, is the best refutation that can be given to the divine right of kings, and the strongest argument that can be used in favor of the original and natural equality of all mankind.[89]
Rush in his 1791 Defense of the Use of the Bible as a Schoolbook confirmed of the Bible that “this divine book, above all others, favours that equality among mankind.”[90] The Founders also confirmed the influence of Western thought of the ancient, medieval, and modern periods on their philosophical and political views of man’s equality. For example, John Adams named Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, Locke, and Sidney as those from whom the Founders drew support:
“They,” the popular leaders, “begin by reminding the people of the elevated rank they hold in the universe, as men; that all men by nature are equal.” … These…are the principles of Aristotle and Plato, of Livy and Cicero, and Sidney, Harrington, and Locke; the principles of nature and eternal reason; the principles on which the whole government over us now stands.”[91]
Declaration author Jefferson confirmed in a 1825 letter that the Declaration’s authority rests on “the harmonizing sentiments of the day, …as Aristotle, Cicero, Locke, Sidney, etc.”[92] These sentiments likely included Bellarmine of whom Jefferson would have known through Locke, Sidney, and Filmer.[93] As such, the Bible and Western, God-oriented thought significantly impacted the Founders’ understanding and assertion of man’s equality during the founding era and in the Declaration.
With such a view of man’s natural equality, the Founders held that all men are equal in natural rights of life and liberty and under law. On man’s equal rights, for example, John Adams affirmed in a letter, “That all men are born to equal rights is true.”[94] Wilson recognized that “the natural rights and duties of man belong equally to all” and that “in civil society, previous to civil government…all men are free.”[95] Founder George Mason wrote in the 1776 Virginia Declaration of Rights that “all men are by nature equally free and independent.”[96] Founder Alexander Hamilton in his 1775 Farmer Refuted observed that “natural liberty is a gift of the beneficent Creator, to the whole human race.”[97] Samuel Adams in his Rights of Colonists, quoting Locke, stated, “‘Just and true liberty, equal and impartial liberty,’ in matters spiritual and temporal is a thing that all men are clearly entitled to by the eternal and immutable laws of God and nature.”[98] Just as all individuals are equal and free, Wilson further explained, so are civil states “sovereign and independent.”[99] Because men are equal in rights, the Founders understood, just government requires the people’s consent.
In accordance with such views of man’s equality, the Founders’ Declaration of Independence of 1776 asserts, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,” and “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” It also declares the American people’s right and intent to “assume among the Powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God entitle them” and to become “Free and Independent States.”[100]
To be sure, the institution of slavery that existed in colonial and early America was, as many early Americans saw, a direct contradiction to and a dark shadow on the American principle of equality. This system had developed in America because many Southern colonies, later states, had agricultural economies that were dependent on slave labor for crops. African-American slaves were—against their will—imported, bought, and sold as property. Children and descendants of slaves were also typically considered slaves. During the Revolutionary period, an increasing number of early Americans including many Founders protested slavery as an immoral practice that sorely violated the Law of Nature and man’s natural rights. For example, Founder and lawyer James Otis observed in his 1764 Rights of the British Colonies Asserted and Proved that slavery was “the most shocking violation of the law of nature.”[101] Founder and physician Benjamin Rush in his 1773 tract On Slave Keeping urged Americans to oppose slavery as “a vice which degrades human nature.”[102] Pastor Samuel Cooke of Massachusetts, referencing Romans 2:11, preached in 1770 against slavery, saying that God “is no respecter of persons” and that “we, the patrons of liberty, have dishonored the Christian name and degraded human nature nearly to a level with the beasts that perish.”[103] Though the American Revolution did not end slavery in America, the Declaration’s explicit assertion of equality among all men laid the groundwork for the future abolition of slavery. As Bernard Bailyn explains in his 1967 Ideological Origins of the American Revolution, slavery was “subjected to severe pressure as a result of the extension of revolutionary ideas, and it bore the marks ever after. As long as the institution lasted, the burden of proof would lie with its advocates to show why the statement ‘all men are created equal’ did not mean precisely what it said: all men, ‘white or black.’”[104]
During the American Revolution and founding of the United States, the Founders articulated in the Declaration an important principle of American political thought—the equality of all men. They believed that men were equal not in ability, merit, character, or virtue—factors yet important for civil service—but in the sight of God.[105] They supported this principle with a Western, Bible-based worldview of man’s common origin, nature, dominion, and moral responsibility. From this natural equality, they asserted man’s equality in natural rights and under law, and just government by consent. The Americans separated from Britain and formed the new nation of the United States with this justification. In this way, the principle of equality became a part of America’s founding philosophy. Later, it became the primary argument against slavery in America. As Thomas Kidd affirms in his 2010 God of Liberty: A Religious History of the American Revolution, the Declaration’s assertion of man’s “equality by creation” was “the most powerful and productive ideological force to come out of the Revolution.”[106]
The U. S. Constitution of 1787: The New Republic and The Problem of Slavery
The American Founders favored a Constitutional Republic as the form of government for the United States because it reflected the Declaration’s principles and man’s natural equality. When drafting the U. S. Constitution of 1787, the Founders created such a self-government for the new nation that essentially upheld man’s equality in rights and under law. The New Republic uniquely applied such equality in being based on popular sovereignty, or the people’s rule, and the consent of the governed and in having a constitution of laws. To be sure, the Constitution initially fell short of the Declaration’s ideal because it allowed for the continuance of slavery, but this flaw was later remedied.
The Founders’ republic upheld man’s equality in rights because the government was based on popular sovereignty and authorized by the people’s consent. All qualified citizens could elect or be elected to public offices, and the elected representatives served and governed for the people. Founder Thomas Jefferson observed in a 1816 letter, “The true foundation of republican government is the equal right of every citizen, in his person and property, and in their management.”[107] Founder Benjamin Rush in his 1787 Thoughts Upon Female Education praised “the equal share that every citizen has in the liberty, and the possible share he may have in the government of our country.”[108] Founder James Wilson explained that in a republic “the doors of publick honours and offices are, on the broad principles of equal liberty, thrown open to all.”[109] The Founders’ republic upheld man’s equality under law with a constitution of laws so that all the people, including public servants, were subject to the same, equal laws. Constitution architect James Madison in his 1785 Memorial and Remonstrance affirmed that equality “ought to be the basis of every law.”[110]
To be sure, the Founders’ Constitution did not fully realize the ideal of equality because it initially permitted the continuation of slavery in the states—which meant that slaves did not have equal rights or equal protection of the law. The Founders compromised on the issue of slavery so that enough states would ratify the Constitution and form the union. For Southern states would not ratify the Constitution unless slavery was allowed. Thus Article 1, Section 9, in the Constitution says, “The Migration or Importation of such Persons [slaves] as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress.” Article 1, Section 2, of the Constitution also tolerated inequality because it allowed states to count slaves as three-fifths of one free person in determining a state’s total population. This “Three-Fifths Compromise” allowed for inequality because it assigned different values to free and slave persons and did not give slaves voting rights.
Though some Founders inherited and/or owned slaves, they overwhelmingly recognized and admitted that slavery was an immoral, unjust practice contrary to the Law of Nature and man’s equal, natural rights. Deeply conflicted, most voiced dissatisfaction with slavery and expressed hope that it could be abolished. For example, Wilson acknowledged that slavery was “repugnant to the principles of natural law, that such a state should subsist in any social system.”[111] Madison stated at the 1787 Constitutional Convention that he “thought it wrong to admit in the Constitution the idea that there could be property in men.”[112] He called slavery “the most oppressive dominion ever exercised by man over man.”[113] In his 1784 Notes on the States of Virginia, Jefferson called slavery “a political and moral evil.”[114] Indeed, many Founders expressed concern that God would judge the nation for allowing slavery to continue. Jefferson wrote, “I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever.”[115] Rush expressed, “National crimes require national punishments, …it cannot pass with impunity, unless God shall cease to be just or merciful.”[116] Founder George Mason stated at the Constitutional Convention that slavery will “bring the judgment of heaven on a Country.”[117]
In drafting the Constitution of 1787, the Founders created a bright constitutional republic for America that applied in important ways the Declaration’s principle of equality—by popular sovereignty, consent of the governed, and a constitution of laws. The Constitution’s expression of equality was dimmed, to be sure, by its initial compromise on slavery. While the Founders tolerated slavery in order to achieve national unification, many expressed fear that God would judge the nation for slavery and hope that it would be abolished. Such consequence and outcome occurred with the American Civil War.
The American Civil War: Equal Rights, Equal Protection of Law, and the Abolition of Slavery
The American Civil War of 1861-1865 was a significant event in American history that greatly impacted the nation’s progress toward and realization of equality for all citizens. The Civil War broke out in large part due to the political unrest that arose over the issue of slavery. The Northern states of the Union protested slavery as an immoral practice that violated the Law of Nature and man’s natural rights. They fought initially to preserve the union but later, as scholars note, to end slavery in America.[118] The Southern states of the Confederacy defended slavery as being under the protection and sovereignty of constitutional and state rights. They viewed the North’s challenges to these rights as a violation of the Union compact. Both North and South cited the Bible to support their positions yet could not agree. When the Southern states seceded, war ensued. President Abraham Lincoln led the Union’s fight against slavery, believing that slavery contradicted the principles of equality and rights in the Declaration of Independence. Though Lincoln did not subscribe to all traditional Christian doctrines, his belief in God and the Bible further shaped his view of slavery as an immoral evil. Lincoln was instrumental in focusing the Union’s cause on ending slavery, declaring in his 1863 Emancipation Proclamation that all slaves in Confederate states “are, and henceforward shall be free.”[119] With the Union’s win, the war ended slavery and gave former slaves equal rights and laws.
Prior to the Civil War, from the 1840s to 1860s, Americans debated over what the Bible said about slavery, for most saw the Bible as a moral guide for society. Pro-slavery activists argued from verses like Genesis 12:16, Leviticus 25:44, 1 Corinthians 7:21-24, and Ephesians 6:5 that because the Bible did not eradicate but regulated slavery, God approved of the institution.[120] Anti-slavery activists or abolitionists argued from larger biblical principles as found in Genesis 1:26-28, Romans 2:14-15, and related verses that all men are created in God’s image, have certain natural rights, and are morally responsible to the Law of Nature. They also argued from the book of Exodus that slavery was not God’s ultimate will for His people since the prophet Moses led the enslaved Israelites out of Egypt to freedom.[121] Abolitionists further cited Leviticus 25:10 as inscribed on the Philadelphia Liberty Bell to bring to mind the Declaration’s principles of equality and liberty. Leviticus 25:10 states, “Proclaim Liberty Throughout All the Land Unto All the Inhabitants thereof.”[122] As Americans could not agree on the Bible’s position on slavery, the nation was left to resolve the issue through the Civil War and leaders like Lincoln.
President Abraham Lincoln, who presided over the nation during the Civil War, adhered to the founding rationale of the Declaration of Independence to determine his perspective on the Constitution and slavery and his actions in the war. Lincoln believed that the Declaration provided “the definitions and axioms of free society,” and he confirmed in his 1861 speech at Independence Hall that this founding document was the source of his political philosophy: “I have never had a feeling, politically, that did not spring from the sentiments embodied in the Declaration of Independence.”[123] The Constitution, he believed, should reflect and uphold the ideas in the Declaration. While greatly respecting the Constitution, Lincoln saw that its permitting of slavery was a moral and philosophical flaw because it contradicted the Declaration’s principles of equality and natural rights. He lamented in a 1854 speech how slavery led so many Americans into “open war” with the Declaration and gave the impression “that there is no right principle of action but self-interest.”[124] He illustrated what he saw as the proper relationship between the Declaration and Constitution with Proverbs 25:11 which states, “A word fitly spoken is like apples of gold in settings of silver.”[125] The Declaration and its principles, he thought, were like the “apples of gold” framed by the Constitution as the “settings of silver.” He expounded on this picture in his 1861 Fragment on the Constitution and the Union:
Without the Constitution and the Union, we could not have attained…our great prosperity. There [however] is something back of these, entwining itself more closely about the human heart. That something, is the principle of “Liberty to all”…. The expression of that principle, in our Declaration of Independence, was most happy, and fortunate. …[W]ithout it, we could not, I think, have secured our free government…. No oppressed, people will fight, and endure, as our fathers did, without the promise of something better, than a mere change of masters. The assertion of that principle, at that time, was the word, “fitly spoken” [Prov. 25:11] which has proved an “apple of gold” to us. The Union, and the Constitution, are the picture of silver, subsequently framed around it. The picture was made, not to conceal, or destroy the apple; but to adorn, and preserve it. The picture was made for the apple—not the apple for the picture. So let us act, that neither picture, or apple shall ever be blurred, or bruised or broken.[126]
Allen Guelzo in his 2017 Abraham Lincoln as a Man of Ideas explains of Lincoln’s view, “The Constitution did not exist merely for its own sake, as though it were only a set of procedural rules with no better goal than letting people do what they pleased with what they pleased; it was intended to serve the interests of ‘the principle of ‘Liberty to all.’’”[127] The Founders, Lincoln saw, permitted slavery in the Constitution in order to secure the republic, but they hoped for its eventual demise. “They meant simply to declare the right,” he explained in a 1857 speech, “so that the enforcement of it might follow as fast as circumstances should permit.”[128] Indeed, Lincoln saw the Declaration as a promise that all Americans would eventually realize their rights, a “promise that in due time the weights would be lifted from the shoulders of all men, and that all should have an equal chance.”[129] Thus, in his 1863 Gettysburg Address, Lincoln cited the Declaration’s principle of equality as the primary justification for the Union’s cause, stating, “Fourscore and seven years ago [1776] our fathers brought forth upon this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can endure.”[130] In this way, Lincoln’s political thought reflected the Declaration and was, describes Tony Williams in a 2020 review, “a lens into the ideals of the American founding.”[131]
In addition to his views on the Declaration, Lincoln’s beliefs about God and the Bible also influenced his position and actions in the Civil War, for he sought direction from these sources in all that he did. On his belief in the Bible as a moral guide, Lincoln in a 1864 speech to the Committee of Colored People of Baltimore expressed, “In regard to this great book, …it is the best gift God has given to man. All the good Saviour [Jesus] gave to the world was communicated through this book. But for it we could not know right from wrong. All things most desirable for man’s welfare, here and hereafter, are to be found portrayed in it.”[132] Lincoln also reportedly once remarked, “I know the Lord is always on the side of the right. But it is my constant anxiety and prayer that I and this nation should be on the Lord’s side.”[133] Thus, Lincoln supported the Union’s cause against slavery because he believed that it was the moral position favored by God and the Bible. For instance, in a 1856 speech encouraging the North to fight against slavery, he exhorted, “Let us reinaugurate the good old ‘central ideas’ of the republic. We can do it. The human heart is with us; God is with us. We shall again be able…to declare…that ‘all men are created equal.’”[134] In a September 22, 1862, meeting prior to issuing his Emancipation Proclamation, he reportedly told his cabinet, “I have made a solemn vow before God, that if [Confederate] General Lee was driven back from Pennsylvania, I would crown the result by the declaration of freedom to the slaves.”[135] Thus Lincoln’s proclamation was, as Bruce Feiler observes in his 2009 America’s Prophet: Moses and the American story, “an outgrowth of his relationship with God.”[136]
Further, in his 1865 Second Inaugural Address near the end of the war, Lincoln repeatedly cited the Bible to confirm the evil of slavery, recognize God’s judgment, and call for the nation’s healing and unity. On the evil of slavery, Lincoln referenced Genesis 3:19 and Matthew 7:1 in stating, “It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God’s assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men’s faces, but let us judge not, that we be not judged.”[137] On God’s judgment against evil, Lincoln quoted Jesus in Matthew 18:7: “‘Woe unto the world because of offenses; for it must needs be that offenses come, but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh.’”[138] Citing Psalm 19:9, he suggested that the war was God’s judgment on the nation for slavery, saying, “If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which…He [God] now wills to remove, and that He gives…this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him? …[I]t must be said ‘the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.’” On the nation’s healing and unity, Lincoln drew from Colossians 3:8, Philemon 1:4-5, 2 Thessalonians 1:3, Psalm 147:3, and James 1:27 in stating, “With malice toward none, with charity for all, …let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation’s wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan.”[139] Lincoln clearly esteemed the Bible as a guiding moral lamp and knew that the people did too.
Following the Civil War and the Union’s victory, Congress adopted Amendments 13, 14, and 15, known as the Civil War Amendments. The 13th Amendment of 1865 overrode the Constitution’s slavery clause and made slavery illegal, except as punishment for a crime, in the United States. The 14th Amendment of 1868 repealed the Constitution’s Three-Fifths Compromise by ensuring that all citizens—including all former slaves—had equal rights and “equal protection of laws” in the states. The 15th Amendment of 1870 gave all male citizens—including former slaves—the right to vote regardless of “race, color, or previous condition of servitude.” (To be sure, the 15th Amendment did not give women the right to vote. Women gained this right in 1920 with the 19th Amendment. Later, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 prohibited any further voter discrimination and secured voting rights for all citizens.)
The Civil War played an important role in advancing the Declaration’s principles of equality and rights in the New Republic. With much conviction and encouragement from leaders like President Lincoln—who upheld the Declaration’s idea that “all men are created equal” and the Bible-based view of the immorality of slavery—the nation fought, reunified, and amended its Constitution to further realize these values. The Civil War led to the abolition of slavery and to more equal rights and equal protection of the law for all citizens in America.
Conclusion
One of the most important principles that the American Founders followed when creating the new nation of the United States was the shining axiom, as asserted in the Declaration, that all men are created equal. The Founders recognized that all men, though differing in their abilities and traits, are equal in the eyes of God. Their understanding of this principle came in large part from classical and biblical ideas of man’s common origin, nature, dominion, moral condition, and moral responsibility. The Bible and Judeo-Christian thought greatly influenced this view by revealing that all men originated from one man Adam, are made in God’s image with reason, and are subject to the Law of Nature. Because of these commonalities—as many classical and God-oriented thinkers saw—all men are equal under law and in natural rights to life and liberty. Just governments, then, are based on the people’s consent. This Western view of man’s equality can be seen developing in the ancient, medieval, Reformation, modern Enlightenment, and early American periods—though its full application took time. Ultimately, the Founders created a constitutional republic for America that was based on popular sovereignty and government by consent and that upheld man’s equality under law and in rights. Though early Americans struggled with the moral problem of slavery, the Civil War ended this practice and led to greater equality for all citizens. Today, the principle of equality brightly shines as a great light of the American idea.
—————
[1] See Russell Kirk, The Roots of American Order (Washington, DC: Regnery Gateway, 1991), 408; Kent Greenawalt, “Religion and Equality,” in Christianity and Human Rights: An Introduction, eds. John Witte, Jr., and Frank S. Alexander (New York: Cambridge U Press, 2010), 236; John Witte, Jr., God’s Joust, God’s Justice: Law and Religion in the Western Tradition (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2006), 49.
[2] boldface mine
[3] All Bible verses are taken from the New International Version (NIV) unless otherwise noted.
[4] New King James Version (NKJV).
[5] Theodore Buckley, ed., Aristotle’s Treatise on Rhetoric (London: Henry G. Bo N, 1853), bk. 1, 86.
[6] Francis Barham, ed., The Political Works of Marcus Tullius Cicero, in Two Volumes, Vol. 1 (London: Edmund Spettigue, 1841), 35, 40, 48.
[7] Alan Watson, trans., The Digest of Justinian, Vol. 4 (Philadelphia: U of Pennsylvania Press, 1985), bk. 50, 473. Ulpian’s statement originally appeared in the Roman law record, Sabinus, books 42-43. It reappeared in the Digest which is part of Justinian’s Corpus Juris Civilis.
[8] Allan C. Johnson et al., Ancient Roman Statutes: A Translation with Introduction, Commentary, Glossary, and Index, ed. Clyde Pharr (Austin, TX: U of Texas Press, 1961), table 9, law no. 1-2, 12.
[9] See Watson, trans., Digest of Justinian, Vol. 4, bk. 50, 473. The Digest is part of Justinian’s Corpus.
[10] On men’s differences, the Greco-Romans saw that citizens’ diverse roles in society benefited their communities, which caused them, Plato notes, to “care more for the city and for one another.” See B. Jowett, trans., The Republic of Plato, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1881), 47-48, 101, 243; John Gillies, ed. and trans., Aristotle’s Ethics and Politics, Vol. 2, 2nd ed. (London: Printed for T. Cadell and W. Davies, 1804), 87-89, 232, 403, 409-410; Francis Barham, ed., “Cicero’s Commonwealth,” in Political Works of Marcus Tullius Cicero, Vol. 1, 179.
[11] John Gillies, ed. and trans., Aristotle’s Ethics and Politics, 2nd ed., Vol. 2. (London: Printed for T. Cadell and W. Davies, 1804), bk. 6, 333.
[12] Barham, ed., Political Works of Marcus Tullius Cicero, Vol. 1, 179. The Greeks and Romans opposed the equalizing or redistribution of wealth by government. They thought it had minimal, if any, positive outcomes in society and was often misused and abused. See Gillies, ed., Aristotle’s Ethics and Politics, Vol. 2, bk. 2, 107-108, 110-111.
[13] Charles H. Monro, trans., The Digest of Justinian, Vol. 1 (London: C. J. Clay and Sons, Cambridge U Press, 1904), bk. 1, 4. Ulpian’s statement appears in The Institutes of Justinian and in The Digest of Justinian which are part of Justinian’s Corpus.
[14] Scott Robinson, “Equality,” in The Origins of Our Founding Principles, ed. Chris Hammons (Houston, TX: Morris Family Center for Law & Liberty, Houston Baptist U, 2020), 199.
[15] Marcus Dods, ed., The Works of Aurelius Augustine, Bishop of Hippo, Vol. 1: The City of God (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1871), bk. 12, 514; J. G. Pilkington, trans., The Confessions of St. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1876), bk. 13, 391.
[16] Marcus Dods, ed., The Works of Aurelius Augustine, Bishop of Hippo, Vol. 2: The City of God (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1881), bk. 19, 323-324. boldface mine
[17] Members of the English Church, trans., Morals on the Book of Job, by Saint Gregory the Great, In Three Volumes, Vol. 2, Parts 3 & 4 (Oxford: John Henry Parker, F. and J. Rivington, 1845), bk. 21, 533-534. Boldface mine. Genesis 9:1-3 says, “God blessed Noah and his sons, saying to them, ‘Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the earth. The fear and dread of you will fall on all the beasts of the earth…. Everything that lives and moves about will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything.’”
[18] R. W. Carlyle and A. J. Carlyle, A History of Mediaeval Political Theory in the West, Vol. 1: The Second Century to the Ninth (Edinburgh and London: William Blackwood and Sons, 1903), 114.
[19] Fathers of the English Dominican Province, trans., The Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas, Part 1, Vol. 1 (London: R. & T. Washbourne, 1911), Q. 3, 31.
[20] Fathers of the English Dominican Province, trans., The Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas, Part 2 (Second Part) (London: Burns, Oates, & Washbourne, 1922), Q. 104, 36. boldface mine
[21] Fathers of the English Dominican Province, trans., The Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas, 2nd ed., Part 1, Vol. 3 (London: Burns, Oates, & Washbourne, 1922), Q. 64, 174.
[22] Thomas Aquinas, “Commentary on the Sentences of Peter Lombard,” in Thomas Aquinas: Philosophical Texts, ed. Thomas Gilby (London: Oxford U Press, 1951), 385-386. boldface mine
[23] John Allen, trans., The Institutes of the Christian Religion by John Calvin, In Three Volumes, Vol. 3 (Philadelphia: Published by Philip H. Nicklin, 1816), 112-113. Matthew 16:13-19 states, “He [Jesus] asked his disciples, … ‘Who do you say that I am?’ Simon Peter answered, ‘You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.’ Jesus replied, ‘Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah…. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.’”
[24] NKJV
[25] Allen, trans., Institutes of the Christian Religion, Vol. 3, 112-113. In 1 Peter 5:1, the Apostle Peter says to believers, “To the elders among you, I appeal as a fellow elder and a witness of Christ’s sufferings who also will share in the glory to be revealed.“ Calvin also cites Acts 15:6-29, Acts 11:2, Acts 8:14-15, and Galatians 1, 2 on this point.
[26] Allen, trans., Institutes of the Christian Religion, Vol. 3, 114. In Ephesians 4:15, the Apostle Paul exhorts believers, “Speaking the truth in love, we will grow to become in every respect the mature body of Him who is the head, that is, Christ.”
[27] Martin Luther, An Appeal to the Ruling Class of German Nationality as to the Amelioration of the State of Christendom, 1520, in Martin Luther: Selections From His Writings, ed. John Dillenberger (New York: Anchor Books/Doubleday, 1961), 412-415.
[28] Luther, Appeal to the Ruling Class, 408. In 1 Peter 2:9, the Apostle Peter tells believers, “You are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s special possession.”
[29] Allen, trans., Institutes of the Christian Religion, Vol. 3, 114.
[30] Luther, Appeal to the Ruling Class, 409.
[31] NKJV
[32] Kathleen E. Murphy, trans. De Laicis or The Treatise on Civil Government by Robert Bellarmine (New York: Fordham U Press, 1928), 11. Bellarmine’s De Laicis appears in Book Three of his Disputations or Disputationes de Controversiis Christianae Fidei. Bellarmine cites Augustine in City of God. boldface mine
[33] Murphy, trans., De Laicis, 35-36. Bellarmine cites Gregory in Morals on the Book of Job. boldface mine
[34] John C. Rager, The Political Philosophy of Blessed Cardinal Bellarmine: Dissertation (Washington, DC: Catholic U of America, 1926), 15. boldface mine. This quote appears in Bellarmine’s De Clericis, Chapter VII, in his Disputations.
[35] Murphy, trans., De Laicis, 25.
[36] Rutherford, Lex, Rex, Q. 7, 25. boldface mine
[37] Rutherford, Lex, Rex, Q. 13, 52.
[38] H. Richard Niebuhr, The Kingdom of God in America (Middletown, CT: Weslayan U Press, 1988), 23-24.
[39] Kent Greenawalt, “Religion and Equality,” in Christianity and Human Rights: An Introduction, eds. John Witte Jr. and Frank S. Alexander (New York: Cambridge U Press, 2010), 236.
[40] See John C. Rager, Democracy and Bellarmine: An Examination of Blessed Cardinal Bellarmine’s Defense of Popular Government and the Influence of His Political Theory Upon the American Declaration of Independence (Shelbyville, IN: Qualityprint, 1926); Matthew Bunson, “Bellarmine, Jefferson and the Declaration of Independence,” National Catholic Register, 26 June 2016, repub. 4 July 2018, https://www.ncregister.com/commentaries/bellarmine-jefferson-and-the-declaration-of-independence.
[41] John Wise, “A Vindication of the Government of New England Churches, 1717,” in Puritan Political Ideas, 1558-1794, ed. Edmund S. Morgan (Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing Co., 1965, 2003), 254.
[42] Thomas Hooker, A Survey of the Summe of Church-Discipline (London: Printed by A. M. for John Bellamy, 1648), 261.
[43] Wise, Vindication, 254.
[44] Wise, Vindication, 259-260. As appears in the Institutes of Justinian and Digest of Justinian in the Corpus Juris Civilis, Ulpian states that “by natural law all were born free.” See Charles H. Monro, trans., The Digest of Justinian, Vol. 1 (London: C. J. Clay and Sons: Cambridge U Press, 1904), 4.
[45] Thomas Hooker, “Sermon Before the Connecticut General Court in Harford, May 31, 1638,” in The Puritan Tradition in America, 1620-1730, Revised ed., ed. Alden T. Vaughan (Hanover, NH: U Press of New England, 1972), 83.
[46] Hooker, Summe, 214-215. boldface mine
[47] Hooker, Summe, 26. In John 20:21, Jesus says to his disciples, “‘Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.’”
[48] John Cotton, The Way of the Churches of Christ in New England (London: Printed by Matthew Simmons, 1645), 54-55, footnote 50.
[49] On the Puritan’s New England church governments, see John Cotton’s 1644 Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven and 1645 Way of the Churches of Christ in New England.
[50] Alexander W. McClure, The Life of John Cotton, Limited ed. (Boston, 1870), 165.
[51] William Bradford, “Of Plymouth Plantation, 1602-1646,” in The Mayflower Papers: Selected Writings of Colonial New England, eds. Nathanial Philbrick and Thomas Philbrick (New York: Penguin Classics, 2007), 14.
[52] Donald S. Lutz, “Mayflower Compact 1620,” in Roots of the Republic: American Founding Documents Interpreted, ed. Stephen. L. Schechter (Madison, WI: Madison House 1990), 21.
[53] Albert C. Addison, The Romantic Story of the Puritan Fathers and Their Founding of New Boston and the Massachusetts Bay Colony (Boston, MA: L. C. Page & Co., 1912), 157.
[54] Robert Filmer, Patriarcha, or The Natural Power of Kings, 1680, in Two Treatises on Civil Government by John Locke, ed. Henry Morley (London: George Routledge and Sons, 1884), 15-16.
[55] Filmer, Patriarcha, 15. Boldface mine.
[56] John Locke, Two Treatises on Civil Government, Book 1 (London: George Routledge and Sons, 1884), 97.
[57] Locke, Two Treatises, Book 1, 96.
[58] Locke, Two Treatises, Book 1, 112; John Locke, Two Treatises on Civil Government, Book 2 (London: George Routledge and Sons, 1884), 217.
[59] Locke, Two Treatises, Book 1, 122-123.
[60] Locke, Two Treatises, Book 1, 172.
[61] Algernon Sidney, Discourses Concerning Government, In Two Volumes, Vol. 1 (Edinburgh: Printed for G. Hamilton and J. Balfour, 1750), 24-26. Boldface mine.
[62] Sidney, Discourses, Vol. 1, 125. Romans 8:17 says, “If we are children, then we are heirs—heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ.”
[63] Sidney, Discourses, Vol. 1, 442, 37.
[64] Tucker, ed., Blackstone’s Commentaries, 41.
[65] Jonathan Edwards, “The Great Christian Doctrine of Original Sin Defended,” 1758, in The Works of President Edwards, in Four Volumes, Vol. 2, Reprint of the Worcester ed. (New York: Leavitt & Allen, 1858), 492. Boldface mine
[66] John Witherspoon, “A View of the Glory of God Humbling to the Soul,” in The Works of the Rev. John Witherspoon, in Four Volumes, Vol. 2, 2nd ed., ed. John Rodgers (Philadelphia: Printed and Published by William W. Woodward, 1802), 141-142.
[67] John Witherspoon, “Man in His Natural State,” in The Works of the Rev. John Witherspoon, in Four Volumes, Vol. 2, 2nd ed., ed. John Rodgers (Philadelphia: Printed and Published by William W. Woodward, 1802), 160. Boldface mine
[68] Edwards, Doctrine of Original Sin, 505-506. Boldface mine
[69] Jonathan Edwards, “Miscellaneous Observations: Observations Concerning Faith,” in The Works of President Edwards, in Four Volumes, Vol. 2, Reprint of Worcester ed. (New York: Leavitt & Allen, 1858), 634. Boldface mine
[70] Jonathan Edwards, “Narrative of Surprising Conversions: A Faithful Narrative of the Surprising Work of God,” 1737, in The Works of President Edwards, in Four Volumes, Vol. 3, Reprint of Worcester ed. (New York: Leavitt & Allen, 1858), 238.
[71] Benjamin Rush, “Observations on the Study of the Latin and Greek Languages,” 1791, in Essays Literary, Moral, and Philosophical, 1798, by Benjamin Rush, 2nd ed. (Philadelphia: Printed by Thomas and William Bradford, 1806), 48.
[72] John Witherspoon, “The Object of a Christian’s Desire in Religious Worship,” in The Works of the Rev. John Witherspoon, in Four Volumes, Vol. 2, 2nd ed., ed. John Rodgers (Philadelphia: Printed and Published by William W. Woodward, 1802), 14; John Witherspoon, “The Righteous Scarcely Saved, and the Wicked Certainly Destroyed,” in The Works of the Rev. John Witherspoon, in Four Volumes, Vol. 2, 2nd ed., ed. John Rodgers (Philadelphia: Printed and Published by William W. Woodward, 1802), 280.
[73] James Wilson, “Lectures on Law,” 1790-1791, Part 1, in The Works of the Honourable James Wilson, Vol. 1, ed. Bird Wilson (Philadelphia: Lorenzo Press, Printed for Bronson and Chauncey, 1804), 306.
[74] John Adams, “Defense of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America,” 1778, Vol. 1, in The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Vol. 4, ed. Charles Francis Adams (Boston: Charles C. Little and James Brown, 1851), 380. Boldface mine
[75] Witherspoon, View of the Glory of God Humbling to the Soul, 140.
[76] Benjamin Franklin, “Essays on Religious and Moral Subjects and the Economy of Life: Articles of Belief and Acts of Religion,” 1728, in The Works of Benjamin Franklin, Vol. 2, ed. Jared Sparks (Boston: Tappan & Whittemore, 1836), 4.
[77] Wilson, Lectures on Law, Vol. 1, 251.
[78] James Wilson, “Lectures on Law,” 1790-1791, Part 3, in The Works of the Honourable James Wilson, Vol. 3, ed. Bird Wilson (Philadelphia: Lorenzo Press, Printed for Bronson and Chauncey, 1804), 182.
[79] Rush, Observations on the Study of the Latin and Greek Languages, 48.
[80] John Adams, “Controversial Papers of the Revolution: Novanglus, or A History of the Dispute with America,” 1774, in The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Vol. 4, ed. Charles Francis Adams (Boston: Charles C. Little and James Brown, 1851), 15.
[81] Wilson, Lectures on Law, Vol. 1, 108, 64.
[82] Wilson, Lectures on Law, Vol. 1, 138, 141. Boldface mine
[83] Samuel Adams, “To the Legislature of Massachusetts, Jan 17, 1794,” in The Writings of Samuel Adams, 1778-1802, Vol. 4, ed. Harry A. Cushing (New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1908), 356. Boldface mine
[84] Benjamin Rush, “An Enquiry into the Consistency of the Punishment of Murder by Death, with Reason and Revelation (On the Punishment of Murder by Death),” 1792, in Essays Literary, Moral, and Philosophical, 1798, by Benjamin Rush, 2nd ed. (Philadelphia: Printed by Thomas and William Bradford, 1806), 174. Boldface mine
[85] James Otis, A Vindication of the Conduct of the House of Representatives of the Province of the Massachusetts Bay (Boston: Printed by Edes & Gill, 1762), 17-18. Boldface mine
[86] Varnum L. Collins, ed., Lectures on Moral Philosophy by John Witherspoon, 1774 (Princeton, NJ: Princeton U Press, 1912), 71. Boldface mine
[87] John Adams, Novanglus, 15. Boldface mine
[88] Wilson, Lectures on Law, Vol. 1, 309. Boldface mine
[89] Benjamin Rush, “Thoughts Upon the Mode of Education Proper in a Republic,” 1786, in Essays Literary, Moral, and Philosophical, 1798, by Benjamin Rush, 2nd ed. (Philadelphia, PA: Printed by Thomas and William Bradford, 1806), 9. boldface mine
[90] Benjamin Rush, “A Defense of the Use of the Bible as a Schoolbook,” 10 March 1791, in Essays Literary, Moral, and Philosophical, 1798, by Benjamin Rush, 2nd ed. (Philadelphia, PA: Printed by Thomas and William Bradford, 1806), 112. boldface mine
[91] John Adams, Novanglus, 14-15. Boldface mine. Adams quoted a December 26, 1774, article in the Massachusetts Gazette by Massachusettenis.
[92] Thomas Jefferson to Henry Lee, Monticello, 8 May 1825, in The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Vol. 7, ed. H. A. Washington (Washington, DC: Taylor & Maury, 1854), 407.
[93] See John C. Rager, Democracy and Bellarmine: An Examination of Blessed Cardinal Bellarmine’s Defense of Popular Government and the Influence of His Political Theory Upon the American Declaration of Independence (Shelbyville, IN: Qualityprint, 1926); Matthew Bunson, “Bellarmine, Jefferson and the Declaration of Independence,” National Catholic Register, 26 June 2016, repub. 4 July 2018, https://www.ncregister.com/commentaries/bellarmine-jefferson-and-the-declaration-of-independence. Bunson affirms in his 2018 editorial, “If Jefferson was influenced by Bellarmine, the author of the Declaration was also shaped by Aquinas and the whole of the Catholic intellectual tradition. And so, too, was America’s chosen form of government.”
[94] John Adams to John Taylor of Caroline, Virginia, 15 April 1814, in The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Vol. 6, ed. Charles F. Adams (Boston: Charles C. Little and James Brown, 1851), 453.
[95] Wilson, Lectures on Law, Vol. 1, 308, 309. Boldface mine
[96] Virginia Bill of Rights, 12 June 1776, in The Constitution of Virginia together with the Virginia Bill of Rights, Passed June 12, 1776 (Richmond, VA: Printed at the Office of the New Nation, 1867), 3.
[97] Alexander Hamilton, “The Farmer Refuted, or A More Comprehensive and Impartial View of the Disputes Between Great Britain and the Colonies,” 5 February 1775, in The Works of Alexander Hamilton, Vol. 2, ed. John C. Hamilton (New York: John F. Trow, 1850), 61.
[98] Samuel Adams, “Report on the Rights of Colonists,” Boston, 20 November 1772, in American Patriotism: Speeches, Letters, and Other Papers which Illustrate the Foundation, Development, and Preservation of the United States of America, comp. Selim H. Peabody (New York: American Book Exchange, 1880), 33. Boldface mine
[99] Wilson, Lectures on Law, Vol. 1, 362. Wilson elaborates, “That liberty and equality, belonging to the individuals before the union, belong after the union to the society, which those individuals compose. …. Every state, therefore, composed of individuals, is a state sovereign and independent. … States are moral persons, who live together in a natural society, under the law of nations.” (359-360)
[100] Boldface mine
[101] James Otis, The Rights of the British Colonies Asserted and Proved, 1764 (Boston: Printed and Sold by Edes and Gill, 1764), 29.
[102] Benjamin Rush, “An Address to the Inhabitants of the British Settlements in America Upon Slave-Keeping,” 1773, in From Many, One: Readings in American Political and Social Thought, ed. Richard C. Sinopoli (Washington, DC: Georgetown U Press, 1997), 253.
[103] Samuel Cooke, “A Sermon Preached at Cambridge, 30 May 1770,” in The Pulpit of the American Revolution, or The Political Sermons of the Period of 1776, 2nd ed. (Boston: D. Lothrop & Co., 1876), 182, 183. In Romans 2:11, the Apostle Paul says, “There is no respect of persons with God.” (KJV)
[104] Bernard Bailyn, Ideological Origins of the American Revolution, Enlarged ed. (Cambridge, MA: Belknap/Harvard U Press, 1967, 1992), 246.
[105] See Wilson, Lectures on Law, Vol. 1, 306-309; John Adams, “Defence of the Constitution of Government of the United States of America,” 1778, in The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Vol. 4, ed. Charles F. Adams (Boston: Charles C. Little and James Brown, 1851), 397. Civil government, the Founders saw, should be composed of the best men with the best qualities in ability and virtue. These qualities, Adams expressed, were “essential to be considered in the institution of a government.”
[106] Thomas S. Kidd, God of Liberty: A Religious History of the American Revolution (New York: Basic Books, 2010), 143.
[107] Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kerchival, 12 July 1816, in The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Vol. 7, ed. H. A. Washington (Washington DC: Taylor & Maury, 1854), 11.
[108] Benjamin Rush, “Thoughts Upon Female Education,” 28 July 1787, in Essays Literary, Moral, and Philosophical, 1798, by Benjamin Rush, 2nd ed. (Philadelphia, PA: Printed by Thomas and William Bradford, 1806), 76.
[109] Wilson, Lectures on Law, Vol. 1, 13.
[110] James Madison, “Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments,” 1785, in The Writings of James Madison, Vol. 2: 1783-1787, ed. Gaillard Hunt (New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1901), 186.
[111] James Wilson, “Lectures on Law,” Vol. 2, in The Works of the Honourable James Wilson, Vol. 2, ed. Bird Wilson (Philadelphia: Lorenzo Press, Printed for Bronson and Chauncey, 1804), 488.
[112] James Madison, Journal of the Constitutional Convention of 1787, Part 2, in The Writings of James Madison, Vol. 4: 1787, ed. Gaillard Hunt (New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1903), 305-306.
[113] James Madison, Journal of the Constitutional Convention of 1787, Part 1, in The Writings of James Madison, Vol. 3: 1787, ed. Gaillard Hunt (New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1902), 104.
[114] Thomas Jefferson, “Notes on the State of Virginia,” 1784, in The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Vol. 8, ed. H. A. Washington (New York: Published by Riker, Thorne, & Co., 1854), 334.
[115] Thomas Jefferson, “Notes on the State of Virginia,” 404.
[116] Rush, Address to the Inhabitants of the British Settlements in America Upon Slave-Keeping, 254.
[117] Madison, Journal of the Constitutional Convention of 1787, Part 2, 266.
[118] U. S. National Archives and Records Administration, The Emancipation Proclamation, 1863, Online Exhibits, <www.archives.gov/exhibits/featured-documents/emancipation-proclamation> (last reviewed 28 January 2022) (accessed 10 November 2022); U. S. National Archives and Records Administration, Emancipation Proclamation (1863), Milestone Documents, <www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/emancipation-proclamation> (last reviewed 10 May 2022) (accessed 10 November 2022).
[119] Abraham Lincoln, “Emancipation Proclamation,” 1 January 1863, in Speeches & Letters of Abraham Lincoln, 1832-1865, ed. James Bryce (London: J. M. Dent & Co., 1907, 1909), 204.
[120] See Bruce Feiler, America’s Prophet: Moses and the American Story (New York: William Morrow, 2009), 143, 154. In the King James Version (KJV), Genesis 12:16 says that Abraham acquired in Egypt “menservants” and “maidservants.” Genesis 16:1 and 21:10 say that Sarah had a “handmaid” or “bondwoman.” In Leviticus 25:44, God allows Israel to acquire “bondmen” and “bondmaids” from surrounding heathen nations. In 1 Corinthians 7:21-24, Paul instructs Christian “servants” to “abide with God” in the state of servanthood if they are not freed. In Ephesians 6:5, Paul instructs “servants” to obey their masters.
[121] See Feiler, America’s Prophet, 150-157.
[122] KJV
[123] Abraham Lincoln to H. L. Pierce and others, 6 April 1859, in Letters and Addresses of Abraham Lincoln, ed. Mary Maclean (New York: A. Wessels Co., 1907), 141; Abraham Lincoln, “Address in Independence Hall, Philadelphia, February 22, 1861,” in Speeches & Letters of Abraham Lincoln, 1832-1865, ed. James Bryce (London: J. M. Dent & Co., 1907, 1909), 163.
[124] Abraham Lincoln, “A Speech Delivered in reply to Sen. Stephen A. Douglas at Peoria, Illinois, 16 October 1854,” in Letters and Addresses of Abraham Lincoln, ed. Mary Maclean (New York: A. Wessels Co., 1907), 75.
[125] New King James Version (NKJV)
[126] Abraham Lincoln, “Fragment on the Constitution and the Union,” January 1861, in Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, Vol. 4., ed. Roy P. Basler et al. (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers U Press, 1953), 168-169. Boldface mine
[127] Allen C. Guelzo, Abraham Lincoln as a Man of Ideas (Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois U Press, 2009, 2017), 106.
[128] Abraham Lincoln, “Speech on the Dred Scott Decision,” 26 June 1857, in Speeches & Letters of Abraham Lincoln, 1832-1865, ed. James Bryce (London: J. M. Dent & Co., 1907, 1909), 66.
[129] Abraham Lincoln, “Address in Independence Hall, Philadelphia, February 22, 1861,” in Speeches & Letters of Abraham Lincoln, 1832-1865, ed. James Bryce (London: J. M. Dent & Co., 1907, 1909), 163.
[130] Abraham Lincoln, “Address at the Dedication of the National Cemetery at Gettysburg, November 19, 1863,” in Speeches & Letters of Abraham Lincoln, 1832-1865, ed. James Bryce (London: J. M. Dent & Co., 1907, 1909), 213. Boldface mine
[131] Tony Williams, “An Apple of God in a Picture of Silver,” 7 August 2020, Law & Liberty (Liberty Fund, 2022), <https://lawliberty.org/book-review/an-apple-of-gold-in-a-picture-of-silver/> (accessed 11 November 2022). Williams reviews Lucas Morel’s Lincoln and the American Founding.
[132] Abraham Lincoln, “Reply to Committee of Colored People of Baltimore Who Presented Him with a Bible,” 7 September 1864, in The Complete Works of Abraham Lincoln, Vol. 2, eds. John G. Nicolay and John Hay (New York: Century Co., 1894), 574.
[133] Francis B. Carpenter, Six Months at the White House with Abraham Lincoln: The Story of a Picture (New York: Hurd and Houghton, 1866), 282. Carpenter was an American artist who was commissioned and resided at the White House when Lincoln was president. Six Months was Carpenter’s published memoir.
[134] Abraham Lincoln, “Fragment of a Speech Delivered at a Republican Banquet in Chicago,” 10 December 1856, in Letters and Addresses of Abraham Lincoln, ed. Mary Maclean (New York: A. Wessels Co., 1907), 95. Boldface mine
[135] Carpenter, Six Months at the White House with Abraham Lincoln, 90.
[136] Bruce Feiler, America’s Prophet: Moses and the American Story (New York: William Morrow, 2009), 162.
[137] In Genesis 3:19, after the Fall of Adam and Eve, God says to Adam, “In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread, Till you return to the ground.” In Matthew 7:1, Jesus tells His followers, “Judge not, that you be not judged.” (NKJV)
[138] In Matthew 18:7, Jesus tells His disciples, “Woe to the world because of offenses! For offenses must come, but woe to that man by whom the offense comes!” (NKJV)
[139] On malice toward none, the Apostle Paul in Colossians 3:8 instructs the church to “put off all these: anger, wrath, malice.” On charity for all, Paul commends the church in Philemon 1:4-5 for their “love and faith which you have…toward all the saints” and in 2 Thessalonians 1:3 “because the love of every one of you all abounds toward each other.” On binding the nation’s wounds, Psalm 147:3 states, “He [God] heals the brokenhearted and binds up their wounds.” On caring for widows and orphans, the Apostle James in James 1:27 instructs believers “to visit orphans and widows in their trouble.” (NKJV)
—————
Contributed by AHEF and Angela E. Kamrath.
This article is available as a printable PDF handout in the member resources section on americanheritage.org. Simply sign up and login as a member (no cost), go to the resources page, and look under Miracle of America articles.
Related Blogs/Videos:
1. The Principle of Popular Sovereignty–the People’s Rule–in the U. S. Declaration and Constitution
2. How Protestant Religious Reformers Supported Popular Sovereignty from the Bible
3. How Reformed Political Thinkers Defended Popular Sovereignty From the Bible
4. How Catholic Churchmen Supported Popular Sovereignty from the Bible
5. Why Puritan Thomas Hooker Favored Democracy over Aristocracy
6. Thomas Hooker as the “father of American Democracy”
7. Great Awakening Principle: All Men Equal Before God
8. How the Great Awakening Impacted American Unity, Democracy, Freedom, & Revolution
9. John Locke and Algernon Sidney: A Bible-Based Defense of Equality and Popular Sovereignty for the Declaration
10. The Creator God: The Basis of Authority, Law, & Rights for Mankind in the Declaration
11. The Law of Nature in the Declaration: The Universal Moral Law of Mankind
12. Self-Evident Truth: Equality and Rights in the Declaration of Independence
13. The American, Bible-based Defense of Unalienable Rights in the Declaration
14. The American Social Contract in the U. S. Declaration and Constitution
15. The Principle, Practice, and Morality of a Constitutional Republic in America
16. The Bible-Inspired Influences on the U. S. Constitution and Bill of Rights
17. Unabridged: The Moral Dimension of Rule of Law in the U. S. Constitution
18. A Brief Overview: The Moral Dimension of Rule of Law in the U. S. Constitution
19. The Purpose of American Civil Government
High School Teaching Activity – Drawing Key Understandings/Answering Key Questions on Equality
Activity/Source: The Miracle of America High School Teacher Course Guide, Unit 7, Part 2, Activity 1: Drawing Key Understandings/Answering Key Questions, p. 247, 251-252. MS-HS. See member resources at americanheritage.org.
Purpose/Objective: Students learn key principles of the United States Constitution including a self-governing constitutional republic, why Americans saw a republic as the best form of government for the nation, and how influential thinkers and early Americans connected this concept with the Bible.
Required Reading:
-Kamrath, Angela E., The American Principle of Equality in the Declaration, 2022 December 7, on The Founding Blog (Houston, TX: American Heritage Education Foundation, 2017-present), www.thefounding.net.
Suggested Reading:
-Miracle of America book/text. Students read sections 1.1-1.3, 2.4, 3.10, 5.1-5.5, 5.13, 5.14, 6.4, 6.5, 7.2, 7.3, 7.11, 7.16, 8.6, 8.7, 8.14, 8.19.
-“Popular Sovereignty” sub-section, in Principles of the Declaration of Independence essay, in Miracle of America HS Teacher Course Guide, pp. 363-364.
Questions and Answers: Teachers may wish to have students answer some of the Key Understanding Qs in the Miracle Course Guide. Additional, more focused key questions include:
1. How or in what ways did the American Founders view all men as equal? (Students should consider the Founders’ view of men as equal not in abilities, character, traits, or merits but before God the Creator. Thus men are equal in natural rights and under law.)
2. What is an important philosophical and biblical basis for man’s equality in the Western world? Give specific scriptures when applicable. (Students should consider man’s common origin, nature, dominion, and moral responsibility in classical and Bible-based, Judeo-Christian thought.)
3. How did the Protestant Reformation and the American Puritans’ views of the church contribute to civil equality in America? (Students should consider the Protestant view of the church in which all the members have spiritual power, ministry function, and role as priests. The Puritans applied their church practices to their civil practices, seeing citizens as equal, starting with the Mayflower Compact.)
4. Explain the early Americans’ argument for independence from Britain in terms of man’s equality. (Students should consider how man’s equality leads to man’s natural rights, proper representation, and equality among other nations).
5. Describe some of the struggles that colonists and early Americans faced in the practice of equality. (Students should consider the practice of slavery. Many Americans were dependent on slaves for crop labor, but many believed slavery violated man’s natural rights and the Law of Nature.)
6. How did the idea of man’s equality as expressed in the Declaration impact America’s history, its leaders, and the American Civil War? (Students should consider how Americans disagreed about the morality and right to own slaves which led to the Civil War; how Lincoln believed slavery was a moral evil that violated the Declaration, the Law of Nature, and man’s natural rights and thus led the fight against slavery; and how Americans amended the U. S. Constitution after the Civil War to align with the Declaration and to make slavery illegal.)
To download this whole unit in the course guide, sign up as an AHEF member (no cost) to access the “resources” page on americanheritage.org. To order the printed binder format of the course guide with all the units, go to the AHEF bookstore.
———-
To receive blog and resource updates, we invite you to subscribe at no cost to the Founding Blog on this page.
This blog is provided by the American Heritage Education Foundation (AHEF). AHEF is a non-profit organization dedicated to the understanding and teaching of America’s founding philosophy, principles, documents, and history. AHEF’s work is made possible by the donations of private individuals and organizations. Please consider a tax-deductible donation to AHEF to support our mission. Thank you!
Copyright © American Heritage Education Foundation. All rights reserved.
The Principle, Practice, and Morality of a Constitutional Republic in America


Signing of the Constitution by Thomas Prichard Rossiter, c1860-1870.
Introduction
The American Founders made a revolutionary move when forming the new nation of the United States. They departed from the old European system of monarchy—in which executive power resides in a hereditary monarch such as a king or queen—and created a new and unique political system, a constitutional republic. A republic is a political system in which non-hereditary, elected executives and representatives govern for the citizens of a civil state. The Founders’ American republic was based on the principle that the people hold political power or sovereignty and may choose representatives to govern for them.[1] It is sometimes called a representative democracy. In Federalist Paper 39, Founder and Constitution architect James Madison describes a republic as to include “a government which derives all its powers directly or indirectly from the great body of the people, and is administered by persons holding their offices…for a limited period, or during good behavior.”[2] A constitutional republic follows a written constitution of laws by which the people, their representatives, and the government agree to abide. A republic differs from a pure or direct democracy, as Madison explains in Federalist Paper 14, which is governed directly by the whole body of citizens who “meet and exercise the government in person.”[3] Due to the direct involvement of all citizens, a direct democracy is only practical for a small nation, while a republic “may be extended over a large region.”[4] America’s constitutional republic—its organization, limits, and laws—is laid out in the U. S. Constitution of 1787.
When constructing the American republic, the Founders studied the political systems and experiences of other ancient and modern nations for insights—including the democracies of ancient Greece, the republic of ancient Rome, and the first government of ancient Israel. They were interested in Greece and Rome because these nations had democracies—unlike most other nations in history which were authoritarian. Americans were also interested in ancient Israel for its moral guidance on wise governance. Ultimately, the Founders created a new republic for America that resembled, in some ways, the ancient Roman Republic. Americans supported this system, in part, because it was morally consistent with ancient Israel’s early practices in the Bible. The Founders determined that a republic was the best form of government for the new nation because it supported Americans’ philosophical beliefs and governing principles of freedom, popular sovereignty or the people’s rule, consent of the governed, and limited self-government. It was also a practical system, they saw, for effectively governing a large nation.[5] The Founders’ innovative system in America became the first modern republic.
The Idea and Lessons of the Direct Democracy of Ancient Greece
When creating the American republic, the Founders looked to the city-state of Athens, Greece, of 594-338 BC to understand the strengths and weaknesses of direct democracy. Indeed, the western idea and understanding of democracy comes from ancient Greece where democracy was first practiced. The word “democracy” derives from …
the Greek words demos meaning “people” and kratos meaning “power” or “authority.” Democracy literally means “power of the people” and refers to a political system in which the people govern the state and its institutions. Athens practiced direct democracy—in which all the citizens regularly assembled together to vote and govern the city based on majority rule. Such governance was feasible due to the city’s small territory and population. During this time, Athens flourished in power, economic prosperity, culture, the arts, philosophy, and education. Athenians greatly valued education because they believed that it led to good citizens. … [subscribe_to_unlock_form]
However, Athens’ democracy declined following the Peloponnesian War which, as Founder Alexander Hamilton says in Federalist Paper 6, “terminated in the ruin of the Athenian commonwealth.”[6] As many historians observe, the decline of Athens was caused, at least in part, by the weaknesses of its direct democracy. According to ancient historian Thucydides in his 300s BC History of the Peloponnesian War, after the trials of war and plague, and the death of their beloved leader Pericles, the Athenians governed their city by the “whims of the multitude” which led to factions or “private cabals for the leadership of the commons,” “civil discord,” and “a host of blunders.”[7] As Collin Garbarino affirms in his 2020 essay Athenian Democracy, the Athenians cast off moral restraint, ignored wise counsel, inclined to demagogues, neglected the city’s defense, violated the rights of dissenting individuals, and ruled unwisely and unjustly as a mob in their assemblies.[8] In its weakened state, Athens was conquered by Macedonia.
The American Founders closely analyzed Greece’s direct democracy when considering the right form of government for America. They appreciated Athens’s novel political system in which the whole people held governing power in the state. “The Athenian democracy,” affirms Garbarino, “left a legacy that people can be loyal to the state rather than certain individuals and that the common people can direct the political institutions.”[9] However, the Founders also saw that direct democracy is flawed and unstable because it lacks protections against factions and majority tyranny. Factions, as Madison describes in Federalist Paper 10, are groups of citizens united by a common passion or interest “adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.”[10] Factions and majority tyranny, he says, can compromise the public good or the private rights of minorities and individual citizens. Religious or moral restraints alone are not always enough to control these negative tendencies in the people.[11] Madison elaborates on this vulnerability in a direct democracy like Athens: …
It may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole…and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.[12]
The Founders thus saw that direct democracy—though an admirable idea and system to give the people power—is vulnerable to instability, violence, oppression, and injustice. It does not adequately serve the state or secure the people’s rights and freedoms over a long period. The Founders hoped to avoid such dangers when designing the government of their new nation.
The Governing Practices and Model of the Ancient Roman Republic
The American Founders also closely studied the ancient Roman Republic of 509-27 BC—the earliest example of a republic in history—for insight on how to best construct America’s government. Unlike Greece’s direct democracy, the Roman Republic was a representative democracy—a democracy governed by representatives of the people, on the people’s behalf. The Romans called this system a republic based on the Latin phrase res publica which means “public thing” as it regards the whole people and their general welfare. Within their republic, the Romans applied a mixed government that contained elements of all three major forms of government—monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy—with the aim to check and balance the rule of the one, the few, and the many against each other.
Ancient Rome’s representative, mixed system provided a primitive separation of powers and checks and balances to limit both the people majority and the government itself. For example, the Romans …
separated the legislative and executive functions of government, with each function administered by representatives. They had a two-bodied legislature that represented their society’s two classes—the aristocracy or “patricians” and the commoners or “plebeians.” The two bodies included 1) a Senate of nobles appointed to represent the patricians, and 2) a Plebeian Council or popular assembly with elected officials or Tribunes to represent the plebeians. The Romans also had two chief executives called Consuls, nominated by the Senate and elected by a military assembly, to lead the republic and its army. These two consuls shared power, so that no one person possessed too much power. The Senate, Plebeian Council, and Consuls reflected aristocracy, democracy, and monarchy respectively. “The genius of the Roman Republic,” says Steve L. Jones in his 2020 essay The Fall of Rome, was that it blended “all three forms of government, in the hopes that the strengths of each would be a check on the weaknesses of the others.”[13] The Roman Republic grew to be the most powerful state in the ancient civilized world. Following military success and prosperity, however, the republic began to decay, say historians, when Roman society became decadent and its governing bodies became careless. Rome’s leaders amassed greater power for themselves, changing institutions, laws, and traditions that limited their power.[14] The republic ended when the Senate granted supreme authority to Roman emperor Caesar Augustus in 31 BC.
The American Founders saw many qualities in ancient Rome that contributed to their favor of republicanism. To be sure, they saw some flaws in it, as Jones notes, like contention between consuls over executive authority, a military that held too much power, and lack of a constitution to prevent leaders from changing laws and institutions for their own interests.[15] However, the Roman Republic, like America, aspired to popular sovereignty, consent of the governed, and limited self-government. It gave the people governing power yet filtered the people’s rule through representatives to protect against factions and majority tyranny. Further, it checked and balanced the state’s power to minimize corruption in the government. It was also practical for a large nation, with representatives assembling and governing on the people’s behalf since all the citizens could not feasibly assemble. As such, the Roman Republic became a model for the Founders’ United States government.
The Inspiration of the “Republic” of Ancient Israel
In addition to studying the ancient Greek and Roman democratic models, early Americans also looked to the history and governing practices of ancient Israel, as revealed in the Old Testament of the Bible, for moral guidance on wise governance in America. Like the early American Puritans, founding-era Americans found support for republican government over monarchy in considering Israel’s success during its first, pre-monarchical government led by Moses and elders, and God’s disapproval of its later monarchy. With such support, they defended popular sovereignty over the Divine Right of Kings, or the people’s rule over king’s rule.[16]
The American Puritans of the 1600s were among the first in America to practice representative government, having elected representatives in their colonies of Massachusetts and Connecticut. The Puritans supported this practice from ancient Israel’s first government of 1200s-1100s BC—from the time of the Israelites’ Exodus from Egypt to their settlement in the land of Canaan. While this government was theocratic, it applied elements of representation. The prophet Moses served as the people’s leader and representative before God. Moses eventually appointed elders to help lead, judge, and represent the tribes because the work was too heavy for him alone. In Exodus 18:19-21, Moses’ father-in-law Jethro affirms Moses as “‘the people’s representative before God’” but advises him to “‘select capable men from all the people—men who fear God, trustworthy men who hate dishonest gain—and appoint them as officials over thousands, hundreds, fifties and tens.’”[17] Moses listened and did what Jethro suggested. Subsequently, in Deuteronomy 1:13-15, Moses says to the people, “‘Choose some wise, understanding and respected men from each of your tribes, and I will set them over you. You answered me, ‘What you propose to do is good.’ So I took the leading men of your tribes, wise and respected men, and appointed them to have authority over you—as commanders of thousands, of hundreds, of fifties and of tens and as tribal officials.’” The Puritans noticed that, during this period, God raised no protest against Israel’s choosing of elders and judges.
Puritan leaders John Winthrop, Thomas Hooker, and John Cotton cited Exodus and Deuteronomy to support elected representatives in their colonies. Citing Deuteronomy 1:13, Hooker asserted in his 1638 Connecticut Court Sermon that “the choice of public magistrates belongs unto the people, by God’s own allowance.”[18] In his 1641 Abstract of the Laws of New England, Cotton also cited Deuteronomy 1:13-15 in stating that “All Magistrates are to be chosen.”[19] These verses, they believed, clearly supported representation by the people’s consent, for here the people explicitly approve of the election process and respond to Moses, “What you propose to do is good.” Further, since the power of election is with the people, the Puritans noted, the people have a responsibility to elect godly, moral leaders. Cotton cited Exodus 18:21 on the people’s need to choose “the ablest men and most approved amongst them” to govern.[20] The Puritans believed that God supported such representation, for as Cotton writes in a 1636 letter, “Jethroes counsell was approved of God.”[21] The Puritans concluded that the best states are governed by chosen representatives.
Founding-era Americans of the 1700s similarly found moral affirmation for republican government when considering ancient Israel’s history and governing practices. Like the Puritans, they saw the benefits of representation in Israel’s first government and thus described this system as Israel’s “republic.” This system resembled a republic, they thought, because it had no earthly king and appointed judges and elders, chosen by the people, to represent and decide cases for each tribe. They drew from this example to support republicanism in their new nation. Early Americans also found support for republicanism in 1 Samuel 8 in considering God’s disapproval of Israel’s later monarchy which began in 1020 BC. 1 Samuel 8 reveals God’s protest against Israel’s demand for a human, hereditary king to rule their nation. It suggests that such kings often ruled not for God and people but for their own interests. Through the prophet Samuel, God warns the people of the trials they will suffer under evil kings, that a king will take their best possessions and “you yourselves will become slaves.”[22] Moreover, it reveals that God wanted to be their king. God tells Samuel, “They have rejected Me as their king.”[23]
During the American Revolution, American ministers and patriots drew from ancient Israel’s history to support America’s fight for freedom and independence from the British Crown and quest for self-government. They pointed out the opportunity in America to create a new, self-governing republic, affirmed by Israel’s first government.[24] For example, in his 1775 sermon before the Massachusetts legislature, Harvard College president Samuel Langdon praised Israel’s first government as a “perfect Republic” and an “excellent general model” for modern government, and he conveyed God’s disapproval of monarchy. Alluding to Exodus 18, Deuteronomy 1, and 1 Samuel 8, he asserts, …
The Jewish government, … if considered merely in a civil view, was a perfect Republic. The heads of their tribes, and elders of their cities, were their counsellors and judges. They called the people together in more general or particular assemblies, took their opinions, gave advice, and managed the public affairs according to the general voice. … And let them who cry up the divine right of Kings consider, that the only form of government which had a proper claim to a divine establishment was so far from including the idea of a King, that it was a high crime for Israel to ask to be in this respect like other nations; and when they were gratified, it was rather as a just punishment of their folly…than as a divine recommendation of kingly authority.
Every nation, when able and agreed, has a right to set up over themselves any form of government which to them may appear most conducive to their common welfare. The civil Polity of Israel is doubtless an excellent general model, allowing for some peculiarities; at least some principal laws and orders of it may be copied, to great advantage, in more modern establishments.[25]
Referencing Exodus 18:21, Langdon further praised the freedom in his colony of “chusing, from among ourselves, wise men, fearing God, and hating covetousness to be honorable Counsellors” for its government.[26] He concluded by recognizing the potential opportunity to create a new republic in America, much like what the Puritans had enjoyed in their early colonies. As such, he defended popular sovereignty over the Divine Right of Kings.
Not long after Langdon’s sermon, revolutionary pamphleteer Thomas Paine published his well-known 1776 political tract Common Sense which also defended republicanism over monarchy based on ancient Israel’s history and first government in the Bible. Referencing Exodus 18, Deuteronomy 1, and 1 Samuel 8, Paine writes, …
As the exalting of one man so greatly above the rest, cannot be justified on the equal rights of nature, so neither can it be defended on the authority of Scripture; for the will of the Almighty, as declared by Gideon and the prophet Samuel, expressly disapproves of government by kings.
Near three thousand years passed away from the Mosaic account of creation, till the Jews under a national delusion requested a king. Till then their form of government…was a kind of republic, administered by a judge and the elders of the tribes. Kings they had none, and it was held sinful to acknowledge any being under that title but the Lord of Hosts. And when a man seriously reflects on the idolatrous homage which is paid to the persons of kings, he need not wonder, that the Almighty, ever jealous of his honour, should disapprove of a form of government which so impiously invades the prerogative of heaven.[27]
Based on the view that God favored Israel’s “republic” and disapproved of its monarchy, Paine, like Langdon, refuted the Divine Right of Kings doctrine in favor of popular sovereignty. He denounced Britain’s policies in America and questioned the legitimacy of King George III’s rule and power. Paine’s Common Sense was widely read in America and played a significant role in validating and strengthening Americans’ cause for independence and favor for republican government.
Based on ancient Israel’s history and governing practices in the Bible, the American Puritans and founding-era Americans believed that God favored popular sovereignty over the Divine Right of Kings. In particular, they believed He favored representative government for His people. As a result, patriot Americans viewed a republic as a moral and wise form of government for America. With a similar view, Founder Samuel Adams, in a 1785 letter to Founder Richard Henry Lee, expressed his belief that God preferred a republic for America, writing, “I firmly believe that the benevolent Creator designed the republican Form of Government for Man. Will you venture so far as to say that all other Institutions that we know of are unnatural & tend more or less to distress human Societies? ”[28]
A Constitutional Republic in the U. S. Constitution
When considering the best form of government for the new nation of the United States, the American Founders looked, in particular, to the unique governments of ancient Greece, Rome, and Israel for insight. While they appreciated Greece’s direct democracy, they recognized its instability and impracticality for America. However, they saw that Rome’s Republic, though having its own vulnerabilities, possessed many qualities that aligned with America’s needs, principles, and aspirations. It also was morally consistent with Israel’s first government in its consensual representation. As such, the Founders looked to Rome’s system as a model for the American system.
The Founders ultimately created a constitutional republic for the United States—with indirect self-governance by the people through elected civil representatives, as seen in Rome. They chose this system because it upholds Americans’ governing values and principles of popular sovereignty, consent of the governed, and limited self-government. More specifically, they saw that a republic 1) works well for a large nation and 2) has restraints to guard against instability, corruption, and tyranny. Firstly, since the whole citizenry cannot feasibly assemble to govern the nation, a republic allows a small body of representatives to assemble and govern the nation for the people, on the people’s behalf. Secondly, because a republic filters the people’s rule through representatives, it buffers the negative effects of factions and majority tyranny, facilitating more just, stable governance. The benefit of elected representatives is that, ideally, they often possess more virtue than the people themselves and are more likely to protect the public good and citizens’ rights. Elections of representatives, says Madison in Federalist Paper 10, help to sift out “unworthy candidates” and allow the people to choose individuals “who possess the most attractive merit and the most diffusive and established character.”[29] Thus a republic, Madison explains, serves to: …
refine and enlarge the public views by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations. …[T]he public voice, pronounced by the representatives of the people, will be more consonant to the public good than if pronounced by the people themselves.[30]
A republic restrains impulsive governance and, as Donald Lutz affirms in his 1988 Origins of American Constitutionalism, encourages deliberation to determine “whether a proposed policy serves the community’s permanent, aggregate interests.”[31] In addition, America’s large size further diffuses factions and majority tyranny, Madison notes, by making it “less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens.”[32] In sum, the Founders, observes Garbarino, sought to create a self-government with “the checks and restraints that [direct] democracy lacked” and that “had a better chance at promoting human flourishing than did a true democracy.”[33] A republic is, they believed, the most moral, just, and workable system for America.
Like ancient Rome, the Founders created a republic with a mixed system—incorporating elements of democracy, aristocracy, and monarchy—with checks and balances on each power and separation of powers to restrain the government itself. As Jones explains, they created…
a two-body legislature with a Senate resembling the Roman Senate based on aristocracy and a House of Representatives resembling the Roman Plebeian Council’s representatives based on democracy. (The U. S. Senate was originally elected indirectly by state legislatures, but today both houses of Congress are elected by direct popular election.) The Founders also created two chief executives, President and Vice-President, resembling the two Roman consuls based on monarchy. These executives are elected indirectly by an electoral college, just as Roman consuls were elected indirectly by its council. To limit conflict between the two consuls on decision-making, as happened in Rome, the Founders gave the president preeminence. To prevent military leaders from seizing power by force, as Rome experienced, they made the civilian president the commander-in-chief of the armed forces. To prevent leaders from changing the government and its laws for their own interests, as occurred in Rome, the Founders created a written constitution.[34] They also included a law that requires each state in the union to practice republican government.[35] In addition, they separated the functions of government into not just two branches, as Rome had, but three branches—legislative, executive, and judicial. As such, the Founders created a republic for America modeled in many ways after the Roman Republic but possessing alterations to strengthen it and to further guard against corruption and tyranny. The Founders, says Jones, “consciously imitated the political systems of Ancient Rome so as to replicate their success” and “also took steps to modify Rome’s weaknesses in the hope of avoiding its fall.”[36]
It is important to note that, in creating a republic, the Founders recognized the essential need in a republic for a virtuous people in order to function successfully. Citizens, they saw, have the moral and civic responsibility to be civilly educated, uphold and support just laws and policies that protect citizens’ rights and freedoms, and elect moral representatives who seek the common, national good and practice restrained, limited government. As such, the Founders continually exhorted the people of the need to maintain virtue. For example, Founder Richard Henry Lee remarks, “It is certainly true that popular government cannot flourish without virtue in the people.”[37] Bill of Rights contributor George Mason confirms, “Justice and virtue are the vital principles of republican government.”[38] Founder and President George Washington states in his Farewell Address that “virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government.”[39] Founder Benjamin Franklin points out, “Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom.”[40] Madison similarly observes, “No theoretical checks…can render us secure. To suppose that any form of government will secure liberty or happiness without any virtue in the people, is a chimerical idea.”[41] The Founders further believed that good, moral religion is the most effective way for people to gain virtue. For this reason, they greatly valued and encouraged moral religion—particularly Christianity—in society. Founder John Adams thus observes, “We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. … Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”[42] Indeed, the Founders, says Steven Waldman in his 2008 Founding Faith: Providence, Politics, and the Birth of Religious Freedom in America, “were fairly obsessed with the question of how to instill enough virtue into citizens that a republic could flourish. Institutions that could imbue personal and communal values…were viewed as essential building blocks for democracy.”[43] In this regard, education and religion, school and church play an crucial role, the Founders believed, in a free republic.
Conclusion
When constructing a national government for the United States, the American Founders sought to create a political system that was moral, just, stable, and practical. They sought a system that upheld Americans’ philosophical beliefs and governing principles of freedom, popular sovereignty, consent of the governed, and limited self-government—principles to which the early Puritans, the American colonies, and founding-era Americans like themselves had long aspired. Americans also wanted a system that was morally consistent with their understanding of wise governance as conveyed in the Bible and ancient Israel. Drawing on ancient Rome as a model and incorporating innovative changes, the Founders created a constitutional republic for America. In this republic, the people govern indirectly through chosen representatives who are accountable to them and the law. Ideally, the people elect moral representatives who uphold America’s values. These representatives feasibly govern for the people as well as restrain or filter majority rule. The republic functions within a mixed system that checks and balances its governing powers, providing further restraints on the government itself. A written constitution, as the supreme law of the land, provides the legal framework within which the people, their representatives, and the government may operate. As such, the Founders created the first modern republic—a political system that deters corruption and tyranny, encourages peace and stability, protects citizens’ individual rights and freedoms, maintains law and order, and reflects American values. As Madison expresses in Federalist Paper 39, …
The first question that offers itself is whether the general form and aspect of the government be strictly republican. It is evident that no other form would be reconcilable with the genius of the people of America; with the fundamental principles of the Revolution; or with that honorable determination which animates every votary of freedom to rest all our political experiments on the capacity of mankind for self-government.[44]
The Founders’ departure from old-world monarchy and creation of a constitutional republic was a major shift in world history and governance and one of the most important outcomes of the American Revolution.
———-
[1] These representatives may be directly elected by the people or appointed by elected leaders and so indirectly elected by the people. Both methods are forms of election.
[2] James Madison, Federalist Paper 39, 1788, in The Federalist Papers, ed. Clinton Rossiter (New York: Mentor Books, 1961), 241.
[3] James Madison, Federalist Paper 14, 1787, in The Federalist Papers, ed. Clinton Rossiter (New York: Mentor Books, 1961), 100.
[4] Madison, Federalist Paper 14, 100.
[5] Madison, Federalist Paper 14, 100.
[6] Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Paper 6, 1787, in The Federalist Papers, ed. Clinton Rossiter (New York: Mentor Books, 1961), 54-55.
[7] Thucydides, The History of the Peloponnesian War, book 2, trans. Richard Crawley (London: J. M. Dent & Sons, Ltd; New York: E. P. Dutton & Co., 1910, 1914), 142. Thucydides wrote his History around 430-411 BC.
[8] Collin Garbarino, Athenian Democracy, in The Origins of Our Founding Principles, ed. Christopher Hammons (Houston, TX: Morris Family Center for Law & Liberty at Houston Baptist University; Periclitus Press, 2020), 23-25.
[9] Garbarino, Athenian Democracy, 21.
[10] James Madison, Federalist Paper 10, 1787, in The Federalist Papers, ed. Clinton Rossiter (New York: Mentor Books, 1961), 78.
[11] Madison, Federalist Paper 10, 80-81.
[12] Madison, Federalist Paper 10, 81.
[13] Steven L. Jones, The Fall of Rome, in The Origins of Our Founding Principles, ed. Christopher Hammons (Houston, TX: Morris Family Center for Law & Liberty at Houston Baptist University; Periclitus Press, 2020), 32.
[14] Polybius, The General History of Polybius, in Two Volumes, 5th ed., vol. 2, book 4, trans. by James Hampton (Oxford: W. Baxter, 1823), 178-79; Russell Kirk, The Roots of American Order, 3rd ed. (Washington, DC: Regnery Gateway), 102; Jones, Fall of Rome, 36-43.
[15] Jones, Fall of Rome, 43-44.
[16] While the European kings believed that Israel’s monarchy supported the Divine Rights of Kings, the Americans refuted that position.
[17] All Bible verses are taken from the New International Version (NIV) unless otherwise noted.
[18] Thomas Hooker, Sermon Before the Connecticut General Court in Harford, May 31, 1638, in The Puritan Tradition in America, 1620-1730, Revised ed., ed. Alden T. Vaughan (Hanover, NH: U Press of New England, 1997), 8. In a 1638 letter to John Winthrop, Hooker also refers to Deuteronomy 17:10-11 and 2 Chronicles 19 to support chosen representatives, stating, “A general counsel, chosen by all, to transact businesses which concern all, I conceive, under favor, most suitable to rule and most safe for relief of the whole. This was the practice of the Jewish church, directed by God, Deut. 17:10, 11; 2 Chron. 19; and the approved experience of the best ordered states give in evidence this way.” Thomas Hooker to John Winthrop, Fall 1638, in Collections of the Connecticut Historical Society, vol 1. (Hartford, CT: Published for the Society, 1860), 12.
[19] John Cotton, Abstract of Laws of New England, 1641 (London: Printed for F. Coules and W. Ley at Paules Chain, 1641), 1.
[20] Cotton, Abstract of Laws of New England, 1. In a 1638 letter to William Fiennes, Cotton again cited Exodus 18:21 on electing godly representatives, stating, that “the judges, and officers to be set over the people, should be men fearing God, Exod. 18.21.” John Cotton to William Fiennes, Lord Saye and Sele, 1636, in Puritan Political Ideas, 1558-1794, ed. Edmund S. Morgan (1965; repr. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett, 2003), 170.
[21] John Cotton to William Fiennes, Lord Saye and Sele, 1636, in Puritan Political Ideas, 1558-1794, ed. Edmund S. Morgan (1965; repr. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett, 2003), 170.
[22] 1 Samuel 8:17. 1 Samuel 8:10-18 says, “Samuel told all the words of the Lord to the people who were asking him for a king. He said, ‘This is what the king who will reign over you will claim as his rights: He will take your sons and make them serve with his chariots and horses, and they will run in front of his chariots. Some he will assign to be commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and others to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and still others to make weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves and give them to his attendants. He will take a tenth of your grain and of your vintage and give it to his officials and attendants. Your male and female servants and the best of your cattle and donkeys he will take for his own use. He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his slaves. When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, but the Lord will not answer you in that day.’”
[23] 1 Samuel 8:7
[24] See also Harry S. Stout, The New England Soul: Preaching and Religious Culture in Colonial New England (New York: Oxford U Press, 1986), 280, 293-5, 304.
[25] Samuel Langdon, Government Corrupted by Vice, and Recovered by Righteousness, A Sermon Preached Before the Honorable Congress of the Colony of Massachusetts Bay, May 31, 1775 (Watertown, MA: Printed and sold by Benjamin Edes, 1775), 11-12.
[26] Langdon, Government Corrupted, unnumbered.
[27] Thomas Paine, Common sense, 1776, in The Works of Thomas Paine, Secretary for Foreign Affairs to the Congress of the United States, in the Late War, in Two Volumes, vol. 1 (Philadelphia: Printed by James Carey, 1797), 10-11. Gideon as mentioned in this excerpt was a judge, prophet, and military warrior who refused to become king of Israel in place of God after his defeat of Midian. Judges 8:22-23 says, “The Israelites said to Gideon, ‘Rule over us—you, your son and your grandson—because you have saved us from the hand of Midian.’ But Gideon told them, ‘I will not rule over you, nor will my son rule over you. The Lord will rule over you.’”
[28] Samuel Adams to Richard Henry Lee, Boston, 14 April 1785, in The Writings of Samuel Adams: 1778-1802, vol. 4, ed. Harry A. Cushing (New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1908), 314.
[29] Madison, Federalist Paper 10, 82-83.
[30] Madison, Federalist Paper 10, 82.
[31] Donald S. Lutz, The Origins of American Constitutionalism (Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana State U Press, 1988), 85.
[32] Madison, Federalist Paper 10, 83.
[33] Garbarino, Athenian Democracy, 27, 28. Brackets mine.
[34] See Jones, Fall of Rome, 43-44; See Kirk, Roots, 101-102.
[35] Article IV, Section 4 of the U. S. Constitution states, “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government.”
[36] Jones, Fall of Rome, 45.
[37] Richard Henry Lee to Colonial Martin Pickett, Chantilly, 5 March 1786, in Memoir of the Life of Richard Henry Lee and His Correspondence, vol. 2, ed. grandson Richard H. Lee (Philadelphia, PA: Carey and Lea, 1825), 70.
[38] George Mason to Patrick Henry, Fairfax County, Gunston Hall, 6 May 1783, in The Life of George Mason, 1725-1792, vol. 11, Kate Mason Rowland (New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1892), 44.
[39] George Washington, Farewell Address to the People of The United States, 17 September 1796, in The Writings of George Washington, 1794-1798, vol. 13, ed. Worthington C. Ford (New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1892), 308.
[40] Benjamin Franklin to Messrs. Les Abbes Chalut and Arnaud, Philadelphia, 17 April 1787, in The Works of Benjamin Franklin in Philosophy, Politics, and Morals, 1753-1790, vol. 6, ed. William T. Franklin (Philadelphia, PA: William Duane, 1817), 199.
[41] James Madison, Speech on the Power of Judiciary at the Virginia Ratifying Convention, 20 June 1788, in The Writings of James Madison, vol. 5/1787-1790, ed. Gaillard Hunt (New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1904), 223.
[42] John Adams to the Officers of the First Brigade of the Third Division of the Militia of Massachusetts, 11 October 1798, in The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, vol. 9, ed. Charles F. Adams (Boston: Little, Brown, and Co., 1854), 229.
[43] Steve Waldman, Founding Faith: Providence, Politics, and the Birth of Religious Freedom in America (New York: Random House, 2008), 61.
[44] James Madison, Federalist Paper 39, 1788, in The Federalist Papers, ed. Clinton Rossiter (New York: Mentor Books, 1961), 240. [/subscribe_to_unlock_form]
———-
Contributed by AHEF and Angela E. Kamrath.
This article is available as a printable PDF handout in the member resources section on americanheritage.org. Simply sign up and login as a member (no cost), go to the resources page, and look under Miracle of America articles.
Related Blogs/Videos:
1. The Principle of Popular Sovereignty–the People’s Rule–in the U. S. Declaration and Constitution
2. How Protestant Religious Reformers Supported Popular Sovereignty from the Bible
3. How Reformed Political Thinkers Defended Popular Sovereignty From the Bible
4. How Catholic Churchmen Supported Popular Sovereignty from the Bible
5. Why Puritan Thomas Hooker Favored Democracy over Aristocracy
6. Thomas Hooker as the “father of American Democracy”
7. Why the Puritans Elected Representatives to Govern in their American Colonies
8. How the Great Awakening Impacted American Unity, Democracy, Freedom, & Revolution
9. Thomas Paine’s Common Sense: God’s Opposition to Absolute Monarchy
10. The American Revolution
11. American Revolution Debate: The American Quest for a New, Bible-Inspired Republic
12. The American Quest for Self-Government
13. America’s Founding Philosophy in the Declaration: God as Supreme Judge, Lawgiver, and King
14. The Creator God: The Basis of Authority, Law, & Rights for Mankind in the Declaration
15. Self-Evident Truth: Equality and Rights in the Declaration of Independence
16. The American, Bible-based Defense of Unalienable Rights in the Declaration
17. The American Social Contract in the U. S. Declaration and Constitution
18. The Bible-Inspired Influences on the U. S. Constitution and Bill of Rights
19. The Principles of Limited Government and Separation of Powers in the U. S. Constitution
20. The Covenant-Inspired Principle of Federalism in the U. S. Constitution
21. The Purpose of American Civil Government
High School Activity – Influences on America’s Constitutional Republic
Activity/Source: Miracle of America High School Teacher Course Guide, Unit 8, Part 1, Activity 4: Influences on America’s Constitutional Republic, p. 270-271. HS.
Purpose/Objective: Students learn key principles of the United States Constitution including a self-governing constitutional republic, why Americans saw a republic as the best form of government for the nation, and how influential thinkers and early Americans connected this concept with the Bible.
Suggested Reading: Chapter 8 of Miracle of America sourcebook/text. Students read sections Introduction, 3.9, 6.6, 8.3-11, 8.14-8.16, 8.20, & pp. 288-296.
Problem and Solution Map: Students will analyze the philosophies, principles, experiences, and historical influences that led the founders to choose a constitutional republic for the new government–including the histories of ancient Greece, Rome, and Israel. The teacher may want to make a class reading set of the essay “The Principle and Practice of a Constitutional Republic” by Angela K. Kamrath as well as related sections in Chapter 8 of the Miracle of America text for students to read/study/review/discuss. Students should consider how early Americans viewed and admired the Rome’s Republic and Israel’s “republic.” Students should recognize and understand why many founding-era Americans thought a civil republic was the best form of government for their new nation. Students should be able to identify corresponding original writings, speeches, and Bible verses that support a civil republic. Students will organize their findings from the reading/discussion with a graphic organizer such as a “Problem and Solution Map” or one of the teacher’s choice.
To download this whole unit in the course guide, sign up as an AHEF member (no cost) to access the “resources” page on americanheritage.org. To order the printed binder format of the course guide with all the units, go to the AHEF bookstore.
—–
To receive blog updates, we invite you to subscribe to the Founding Blog on this page.
This blog is provided by the American Heritage Education Foundation (AHEF). AHEF is a non-profit organization dedicated to the understanding and teaching of America’s founding philosophy, principles, documents, and history. AHEF’s work is made possible by the donations of private individuals and organizations. Please consider a tax-deductible donation to AHEF to support our mission. Thank you!
Copyright © American Heritage Education Foundation. All rights reserved.

Lady Justice is a centuries-old personification of the concept of justice—depicted with a blindfold, scales, and a sword–representing impartiality, weighing of evidence, and authority. A similar image appears at the entrance of the U. S. Supreme Court. The U. S. Supreme Court bears the motto, “Equal Justice Under Law.”
- Introduction
- The Natural Law Tradition
- The Biblical Law Tradition
- The Rule of Law in Roman Law
- The Rule of Law in English Common Law Tradition
- The Rule of Law in Modern British Thought
- The Rule of Law in the American Puritan Colonies
- The Moral Law in American Thought and Jurisprudence
- The Rule of Law in American Thought and Jurisprudence
- The Rule of Law in the United States Constitution and American Common Law
- Conclusion
- Endnotes
- Related Readings and Teaching Activity
Introduction
When the American Founders constructed the new nation of the United States, they applied important principles in the national government. One of the most important, distinct principles they applied was the “Rule of Law.” The Rule of Law is the governing principle of a state in which supreme authority resides in just, fixed laws and not in the arbitrary exercise of power by rulers. To be authoritative and valid, says John Tyler, these laws must be just and thus moral.[1] As Greek philosopher Aristotle expresses in his 350 BC Politics, “The laws, when good, should be supreme.”[2] Ideally, every person, including those in power, is subject to and equal before the law. No one is above the law. In such a governing system, the law equally applies to as well as protects the rights of every citizen. The natural result of this principle is the creation of a set of laws or constitution by which all citizens abide.[3] This principle differs from “the Law of the Ruler” or “Ruler’s Law” in which a ruler or governing body may arbitrarily govern over subjects without limit or accountability, with absolute power. Such rule often leads to tyranny, oppression, and violation of people’s rights. While the Law of the Ruler was the historical norm in most civilizations around the world for thousands of years, the early Americans implemented a system under Rule of Law that is impartial, just, fair, and respectful of people’s rights.
The American principle of Rule of Law is very old. It emerged in the Western world from ancient Mesopotamian, Hebraic, Greco-Roman, and Judeo-Christian civilizations and further developed in medieval and modern Roman, European, and American jurisprudence. These strands of influence were both secular and religious and, though at times independent, reinforced one another. The moral dimension of Rule of Law in America developed largely through the Natural Law tradition and, as I describe in this essay, the Biblical Law tradition. These Moral Law traditions, as I refer to them together, reinforced one another and created a consistent reference point and standard for Rule of Law. This essay highlights the Moral Law traditions undergirding Rule of Law in America by tracing these traditions in strands influential to American law including Roman, British, and American jurisprudence. In line with and guided by these traditions, founding-era Americans created a new nation governed by Rule of Law with the United States’ Constitution and American common law.
The Natural Law Tradition
The Natural Law tradition, recognized for centuries in the Western world by both secular and religious sources, is a major influence on the moral dimension of Rule of Law in America. This tradition stems from a worldview that humanity is governed by certain moral rules. Existing before any written laws, the Law of Nature, or Natural Law, is considered the universal Moral Law of right and wrong, of good and evil, for all mankind, to which all humanity is subject regardless of time, place, or religious belief. Many Western thinkers have understood this Moral Law as authored by a Creator God and known by man’s heart, conscience, and reason. It is referred to as the “Law of Nations” as it applies to the conduct of nations.
Some of the earliest references to the Law of Nature are found in the Book of Genesis in the Old Testament of the Bible, written by Moses in 1400s BC. In Genesis 3:22, after the creation and fall of man, God says, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil.” In Genesis 9:5-6, God tells Noah He will hold mankind accountable for his evil-doing, as in the case of murder: “‘From each human being, I will demand an accounting for the lifeblood of another human being.’”[4] In the New Testament of the Bible, in his 57 AD Epistle to the Romans, the Apostle Paul identified God’s Natural Law as written on man’s heart. Paul observes in Romans 2:14-15, “When Gentiles [non-Jews], who do not have the [written Mosaic] law, do by nature things required in the law, they are a law for themselves…. They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times defending them [brackets mine].” Early secular references to the Law of Nature came from ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle in his 300s BC Rhetoric and ancient Roman philosopher Marcus Tullius Cicero in his 54-51 BC Treatise on the Republic. Cicero was one of the first secular writers to articulate the Law of Nature as God’s universal Moral Law, describing it as man’s “right reason” from God.[5] Philo Judaeus, a first-century Hellenistic Jew from Alexandria, Egypt, was perhaps the first to use the term “Law of Nature” to describe God’s universal Moral Law.
Important modern Western thinkers who defended Rule of Law recognized the Law of Nature. For example, in his 1600-1615 Law Reports, British justice Edward Coke aptly explains the existence and purpose of the Law of Nature in biblical terms: …
The Law of Nature is that which God at the Time of Creation of the Nature of Man infused into his [man’s] Heart, for his Preservation and Direction; and this is Lex aeterna [eternal law], the Moral Law…. By this Law, written with the Finger of God in the Heart of Man [Romans 2:14-15], were the People of God a long Time governed, before the Law was written by Moses…. This Law of Nature…was two thousand Years before any Laws written, and before any Judicial or Municipal laws. [brackets and boldface mine][6]
English judge William Blackstone in his 1765-1769 Commentaries on the Laws of England notably describes the content of the Law of Nature with three precepts from the Romans—that “we should live honestly, hurt nobody, and render to everyone his due.”[7] He describes the application of this law as supremely authoritative and universal to all mankind—“superior in obligation to any other” law and “binding over all the globe in all countries, at all times.”[8]
The Natural Law tradition became a key part of Western thought and jurisprudence. Indeed, it is, as Tyler observes, “the oldest tradition in Western jurisprudence.”[9] The Natural Law tradition is an important influence on the moral justification for Rule of Law in America, in setting the moral standard required for just civil law and governance.
The Biblical Law Tradition
The Biblical Law tradition is also an important influence on the moral dimension of Rule of Law in America. The Bible reinforces the Law of Nature, Western thinkers saw, in demonstrating the content and application of this Moral Law. The Bible demonstrates this Moral Law in three contexts of law— in the Law of Nature, Law of Moses, and Judeo-Christian Golden Rule. Each context supports Rule of Law by revealing the standard for just civil law and government.
Firstly, the Bible acknowledges the Law of Nature in the books of Genesis and Romans, as previously mentioned. In Genesis 3:22 and 9:5-6, God gave a moral rule of right and wrong to the whole human race. In Romans 2:14-15, the Apostle Paul, in acknowledging that this law is written on man’s heart, recognized the authority and universal application of this law for all people, both Jews and Gentiles, regardless of status or religious belief. Notably, many Western thinkers believed that the Law of Nature is known partially by man’s imperfect reason and more fully by the Bible’s written moral teachings. Blackstone writes, …
Divine Providence…in compassion to the frailty, imperfection, and blindness of human reason, hath been pleased, at sundry times and in divers manners, to discover and enforce its [natural] laws by an immediate and direct [written] revelation. The doctrines thus delivered we call the revealed or divine law, and they are to be found only in the holy scriptures [or the Bible]. [bold and brackets mine][10]
The Law of Nature, as acknowledged in the Bible, informs and supports Rule of Law by its universal application to all mankind.
Secondly, the Bible presents the Law of Moses as recorded in the first five books of the Old Testament—Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy. Attributed to the prophet Moses who lived between 1400 and 1200 BC, the Mosaic Law reveals the existence of one God and lays out specific laws for the Hebrews, the ancient nation of Israel. It includes the Ten Commandments and other moral, civil, criminal, and religious/ceremonial laws. Believed to be divinely inspired or given by God, it is one of the oldest surviving written law codes in history. The Mosaic Law informs and affirms Rule of Law by demonstrating the law’s supreme authority over and equal application to all the people of Israel—including both rulers and common people. Moses tells the people in Deuteronomy 17:11 to judge by the authority of “the sentence of the law.”[11] Applying the law equally to all, he says in Leviticus 19:15, “Do not pervert justice; do not show partiality to the poor or favoritism to the great, but judge your neighbor fairly,” and in Deuteronomy 1:17, “You shall not show partiality in judgment; you shall hear the small as well as the great.” The Mosaic Law further supports Rule of Law with early elements of due process of law—in which no one can be denied one’s rights without proper legal procedure and just judgment according to the law. Due process, says Tyler, includes prior notice of law, fair trial, and impartial judges.[12] On prior notice, Moses tells the people to publicly read, write, and display the law on stones.[13] On fair trial, he says that a conviction for an offense or crime requires “a thorough investigation” and the accused to “stand trial before the assembly.”[14] The equal application of the law provides for impartial judges.
Thirdly, the Bible upholds the Judeo-Christian Golden Rule derived from the two Great Commandments in the Old and New Testaments. Written in the first century A. D. by witnesses and early church leaders, the New Testament reveals that Jesus Christ fulfilled all the requirements of the Mosaic Law and, in Matthew 22:37-39, reduced it for His followers, both Jew and Gentile, to the two Great Commandments that embody the spirit, morality, and content of the natural and Mosaic laws—to love God and to love man or “your neighbor as yourself.”[15] As American Founder Benjamin Rush explains in his Road to Fulfillment, these two commandments “form a complete summary of the spiritual law of the relations between God and man.”[16] Founder Rev. John Witherspoon likewise observes in his sermon, Yoke of Christ, “The sum of the Moral Law is, ‘Thou shalt love.’”[17] Christ reiterated the second commandment in Matthew 7:12 and Luke 6:31 in what is commonly known as the “Golden Rule” to “do to others what you would have them do to you.” Echoing the Roman precept to “hurt no one,” the Apostle Paul expresses the Golden Rule in Romans 13:10 as, “Love does no harm to a neighbor.” This rule agrees with man’s natural moral sense and applies to all who seek to please God—who all have a need and moral responsibility before God. It informs Rule of Law by its content and implication to treat others respectfully, equally, fairly, and with love, as we ourselves desire to be treated, and by its application to all of God’s people.
In demonstrating aspects of God’s Moral Law in these three contexts, the Biblical Law tradition is an important influence on the moral development of Rule of Law in America. The Bible demonstrates the content of the Moral Law to “love your neighbor as yourself, to “do to others what you would have them do to you,” and to “do no harm to a neighbor,” as well as the authoritative and equal application of this law to all God’s people. The Biblical Law tradition is consistent with the Natural Law tradition because it upholds the same Moral Law. Indeed, many modern Western thinkers saw the Law of Nature and God’s written Moral Law in the Bible as one Moral Law. These Moral Law traditions provide a consistent point of reference for just civil law and government that supports Rule of Law and informs the expression of this governing principle in America.
The Rule of Law in Roman Law
Roman Law played a significant role in the development of the moral dimension of Rule of Law in the Western world—including in Britain and, ultimately, America. Drawing knowledge from the Greeks and possibly the Hebrews, the ancient Romans implemented an early expression of Rule of Law and due process of law in their Republic. Later, the medieval Romans incorporated the moral concept of the Law of Nature into the jurisprudence of their Roman empire.
The ancient Romans applied Rule of Law when they created their first body of written laws, the Twelve Tables, for their Republic in 451 BC. Because the ruling-class judges often decided people’s cases arbitrarily and based on their own interests, the commoners demanded fixed laws that were the same for all. Ten men or Decemviri thus engraved a set of laws on twelve stone tablets and publicly displayed them so that all could know and apply them. The Twelve Tables ensured that commoners received fair, equal treatment and protection of rights. Upholding equality in law, it states, “Laws of personal exception shall not be proposed.”[18] An early expression of due process of law, it upheld—much like the Mosaic Law—prior notice, fair trial, and impartial judges. On fair trial, it states, “Anyone whomsoever to be put to death without a trial and unconvicted…is forbidden.”[19] As American Founder James Wilson observes in his 1790-1791 Lectures on Law, “The Decimvirs declared…that the laws should be equal and impartial to the high and to the low.”[20]
Later, the medieval Romans recognized the Law of Nature as a moral standard for their civil law. Byzantine Roman Emperor Justinian I’s 529-565 AD Corpus Juris Civilis or Body of Civil Laws became the codified law of the Eastern Roman Empire and the basis of Roman law in Europe in the Middle Ages. It was founded on the Twelve Tables but compiled after the Roman Empire’s christianization and recognition of one God. The Corpus notably recognizes the God-given “Law of Nature and Nations,” describing it with the three Roman precepts, “to live honestly, to hurt no one, and to give to every man his due.”[21] The precept to “injure no one” was originally expressed by Greek philosopher Socrates in Plato’s 380 BC Crito.[22] The Romans thus acknowledged that their empire was governed under God’s Moral Law. The Corpus upheld the authority of the civil law and, at least in theory, the equal application of the law to all including rulers. It asserts that “laws shall be obeyed equally by all”[23] and that “all, though belonging to the imperial house, must live according to the laws.”[24] Rulers were subject to the law since their authority “depends upon the authority of law.”[25]
The Corpus had an immense impact on the legal systems of medieval and modern Europe. The principles of Roman law in the Corpus profoundly shaped English jurisprudence which, in turn, shaped American jurisprudence. Upholding the authority, equality, and due process of law and later recognizing the Law of Nature as the basis of right governance, Roman law contributed in important ways to the moral development of Rule of Law in England and, subsequently, America.
The Rule of Law in English Common Law Tradition
Because English jurisprudence had a significant impact on American jurisprudence, it is important to consider the moral development of Rule of Law in English law. Medieval Anglo-Saxon and Roman jurisprudence were instrumental in the development of the common law and Rule of Law in England. The British drew from the Moral Law traditions, as recognized and/or cited in these strands, as the standard for their civil laws and validation for Rule of Law.
One of the earliest expressions of Rule of Law in English law is found in the c893 law code or “Doom Book” of King Alfred the Great of Wessex and the Anglo-Saxons. Alfred’s code was based on previous Anglo-Saxon codes and on the Bible—including the teachings of Moses and Christ.[26] When enacting laws in his realm, Alfred looked to Leviticus 19:15 in the Mosaic law where God through Moses directs the Israelites to “not show partiality to the poor or favoritism to the great, but judge your neighbor fairly.” Alfred thus asserted that the law of his realm was to be applied equally without regard for a person’s status, stating, “Judge thou very evenly: judge thou not one doom [law or judgment] to the rich, another to the poor; nor one to thy friend, another to thy foe [brackets mine].”[27] Alfred also looked to the Judeo-Christian Golden Rule for guidance on his laws and thus upheld the fair and equal treatment of subjects. His Doom Book states, “That which ye will that other men do not unto you, do ye not that to other men. From this one doom [law] a man may remember that he judge everyone righteously [brackets mine].”[28] As such, the Anglo-Saxons enacted Rule of Law in line with Biblical Law tradition by applying their laws equally to all subjects. Their law code provided the foundation for English common law which solidified in the 1000s and 1100s.[29]
Building on English common law and its Bible-inspired principles of law, Britain’s Magna Carta or “Great Charter” of 1215 was also significant for instituting Rule of Law in England. The Magna Carta was a royal charter and agreement between King John of England and his noblemen that applied the common law not only to the people but to the king and his magistrates. It acknowledged the supreme authority of the “the law of the land” over rulers and that citizens had certain rights that could not be violated arbitrarily by those in power.[30] Supporting due process of law, it states, “No freeman shall be taken, imprisoned, disseized, outlawed, exiled, or in any way harmed…save by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land.”[31] Magna Carta was significant in establishing Rule of Law in England by its authoritative and equal application of the common law to both people and rulers and by its due process of law.
English jurisprudence was also shaped by the moral, organizing principles of Roman law—mainly through the works of Henry de Bracton, John Fortescue, and, later, William Blackstone. In his influential c1235 On the Laws and Customs of England, English jurist Henry de Bracton, known as the “father of the common law,” organized the common law based on Roman law categories and terms, and incorporated the Roman moral concept of Law of Nature into English jurisprudence. He described the Natural Law with the three precepts from the Roman Corpus, stating, “The precepts of right are these three: to live honestly, to do no harm to another, to award to each his right.”[32] In his c1470 In Praise of the Laws of England, English Chief Justice John Fortescue recognized the universality of the Natural Law, observing, “The law of nature in all countries is the same.”[33] Further, he legally applied the Natural Law to the common law, asserting that man’s civil laws are invalid if they violate this Moral Law. Thus, Roman law principles including the Natural Law tradition were incorporated into English jurisprudence and, along with the Biblical Law tradition, supported Rule of Law. The phrase “Rule of Law” emerged in England around 1500.
English common law is the body of customary laws, which still exists today, shared by or common to the whole nation of England. It was shaped over time by Anglo-Saxon customary laws and traditions, Magna Carta, and Roman law—and by the Moral Law traditions in these strands. American Founder James Wilson describes this common law in his 1790-1791 Lectures on Law as “long and general custom” by the “free and voluntary consent” of the people.[34] Russell Kirk explains in his 1991 Roots of American Order that the common law grew “out of the experiences and observations and consensus of many generations of wise men, and had been tested repeatedly for its conformity to natural justice.”[35] English common law is ruled by stare decisis, Latin for “to stand by what has been decided,” in that judges are bound to decide cases according to previous legal decisions or precedent. The purpose of precedents is to keep the law constant, equal, and just. Kirk elaborates, …
The purpose of stare decisis is to ensure that evenhanded justice will be administered from one year to another, one decade to another, one century to another; that judges will not be permitted to create laws or to decide cases arbitrarily, or to favor particular persons in particular circumstances. They must abide by the accumulated experience of legal custom, so that the law will be no respecter of persons, and so that people may be able to act in certitude that the law does not alter capriciously.[36]
The moral dimension of Rule of Law in English jurisprudence and law developed, in part, through the Moral Law traditions in Anglo-Saxon and Roman jurisprudence. English common law upholds Rule of Law in adhering to the content and application of the Moral Law as well as due process and stare decisis. The practice of Rule of Law in English common law strongly influenced the development and practice of this principle in America.
The Rule of Law in Modern British Thought
Despite the advancement of Rule of Law in England in the Middle Ages, the doctrine of the “Divine Right of Kings” became prominent in Britain in the 1600s under the Stuart kings who imposed absolute monarchy. This doctrine supported the Law of the Ruler by asserting that the king or queen derived absolute authority directly from God and so was not accountable to any earthly authority such as a parliament. Indeed, the monarch’s will, acts, and decrees were the law. In response to this doctrine, some British thinkers of the 1600s—including Samuel Rutherford, Edward Coke, and John Locke—refuted Divine Right and reaffirmed Rule of Law. In the 1700s, William Blackstone further strengthened Rule of Law with his modern presentation of English common law. All of these thinkers’ moral assertions of law were rooted, directly or indirectly, in the Moral Law traditions and greatly affected British and American political and legal thought.
Scottish theologian and Westminster assemblyman Samuel Rutherford was one of the first modern writers to use the term “Rule of Law” and notably defended this principle from a moral and philosophical perspective based largely on the Biblical Law tradition. In his 1644 Lex, Rex: The Law and the Prince, Latin for “the law is king,” Rutherford argued that the people hold God-given political power and thus the king is accountable to the people and subject to the law—God’s Moral Law and just civil law. Rutherford supported this argument from, among other sources, the Bible. For one, he asserted that God disapproves of absolute rule by a monarch. For in 1 Samuel 8:6-9, God, speaking through the prophet Samuel, warned the Israelites against having a king and the tyranny they would suffer under a fallible man.[37] Rutherford observes, “T]hat he [God] is dissuading them [the Israelites] from suiting a king is clear from the text. Because he saith [to Samuel], Give them their will; but yet protest their unlawful course [brackets mine].”[38] Rutherford also supported his argument from the Bible’s three contexts of law. Firstly, he noted that just as all people are subject to the Natural Law, all should be subject to just civil law, for “God’s law excepteth none at all.”[39] Secondly, he like the Anglo-Saxons cited the equality of the Law of Moses in Leviticus 19:15 to “not show partiality to the poor or favoritism to the great,” and in Deuteronomy 1:17 to “‘not show partiality in judgment; you shall hear the small as well as the great.’” Rutherford saw from these verses that civil law should be equally applied regardless of a person’s status, observing, “Nor can I think that God’s law, or his deputy the judges, are to accept the persons of the great, because they are great; …we cannot distinguish where the law distinguisheth not,” and “I see no exception that God maketh.”[40] Thirdly, he asserted from the Judeo-Christian Golden Rule in Matthew 7:12 that kings, as human and not God, should be equally subject to the same laws as the people. He states, “That the king doth bind himself to the same law that he doth bind others, is decent, and obligeth the king as he is a man.”[41] By this rule, the king should not violate the rights of his subjects, just as he would not wish such violation against himself. From these and other points, Rutherford concluded that the king “is not regula regulans [the rule of the regulator], but under rule of law [brackets mine].”[42] Published during the English Civil War of 1642 to 1651, Rutherford’s Lex, Rex strongly discredited Divine Right and validated Rule of Law in British and American thought. Rutherford’s ideas were familiar to the American Puritans including Thomas Hooker and shared by revolutionary writer Thomas Paine.[43]
British Chief Justice Edward Coke was an important legal figure who defended Rule of Law over Ruler’s Law in the British constitution—by emphasizing a common law for both king and people and due process of law. The English common law is called the “law of the land” in Magna Carta, Coke notes in his 1628-1644 Institutes of the Laws of England, so “that the law might extend to all,” king and people.[44] He denounces the “incertain and crooked cord of discretion” in Ruler’s Law and affirms the “due process of the common law.”[45] Coke’s support for Rule of Law apparently came not only from common law tradition but from the Moral Law traditions. Echoing Leviticus 19:15 and Deuteronomy 1:17 as the Anglo-Saxons, he describes the common law as the “golden metwand” or measuring rod by which “all men’s causes are justly and evenly measured” and “appointed to measure the cases of all and singular persons, high and low, to have and receive justice.”[46] Also, in his 1608 Law Report, as mentioned, he recognizes the Moral Law in Romans 2:14-15 as “written with the Finger of God in the Heart of Man” and its universality—stating as Fortescue that “the Law of God and Nature is one to all.”[47] Coke thus upheld the Moral Law traditions and drew from them to inform and support Rule of Law. Coke’s defense of Rule of Law in the British constitution significantly shaped American jurisprudence and law. American Founder Thomas Jefferson describes Coke’s Institutes as the “universal elementary book of law students” in America, and Founder John Rutledge calls it “almost the foundation of our law” in America.[48] In his 1924 History of English Law, William Holdsworth says that Coke “preserved for England and the world the constitutional doctrine of rule of Law.”[49] Indeed, Coke helped to preserve Rule of Law in England and America.
British Enlightenment-era philosopher John Locke was an influential political figure who supported Rule of Law as the means to protect citizens’ rights and maintain a just, orderly society. In a secularized presentation, Locke defended this principle from the Moral Law traditions—including the Bible’s three contexts of law. First, Locke recognized Rule of Law in the universal Law of Nature as described in Romans 2:14-15. In his 1695 Reasonableness of Christianity, he observes, “The Law given by Moses being not given to all Mankind, how are all men sinners, since without a Law there is no Transgression? To this the Apostle [Paul], v. 14. answers.”[50] Locke affirmed that this natural “Moral Law (which is every where the same, the Eternal Rule of Right) obliges Christians and all Men everywhere.”[51] In his 1689 Second Treatise of Civil Government, Locke saw, like Coke and Fortescue, that the Law of Nature applies to both ruler and commoner and is the basis of just civil law. He writes, “The law of Nature stands as an eternal rule to all men, legislators as well as others. The rules that they make for other men’s actions, as well as their own…, must be conformable to the law of Nature.”[52] Drawing on Natural Law, Locke favored Rule of Law to govern citizens in society, explaining, “Freedom of men under government is, to have a standing rule to live by, common to every one of that society…and not to be subject to the inconstant, uncertain, unknown, arbitrary will of another man: [just] as freedom of nature is, to be under no other restraint but the law of nature [brackets and boldface mine].[53] Second, Locke looked to the equal application of the Mosaic Law to support Rule of Law. Resounding Leviticus 19:15 and Deuteronomy 1:17 to show no “partiality to the poor or favoritism to the great” and to “hear the small as well as the great,” he asserts that civil authority should “govern by promulgated established laws, not to be varied in particular cases, but to have one rule for rich and poor, for the favourite at Court, and the countryman at plough [boldface mine].”[54] Third, Locke affirmed Rule of Law based on man’s equality and the Judeo-Christian Golden Rule. Quoting theologian Richard Hooker’s 1593 Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, Locke writes, “‘The like natural inducement [motive] hath brought men to know that it is no less their duty to love others than themselves, for seeing those things which are equal, must needs all have one measure [brackets and boldface mine].’” [55] In this way, Locke supported and explained Rule of Law by the Moral Law traditions. Locke had a notable impact on American political thought on governance by Rule of Law. In his 1777 Observations on the Government of Pennyslvania, Founder Benjamin Rush noted the impact of Locke’s ideas on American government: “Mr. Locke is an oracle as to the principles…of government.”[56] In a 1807 letter, Founder Thomas Jefferson cited Locke as a good source on “the organization of society into civil government” and “the system of principles on which such an organization should be founded, according to the rights of nature.” [57]
English justice William Blackstone was another important influence on Rule of Law—in providing a modern presentation of English common law for early Americans. Adopting principles of previous moral thinkers and Roman law, Blackstone notably incorporated the Natural Law tradition into his common-law presentation. His 1765-1769 Commentaries on the Laws of England taught early Americans about Natural Law and English common law and, consequently, about Rule of Law. A professor of Roman law, Blackstone like Bracton described the Law of Nature with the three precepts in Justinian’s Corpus—that “we should live honestly, hurt nobody, and render to everyone his due.”[58] He believed, like Fortescue and Locke, that just civil law must align with Natural Law, stating, “No human laws are of any validity if contrary to this [Law of Nature]: and such of them as are valid derive all their force, and all their authority, mediately or immediately, from this original [brackets mine].”[59] Blackstone’s Commentaries was the primary textbook on English common law for early Americans and, as such, played a key role in the transmission of Rule of Law in America. Kirk explains, “Had the little-schooled American lawyers not been restrained by him, much of enduring value in the tested English rule of law might have been lost through ignorance or hasty improvisation.”[60] Ultimately, English common law became the foundation of American common law.
British thinkers Rutherford, Coke, and Locke played a valuable role in refuting Divine Right and in morally defending Rule of Law in the modern era, while Blackstone made an impact with his modern, moral presentation of English common law. In supporting Rule of Law from the Moral Law traditions as well as from man’s natural equality and rights, they helped to de-legitimize Divine Right, which fell out of use in England after the Glorious Revolution of 1688, and to reinforce and preserve Rule of Law in England and America.
The Rule of Law in the American Puritan Colonies
Along with British thought and law, the American Pilgrims and Puritans played a significant role in the moral development of Rule of Law in America’s founding and constitution. In accordance with their beliefs in God’s sovereignty and man’s equality as well as the Biblical Law and English common law traditions, the Pilgrims and Puritans initiated and applied Rule of Law with their Mayflower Compact and colonial constitutions.
The American Pilgrims and Puritans, as radically reformed Protestant Christians, generally favored Rule of Law over Divine Right based on their Bible-inspired view that only God, and not any man, has rightful absolute authority over His church. God was their king and governed by His Moral Law. Their view of God’s sovereignty was based in part on Isaiah 33:22 which says, “The Lord is our Judge, Lawgiver, and King; He will save us.” American Puritan and Connecticut founder Thomas Hooker expressed such thinking in his 1648 Survey of the Summe of Church-Discipline: “The Supreme and Monarchical power resides only in our Savior, can only be given and attributed to Him, and none other: He is the King and Law-giver of His church, the Head of His Body.”[61] While Hooker’s Survey addressed church governance, the Puritans applied the same view, reasoning, and form in their civil governance, for they desired to follow the Bible not only in their churches but in their colonial governments. They thus found consistency in their philosophical view of God’s sovereignty with Rule of Law.
The Pilgrims and Puritans also favored Rule of Law based on their Bible-based view that all men are equal in standing before God and subject to God’s Moral Law. When the Pilgrims on the Mayflower landed in America outside of England’s territory, they drafted their own charter, the Mayflower Compact of 1620. This charter was a consensual agreement, signed by all heads-of-household, Pilgrims and non-Pilgrims alike, to create a civil body and to enact just laws for their colony of Plymouth. Their compact placed all signers and their families, regardless of status, on equal standing in the new colony and in equal subjection to the colony’s future laws. The signers agreed, as the compact states, “to enact, constitute, and frame such just and equal laws, ordinances, acts, constitutions, and offices…as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the general good of the Colony, unto which we promise all due submission and obedience.”[62] In this way, the Pilgrims initiated Rule of Law in accordance with their view of man’s equal standing and accountability under the law. The Pilgrims’ compact was, as Donald Lutz asserts in his Mayflower Compact, the “first expression” of such political equality in America.[63] It created a framework, suggests Daniel Dreisbach, for Rule of Law in the colonies and in America.[64] “The Pilgrims, more than any others,” says Dreisbach, “laid the foundation for an American political tradition committed to Rule of Law.”[65]
The Puritans supported Rule of Law in their colonies of Massachusetts and Connecticut in line with the Pilgrims’ compact and the Biblical Law tradition. When Puritan pastor Thomas Hooker founded the colony of Connecticut in 1638, he favored governance by Rule of Law based on the Mosaic Law in Deuteronomy 17:11. In Deuteronomy 17:11, Moses instructs the Israelites to judge cases according to the “sentence of the law” and not according to their own discretion: “According to the sentence of the law in which they instruct you, according to the judgment which they tell you, you shall do; you shall not turn aside to the right hand or to the left from the sentence which they pronounce upon you.”[66] Citing this verse, Hooker defended Rule of Law in a 1638 letter to Massachusetts governor John Winthrop, writing, …
[T]he question here grows—what rule the judge must have to judge by; secondly, who those counsellors must be. That in the matter which is referred to the judge, the sentence should lie in his breast, or be left to his discretion, according to which he should go, I am afraid it is a course which wants both safety and warrant. I must confess, I ever looked at it as a way which leads directly to tyranny, and so to confusion, and must plainly profess, if it was in my liberty, I should neither choose to live nor leave my posterity under such a government. … 17 Deut., 10, 11—Thou shalt observe to do according to all that they inform, according to the sentence of the Law. Thou shalt seek the Law at his mouth: not ask what his discretion allows, but what the Law requires. [boldface mine][67]
The best protection for justice and rights, Hooker believed, was a government in which authority resides in clearly defined, constant laws, not in rulers who might judge arbitrarily or in error. The Mosaic model in which authority resides in the “sentence of the law,” he believed, confirmed the justness and goodness of Rule of Law. Consequently, the Puritans applied Rule of Law in their colonies in accordance with the Biblical Law tradition.
To implement Rule of Law, the Puritans created constitutions of law—the Fundamental Orders of Connecticut of 1639 and the Massachusetts Body of Liberties of 1641—to govern their colonies. The Puritans reinforced Rule of Law in these constitutions with the equal application of law and due process of law as found in the Biblical Law and English common law traditions. For example, the Massachusetts Body of Liberties expressed the equal application of the law to all colonists, stating, “Every person within this jurisdiction…shall enjoy the same justice and law that is general for the plantation, which we constitute and execute one toward another without partiality or delay.”[68] It also upheld due process in stating, “No man’s person shall be restrained or imprisoned by any authority whatsoever, before the law hath sentenced him thereto.”[69] Indeed, the Puritan constitutions—in their form, purpose, and application—resembled in some ways biblical- and common-law documents like Moses’ Ten Commandments and Magna Carta. Thus, the Puritans upheld Rule of Law with their constitutions.
The early American Pilgrims and Puritans played a key role in the moral development of Rule of Law in the United States. In line with their Bible-inspired philosophical beliefs of God’s sovereignty and man’s equality, as well as the Biblical Law and English common law traditions; the Pilgrims’ Mayflower Compact upheld colonists’ equal standing and subjection to the law, regardless of status. The Puritans’ written constitutions upheld the authority, equal application, and due process of fixed law over arbitrary rule and changing laws. The Puritan constitutions, says Dreisbach, “had a profound impact on how Americans view Rule of Law.”[70] They laid the “groundwork,” observes Alexis de Tocqueville in his 1835 Democracy in America, for the modern constitutions of the United States.[71] In these ways, the Pilgrims and Puritans began the practice of Rule of Law in their colonies and, ultimately, in America.
The Moral Law in American Thought and Jurisprudence
Founding-era Americans adopted important principles from Roman, British, and American colonial jurisprudence when forming the jurisprudence, laws, and government of the new nation of the United States. One particular aspect of these historical strands that Americans agreed with and upheld is God’s universal Moral Law as conveyed in the Moral Law traditions. Like previous moral thinkers, early Americans believed that the Moral Law is authoritative due to mankind’s creation, equality, and natural rights. They further believed that this Moral Law—in its content and application—is the foundation of just civil law. As such, Americans looked to the Moral Law as the standard for their government and laws in America.
Early Americans specifically acknowledged God’s universal Moral Law—its content to “injure no one” and universal application—from the Natural Law and Biblical Law traditions. For example, revolutionary leader and Founder Samuel Adams in his 1794 Address to the Legislature of Massachusetts affirmed the Moral Law’s content and application from both traditions, stating, …
All men are equally bound by the laws of nature, or to speak more properly, the laws of the Creator: –They are imprinted by the finger of God on the heart of man [Romans 2:14-15]. Thou shalt do no injury to thy neighbor [Romans 13:10], is the voice of nature and reason, and it is confirmed by written revelation [or Bible]. [boldface & brackets mine][72]
Founder and U. S. Supreme Court Justice James Wilson in his 1790-1791 Lectures on Law also recognized the Moral Law’s content and application from these traditions. The Moral Law’s content, he says, alluding to Blackstone’s Roman precepts, “prohibits injury and commands the reparation of damage done”; “restrains us from harming the innocent” who “have a right to be secure from harm”; and commands “fidelity to our engagements.”[73] Wilson expressed the Moral Law’s equal application as demonstrated in the Biblical Law tradition. Resounding the Mosaic Law’s Leviticus 19:15 and Deuteronomy 1:17 to “hear the small as well as the great,” he explains, …
The natural rights and duties of man belong equally to all. Each [person] forms a part of that great system, whose greatest interest and happiness are intended by all the laws of God and nature. These laws prohibit the wisest and the most powerful from inflicting misery on the meanest [most humble] and most ignorant; and from depriving them of their rights or just acquisitions. By these laws, rights, natural or acquired, are confirmed, in the same manner, to all; to the weak and artless, their small acquisitions, as well as to the strong and artful, their large ones. [brackets and boldface mine][74]
Pointing to Romans 2:14-15 in which all know the Moral Law inwardly, Wilson further expresses,
Laws may be promulgated by reason and conscience, the divine monitors within us…. In this manner, they may be said to be engraven by God on the hearts of men [Romans 2:14-15]: in this manner, He is the promulgator as well as author of natural law. [brackets and boldface mine][75]
Founder John Adams identified the content and application of the Moral Law in the Judeo-Christian Golden Rule of Matthew 22:37-39 and Matthew 7:12. He writes in his 1796 Senate Notes, “One great advantage of the Christian Religion is, that it brings the great principle of the Law of nature and nations, —Love your neighbor as yourself, and do to others as you would that others should do to you, —to the knowledge, belief, and veneration of the whole people [boldface mine].”[76] Clearly, founding-era Americans recognized and upheld God’s universal Moral Law as found in the Moral Law traditions.
Like previous moral-law thinkers, early Americans viewed God’s universal Moral Law as supremely authoritative based on God’s creation of man and mankind’s equality and natural rights. As created by God, all human beings are, they believed, subject to God’s Moral Law. Human beings are equal, they saw, in the sense of their creation, nature, value, and dignity, and in their responsibility and accountability before God. Thus, every person has natural rights which are protected by God’s Moral Law. In his 1786 Of the Mode of Education Proper in a Republic, Founder Benjamin Rush supported man’s equality based on God’s creation of man as revealed in the Bible:
The history of the creation of man, and of the relation of our species to each other by birth, which is recorded in the Old Testament, is the best refutation that can be given to the divine right of kings, and the strongest argument that can be used in favor of the original and natural equality of all mankind [boldface mine].[77]
Founding-era Americans further believed, like Locke and Blackstone, that God’s universal Moral Law, as conveyed in the Moral Law traditions, is the foundation of just civil law. Civil laws that contradict the Moral Law are illegitimate and invalid. Samuel Adams states in his 1772 Report on the Rights of Colonists, “All positive and civil laws, should conform as far as possible, to the Law of natural reason and equity [fairness] [brackets mine].”[78] Wilson in his Lectures on Law likewise identifies the Moral Law as God’s “supreme law” and “the measure and the rule” of just civil law.[79] He elaborates, …
Human law must rest its authority, ultimately, upon the authority of that [moral] law, which is divine. … Far from being rivals or enemies, religion and law are twin sisters, friends, and mutual assistants. Indeed, these two sciences run into each other. The divine [moral] law, as discovered by reason and moral sense, forms an essential part of both. [brackets and boldface mine][80]
Founder James McHenry in his 1813 Baltimore Bible Society address describes the Moral Law in the Bible as a worthy guide for American law: “The Old and New Testaments taken together, are the only books in the world which clearly reveal the nature of God, contain a perfect law for our government, propose the most powerful persuasions to obey this law.”[81] As such, early Americans looked to the Moral Law as a standard when forming America’s laws and government.
More specifically, the American Founders recognized the need to ground America’s civil government and laws in both the content and application of the Moral Law as conveyed in the Moral Law traditions. Firstly, the Founders recognized the need to ground their civil laws in the Moral Law’s content. Reiterating Blackstone’s three Roman precepts to “live honestly, hurt no one, and render to everyone his due” and the Golden Rule to “do unto others as you would have them do unto you,” Wilson specifies the Moral Law’s content and its necessity for just civil law:
Man’s rights are, to be free from injury, and to receive the fulfillment of the engagements, which are made to him. His duties are, to do no injury, and to fulfill the engagements, which he has made. …These are the pillars of justice. [boldface mine][82]
Reflecting this content, the civil law, Wilson asserts, should protect citizens and their rights from injury and violation: “The state should protect the citizen, should defend him from injury, and should procure reparation for injuries which he has sustained.”[83] Secondly, the Founders recognized the need to ground their civil laws in the Moral Law’s equal application. For just as the Moral Law applies to all mankind, so should the civil law apply to and protect all citizens and their rights. In a 1768 letter of the House of Representatives of Massachusetts, Founder Samuel Adams explains, “The spirit of the law of nature and nations, supposes, that all the free subjects of any kingdom, are entitled equally to all the rights of the constitution.”[84] Adams, quoting Locke, repeats this idea in his Rights of Colonists, stating, …
“Just and true liberty, equal and impartial liberty” in matters spiritual and temporal, is a thing that all Men are clearly entitled to, by the eternal and immutable laws of God and Nature, as well as by the law of Nations & all well-grounded municipal laws, which must have their foundation in the former. [boldface mine][85]
With such equal application, the Founders supported the impartial interpretation and administration of civil laws to protect citizen rights. Samuel Adams, citing Locke, affirms the need for “‘authorized independent Judges’”[86] and “indifferent and impartial Judges.”[87] Founder John Adams similarly asserts in a 1776 letter, “The stability of government, in all its branches, the morals of the people, and every other blessing of society and social institutions, depend so much upon an able and impartial administration of justice.”[88] John Adams further explains in his 1779 Report on the Form of Government for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, “It is essential to the preservation of the rights of every individual, his life, liberty, property, and character, that there be an impartial interpretation of the laws, and administration of justice.”[89] He concludes, “It is the duty of the people…in framing a Constitution of Government, to provide for an equitable mode of making laws, as well as for an impartial interpretation and a faithful execution of them, that every man may, at all times, find his security in them.”[90] Thus, the Founders sought to create a civil government and laws for the United States that reflect the content and application of God’s Moral Law as seen in the Moral Law traditions.
Early Americans’ adherence to the Moral Law traditions is evident in the U. S. Declaration of Independence of 1776. In the Declaration, Founder Thomas Jefferson acknowledges a “Creator” and the “Laws of Nature and Nature’s God” on which Americans base their rights, civil laws, and constitution. U. S. President John Quincy Adams, son of Founder John Adams, observes in his July 4, 1821, oration that by the Declaration the American people are “bound by the [natural] laws of God, which they all, and by the [biblical] laws of the Gospel, which they nearly all, acknowledge as the rules of their conduct [brackets mine].”[91]
Founding-era Americans’ recognition of and philosophical alignment with God’s universal Moral Law—as conveyed in the Moral Law traditions and supported in Roman, British, and American colonial jurisprudence—led them to create and/or aspire to just civil laws and government in America that reflect the Moral Law’s content and application. Consequently, it also undoubtedly led them to favor and support Rule of Law.
The Rule of Law in American Thought and Jurisprudence
During America’s founding, early Americans drew in part from the Moral Law traditions—as supported by Roman, British, and American colonial jurisprudence and by their own philosophical beliefs—to inform the governing principle and practice of Rule of Law in the United States. The content and application of God’s universal Moral Law led them to implement Rule of Law as the most just and fair means of governance for the new nation.
Founding-era Americans saw in the Moral Law traditions consistency with Rule of Law. For in contrast to the arbitrary, inconsistent application of law that often arises with Ruler’s Law, God’s Moral Law demonstrates an equal application of law that supports Rule of Law. In his 1772 Rights of Colonists, Samuel Adams, for instance, notably defended Rule of Law over arbitrary rule much like the colonial Puritans who followed the Mosaic Law’s “sentence of the law” in Deuteronomy 17:11. Adams also cited Locke’s apparent references to Leviticus 19:15 and Deuteronomy 1:17 to show “no partiality to the poor or favoritism to the great” and to “hear the small as well as the great.” He writes, …
The Legislative has no right to absolute arbitrary power over the lives and fortunes of the people. Nor can mortals assume a prerogative, not only too high for men, but for angels, and therefore reserved for the exercise of the Deity alone. – The Legislative cannot justly assume to itself a power to rule by extempore arbitrary decrees; but it is bound to see that Justice is dispensed, and that the rights of the subjects be decided, by promulgated, standing, and known laws…. “There shall be one rule of Justice for rich and poor, for the favorite in Court, and the Countryman at the Plough.” [boldface mine][92]
French writer Tocqueville in his 1835 Democracy in America similarly observed the influence of the Biblical Law tradition on the equal application of civil law in America, writing, “Christianity, which has declared that all men are equal in the sight of God, will not refuse to acknowledge that all citizens are equal in the eye of the law.”[93]
Early Americans also specifically affirmed that American common law—which includes the key principle of Rule of Law—is rooted in the Moral Law traditions. For instance, Founder James Wilson expressed the influence of the Natural Law tradition on American common law, stating:
Man’s rights are, to be free from injury, and to receive the fulfillment of the engagements, which are made to him. His duties are, to do no injury, and to fulfill the engagements, which he has made. On these two pillars principally and respectively rest the criminal and the civil codes of the municipal law. [boldface mine][94]
U. S. Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story—a Blackstonian advocate of American common law and a primary commentator on early American jurisprudence—similarly pointed out in his 1829 induction speech as Harvard law professor how American law is rooted in the Biblical Law tradition: …
One of the beautiful boasts of our municipal jurisprudence is, that Christianity is a part of the [American] common law, from which it seeks the sanction of its rights, and by which it endeavours to regulate its doctrines. …. There never has been a period, in which the common law did not recognise Christianity as lying at its foundations. [brackets and boldface mine][95]
During the American Revolution from 1775 to 1783, English political writer Thomas Paine further validated Rule of Law with his influential 1776 political pamphlet, Common Sense. He did so by reiterating the biblical arguments found in Samuel Rutherford’s Lex, Rex and thus putting them freshly into the minds of Americans. He cited 1 Samuel 8:6-9 where God disapproves of the Israelites’ making of an earthly king and warns of the tyranny they will suffer under absolute rule by fallible men. Paine thus argued that God disapproves of absolute, arbitrary rule by an earthly monarch due to the unjust oppression and violation of man’s rights that often occurs under such rule. He asserts, “As the exalting of one man so greatly above the rest, cannot be justified on the equal rights of nature, so neither can it be defended on the authority of Scripture; for the will of the Almighty, as declared by…the prophet Samuel, expressly disapproves of government by kings.”[96] Paine concluded, as Rutherford, that the “Law is King.” He expresses, …
But where say some is the king of America? I’ll tell you, friend, he reigns above, and doth not make havoc of mankind like the royal brute of Britain. Yet that we may not appear to be defective even in earthly honours, let a day be solemnly set apart for proclaiming the charter; let it be brought forth and placed on the divine law, the word of God; let a crown be placed thereon, by which the world may know, that so far as we approve of monarchy, that in America THE LAW IS KING. For as in absolute governments the king is law, so in free countries the law ought to be king; and there ought to be no other. [boldface mine][97]
Selling more than 500,000 copies, Paine’s Common Sense was the most widely-read book in America during the Revolutionary War. With its clear prose, it reinforced and refreshed Americans’ moral justification, view, and favor of Rule of Law over Ruler’s Law.
In accordance with the Moral Law traditions and the view that the Moral Law is the standard for just civil law, the American Founders defended and instituted Rule of Law as the best means of governance for the new, independent nation and states of the United States. Founder James Madison expressed in his 1788 Federalist Paper 62 the idea that a government with constantly changing, unpredictable laws “poisons the blessings of liberty itself.” “It will be of little avail to the people,” he argued, if the laws “undergo such incessant changes, that no man who knows what the law is today, can guess what it will be tomorrow.”[98] Jefferson expressed in his 1798 Resolutions Relative to the Alien and Sedition Laws, “In questions of powers, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.”[99] Founder John Adams recognized in his 1776 Thoughts on Government that “good government is an empire of laws.”[100] As John Adams reaffirmed in his 1774 Novanglus Papers and 1779 Massachusetts Constitution, the Founders thus sought to create a good and just “government of laws, and not of men.”[101]
Based on the content and application of the Moral Law, the Founders aspired to and designed for the United States a system under Rule of Law that protects citizens and their rights from injury and violation, and treats all citizens and their rights equally and respectfully. This system aligned with the their philosophical views and the Moral Law Traditions as upheld in Roman, British, and American jurisprudence.
The Rule of Law in the United States Constitution and American Common Law
The early Americans implemented a modern system of Rule of Law in the new nation of the United States in line with the Moral Law traditions and as supported by Roman, British, and American colonial jurisprudence. The American Founders secured Rule of Law with the U. S. Constitution of 1787 that serves as the supreme governing authority in the nation, requires civil servants to enforce the law, upholds due process and equal protection of the law, and creates an independent judicial branch. The American court system further secures Rule of Law by upholding stare decisis in American common law.
Firstly, the Founders’ Constitution specifically upholds Rule of Law in serving as the supreme authority in the nation to which all Americans, their civil representatives, and other civil laws are subject and by which all citizens are protected. The people’s governors are bound and limited by this supreme law and cannot legally act, rule, legislate, or judge cases in contradiction to it. The “supremacy clause” in Article 6 of the Constitution declares, “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof…shall be the supreme Law of the Land [boldface mine].” As supreme law, the Constitution is considered a fundamental law by which all other civil laws must abide. No civil law is considered legal or legitimate if inconsistent with this fundamental law. Founder Alexander Hamilton elaborates in his 1788 Federalist Paper 78,
Every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this would be to affirm that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid. …This cannot be the natural presumption where it is not to be collected from any particular provisions in the Constitution. … A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges as, a fundamental law. [boldface mine][102]
On this point, Founder and Constitution architect James Madison wrote in 1788 in Federalist Paper 53 of the “important distinction so well understood in America between a Constitution established by the people and unalterable by the government, and a law established by the government and alterable by the government.”[103] Thus, the U. S. Constitution upholds Rule of Law in serving as the supreme authority by which all the people, their representatives, and other civil laws must abide and by which all citizens are protected of their rights and freedoms.
Secondly, the Constitution secures Rule of Law by requiring civil servants to enforce the law. The U. S. President, as chief executive of the executive branch, serves to carry out the law and is responsible for doing so by the “take care” clause of the Constitution. Article 2, Section 3 of the Constitution states that “The President…shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” Federal and state judges are also bound to uphold the law. Article 6, Clause 2 of the Constitution states, “This Constitution, and the laws of the United States…shall be the supreme law of the land, and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby.”
Thirdly, the Constitution also secures Rule of Law by providing all citizens with due process and equal protection of the law. Amendment 5 of the U. S. Bill of Rights states, “No person shall be…deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” Later, following the American Civil War of 1861-1865, Amendments 13, 14, and 15 were added to the Constitution to ensure that emancipated slaves, just as other citizens, were protected under the law in the states. Amendment 14 of 1868 states, “Nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” These laws are intended to uphold the just, equal application of the law and to protect all citizens’ natural rights and freedoms, persons and property, against violations by others or by those in power.
Fourthly, the Founders secured Rule of Law in the Constitution by creating an independent judiciary with a third, separate judicial branch of government and tenured judges to interpret the law. The Founders believed that an independent judiciary is necessary to guard the Constitution and individual rights from violation.[104] Such a judiciary keeps lawmakers, Hamilton explains, “within the limits assigned to their authority” and declares “all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void.”[105] On creating a separate judicial branch, Founders James Madison and Hamilton, quoting French philosopher Charles de Montesquieu’s 1748 Spirit of the Laws, explain, “‘There is no liberty if the power of judging be not separated from the legislative and executive powers.’”[106] Quoting Montesquieu, Madison elaborates, “‘Were the power of judging joined with the legislative, the life and liberty of the subject would be exposed to arbitrary control, for the judge would then be the legislator. Were it joined to the executive power, the judge might behave with all the violence of an oppressor.’”[107] The Founders also granted lifetime tenure to judges with good behavior, freeing judges from political or outside influences. Hamilton saw such tenure as “the best expedient…to secure a steady, upright, and impartial administration of the laws.”[108] The independent judiciary supports Rule of Law by keeping those in power in line with the Constitution and by protecting citizens’ rights.
In addition to the Constitution, early Americans secured Rule of Law by instituting a judicial system that abides by American common law. American common law is based on English common law which includes the Moral Law traditions. Russell Kirk explains in his 1991 Roots of American Order, “The basis of American law…is the common law which began to develop in England nine hundred years ago”[109] Like English common law, American common law operates by stare decisis in which courts are bound to decide legal cases according to precedent. In such a system, a legal case may establish a rule or principle by which to decide later cases of a similar nature. Stare decisis ensures that the law is interpreted and administered impartially, not arbitrarily. In his 1833 Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, Justice Story explains the rationale of this system to maintain Rule of Law: …
Ours is emphatically a government of laws, and not of men; and judicial decisions of the highest tribunal…are considered, as establishing the true construction of the laws…. The case is not alone considered as decided and settled; but the principles of the decision are held, as precedents and authority, to bind future cases of the same nature. This is the constant practice under our whole system of jurisprudence. Our ancestors brought it with them, when they first emigrated to this country; and it is, and always has been considered, as the great security of our rights, our liberties, and our property. It is on this account, that our law is justly deemed certain, and founded in permanent principles, and not dependent upon the caprice, or will of particular judges. … This known course of proceeding…was in the full view of the framers of the constitution. It was required, and enforced in every state of the Union; and a departure from it would have been justly deemed an approach to tyranny and arbitrary power, to the exercise of mere discretion, and to the abandonment of all just checks upon judicial authority. [boldface mine][110]
Based on English common law and Moral Law traditions, American common law with its practice of stare decisis plays a significant role in preserving Rule of Law. Kirk observes, “In America, common-law principles would work upon public affairs more powerfully than any other influences except Protestant Christianity and the colonial social experience itself.”[111]
Early Americans secured Rule of Law in the United States by adopting principles from the Moral Law traditions and Roman, British, and colonial American jurisprudence and law. The U. S. Constitution and its amendments secure Rule of Law by serving as supreme governing authority, requiring civil servants to enforce the law, protecting citizens’ rights through due process and equal protection of law, and instituting an independent judiciary. The American judicial system secures Rule of Law by adhering to American common law including stare decisis.
Conclusion
In conclusion, when the founding-era Americans constructed the new nation of the United States, they designed a nation that governed not by Ruler’s Law of Divine Right but by an impartial, fair, just system of Rule of Law. The American Founders’ implementation of Rule of Law was shaped much by the Western concept of the Moral Law as conveyed in the Natural Law and Biblical Law traditions and as supported by Roman, British, and American colonial jurisprudence. These sources were inspired by the content of the Moral Law to “live honestly, injure no one, and fulfill one’s engagements,” to “love your neighbor as yourself,” and to “do no harm to your neighbor.” They were also inspired by the equal application of the Moral Law as seen in the Bible’s three contexts of law—the universal Law of Nature; the impartial Mosaic Law with justice for great and small; and the equally applied Judeo-Christian Golden Rule to “do to others as you would have them do to you.” Based on this standard in the Moral Law traditions, the early Americans designed a nation under Rule of Law which they saw as the best, most just means of governance. They implemented and secured Rule of Law in America with the U. S. Constitution and a judicial court system that abides by American common law. This system protects the rights of all citizens in order to maintain a just, orderly civil society. The United States’ system of constitutional laws and government has successfully realized and preserved Rule of Law for 245 years and continues to do so for all Americans today.
———-
[1] John O. Tyler, Jr., The Necessity of the Rule of Law, in The Origins of Our Founding Principles, ed. Christopher W. Hammons (Houston, TX: The Morris Family Center for Law & Liberty at Houston Baptist University, 2020), 171. Tyler explains, “Justice is a moral concept, and laws must be moral to be just.”
[2] Aristotle, The Politics of Aristotle, vol. 1, trans. Benjamin Jowett (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1855), bk 3, ch. 11, lxii.
[3] Albert V. Dicey, Lectures Introductory to the Study of the Law of the Constitution (London: Macmillan and Co., 1885). See also H. Richard Niebuhr, The Kingdom of God in America (Middleton, CT: Wesleyan U Press, 1988), 59. Niebuhr notes that Rule of Law naturally leads to constitutions.
[4] All Bible verses are taken from the New International Version (NIV) unless otherwise noted.
[5] Marcus Tullius Cicero, Treatise on the Republic, in The Political Works of Marcus Tullius Cicero, vol. 1, ed. Francis Barham (London: Edmund Spettigue, 1841), 270.
[6] Edward Coke, Calvin’s Case, 1608, in The Reports of Sir Edward Coke, part 7 (London: Printed by E. and R. Nutt and R. Gosling, 1727), 12-13.
[7] William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England, in Five Volumes, vol 1., ed. George Tucker (Philadephia: William Young Birch and Abraham Small, 1803), bk. 1, pt. 1, sect. 2, 40.
[8] Blackstone, Commentaries, vol. 1, bk. 1, pt. 1, 41.
[9] Tyler, Necessity, 173.
[10] Blackstone, Commentaries, vol. 1, bk. 1, pt. 1, 41.
[11] New King James Version (NKJV).
[12] John O. Tyler, Jr., Table on The Three Elements of Due process, 25 July 2020, in Four Fundamental Concepts Chart and Notes (Houston, TX: Houston Baptist University) 2020, 2.
[13] In Deuteronomy 31:11-12, God tells Moses to read the law publicly: “When all Israel comes to appear…you shall read this law before them in their hearing. Assemble the people…so they can listen and learn to…follow carefully all the words of this law.” In Deuteronomy 27:8, Moses tells the people to write the whole law on publicly displayed plastered stones: “You shall write very clearly all the words of this law on these stones you have set up.”
[14] In Deuteronomy 19:15-18, Moses says that “a matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses,” that those in a dispute must stand before the judges, and that the judges “must make a thorough investigation.” In Numbers 35:9-12, Moses tells the Israelites to designate cities of refuge to where those who accidentally kill someone may flee, so that “anyone accused of murder may not die before they stand trial before the assembly.” In Deuteronomy 19:10, Moses says to designate such cities of refuge “so that innocent blood will not be shed in your land.”
[15] In Matthew 5:17, Jesus tells the people, “‘Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.’” In Matthew 22:37-40, Jesus tells the Pharisees the two greatest commandments: “‘‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.’” These two commandments are also revealed in Deuteronomy 6:5, Leviticus 19:18, Matthew 7:12, Matthew 19:19, Mark 12:28-31, Luke 6:31, Luke 10:25-28, Romans 13:9-10, Galatians 5:14, and James 2:8.
[16] Benjamin Rush, The Road to Fulfillment (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1942), 15.
[17] John Witherspoon, “The Yoke of Christ,” in The Works of John Witherspoon, in Four Volumes, 2nd ed., vol. 2, ed. John Rodgers (Philadelphia: William W. Woodward, 1802), 296-297.
[18] Allen C. Johnson et al., Ancient Roman Statutes: A Translation with Introduction, Commentary, Glossary, and Index, ed. Clyde Pharr (Austin, TX: U of Texas Press, 1961), table 9, law no. 1-2, 12.
[19] Johnson, Ancient Roman Statutes, table 9, law no. 6, 12.
[20] James Wilson, Lectures on Law, 1790-1791, vol. 2, in The Works of the Honourable James Wilson, ed Bird Wilson (Philadelphia: Bronson and Chauncey, 1804), 15.
[21] Thomas Cooper, ed., The Institutes of Justinian, with Notes, 2nd ed. (New York: Halsted & Voorhies, 1841), bk.1, t1. 3, 6; Charles H. Monro, trans., The Digest of Justinian, vol. 1 (Cambridge: Cambridge U Press, 1904), bk. 1, tl. 10, 5. These three precepts of Natural Law were originally expressed by c170-228 AD ancient Roman jurist Ulpian who stated in his Juris Praecepta or Legal Rules, “The basic principles of right are: to live honorably, not to harm any other person, to render to each his own.”
[22] Plato, Socrates: Plato’s Apology of Socrates and Crito with a Part of His Phaedo, trans. Benjamin Jowett (New York: Century Co., 1903), 103.
[23] Fred Blume, trans., Code of Justinian, George W. Hopper Law Library, Univ. of Wyoming, <www.uwyo.edu/lawlib/blume-justinian/> (8 June 2021), 1.14.3.
[24] Blume, Code of Justinian, 1.14.10.
[25] Blume, Code of Justinian, 1.14.4.
[26] Benjamin Thorpe, Ancient Laws and Institutes of England (Printed by Command of King William IV, Commissioners on the Public Records of the Kingdom, 1811), 25. Alfred’s Doom Book explains of its Bible-inspired laws, “These are the dooms [or laws] which the Almighty God himself spake unto Moses, and commanded him to keep: and after the only begotten son of the Lord, our God, that is, our Savior Christ, came on earth, he said [in Matthew 5:17] that he came not to break nor to forbid these commandments, but with all good to increase [or fulfill] them: and mercy and humility he taught [brackets mine].”
[27] Thorpe, Ancient Laws, sect. 43, 24.
[28] Thorpe, Ancient Laws, 26.
[29] See also Francis N. Lee, King Alfred the Great and Our Common Law (Lulu.com, 2005; London: Bexley Christian Publications, 2006).
[30] Ernest F. Henderson, trans. and ed., Select Historical Documents of the Middle Ages, bk. 1 (London: George Bell and Sons, 1905), sect. 52, 144; sect. 60, 146.
[31] Henderson, Select Historical Documents, sect. 39 and 40, 142-143, 144. The phrase “due process” first appeared in a 1354 law in England in place of “the law of the land” to express the same idea.
[32] Henrici de Bracton, Legibus et Consuetudinibus Angliae, vol. 1, ed. Travers Twiss (London: Longman & Co., 1878), 21.
[33] John Fortescue, De Laudibus Legum Angliae: A Treatise in Commendation of the Laws of England, ed. Andrew Amos, trans. Francis Gregor (Cincinnati, OH: Robert Clarke & Co., 1874), 49. Fortescue’s In Praise was first published in 1543.
[34] James Wilson, Lectures on Law, 1790-1791, vol. 1, pt. 1, in The Works of the Honourable James Wilson, ed. Bird Wilson (Philadelphia: Bronson and Chauncey, 1804), 206.
[35] Russell Kirk, The Roots of American Order, Third Edition (Washington, DC: Regnery Gateway, 1991), 371.
[36] Kirk, Roots, 185.
[37] 1 Samuel 8:6-9 says, “But when they [the Israelites] said, ‘Give us a king to lead us,’ this displeased Samuel; so he prayed to the Lord. And the Lord told him: ‘Listen to all that the people are saying to you; it is not you they have rejected, but they have rejected me as their king. As they have done from the day I brought them up out of Egypt until this day, forsaking me and serving other gods, so they are doing to you. Now listen to them; but warn them solemnly and let them know what the king who will reign over them will claim as his rights.’”
[38] Samuel Rutherford, Lex, Rex, or the Law and the Prince, 1644 (Edinburgh: Robert Ogle and Oliver & Boyd, 1843), Question XVIII, 74.
[39] Rutherford, Lex, Rex, Question XXVI, 128.
[40l] Rutherford, Lex, Rex, Question XXVI, 131.
[41] Rutherford, Lex, Rex, Question XXVI, 126.
[42] Rutherford, Lex, Rex, Question XXVI, 129.
[43] Thomas Hooker cited Samuel Rutherford’s 1636 Apologetical Exercises for Divine Grace in his 1648 Survey of the Summe of Church-Discipline on church governance. The Puritans also shared similar political views as Rutherford.
[44] Edward Coke, The Institutes of the Laws of England, Proeme, 1628-1644, part 2 (London: Printed for E. and R. Brooke, 1797), ch. 29, sect. 8, 50.
[45] Edward Coke, The Institutes of the Laws of England, Concerning the Jurisdiction of the Courts, 1628-1644, part 4 (London: Printed for E. and R. Brooke, 1797), ch. 1, 40-41; Coke, Institutes, part 2, ch. 29, sect. 8, 50.
[46] Coke, Institutes, part 4, ch. 47, 239; Coke, Institutes, part 2, ch. 11, 102-103.
[47] Coke, Calvin’s Case, part 7, 12-13.
[48] Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, Monticello, 17 February 1826, in Memoir, Correspondence, and Miscellanies: From the Papers of Thomas Jefferson, vol. 4, ed. Thomas J. Randolph (Charlottesville, VA: F. Carr & Co, 1829), 426. Jefferson referred specifically to the first volume of Coke’s Institutes; John Rutledge to His Brother, Charleston, 30 July 1769, in John B. O’Neall, Biographical Sketches of the Bench and Bar of South Carolina, vol. 2 (Charleston, SC: S. G. Courtenay & Co., 1859), 124.
[49] William S. Holdsworth, A History of English Law, in Seven Volumes, vol. 5 (Boston: Little, Brown, and Company, 1924), 493.
[50] John Locke, The Reasonableness of Christianity, As Delivered in the Scriptures, 2nd ed. (London: Printed for Awnsham and John Churchil at the Black Swan, 1696), 17-18. See also John Locke’s Essays on the Law of Nature and Second Treatise of Civil Government.
[51] Locke, Reasonableness, 22.
[52] John Locke, Second Treatise of Civil Government, 1690, in Two Treatises on Government, Book 2 (London: George Routledge and Sons, 1884), ch. 11, sect. 135, 262.
[53] Locke, Second Treatise, ch. 4, sect. 22, 202.
[54] Locke, Second Treatise, ch. 11, sect. 142, 266.
[55] Locke, Second Treatise, ch. 2, sect. 5, 193.
[56] Benjamin Rush, Observations Upon the Present Government in Pennsylvania: In Four Letters to the People of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia: Printed by Styner and Cist, 1777), 20. Founder John Adams in his 1787 Defense of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America also acknowledged Locke’s impact on American government: “There have been three periods in the history of England, in which the principles of government have been anxiously studied, and very valuable productions published, which…are perhaps more frequently read abroad than at home. … The third period was the [English] Revolution of 1688, which produced Sidney, Locke…and others without number.”
[57] Thomas Jefferson to John Norvell, Washington, 11 June 1807, in The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, vol. 11, ed. Albert E. Bergh (Washington, DC: Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1905), 222.
[58] Blackstone, Commentaries, vol. 1, bk. 1, pt. 1, sect. 2, 40.
[59] Blackstone, Commentaries, vol. 1, bk. 1, pt. 1, 41.
[60] Kirk, Roots, 370.
[61] Thomas Hooker, Survey of the Summe of Church-Discipline, 1648, ed. Thomas Goodwin (London: Printed by A. M. for John Bellamy, 1648), part 1, ch. 11, 185.
[62] William Bradford, Of Plymouth Plantation, 1602-1646, excerpt in The Mayflower Papers: Selected Writings of Colonial New England, eds. Nathanial Philbrick and Thomas Philbrick (New York: Penguin Classics, 2007), 14.
[63] Donald S. Lutz, Mayflower Compact, 1620, in Roots of the Republic: American Founding Documents Interpreted, ed. Stephen L. Schechter (Madison, WI: Madison House, 1990), 21.
[64] See also Daniel Dreisbach, “The Mayflower Compact: 1620 and the Formation of the American Republic,” mod. David Randall, National Association of Scholars, 18 March 2021 <https://www.youtube.com/user/NAScholars> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ipy6OLrwgUI> (18 March 2021).
[65] Daniel Dreisbach, “The Mayflower Compact: 1620 and the Formation of the American Republic,” mod. David Randall, National Association of Scholars, 18 March 2021 <https://www.youtube.com/user/NAScholars> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ipy6OLrwgUI> (18 March 2021).
[66] New King James Version (NKJV)
[67] Thomas Hooker to John Winthrop, Fall 1638, in Collections of the Connecticut Historical Society, vol. 1 (Hartford, CT: Published for the Connecticut Historical Society, 1860), 11.
[68] Massachusetts General Court, Massachusetts Body of Liberties, 1641, in Documents of the Constitution of England and America: From Magna Carta to the Federal Constitution of 1789, ed. Francis Bowen (Cambridge, MA: John Bartlett, 1854), 58.
[69] Massachusetts General Court, Massachusetts Body of Liberties, 60.
[70] Dreisbach, “Mayflower Compact,” <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ipy6OLrwgUI>.
[71] Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, 1831-1832, ed. Richard Heffner (New York: Penguin Books, 1956, 1984), 45-6.
[72] Samuel Adams, Address to the Legislature of Massachusetts, 17 January 1794, in The Writings of Samuel Adams, 1778-1802, vol. 4, ed. Harry A. Cushing (New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1908), 356.
[73] Wilson, Lectures, vol. 1, 155; Wilson, Lectures, vol. 1, 293.
[74] Wilson, Lectures, vol. 1, 308.
[75] Wilson, Lectures, vol. 1, 64.
[76] John Adams, Diary, Notes of a Debate in the Senate of the United States, 24 August 1796, in The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, vol. 3, ed. Charles F. Adams (Boston: Charles C. Little and James Brown, 1851), 423.
[77] Benjamin Rush, Of The Mode of Education Proper in a Republic, 1786, in Essays, Literary, Moral and Philosophical, 2nd ed. (Philadelphia: Printed by Thomas and William Bradford, 1806), 8-9.
[78] Samuel Adams, Report on the Rights of Colonists, 20 November 1772, in The Writings of Samuel Adams, 1770-1773, vol. 2, ed. Harry A. Cushing (New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1906), 352.
[79] Wilson, Lectures, vol. 1, 118; Wilson, Lectures, vol. 1, 310.
[80] Wilson, Lectures, vol. 1, 104-106.
[81] James McHenry, Address of the Baltimore Bible Society to the Citizens of Maryland, 1813, in Bernard C. Steiner, The Maryland Bible Society, One Hundred and Ten Years of Bible Society Work in Maryland, 1810-1920 (Baltimore, MD: Maryland Bible Society, 1921), 13-14.
[82] Wilson, Lectures, vol. 2, 466-467.
[83] Wilson, Lectures, vol. 1, 371.
[84] Samuel Adams, Letter of the House of Representatives of Massachusetts to the Earl of Shelburne, 15 January 1768, in The Writings of Samuel Adams, 1764-1769, vol. 1, ed. Harry A. Cushing (New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1904), 155.
[85] Samuel Adams, Rights of Colonists, 352.
[86] Samuel Adams, Rights of Colonists, 357. Adams is drawing from Locke’s Second Treatise, sect. 136, 262. Locke recognized the need for “known authorized judges.”
[87] Samuel Adams, Rights of Colonists, 353.
[88] John Adams, Letter from John Adams to John Penn, January 1776, in The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, vol. 4, ed. Charles F. Adams (Boston: Charles C. Little and James Brown, 1851), 207.
[89] John Adams, Report on the Form of Government for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 1 September 1779, in The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, vol. 4, ed. Charles F. Adams (Boston: Charles C. Little and James Brown, 1851), 229.
[90] John Adams, Report on the Form of Government, 219-220.
[91] John Quincy Adams, “The Nation’s Birth-Day,” Address at Washington, 4 July 1821, in Niles’ Weekly Register, Mar-Sept 1821 (Baltimore, MD), vol. 20, no. 21 (Mar-Sept, 21 July 1821): 331.
[92] Samuel Adams, Rights of Colonists, 357. Adams is quoting Locke’s Second Treatise, sect. 142, 266.
[93] Tocqueville, Democracy in America, 34.
[94] Wilson, Lectures, vol. 2, 466-467.
[95] Joseph Story, A Discourse Pronounced Upon the Inauguration of the Author, as Dane Professor of Law in Harvard University, 25 August 1829 (Boston, MA: Hilliard, Gray, Little, and Wilkins, 1829), 20-21.
[96] Thomas Paine, Common Sense, 1776, in The Works of Thomas Paine, in Two Volumes, vol. 1 (Philadelphia: Printed by James Carey, 1797), 10-11.
[97] Paine, Common Sense, 30.
[98] James Madison, Federalist Paper 62, 1788, in The Federalist Papers, ed. Clinton Rossiter (New York: Mentor Penguin, 1961), 381.
[99] Thomas Jefferson, Resolutions Relative to the Alien and Sedition Laws, 1798, in The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Definitive ed., vol. 17, ed. Albert E. Bergh (Washington, DC: Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1907), 389. Jefferson’s resolutions are understood to be the original draft of the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798.
[100] John Adams, Thoughts on Government, Applicable to the Present State of the American Colonies, in a Letter From a Gentleman to His Friend, 1776, in The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, vol. 4, ed. Charles F. Adams (Boston: Charles C. Little and James Brown, 1851), 194.
[101] John Adams, Novanglus, or A History of the Dispute with America, From Its Origin in 1754 to the Present Time, 1774, in The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, vol. 4, ed. Charles F. Adams (Boston: Charles C. Little and James Brown, 1851), 106; John Adams, Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 1779, in The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, vol. 4, ed. Charles F. Adams (Boston: Charles C. Little and James Brown, 1851), 230.
[102] Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Paper 78, 1788, in The Federalist Papers, ed. Clinton Rossiter (New York: Mentor Penguin, 1961), 467.
[103] James Madison, Federalist Paper 53, 1788, in The Federalist Papers, ed. Clinton Rossiter (New York: Mentor Penguin, 1961), 331.
[104] See Hamilton, Federalist Paper 78, 469.
[105] Hamilton, Federalist Paper 78, 466-467.
[106] James Madison, Federalist Paper 47, 1788, in The Federalist Papers, ed. Clinton Rossiter (New York: Mentor Penguin, 1961), 302; Hamilton, Federalist Paper 78, 466. Charles de Montesquieu in his 1748 The Spirit of the Laws (vol. 1) theorized the three branches of government–legislative, executive, and judicial. The Americans were the first in the world to implement this three-branched system of government, with a separate judicial branch.
[107] Madison, Federalist Paper 47, 303.
[108] Hamilton, Federalist Paper 78, 465.
[109] Kirk, Roots, 371.
[110] Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, vol. 1, sect. 377-378, 349-350.
[111] Kirk, Roots, 191.
—————
Contributed by AHEF and Angela E. Kamrath.
A brief overview of this essay as well as the full essay (with endnotes) is available as printable PDF handouts in the member resources section on americanheritage.org. Simply sign up and login as a member (no cost), go to the resources page, and look under Miracle of America topic essays.
Related articles/videos:
1. The Principle of Popular Sovereignty–the People’s Rule–in the U. S. Declaration and Constitution
2. The Principle of Rule of Law
3. Who Were the Pilgrims? Why Did They Come to America?
4. The Pilgrim’s Mayflower Compact: The Pilgrims’ First Self-Governing Act in America
5. The Puritans in America Created the First Written Constitutions of Law
6. Why the Puritans Favored Limited Government
7. Why the Puritans in America Favored Rule of Law
8. Who Created the First Written Constitution in History?
9. America’s Founding Philosophy in the Declaration: God as Supreme Judge, Lawgiver, & King
10. The Creator God in the Declaration: The Basis of Authority, Law, & Rights for Mankind in the United States
11. The Law of Nature in the Declaration: The Universal Moral Law of Mankind
12. The Law of Nature in the Bible
13. The Law of Nature and Nature’s God in the Declaration: One Moral Law Revealed by God in Two Ways
14. The law of Nature and Nature’s God in the Declaration: The American Basis and Standard for Just Civil Law
15. The Principle of Rule of Law in the Constitution
16. The Bible-Inspired Influences on the U. S. Constitution and Bill of Rights
17. The Principles of Limited Government and Separation of Powers in the U. S. Constitution
18. The Moral Dimension of Rule of Law in the U. S. Constitution – A Brief Overview
19. The Moral Dimension of Rule of Law in the U. S. Constitution (Unabridged)
Poster: Declaration of Independence
—–
Lesson: The Miracle of America High School Teacher Course Guide, Unit 8, Part 1, Activity 3: Principles of the U. S. Constitution, p. 270. MS-HS.
Principles of the U. S. Constitution….
Purpose/Objective: Students learn key principles of the United States Constitution including limited government, separation of powers, and checks and balances, and how influential thinkers and early Americans connected these concepts with the Bible.
Suggested Readings:
1) Miracle of America book sections 1.1-3, 2.4, 2.6, 3.2, 3.4, 3.6-10, 6.5, 7.2-3, 7.10-11, 7.14, 7.18, 8.3, 8.5-7, 8.11, 8.19
2) Principles of the United States Constitution handout by Angela E. Kamrath. See “Supporting Resources”, pp. 392-396, in Miracle of America HS Teacher Course Guide, or “Miracle of America Snapshots” in member resources at www.americanheritage.org.
Activity: Readings and Questions
Have students read the “Principles of the United States Constitution” handout and, as desired, relevant sections in Miracle of America text as indicated on the handout. (The Miracle book is high-level reading, so if you wish to have students read directly from the book, assign specific sections (not too much) and then analyze and discuss the reading together as a class. You may wish to project some text on-screen. Answer questions, clarify vocabulary, and fill in other information as needed. The text analysis will help students grasp the terms and concepts, and it is great practice for having students read historical text.) After the reading, students write answers to the questions that follow on the handout. Discuss. See “Principles of the United States Constitution” reading and questions in the “Supporting Resources” section of this course guide, pp. 392-396. (These and other review questions are also found in chapter 8 of the Miracle of America text/sourcebook, p. 297).
—–
To download this whole unit, sign up as an AHEF member (no cost) to access the “resources” page on americanheritage.org. To order the printed binder format of the course guide with all the units, go to the AHEF bookstore.
—–
To receive blog updates, we invite you to subscribe to the Founding Blog on this page.
This blog is provided by the American Heritage Education Foundation (AHEF). AHEF is a non-profit organization dedicated to the understanding and teaching of America’s founding philosophy, principles, documents, and history. AHEF’s work is made possible by the donations of private individuals and organizations. Please consider a tax-deductible donation to AHEF to support our mission. Thank you!
Copyright © American Heritage Education Foundation. All rights reserved.
A Brief Overview: The Moral Dimension of Rule of Law in the U. S. Constitution


Lady Justice is a centuries-old personification of the concept of justice—depicted with a blindfold, scales, and a sword–representing impartiality, weighing of evidence, and authority. A similar image appears at the entrance of the U. S. Supreme Court. The U. S. Supreme Court bears the motto, “Equal Justice Under Law.”
The following is a brief overview of the essay, The Moral Dimension of Rule of Law in the U. S. Constitution:
- Introduction
- The Natural Law Tradition
- The Biblical Law Tradition
- The Rule of Law in Roman Law
- The Rule of Law in English Common Law Tradition
- The Rule of Law in Modern British Thought
- The Rule of Law in the American Puritan Colonies
- The Moral Law in American Thought and Jurisprudence
- The Rule of Law in American Thought and Jurisprudence
- The Rule of Law in the U. S. Constitution and American Common Law
- Conclusion
- Related Readings and Teaching Activity
Introduction
Rule of Law is the governing principle of a state in which just, fixed laws act as supreme authority versus rulers’ arbitrary exercise of power. By this principle, everyone, including those in power, are subject to and equal before the law. No one is above the law, and the law protects the rights of every citizen. To be supreme, the law must be just and thus moral.
This principle differs from “Ruler’s Law” or the “Law of the Ruler” in which a governing body may arbitrarily govern its citizens as subjects, slaves, or serfs–without meaningful accountability.
Ruler’s Law has been the historical norm for most of man’s 6,000 years of recorded governmental history in the form of monarchy, autocracy, plutocracy, aristocracy, oligarchy, empire, and military dictatorship. The characteristics of Ruler’s Law are the following: …
- Government power is exercised by compulsion, force, conquest, or legislative usurpation,
- Power is concentrated in the Ruler,
- The people are treated as subjects of the Ruler,
- Land is generally treated as the realm of the Ruler,
- The people have no unalienable or natural rights,
- The people are often structured into social or economic groups,
- The thrust of government is from the Ruler down, not from the People upward,
- Problems are solved by issuing new edicts, creating more governmental bureaus, and charging the People more taxes to pay for the Ruler’s Law,
- Freedom of the People is not considered a solution to anything, and
- The transfer of power under Ruler’s Law is often by violence from a new Ruler, with blood and terror as commonplace and with the People living in poverty and excessive taxation.
Though not the norm in history, Rule of Law can be traced back to Mesopotamian, Hebraic, Greco-Roman and Judeo-Christian civilizations.
The American founding is a successful, modern example of a large nation practicing Rule of Law. American citizens, both religious and non-religious, live peacefully and with equal protection of rights under a tradition of Natural Law, Natural Rights, and Biblical Law principles that are the foundation of Rule of Law in this nation.
The Natural Law Tradition
The Natural Law tradition originates from the worldview that humanity must be governed by timeless moral principles versus temporary, man-made, fabricated decrees that can be changed by the next ruler in power. This tradition has been recognized by both secular and religious sources, and it is a major influence on the moral dimension of Rule of Law in America because it treats everyone as equal.
Important modern Western thinkers who defended Rule of Law recognized the Law of Nature. In his 1600-1615 Law Reports, British justice Edward Coke explains the nature and purpose of the Law of Nature in biblical terms: …
The Law of Nature is that which God at the Time of Creation of the Nature of Man infused into his heart for his Preservation and Direction; and this is Lex aeterna [eternal law], the Moral Law…By this Law, written with the Finger of God in the Heart of Man, were the People of God a long Time governed, before the Law was written by Moses…This Law of Nature…. was two thousand Years before any Laws written, and before any Judicial or Municipal Laws.
English judge William Blackstone in his 1765-1769 Commentaries on the Laws of England notably described the content of the Law of Nature with the three precepts from the Romans–that “we should live honestly, hurt nobody, and render to everyone his due.” He described the application of this law as supremely authoritative and universal–“superior in obligation to any other” and “binding over all the globe in all countries, at all times.”
Supported by both secular and religious sources over centuries, the Natural Law tradition became a key part of Western thought and jurisprudence. It is, as observed by Dr. John Tyler, “the oldest tradition in Western jurisprudence.”
The Natural Law tradition is an important influence on the moral justification for Rule of Law in America, in setting the moral standard required for just law and governance.
In contrast to the oppressive control of citizens and the inconsistent application of law by rulers under Ruler’s Law, Rule of Law, beginning with the Natural Law Tradition, provides equal, fair, and respectful treatment of every citizen regardless of status, race, or creed.
The Biblical Law Tradition
The Bible acknowledges and reinforces the Law of Nature. The Bible demonstrates Rule of Law in three contexts of law: in the Law of Nature, the Law of Moses, and the Judeo-Christian Golden Rule. Each context supports Rule of Law by illustrating and confirming the standard of just civil law and government.
First, the Law of Nature informs and supports Rule of Law by its moral content and universal application to all mankind, being written by on the heart of man.
Second, the Mosaic Law supports Rule of Law by its impartial application to all the ancient Israelites, both rulers and people. The Mosaic Law instructed the Israelites to follow the “sentence of the law” and to “not show partiality to the poor or favoritism to the great, but judge your neighbor fairly” and to “hear the small as well as the great.”
Third, the Judeo-Christian Golden Rule in Matthew 22:37-39 supports Rule of Law by providing the content of God’s Moral Law to “love your neighbor as yourself,” “do unto others what you would have them do to you,” and “do no harm to a neighbor.” It also supports Rule of Law by its equal, fair, respectful, and just application of this law to all of God’s people.
The Biblical Law tradition is consistent with the Natural Law tradition because it upholds the same Moral Law. Indeed, one Moral Law is conveyed in both traditions.
The Moral Law traditions provide a consistent moral standard for just civil law and government that supports Rule of Law.
The Rule of Law in Roman Law
Roman Law played a notable role in the moral development of Rule of Law in the Western world—-including in England and, ultimately, in America.
The ancient Romans applied Rule of Law when they created their first body of written laws known as the Twelve Tables in 451 BC. Because the ruling-class of judges often decided peoples’ legal cases arbitrarily and based on their own interests, commoners demanded fixed, definitive laws that were the same for everyone. Ten men or Decemviri thus engraved a set of laws on twelve stone tablets and publicly displayed them so that everyone could know and apply them. The Twelve Tables ensured that commoners received fair, equal treatment and protection of rights.
The Twelve Tables upheld equality in law, stating, “Laws of personal exception shall not be proposed. It also upheld due process of law–in which no one can be denied one’s rights without proper legal procedure and just judgment according to the law. It states, “Anyone whomsoever to be put to death without a trial and unconvicted…is forbidden.”
American Founder James Wilson observed in his 1790-1791 Lectures on Law, “The Decimvirs declared…that the laws should be equal and impartial to the high and to the low.”
Emperor Justinian I’s 529-565 AD Corpus Juris Civilis became the codified law of the christianized Eastern Roman Empire and the basis of Roman law in Europe in the Middle Ages. The Romans asserted that their empire was governed under God’s Moral Law and that this law was the source of just civil law. The Romans recognized the Law of Nature in the Corpus.
The Romans described the Law of Nature with three precepts, “to live honestly, to hurt no one, and to give to every man his due.” The precept to “injure no one” was originally expressed by Greek philosopher, Socrates, in Plato’s 380 BC Crito.
The Corpus upheld, at least in theory, the equal application of law. It asserted that “laws shall be obeyed equally by all” and that “all, though belonging to the imperial house must live according to the laws.” Rulers were subject to the laws since their authority “depends upon the authority of law.”
The principles of Roman law profoundly shaped English jurisprudence which, in turn, shaped American jurisprudence. In asserting the authority, impartiality, and due process of law, and in recognizing the Law of Nature, Roman law contributed greatly to the development of Rule of Law in England and America.
The Rule of Law in English Common Law Tradition
Because English jurisprudence had a significant impact on American jurisprudence, it is important to consider the moral development of Rule of Law in English law. Anglo-Saxon and Roman jurisprudence were instrumental in the development of common law and Rule of Law in England.
The Anglo-Saxons enacted Rule of Law in accordance with the Biblical Law tradition as seen in the Mosaic Law by making their laws impartial and equally applied to all subjects. Their law code provided the foundation for English common law and became solidified in the 1000s – 1100s.
The Magna Carta or “Great Charter” of 1215 was an agreement between King John and his noblemen that applied the common law not only to the people but to the king and his magistrates. It acknowledged the supreme authority of “the law of the land” over rulers and that citizens had certain rights that could not be arbitrarily abused by those in power. Magna Carta also upheld due process of law.
In his c1470 In Praise of the Laws of England, English Chief Justice John Fortescue recognized the authority and universality of the Law of Nature: “The Law of Nature in all countries is the same.” Roman Law principles including the Natural Law tradition were incorporated into English jurisprudence.
The phrase “Rule of Law” emerged in England around 1500.
Further, English common law operated by stare decisis, Latin for “to stand by what has been decided,” in which judges are bound to decide cases according to previous legal decisions or precedent. The purpose of this practice is to keep the law constant, impartial, and just. It prevents judges from deciding cases arbitrarily.
The Rule of Law in Modern British Thought
Despite the advancement of Rule of Law in the Middle Ages in England, the doctrine of “Divine Right of Kings” became prominent in the 1600s under the Stuart kings who imposed absolute monarchy–Law of the Ruler or Ruler’s Law. This doctrine asserted that the monarch received absolute authority directly from God and was therefore not accountable to any earthly authority such as English Parliament. The monarch’s will, acts, and decrees were the law. In response, British thinkers including Samuel Rutherford, Edward Coke, and John Locke refuted Divine Right of Kings and reaffirmed Rule of Law.
In his 1644 Lex, Rex, Scottish theologian Samuel Rutherford supported Rule of Law based on the Biblical Law tradition, the Bible’s three contexts of law. He asserted that all people are subject to just civil law just as they are subject to the Law of Nature, for “God’s law excepteth none at all.” He also cited the impartiality of the Law of Moses to ”not show partiality in judgment; you shall hear the small as well as the great.” He further asserted from the Judeo-Christian Golden Rule that kings, as human and not God, should be equally subject to the same laws as the people and should not violate the rights of subjects. Rutherford strongly discredited Divine Right and validated Rule of Law in British and American thought. His ideas were familiar to the American Puritans and to revolutionary writer Thomas Paine.
British Chief Justice Edward Coke defended Rule of Law over Ruler’s Law and affirmed due process of law. In his 1628-1644 Institutes of the Laws of England, Coke explained that the English common law was called the “law of the land” in Magna Carta so that “the law might extend to all, both king and people.” He described the common law as the “golden metwand” or measuring rod by which “all men’s causes are justly and evenly measured and appointed to measure the cases of all and singular persons, high and low, to have and receive justice.”
American Founder Thomas Jefferson described Coke’s Institutes as the “universal elementary book of law students” in America. Coke helped to preserve Rule of Law in English and American law.
British Enlightenment philosopher John Locke supported Rule of Law as the best way to protect citizens’ rights and maintain a just and orderly society. Locke favored Rule of Law based on the Moral Law traditions, though his presentation was largely secularized. Locke drew on the Bible’s three contexts of law, including the universal application of Natural Law as described in Romans 2:14-15. In his 1695 Reasonableness of Christianity and his 1689 Second Treatise of Civil Government, Locke recognized the universal application of the Law of Nature to all mankind. Locke supported Rule of Law based on man’s equality and natural rights, and on the Moral Law as conveyed in the Moral Law traditions.
English justice William Blackstone also strongly supported Rule of Law. His 1765-1769 Commentaries on the Laws of England taught early Americans about the Law of Nature, English common law, and Rule of Law. Blackstone adopted the three precepts of Roman law to describe the Law of Nature–that “we should live honestly, hurt nobody, and render to everyone his due.”
Rutherford, Coke, and Locke played a vital role in affirming Rule of Law and refuting Ruler’s Law in the Divine Right of Kings. Blackstone further reaffirmed Rule of Law with his modern, moral presentation of English common law. Divine Right fell out of use in England after the Glorious Revolution of 1688.
The Rule of Law in the American Puritan Colonies
The American Pilgrims and Puritans, as reformed Protestant Christians, favored Rule of Law over Divine Right of Kings based on their Bible-inspired belief that only God has rightful absolute authority over His church. God was their king.
In accordance with Biblical Law and English common law traditions, the Pilgrims’ and Puritans’ also favored Rule of Law based on their Bible-based view that all men are equal in standing before God and subject to God’s Moral Law.
The Pilgrims’ Mayflower Compact of 1620 initiated Rule of Law in America because it placed all signers and their families, regardless of status, on equal standing in the new colony and in subjection to the colony’s future laws–with God as Supreme Judge and King (versus an earthly king). The Mayflower Compact was the “first expression” of such political equality in America and created a framework for Rule of Law in America. “The Pilgrims, more than any others,” says Dr. Daniel Dreisbach, “laid the foundation for an American political tradition committed to the Rule of Law.”
To implement Rule of Law, the Puritans created constitutions of law for their new colonies in America. Their Constitutions upheld the “sentence of the law” in line with Rule of Law and the Biblical Law tradition. Their constitutions—in their form, purpose and application—resembled in some ways biblical and common law documents such as Moses’ Ten Commandments and Magna Carta which adhered to Rule of Law.
The Moral Law in American Thought and Jurisprudence
In accordance with their philosophical beliefs, founding-era Americans upheld and aligned with the Moral Law traditions when shaping America’s jurisprudence, civil laws, and government. In doing so, they also aligned with and adopted important principles of Roman, British, and American colonial jurisprudence. Early Americans agreed with Blackstone’s Moral Law precepts to “live honestly, hurt no one, and render to everyone his due” and the universal impartial, equal application of this law to all people based on man’s equality. Further, they believed that the Moral Law–in both content and application–is the foundation of just civil law.
Founder Samuel Adams, in his 1794 Address to the Legislature of Massachusetts, affirmed the Moral Law from both the Natural and Biblical Law traditions. He expresses: …
All men are equally bound by the laws of nature, or to speak more properly, the laws of the Creator; they are imprinted by the finger of God on the heart of man [Romans 2:14-15]. Thou shall do no injury to thy neighbor [Romans 13:10], is the voice of nature and reason, and it is confirmed by written revelation [or the Bible].
American Founder and U. S. Supreme Court Justice James Wilson in his 1790-1791 Lectures on Law similarly recognized the Moral Law from these traditions. The Moral Law’s content, he says, alluding to Blackstone, “prohibits injury and commands the reparation of damage done” and “fidelity to our engagements.” On the Moral Law’s application, Wilson cited Romans 2:14-15 in stating that this law is “engraven by God on the hearts of men.” Echoing the Mosaic law to “hear the small as well as the great,” he says that natural rights are given “in the same manner, to all; to the weak and artless, their small acquisitions, as well as to the strong and artful, their large ones.”
Founder John Adams saw the relevance and benefit of the Moral Law, as expressed in the Golden Rule, for all Americans. He writes in his 1796 Senate notes, “One great advantage of the Christian Religion is, that it brings the great principle of the Law of Nature and nations–Love your neighbor as yourself, and do unto other as you would have others do to you,–to the knowledge, belief and veneration of the whole principle.”
Founder James McHenry described the Moral Law in the Bible as a worthy guide for American Law. In his 1813 address for the Baltimore Bible Society, he states, “The Old and New Testaments taken together, are the only books in the world which clearly reveal the nature of God, contain a perfect law for our government, propose the most powerful persuasions to obey this law.”
Early Americans’ alignment with the Moral Law traditions led them to create and/or aspire to just civil laws and government that reflect this Moral Law in both its content and application. John Quincy Adams, quoting John Locke, reiterated this view in his 1772 Report on the Rights of Colonists: …
“Just and true liberty, equal and impartial liberty” in matters spiritual and temporal, is a thing that all Men are clearly entitled to, by the eternal and immutable laws of God and Nature, as well as by the law of Nations and all well-grounded municipal laws, which must have their foundation in the former.
Encompassing both secular and religious moral worldviews and traditions, the American Declaration of Independence of 1776 upholds the Moral Law traditions in acknowledging a “Creator” and the “Laws of Nature and Nature’s God” on which Americans base their rights, civil laws, and constitution. Both religious and non-religious early Americans viewed the Moral Law as the firm basis for just government and civil law.
The Rule of Law in American Thought and Jurisprudence
Early Americans drew in part from the Moral Law tradition to inform the governing principle and practice of Rule of Law in the United States. The content and application of God’s universal Moral Law led them to implement Rule of Law as the most just and fair means of governance for the new nation.
Founding-era Americans saw in the Moral Law traditions consistency with Rule of Law. In contrast to the arbitrary, inconsistent application of Ruler’s Law, God’s Moral Law demonstrates an equal application of law that supports Rule of Law. In his 1772 Rights of Colonists, Samuel Adams defends Rule of Law. Quoting Locke and resounding the Mosaic Law to “show no partiality to the poor or favoritism to the great,” he states, …
The Legislative cannot justly assume to itself a power to rule by extempore arbitrary decrees; but it is bound to see that Justice is dispensed, and that the rights of the subjects be decided, by promulgated, standing, and known laws…. ‘There shall be one rule of Justice for rich and poor, for the favorite in Court, and the Countryman at the Plough.”
Early Americans specifically affirmed that American common law is rooted in the Moral Law traditions. Founder James Wilson expressed the influence of the Natural Law tradition on American law, stating, “Man’s rights are to be free from injury, and to receive the fulfillment of the engagements, which are made to him. His duties are, to do no injury, and to fulfill the engagements, which he has made. One these two pillars…rest the criminal and the civil codes of the municipal law.”
U. S. Supreme Court Judge Joseph Story, a Blackstonian advocate of common law in America and one of America’s early commentators on American jurisprudence, pointed out how American law is rooted in the Biblical Law tradition. He states in a 1829 speech: …
One of the beautiful boasts of our municipal jurisprudence is, that Christianity is a part of the common law, from which it seeks the sanction of its rights, and by which it endeavors to regulate its doctrines….there never has been a period in which the common law did not recognize Christianity as lying at its foundations.
During the American Revolution from 1775-1783, English political writer Thomas Paine further validated the Rule of Law from the Moral Law traditions with his influential 1776 political pamphlet, Common Sense. Paine reiterated the biblical arguments found in Samuel Rutherford’s Lex, Rex: …
But where say some is the king of America? I’ll tell you, friend, he reigns above, and doth not make havoc of mankind like the royal brute of Britain. Yet that we may not appear to be defective even in earthly honours, let a day be solemnly set apart for proclaiming the charter; let it be brought forth and placed on the divine law, the word of God; let a crown be placed thereon, by which the world may know, that so far as we approve of monarchy, that in America THE LAW IS KING. For as in absolute governments, the king is law, so in free countries, the law ought to be king: and there ought to be no other.
The American Founders defended and instituted Rule of Law as the best means of governance for the new nation and states of the United States. As Founder John Adams affirmed, the American Founders sought to create a good and just “government of laws, and not of men.”
The Rule of Law in the United States Constitution and American Common Law
The U. S. Constitution of 1787 as the “law of the land” secures Rule of Law in serving as the supreme governing authority in the nation, requiring civil servants to enforce the law, upholding due process and equal protection of the law, and creating an independent judicial branch. The American judicial system upholds Rule of Law in abiding by American common law including stare decisis.
The U. S. Constitution secures Rule of Law in being considered the supreme authority in the United States. Article 6 of the U. S. Constitutions states, “This Constitution and the Laws of the United States which shall be made pursuant thereof…shall be the Supreme Law of the land.” No civil law is considered legal or legitimate if inconsistent with this fundamental law.
The Constitution also secures Rule of Law by providing all citizens with due process and equal protection of the law. Amendment 14 states, “Nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
Russell Kirk affirms that “the basis of American law….is the common law which began to develop in England nine hundred years ago” and that “in America, common-law principles would upon work public affairs more powerfully than any other influences except Protestant Christianity and the colonial social experience itself.”
The U. S. Constitution upholds Rule of Law in serving as the supreme authority by which all people, their representatives, and other civil laws must abide and by which all citizens are protected of their rights and freedoms.
Conclusion
The American Founders created a new nation, the United States of America, governed by Rule of Law that was designed to treat all people equally and fairly under the law. For they had learned from history and their own experience that the arbitrary, subjective, and inconsistent application of law under Ruler’s Law often resulted in the unjust oppression of people and their rights. As supported by the Natural Law and Biblical Law traditions and by Roman, British, and American jurisprudence, founding-era Americans embraced the philosophical principle of Rule of Law as the best means of governance for the protection of citizens’ rights. Rule of Law provides for the fair, equal, and respectful treatment of every citizen regardless of status, race, or creed.
—————
Contributed by AHEF and Angela E. Kamrath / Summary Overview by Jack R. Kamrath.
This brief overview as well as the full essay (with endnotes) of The Moral Dimension of Rule of Law in the U. S. Constitution by Angela E. Kamrath are available as printable PDF handouts in the member resources section on americanheritage.org. Simply sign up and login as a member (no cost), go to the resources page, and look under Miracle of America topic essays.
Related articles/videos:
1. The Principle of Popular Sovereignty–the People’s Rule–in the U. S. Declaration and Constitution
2. The Principle of Rule of Law
3. Who Were the Pilgrims? Why Did They Come to America?
4. The Pilgrim’s Mayflower Compact: The Pilgrims’ First Self-Governing Act in America
5. The Puritans in America Created the First Written Constitutions of Law
6. Why the Puritans Favored Limited Government
7. Why the Puritans in America Favored Rule of Law
8. Who Created the First Written Constitution in History?
9. America’s Founding Philosophy in the Declaration: God as Supreme Judge, Lawgiver, & King
10. The Creator God in the Declaration: The Basis of Authority, Law, & Rights for Mankind in the United States
11. The Law of Nature in the Declaration: The Universal Moral Law of Mankind
12. The Law of Nature in the Bible
13. The Law of Nature and Nature’s God in the Declaration: One Moral Law Revealed by God in Two Ways
14. The law of Nature and Nature’s God in the Declaration: The American Basis and Standard for Just Civil Law
15. The Principle of Rule of Law in the Constitution
16. The Bible-Inspired Influences on the U. S. Constitution and Bill of Rights
17. The Principles of Limited Government and Separation of Powers in the U. S. Constitution
18. The Moral Dimension of Rule of Law in the U. S. Constitution – A Brief Overview
19. The Moral Dimension of Rule of Law in the U. S. Constitution (Unabridged)
Poster: Declaration of Independence
—–
Lesson: The Miracle of America High School Teacher Course Guide, Unit 8, Part 1, Activity 3: Principles of the U. S. Constitution, p. 270. MS-HS.
Principles of the U. S. Constitution….
Purpose/Objective: Students learn key principles of the United States Constitution including limited government, separation of powers, and checks and balances, and how influential thinkers and early Americans connected these concepts with the Bible.
Suggested Readings:
1) Miracle of America book sections 1.1-3, 2.4, 2.6, 3.2, 3.4, 3.6-10, 6.5, 7.2-3, 7.10-11, 7.14, 7.18, 8.3, 8.5-7, 8.11, 8.19
2) Principles of the United States Constitution handout by Angela E. Kamrath. See “Supporting Resources”, pp. 392-396, in Miracle of America HS Teacher Course Guide, or “Miracle of America Snapshots” in member resources at www.americanheritage.org.
Activity: Readings and Questions
Have students read the “Principles of the United States Constitution” handout and, as desired, relevant sections in Miracle of America text as indicated on the handout. (The Miracle book is high-level reading, so if you wish to have students read directly from the book, assign specific sections (not too much) and then analyze and discuss the reading together as a class. You may wish to project some text on-screen. Answer questions, clarify vocabulary, and fill in other information as needed. The text analysis will help students grasp the terms and concepts, and it is great practice for having students read historical text.) After the reading, students write answers to the questions that follow on the handout. Discuss. See “Principles of the United States Constitution” reading and questions in the “Supporting Resources” section of this course guide, pp. 392-396. (These and other review questions are also found in chapter 8 of the Miracle of America text/sourcebook, p. 297).
—–
To download this whole unit, sign up as an AHEF member (no cost) to access the “resources” page on americanheritage.org. To order the printed binder format of the course guide with all the units, go to the AHEF bookstore.
—–
To receive blog updates, we invite you to subscribe to the Founding Blog on this page.
This blog is provided by the American Heritage Education Foundation (AHEF). AHEF is a non-profit organization dedicated to the understanding and teaching of America’s founding philosophy, principles, documents, and history. AHEF’s work is made possible by the donations of private individuals and organizations. Please consider a tax-deductible donation to AHEF to support our mission. Thank you!
Copyright © American Heritage Education Foundation. All rights reserved.
The Principles of Limited Government and Separation of Powers in the U. S. Constitution


Washington as Statesman at the Constitutional Convention by Junius Brutus Stearns, 1856.
When the American Founders wrote the United States’ Constitution of 1787, they created a new form of government for the nation based on early Americans’ philosophical beliefs about mankind. Most early Americans held a philosophical worldview—in line with the Bible—that mankind is fallible and, therefore, that civil government is necessary to restrain man’s evil in society. They also believed that government itself should be limited in order to minimize evil within it. To limit the central government, the Founders, inspired by philosopher Charles de Montesquieu, separated its functions and powers into three branches to create a unique American system of checks and balances never before applied in history.
Founding-era Americans’ conception of civil government was directly shaped by their philosophical view of human nature. Most of them recognized that while mankind is created by God, possessing God-given natural rights and destined to be free, mankind with free will is also fallible. Thus, while human beings are moral beings capable of much good, they are also corruptible and capable of much evil. This view was supported by certain classic philosophers and the Bible as well as by human history and colonial experience. Classic thinker Aristotle, for example, acknowledged in his 350 BCE Politics that man is full of beastly desires and passions. He writes, “He who bids the law rule may be deemed to bid God and Reason alone rule, but he who bids man rule adds an element of the beast; for desire is a wild beast, and passion perverts the minds of rulers, even when they are the best of men.”[1] In the Bible, Genesis 3 tells of the Fall of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, imputing sin and mortality to the human race. In Jeremiah 3:5, God says of His people through the prophet Jeremiah, “‘You have spoken and done evil things, as you were able.’” In Jeremiah 17:9, God confirms that “‘the heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked; Who can know it?’” The Apostle Paul similarly points out in Romans 3:10 that “‘there is none righteous, no, not one’” and in Romans 3:23 that “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.”[2] The American Founders shared and similarly expressed this view of human nature. Founder John Adams wrote in his 1787 Defense of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America, “Trust not to human nature, without a control, the conduct of my cause.”[3] Constitution architect James Madison wrote in Federalist Paper 37 of the “infirmities and depravities of the human character” and in Federalist Paper 55 of the “degree of depravity in mankind.”[4] Founder Alexander Hamilton similarly acknowledged in Federalist Paper 78 the “depravity of human nature” and the “folly and wickedness of mankind.”[5]

The Fall and Expulsion from the Garden of Eden by Michelangelo, Sistine Chapel, 1509/1510.
Because of man’s sinful nature, early Americans believed that just civil government and laws are necessary on earth to uphold moral order and to restrain evil in society for the protection and preservation of mankind. This idea is expressed in the Bible. In Romans 13:1-4, Paul recognizes this ordinance for and purpose of just civil government. He writes, …
Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil.[6]
The Founders aligned with the Bible’s position on the role of just government to restrict evil and uphold justice in society. Hamilton posed in Federalist Paper 15, “Why has government been instituted at all? Because the passions of men will not conform to the dictates of reason and justice without constraint.”[7]

Portrait of James Madison by James Vanderlyn, 1816, White House Collection.
The Founders’ understanding of human nature further led them to recognize that civil government itself, in being administered by imperfect people, must also be controlled in order to minimize corruption and abuse of power within it. Madison expressed the two-fold need for restraints both by and within government in his Federalist Paper 51: …
But what is government itself but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.[8]
The Founders knew, therefore, that government is more likely to remain just, moral, and upright when it is based not on an idealistic view of the goodness of man but on a realistic view of man’s fallibility. Adams thought that some philosophers of the past such as Plato, Manilius, and Condorcet had erred in their conceptions of government because they relied too much on the goodness of extraordinary men. He noted of these thinkers, “Not one of them takes human nature as it is for his foundation.”[9] He elaborated on this point in his Defense of the Constitutions, observing, “In the institution of government, it must be remembered, that although reason ought always to govern individuals, it certainly never did since the Fall, and never will till the [New] Millennium; and human nature must be taken as it is, as it has been, and will be [brackets mine].”[10] As such, the Founders sought to create a limited government for imperfect men that could restrain evil both in society and within the government itself.

Puritans Going to Church by George Henry Boughton, c1884.
To be sure, the Founders’ understanding of the need for limited government was not new in America. It had been ingrained in them not only by the Bible but also by human history and a century of colonial experience. Their value of limited government resembled, as it were, the Bible-based values of the colonial American Puritans of the 1600s. In their early colonies, the Puritans had also recognized man’s sinful nature and, as Rozann Rothman observes in her 1980 essay, The Impact of Covenant and Contract Theories on Conceptions of the U. S. Constitutions, that “there had to be limits on power just as there had to be sufficient power to secure the purposes of their community.”[11] For example, leading Massachusetts Puritan pastor John Cotton wrote in his 1655 sermon “Limitation of Government” of the need to restrict man’s rule based on Jeremiah 3:5. He admonished, …
Let all the world learn to give mortal men no greater power than they are content they shall use, for use it they will: and unless they be better taught of God, they will use it and anon. … There is a strain in a man’s heart that will sometime or other run out to excess, unless the Lord restrain it. … It is necessary, therefore, that all power that is on earth be limited.[12]
The Founders’ views were similar to those of the Puritans, says Rothman, in their “motivation and awareness of conflicting imperatives” of authority and restraint.[13] Like the Puritans, the Founders sought to create a government that, through its form and structure, could address the realistic needs of man and society. Rothman observes, “It seems clear that in each case [of the Puritans and the Founders], a dependence on institutional structure generated the habits and practices that transformed words, ideas and beliefs into a viable political order [brackets mine].”[14] Though the Puritans’ colonial governments were more primitive, both generations valued limited government.

Charles-Louis de Secondat, Baron de Montesquieu, 1700s.
When considering the type of limited government to implement in the new nation, the Founders drew from the theory of French Enlightenment-era judge and philosopher, Charles de Montesquieu. Montesquieu shared the Founders’ God-oriented worldview that man is fallible. In his influential 1748 The Spirit of the Laws, Montesquieu observed that man “incessantly transgresses the laws established by God, and changes those of his own instituting” and is “hurried away by a thousand impetuous passions.” Man needs laws, therefore, that “confined him to his duty.”[15] In addition, to address the problem of imperfect governors, governing power must be limited, he thought, by dividing or separating it. As such, each major function of government must reside in an independent branch that checks and balances the other branches. For the combining of these functions in the same political body, he saw, had led to much oppression and tyranny throughout history. He explains, “Constant experience shows us that every man invested with power is apt to abuse it, and to carry his authority as far as it will go. … To prevent this abuse, it is necessary from the very nature of things that power should be a check to power.”[16] Montesquieu thus articulated a novel structure of three independent branches of government—legislative, executive, and judicial. He elaborates, …
When the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person, or in the same body of magistrates, there can be no liberty; because apprehensions may arise, lest the same monarch or senate should enact tyrannical laws, to execute them in a tyrannical manner.
Again, there is no liberty, if the judiciary power be not separated from the legislative and executive. Were it joined with the legislative, the life and liberty of the subject would be exposed to arbitrary control; for the judge would be then the legislator. Were it joined to the executive power, the judge might behave with violence and oppression.
There would be an end of everything, were the same man or the same body, whether of the nobles or of the people, to exercise those three powers, that of enacting laws, that of executing the public resolutions, and of trying the causes of individuals.[17]
Montesquieu’s theory was particularly unusual because it presented a third, independent judicial branch. For civil states throughout history typically had only one or two arms of government, executive and/or legislative, with the judicial role exercised by one of these arms. Yet the Founders endeavored to apply Montesquieu’s theory when constructing their new nation’s government.

James Madison, President of the United States by Thomas Sully, c1809-1817. Madison is known as the “Father of the Constitution.”
The Founders structured the United States’ government with three independent branches—legislative, executive, and judicial—to make, implement, and interpret the law respectively. Each branch possessed not only legal powers and functions but also limits and restraints. Each branch was counterbalanced by and accountable to the other branches. The Founders’ creation of a third branch—an independent judicial system of courts—became a distinguishing element of the American system. Indeed, as Russell Kirk notes in his 1991 The Roots of American Order, one of the most remarkable features of the American system is the independent judiciary “endowed with the power to rule upon the constitutionality of the acts of national and state legislatures.”[18] Madison defended the three separate branches to limit the government in his Federalist Paper 47, explaining, “The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny,” and “the preservation of liberty requires that the three great departments of power should be separate and distinct.”[19] Madison in his Federalist Paper 51 described the separate branches as a check of one human ambition on another. “Ambition must be made to counteract ambition,” he asserted, in order to supply, “by opposite and rival interests, the defect of better motives.”[20] Constitution signer and first U. S. President George Washington in his 1796 presidential Farewell Address reiterated the need for separate branches because of man’s imperfection, noting,
A just estimate of that love of power, and proneness to abuse it, which predominates in the human heart, is sufficient to satisfy us of the truth of this position.—The necessity of reciprocal checks in the exercise of political power, by dividing and distributing it into different depositories, and constituting each the Guardian of the Public Will against invasions by the others, has been evinced.[21]
The Founders’ three-branched system served as a kind of back-up plan if or when man’s virtue failed. In this way, the Founders constructed a new, unique governing framework for America’s experiment in self-government never before implemented in the world.
As it were, the Founders also limited power in the U. S. central government by dividing powers between the national and state governments in the union in what became the American federal system. The U. S. Constitution divided power by granting only necessary, enumerated powers to the national government and reserving all other powers to the states and people. Amendments 9 and 10 of the U. S. Bill of Rights, for instance, state respectively that “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people,” and “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”[22] This division of power further addressed the early Americans’ mistrust of concentrated central power and their aim to protect citizens’ rights and freedoms.

U. S. Constitution of 1787.
Clearly, the founding-era Americans’ Bible-based understanding of mankind influenced the form and structure of the American government laid out in the U. S. Constitution. Given man’s fallen condition, the Founders designed a system with controls to diffuse power and thus minimize evil-doing. In his 1919 The American Commonwealth, British jurist James Bryce reflected on the influence of this philosophy, as shared by the Puritans, on the U. S. Constitution of 1787:
[T]here is a hearty Puritanism in the view of human nature that pervades the instrument of 1787. It is the work of men who believed in original sin, and were resolved to leave open for transgressors no door which they could possibly shut. … The aim of the Constitution seems to be not so much to attain great common ends by securing good government as to avert the evils which will flow, not merely from a bad government, but from any government strong enough to threaten the pre-existing communities or the individual citizen.[23]
In his 2006 Republicanism, Religion, and the Soul of America, Ellis Sandoz affirmed this Bible-aligned philosophical influence on the American system: …
All of this would have been quite inconceivable without a Christian anthropology, enriched by classical political theory and the common law tradition, as uniquely imbedded in the habits of the American people at the time of the founding and nurtured thereafter. … Its mechanism takes seriously the understanding of human nature as it comes from the classic philosophers and is enriched with Christian teaching about the willful selfishness of human beings in their fallen, sinful state. Man is viewed as capable of virtue but inclined to vice and to favoring his own cause whenever he has the opportunity to do so.[24]
In conclusion, founding-era Americans recognized—in accordance with their Bible-oriented worldview of fallible mankind—the need for a limited civil government that could restrain man’s evil tendencies both in society and within the government itself. To control the nation’s central government, the Founders separated its powers into three independent branches, including an independent judiciary, that checked and balanced one another. In doing so, the Founders designed a new, modern governing system that was unprecedented in history. Their bold initiation of separation of powers became a defining trait of the American system. Sandoz describes it as “the genius of the Constitution” and “the well-known hallmark of America’s republican experiment itself.”[25] America’s distinctive system of governance conveyed in the U. S. Constitution successfully endures and operates today.
—–
[1] Aristotle, Politics, 350 B.C.E., book 3, part 16, trans. Benjamin Jowett (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1908), 140. See also Aristotle, Politics, 350 B. C. E., book 3, part 16, trans. Benjamin Jowett, The Internet Classics Archives, Massachusetts Institute of Technology <classics.mit.edu>, 1994-2009.
[2] New King James Version (NKJV)
[3] John Adams, A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America, 1787, vol. 3 cont., in The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, vol. 6, ed. Charles F. Adams (Boston: Charles C. Little and James Brown, 1851), 204.
[4] James Madison, Federalist Paper #37, 1788, in The Federalist Papers, ed. Clinton Rossiter (New York: Mentor Penguin, 1961), 231; James Madison, Federalist Paper #55, 1788, in The Federalist Papers, ed. Clinton Rossiter (New York: Mentor Penguin, 1961), 346.
[5] Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Paper #78, 1788, in The Federalist Papers, ed. Clinton Rossiter (New York: Mentor Penguin, 1961), 471.
[6] New King James Version (NKJV)
[7] Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Paper #15, 1787, in The Federalist Papers, ed. Clinton Rossiter (New York: Mentor Penguin, 1961), 110.
[8] James Madison, Federalist Paper #51, 1788, in The Federalist Papers, ed. Clinton Rossiter (New York: Mentor Penguin, 1961), 322.
[9] John Adams, Marginalia, 1811, in The Works of John Adams, vol. 4, no. 466, ed. C. F. Adams; Zoltan Haraszti, John Adams and the Prophet of Progress (Cambridge, MA: Harvard U Press, 1952), 258; John Adams, Marginalia, 1811, in Harper’s New Monthly Magazine, vol. 25, no. 147, ed. Charles T. Congdon (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1862), 357.
[10] Adams, Defence, 115.
[11] Rozann Rothman, The Impact of Covenant and Contract Theories on Conceptions of the U. S. Constitutions in Covenant, Polity, and Constitutionalism, Publius: The Journal of Federalism, v10, n4, eds. Daniel J. Elazar and John Kincaid (Lanham, MD: U Press of America, 1980), 161, 158.
[12] John Cotton, “Limitation of Government,” 1646, in Political Thought in the United States: A Documentary History, ed. Lyman T. Sargent (New York: New York U Press, 1997), 36-8. The original source of the sermon is John Cotton, An Exposition Upon the Thirteenth Chapter of the Revelation (London: Printed for Livewel Chapman), 1655. See Angela E. Kamrath, The Miracle of America: The Influence of the Bible on the Founding History and Principles of the United States of America for a People of Every Belief (Houston, TX: American Heritage, 2013, 2015, 2020), 73.
[13] Rothman, Impact, 158.
[14] Rothman, Impact, 159.
[15] Charles-Louis de Secondat, Baron de Montesquieu, The Spirit of Laws, 1748, Revised ed., vol. 1, trans. Thomas Nugent, ed. Jean Le Rond D’Alembert (London: Colonial Press, 1900), bk. 1, 3.
[16] Montesquieu, Spirit of Laws, vol. 1, bk. 11, 150.
[17] Montesquieu, Spirit of Laws, vol. 1, bk. 11, 151-152.
[18] Russell Kirk, The Roots of American Order (Washington, DC: Regnery Gateway, 1991), 415.
[19] James Madison, Federalist Paper #47, 1788, in The Federalist Papers, ed. Clinton Rossiter (New York: Mentor Penguin, 1961), 301.
[20] Madison, Federalist Paper #51, 322.
[21] George Washington, Farewell Address to the People of the United States, 17 September 1796, in The Writings of George Washington, 1794-1798, vol. 13, ed. Worthington C. Ford (New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1892), 306.
[22] United States Bill of Rights, 1791. See also Angela E. Kamrath, The Miracle of America: The Influence of the Bible on the Founding History and Principles of the United States of America for a People of Every Belief (Houston, TX: American Heritage Education Fdn, 2013, 2015, 2020), 290.
[23] James Bryce, The American Commonwealth: The National Government, The State Governments, new ed., vol. 1 (New York: Macmillan, 1919), 306.
[24] Ellis Sandoz, Republicanism, Religion, and the Soul of America (Columbia: U of Missouri, 2006), 50, 72-73.
[25] Sandoz, Republicanism, 50.
—–
Contributed by AHEF and Angela E. Kamrath.
This essay (with endnotes) is available as a printable PDF handout in the member resources section on americanheritage.org. Simply sign up and login as a member (no cost), go to the resources page, and look under Miracle of America essays.
Related articles/videos:
1. The Principle of Popular Sovereignty–the People’s Rule–in the U. S. Declaration and Constitution
2. The Principle of Rule of Law
3. A City on a Hill: Why John Winthrop and the Puritans Came to America
4. The Puritans in America Created the First Written Constitutions of Law
5. Why the Puritans Favored Limited Government
6. Why the Puritans in America Favored Rule of Law
7. Who Created the First Written Constitution in History?
8. Why the Puritans Elected Representatives to Govern in their American Colonies
9. America’s Founding Philosophy in the Declaration: God as Supreme Judge, Lawgiver, & King
10. The Creator God in the Declaration: The Basis of Authority, Law, & Rights for Mankind in the United States
11. The Law of Nature in the Declaration: The Universal Moral Law of Mankind
12. The Law of Nature in the Bible
13. The Law of Nature and Nature’s God in the Declaration: One Moral Law Revealed by God in Two Ways
14. The Covenant-Inspired Principle of Federalism in the U. S. Constitution
15. The American Social Contract in the Declaration and Constitution
16. The Bible-Inspired Influences on the U. S. Constitution and Bill of Rights
17. The Purpose of American Civil Government
Poster: Declaration of Independence
—–
Lesson: The Miracle of America High School Teacher Course Guide, Unit 8, Part 1, Activity 8: Three Branches of Government, p. 271-272. MS-HS.
Three Branches of Government….
Purpose/Objective: Students learn key principles of the United States Constitution including limited government, separation of powers, and checks and balances, and how influential thinkers and early Americans connected these concepts with the Bible.
Suggested Readings:
1) The Principle of Separation of Powers in the U. S. Constitution by Angela E. Kamrath, The Founding Blog, July 24, 2020. Print version in member resources at americanheritage.org.
2) Miracle of America book sections 3.5, Ch 8 Intro, 8.4, 8.11, 8.20, pp. 288-296.
3) Principles of Three Branches of Government handout by Angela E. Kamrath. See “Miracle of America Snapshots” in member resources at americanheritage.org.
4) Principles of the United States Constitution handout by Angela E. Kamrath. See “Supporting Resources”, pp. 392-396, in Miracle of America HS Teacher Course Guide, or “Miracle of America Snapshots” in member resources at www.americanheritage.org.
Activity: Roles and Responsibilities Comparison Chart (revised)
Students should discuss and understand the American Founders’ views of the need for civil government and the benefits of a limited government with separation of powers and checks and balances. Students should recognize the influence of Montesquieu’s theory of separation of powers on the Founders, noting his similar worldview of mankind. Discuss how the Founders implemented the first three-branch system–legislative, executive, and judicial–notably with an independent judiciary. Discuss how the Founders’ novel implementation of this system differed from other previous two-branch systems practiced in ancient Greece and Rome, and in Europe. Have students do some research or other reading if needed and complete a comparison chart on the role and responsibility of each branch of government. Students may then consider, Why does the U. S. have a three-branch government? What American philosophical view of humanity undergirds this system? Where does it come from? For another comparison, students might complete a comparison chart of older ancient and European two-branch systems with the U. S. system. What was/might be a common problem with the two-branch system? What are the benefits of the three-branch system? See “Three Branches of Government Roles & Responsibilities Comparison Chart” in “Supporting Resources” section of Miracle of America HS Teacher Course Guide, p. 397.
—–
To download this whole unit, sign up as an AHEF member (no cost) to access the “resources” page on americanheritage.org. To order the printed binder format of the course guide with all the units, go to the AHEF bookstore.
—–
To receive blog updates, we invite you to subscribe to the Founding Blog on this page.
This blog is provided by the American Heritage Education Foundation (AHEF). AHEF is a non-profit organization dedicated to the understanding and teaching of America’s founding philosophy, principles, documents, and history. AHEF’s work is made possible by the donations of private individuals and organizations. Please consider a tax-deductible donation to AHEF to support our mission. Thank you!
Copyright © American Heritage Education Foundation. All rights reserved.
The Principle of Popular Sovereignty–the People’s Rule–in the U. S. Declaration and Constitution

When founding the United States, the American founders adhered to the philosophical, governing principle of popular sovereignty, or the people’s rule. Popular sovereignty is the idea that political power resides with the whole people of a community or state—not with any particular person, group, or ancestral line. The modern, Western conception of this idea was shaped not only by the ancient models of democracy in Greece and Rome but also, in part, by the Bible and a Bible-oriented worldview. In the Bible-oriented worldview, the Creator God gives all mankind, as equal and free, dominion over the earth and, therefore, earthly political power. The people thus have rightful authority within the bounds of God’s moral law to choose how and who to govern for themselves, and their government and governors derive legitimate authority by the people’s consent. In his 1980 essay, From Covenant to Constitution in American Political Thought, Donald S. Lutz explains how the people’s consent is the basis of legitimate authority: “Consent becomes the instrument for establishing authority in the community and for expressing the sovereignty of God. … The people’s consent is the instrument for linking God with the rulers, whose authority then is viewed as sanctioned by Him, but because this authority comes through the people, the rulers are beholding to God through them.”[1] The people may define and limit the powers of their government and governors, and they may remove governors who do not fulfill their duties or abide by just civil law. It is important to note that the people and their governors are still fallible and accountable to God and His moral law, just civil law, and one another. Ideally, God’s moral order may potentially be maintained through the people’s just civil law and governance.

The Divine Right of Kings
The principle of popular sovereignty contrasts with the doctrine of the “Divine Rights of Kings” that was practiced in Europe in the middle ages. Divine Right held that a particular person or ancestral line derives authority to rule directly and only from God, usually by hereditary succession, and so is not accountable to any earthly authority or the people. Such was the practice of absolute monarchy in which a king or queen ruled with little limit or restriction. To question or rebel against the monarch’s rule was to question or rebel against God’s rule. Divine Right emerged when many in Europe, in rejecting the supreme authority of the pope and the institutional Roman Catholic Church, sought the protection of their monarchies during the Protestant Reformation. For, over time, the church had become, as some saw, corrupt and heretical in its teachings. But the monarchs had also, in turn, become oppressive. Popular sovereignty offered a new, hopeful alternative to the absolute rule of the “two swords” of pope and monarch and to the old combined church-state systems of Europe. It offered greater civil and religious freedom and rights for the people. In the wake of the Protestant Reformation and Counter-Reformation of the 1500s and 1600s in Europe, Protestant and Catholic political reformers began to develop a case for popular sovereignty, and they did so by drawing from the Bible. Later, some important God-oriented Enlightenment-era philosophers took up this principle as the basis for just civil society and governance. Ultimately, founding-era Americans adhered to popular sovereignty to justify the American Revolution and to form the new nation of the United States that values man’s equality, freedom, and consent.

Cover of Vindiciae Contra Tyrannos by Stephen Junius Brutus, 1579.

Samuel Rutherford, c1600s.
Following the Protestant Reformation—a Christian revival that rejected the authority of the pope and asserted the need for religious reforms in the church—some European reformed political writers rose up and challenged the Divine Right of Kings, calling for not only religious but also political reform in the civil state. They argued for popular sovereignty based on the practice of the ancient Israelites in the Bible. The pseudonymed French Huguenot writer Stephen Junius Brutus in his 1579 Vindiciae Contra Tyrannos or A Defense of Liberty Against Tyrants as well as Scottish Presbyterian minister and Westminster Assembly member Samuel Rutherford in his 1644 Lex Rex or The Law and the Prince looked to the example of the Israelites who chose their first king in 1 Samuel 10, 11, and 12. In these verses, the Israelites asked God, through the prophet Samuel, for a king. In response and following God’s direction, Samuel anointed Saul. However, Saul did not become king until he was confirmed by the people’s consensus. As Brutus and Rutherford observe, God granted the Israelites a role in choosing their king, and so a scriptural basis for popular sovereignty exists. Brutus explains, “We have demonstrated that God institutes kings…and elects them. We now say that the people constitute kings, confer kingdoms, and approve the election by its vote.” [2] Rutherford also cited 2 Chronicles 22 and 23 in which Queen Athaliah usurped the throne of Judah without the people’s consent and was consequently overthrown by the people. Rutherford concludes that “the power of creating a man a king is from the people.” [3] Such political writers strengthened the idea of the consent of the governed–the authority and right of the people to choose their government and governors.

Saint Robert Bellarmine by Italian School 1500s.

Francisco Suarez
Catholic counter-reformers of the Counter-Reformation—a Catholic revival that upheld the leadership of the pope but recognized his fallibility and the need for institutional reforms in the church—also argued for popular sovereignty for the civil state, though they did so separately. They asserted from Genesis that God gave all mankind earthly dominion and therefore political power. Italian Jesuit priest Robert Bellarmine in his De Laicis or Of the Laity from his 1596 Disputations de Controversiis Christianae Fide and Spanish Jesuit priest Francisco Suarez in his 1612 De Legibus or Tract on Laws cited Genesis 1 in which God created mankind, represented by Adam and Eve, and told them to multiply and take dominion over the earth. Genesis 1:27-28 states, …
God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. … Then God blessed them, and God said to them, ‘Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.’ [bold type mine] [NKJV]
Bellarmine and Suarez asserted from these verses that God gives earthly dominion to all mankind—not to any particular person, group, or lineage. As such, the whole people rightly hold earthly political power. Bellarmine states, “Secular or civil power…is immediately in the whole multitude…for this power is in the divine law [the Bible], but the divine law has given this power to no particular man [brackets mine].”[4] Suarez similarly argued that political power began when people formed communities. He explains, “Political power did not begin until families began to be gathered together into one…community; …the community did not begin by the creation of Adam, or by his will alone, but of all of them which did agree in this community.”[5] These churchmen concluded that the people of a community or civil state hold political authority in that realm, and the people may delegate authority to their chosen governors. In this way, popular sovereignty, as Lutz notes, was “developed both by Protestant thinkers and by Catholic theologians independently.”[6]
In the 1600s, Enlightenment-era British philosophers John Locke and Algernon Sidney presented and supported popular sovereignty in a more secularized context based on reason. However, they also notably grounded their ideas in the Bible. In fact, they reasserted the same the Bible-based arguments as the earlier Protestant and Catholic writers on the subject.

Portrait of John Locke by Sir Godfrey Kneller, 1697.
In his 1689 First Treatise of Civil Government, Locke refuted the Divine Right of Kings as asserted by King James I’s court theologian Robert Filmer in his 1680 Patriarcha. Filmer claimed that the first man in Genesis, Adam, was the first king and that the king of England, being a direct heir of Adam, was rightfully king by succession. Locke countered that, according to Genesis 1, no rank pre-exists among human beings in which one person naturally has authority over another person simply by succession. Rather, human beings in creation and in a state of nature exist as equal. As such, they are naturally free. Referencing Genesis 1:28, Locke observes, …
If Creation, which gave nothing but a being, “made” not Adam “prince of his posterity,” if Adam (Gen. i:28) was not constituted lord of mankind, nor had a “private dominion” given him…but only a right and power over the earth and inferior creatures, in common with the children of men; …if all this be so, as I think, by what has been said, is very evident, then man has a “natural freedom”…since all that share in the same common nature, faculties, and powers are in nature equal, and ought to partake in the same common rights and privileges, till the manifest appointment of God who is “Lord overall, blessed forever,” can be produced to show any particular person’s supremacy, or a man’s own consent subjects him to a superior.[7]
Locke went on to argue from the Bible and reason in his 1689 Second Treatise of Civil Government that because all men naturally are equal and free, “without being subjected to the will or authority of any other man,” a just civil society is based on popular sovereignty through the people’s consent.[8] He says, “That which begins and actually constitutes any political society is nothing but the consent of any number of freemen capable of majority, to unite and incorporate into such a society. And this is that, and that only, which did or could give beginning to any lawful government in the world.”[9] As such, free men may willingly enter into civil society and submit themselves to a chosen authority by consent.

Algernon Sidney
English Whig parliamentarian Algernon Sidney shared Locke’s view of popular sovereignty and similarly defended it from the Bible and reason. In his 1698 essay, Discourses Concerning Government, Sidney asserted that absolute monarchy was flawed and not favored in the Bible but that popular sovereignty agreed with Holy Scripture. He aligned with Bellarmine’s interpretation of Genesis 1. Referring to Filmer’s Patriarcha and Bellarmine’s Of the Laity as well as to Genesis 1:28 and Deuteronomy 17:20, Sidney pointed out that Filmer’s opposition to Bellarmine’s interpretation had no scriptural or rational merit. Sidney explains, …
He [Filmer] recites an argument of Bellarmine, that “it is evident in Scripture God hath ordained powers; but God hath given them to no particular person, because by nature all men are equal. Therefore, He [God] hath given power to the people or multitude.” I leave him [Filmer] to untie that knot, if he can…. I take Bellarmine’s argument to be strong…. I may justly insist upon it…. It is hard to imagine that God, who hath left all things to our choice, that are not evil in themselves, …should impose upon us a necessity of following His will without declaring it to us. Instead of constituting a government over His people, consisting of many parts, which we take to be a model fit to be imitated by others, He might have declared a word, that the eldest man of the eldest line should be king and that his [the king’s] will ought to be their law. … We see nothing in scripture, of precept or example, that is not utterly abhorrent to this chimera. The only sort of kings mentioned there with approbation is such a one “as may not raise his heart above his brethren [Deuteronomy 17:20].” If God had constituted a lord paramount with an absolute power, and multitudes of nations were to labour and fight for his greatness and pleasure, this were to raise his [the king’s] heart to a height that would make him forget he was a man. Such as are versed in scripture not only know that it neither agrees with the letter or spirit of that book but that it is unreasonable in itself. [brackets mine][10]
Sidney essentially argued that unlimited, absolute power held by fallible men often leads to corruption and tyranny. Instead, the Bible supports popular sovereignty among men.
During the American founding era in the mid-1700s, early Americans drew heavily from Locke and Sidney on popular sovereignty to justify and defend the American revolutionary cause and the forming of a new, independent nation. Revolutionary Americans frequently cited Locke and Sidney because these philosophers clearly articulated the long-held views and practices of colonial Americans. Indeed, the American colonists had applied popular sovereignty in their colonies for over a century. Locke and Sidney effectively expressed and refined the political thought of early Americans during the founding era. American Founder and statesman Thomas Jefferson, in fact, cited Locke and Sidney as some of his direct sources in writing the U. S. Declaration of Independence. In a 1825 letter to Henry Lee, for instance, he explained that the Declaration’s authority rests on “the harmonizing sentiments of the day, whether expressed in conversation, in letters, printed essays, or in the elementary books of public right, as Aristotle, Cicero, Locke, Sidney, etc.”[11] In a 1825 Report to the President and Directors of the Literary Fund at the University of Virginia, Jefferson later reiterated that “as to the general principles of liberty and the rights of man, in nature and in society, the doctrines of Locke…and of Sidney…may be considered as those generally approved by our fellow citizens of…the United States.”[12] The language of the Declaration resembles Locke’s, explains Donald S. Lutz in his 1988 Origins of American Constitutionalism, “because the Americans enthusiastically fastened upon his clear, efficient vocabulary for expressing what they had already been doing for years” in their colonies.[13] Sidney’s Discourses likewise became well-known in America as a “textbook of revolution” during the American Revolution. As it were, Locke and Sidney’s grounding of popular sovereignty in the Bible reveals a strong connection between the Bible and American political thought. Lutz affirms that Sidney “combines reason and [biblical] revelation in his analysis, and thus shows how easily the Declaration can be an expression of earlier, biblically based American constitutional thought [brackets mine].”[14]

U. S. Supreme Court Justice James Wilson

Benjamin Rush by Charles Willson Peale, c1818.
The American Founders aligned with Locke and Sidney’s views and explanations of popular sovereignty—drawn and defended from the Bible as well as reason—in order to justify the American Revolution and the founding of the self-governing nation of the United States. They upheld the view that all men are created naturally equal and free by God. As such, political power resides with the people, and just governments are based on the people’s consent. Founder and law professor James Wilson thus expressed in his 1790-1791 Lectures on Law, “As in civil society, previous to civil government, all men are equal. So, in the same state, all men are free. In such a state, no one can claim, in preference to another, superior right. In the same state, no one can claim over another superior authority.”[15] In his 1793 court decision Chisholm vs. Georgia, Wilson again asserted popular sovereignty as it relates to civil law, stating, “Laws derived from the pure source of equality and justice must be founded on the CONSENT of those, whose obedience they require. The sovereign, when traced to his source, must be found in the man.”[16] Notably, the Founders took both a Bible-oriented as well as a rational, common-sense approach to support equality and popular sovereignty. However, both approaches still acknowledged a Creator God. In his 1798 essay, Of the Mode of Education Proper in a Republic, Founder and physician Benjamin Rush, for example, cited the Bible as the basis for equality among men. Alluding to Genesis 1, he expresses: …
A Christian cannot fail of being a republican. The history of the creation of man, and of the relation of our species to each other by birth, which is recorded in the Old Testament is the best refutation that can be given to the divine right of kings, and the strongest argument that can be used in favor of the original and natural equality of all mankind.[17]
In a 1826 letter, Jefferson affirmed the equality of men from a more rational, common-sense perspective. He writes, …
All eyes are opened, or opening to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, or a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately, by the grace of God.[18]
Jefferson, however, still acknowledged a Creator God and mentioned as much in the Declaration.

Presidential Portrait of Thomas Jefferson by Rembrandt Peale, 1800.

Alexander Hamilton by John Trumbull, 1806.
Significantly, the Founders expressed and applied the philosophical principle of popular sovereignty in the key founding documents of the United States—the Declaration and Constitution. The U. S. Declaration of Independence of 1776 recognizes, for example, a Creator God, the equality of all men, and just government instituted by the people’s consent. In doing so, it asserts the philosophical basis as well as the act of founding the new nation. It reads,
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. [bold face mine][19]
Subsequently, the Founders practically applied popular sovereignty in the U. S. Constitution of 1787 by setting up a modern, democratic form of government—a Constitutional Republic—in which the people freely vote on and elect their governors and representatives. The people elect, for example, their president and congressional legislators. The Constitution lays out and defines the laws, powers, and structure of this new form of government. Moreover, the Founders required the Constitution, with its new government and laws, to be approved and ratified by the American people in order to go into effect. It was thus based on the people’s consent. The Constitution’s Preamble thus begins, “We the people of the United States…do ordain and establish this Constitution [bold face mine].”[20] In his 1787 Federalist Paper 22, Founder Alexander Hamilton affirmed popular sovereignty through consent as the basis and legitimacy of American government. He writes, “The fabric of American empire ought to rest on the solid basis of THE CONSENT OF THE PEOPLE. The streams of national power ought to flow immediately from that pure, original fountain of all legitimate authority.”[21] Clearly, the Founders strongly adhered to popular sovereignty and shaped their new nation and its civil government and laws according to this principle.

United States’ Constitution and Declaration of Independence
In conclusion, founding-era Americans formed the United States of America based on the principle of popular sovereignty—the idea that political power resides with the whole people of a civil state, not with a particular person by succession. This idea is expressed and applied in the U. S. Declaration and Constitution through the consent of the governed—the people’s authority and right to choose and define the powers of their government and governors. Articulated by Bible-oriented thinkers of the Reformation, Counter-Reformation, and Enlightenment; this American principle was derived not only from ancient democratic models, reason, and common sense but also from the Bible and a Bible-based worldview in which God created all mankind equal and free and gave them dominion over the earth including political power. Such had been, as it were, the long-held belief and practice of the early American colonists. Adopting the language of Enlightenment-era philosophers Locke and Sidney, founding-era Americans asserted this principle to justify the American Revolution and their authority and right to form an independent, self-governing nation. The American Founders subsequently developed for the nation a unique, modern democratic political system with elected representatives—a Constitutional Republic—that honors and respects the people’s values of equality, freedom, rights, and consent. The early Americans’ adherence to the modern, Western principle of popular sovereignty thus demonstrates the strong role of the Bible and a God-oriented worldview on America’s founding political philosophy.
[1] Donald S. Lutz, From Covenant to Constitution in American Political Thought, in Covenant, Polity, and Constitutionalism: Publius: The Journal of Federalism, v10, n4 (1980): 109-110.
[2] Stephen Junius Brutus, Vindiciae Contra Tyrannos, Concerning the Legitimate Power of a Prince Over the People, and of the People Over a Prince (A Defense of Liberty Against Tyrants), 1579, ed. George Garnett (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge U Press, 1994, 2003), 68-69. Brutus is thought by many scholars to be Theodore Beza, Philippe de Mornay, or Hubert Languet.
[3] Samuel Rutherford, Lex Rex, or the Law and the Prince, 1644 (Edinburgh, Scotland: Robert Ogle and Oliver & Boyd, 1843), 6-8, 80, 143.
[4] Robert Filmer, Patriarcha, 1680, in Two Treatises on Civil Government, John Locke (London: George Routledge and Sons, 1884), 14. See also Robert Bellarmine, De Laicis (Of the Laity) or The Treatise on Civil Government in Book 3 of 1596 Disputationes de Controversiis Christianae Fidei. Bellarmine and Suarez were cited by Sir Robert Filmer, the court theologian of King James I of England, who in his Patriarcha defended the Divine Right of Kings. Filmer refuted Bellarmine and Suarez.
[5] Filmer, Patriarcha, 24. See also Francisco Suarez, Tractatus de Legibus or Tract on Laws III, 1612, vol. 5.
[6] Lutz, Covenant to Constitution, 109-110.
[7] John Locke, A First Treatise of Civil Government, 1689, in Two Treatises on Civil Government, John Locke (London: George Routledge and Sons, 1884), 122-3.
[8] John Locke, A Second Treatise of Civil Government, 1689, in Two Treatises on Civil Government, John Locke (London: George Routledge and Sons, 1884), 217.
[9] Locke, Second Treatise, Routledge, 242.
[10] Algernon Sidney, Discourses Concerning Government, to which are added Memoirs of His Life, 1698, 3rd ed. (London: Printed for A. Millar, 1751), 16-17.
[11] Thomas Jefferson to Henry Lee, Monticello, 8 May 1825, in The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, definitive ed., ed. Albert E. Bergh, vol. 15 (Washington, DC: Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1907), 118-119.
[12] University of Virginia Board of Visitors, Transcript of the Minutes of the Board of Visitors of the University of Virginia, during the Rectorship of Thomas Jefferson, Mar. 4, 1825, from Manuscripts From the University of Virginia Collection, 360-498, in The Works of Thomas Jefferson, vol. 19, ed. Albert E. Bergh (Washington, DC: Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1907), 460–461.
[13] Donald S. Lutz, The Origins of American Constitutionalism (Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana State U Press, 1988), 114.
[14] Lutz, Origins, 119.
[15] James Wilson, Lectures on Law, Part 1, 1790-1791, in The Works of the Honourable James Wilson, vol. 1, ed. Bird Wilson (Philadelphia, PA: Lorenzo Press, Printed for Bronson and Chauncey, 1804), 309.
[16] Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 419 (1793). Natural Law, Natural Rights, and American Constitutionalism Online Resource (2012), Witherspoon Institute, <http://www.nlnrac.org/american/scottish-enlightenment> (accessed April 2012).
[17] Benjamin Rush, Of The Mode of Education Proper in a Republic, in Essays, Literary, Moral and Philosophical, 2nd ed. (Philadelphia, PA: Printed by Thomas and William Bradford, 1806), 8-9.
[18] Thomas Jefferson to Roger C. Weightman, Monticello, 24 June 1826, in Memoir, Correspondence, and Miscellanies: From the Papers of Thomas Jefferson, ed. Thomas J. Randolph (Charlottesville, VA: F. Carr & Co., 1829), 441.
[19] United States Declaration of Independence, 1776. See also Angela E. Kamrath, The Miracle of America: The Influence of the Bible on the Founding History and Principles of the United States of America for a People of Every Belief (Houston, TX: American Heritage Education Fdn, 2013, 2015, 2020), 236.
[20] Preamble, United States Constitution, 1787. See also Kamrath, Miracle of America, 289.
[21] Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Paper #22, The Federalist Papers, ed. Clinton Rossiter (New York: Mentor Penguin, 1961), 152.
—–
Contributed by AHEF and Angela E. Kamrath.
This article is available as a printable PDF handout in the member resources section on americanheritage.org. Simply sign up and login as a member (no cost), go to the resources page, and look under Miracle of America articles.
Related Blogs/Videos:
1. How Protestant Religious Reformers Supported Popular Sovereignty from the Bible
2. How Reformed Political Thinkers Defended Popular Sovereignty From the Bible
3. How Catholic Churchmen Supported Popular Sovereignty from the Bible
4. The Context of the Protestant Reformation
5. The Igniting of the Protestant Reformation – Martin Luther’s 95 Theses
6. The Key Tenets of the Protestant Reformation
7. The Key Political Thinkers & Writings of the Reformation Era
8. The Catholic Counter-Reformation
9. Why Puritan Thomas Hooker Favored Democracy over Aristocracy
10. Thomas Hooker as the “father of American Democracy”
11. Why the Puritans Elected Representatives to Govern in their American Colonies
12. Great Awakening Principle: The Dignity of the Human Being
13. Great Awakening Principle: All Men Equal Before God
14. How the Great Awakening Affected Society: Education, Missions, Humanitarianism, Women, Gospel
15. How the Great Awakening Impacted American Unity, Democracy, Freedom, & Revolution
16. Thomas Paine’s Common Sense: God’s Opposition to Absolute Monarchy
17. The American Revolution
18. American Revolution Debate: The American Quest for a New, Bible-Inspired Republic
19. The American Quest for Self-Government
20. The Creator God: The Basis of Authority, Law, & Rights for Mankind in the Declaration
21. Self-Evident Truth: Equality and Rights in the Declaration of Independence
22. The Law of Nature: The Universal Moral Law of Mankind in the Declaration
23. The American, Bible-based Defense of Unalienable Rights in the Declaration
High School Activity – The Principle of Popular Sovereignty: The Consent of the Governed
Activity: Miracle of America High School Teacher Course Guide, Unit 1, Part 1, Activity 6: Principle of Popular Sovereignty, p. 57, 328. HS.
Purpose/Objective: Students learn definition, meaning, basis, and characteristics of Popular Sovereignty and how it differs from the Divine Right of Kings and absolute power.
Suggested Reading: Chapter 1 of Miracle of America text/sourcebook. Students read sections 1.2-1.3. See also Miracle of America reference book/text, Sections 1.2-1.3, 2.4, 3.10, 6.5, 7.11, 7.16, 8.6, 8.14.
Comparison/Contrast Chart: Students create a two-column chart, titling the left column “Divine Right of Kings” and the right column “Popular Sovereignty.” Students right down characteristics of each concept in the appropriate column, perhaps including definition, basis/reasoning for it, who holds power and why, how power is obtained/delegated, how this system characterizes society, historical context/time, etc.
To download this whole unit, sign up as an AHEF member (no cost) to access the “resources” page on americanheritage.org. To order the printed binder format of the course guide with all the units, go to the AHEF bookstore.
—–
To receive blog updates, we invite you to subscribe to the Founding Blog on this page.
This blog is provided by the American Heritage Education Foundation (AHEF). AHEF is a non-profit organization dedicated to the understanding and teaching of America’s founding philosophy, principles, documents, and history. AHEF’s work is made possible by the donations of private individuals and organizations. Please consider a tax-deductible donation to AHEF to support our mission. Thank you!
Copyright © American Heritage Education Foundation. All rights reserved.


Diagram of the Federal Government and American Union by N. Mendal Shafer, c1862. Published by J. T. Pompilly, Cincinnati, OH, at Library of Congress.
When the United States became an independent nation following the American Revolution, the American colonies formed a confederation of states under the Articles of Confederation of 1781. The Articles joined together the new states and created a weak central government with little authority in which the states held most of the power. However, by 1787, the Articles no longer sufficed for the states’ and nation’s needs because it allowed the states to impede interstate commerce, left the nation open to internal rebellion and external invasion, and did not secure civil and religious freedoms. Consequently, delegates from each state convened at the Constitutional Convention at Independence Hall in Philadelphia to revise the Articles. Instead of revising the Articles, however, they drafted the United States Constitution of 1787 and created a new, stronger central government.
After the constitutional delegates drafted and approved the Constitution, they sent it to the U. S. Congress for review. Congress sent it to the states to have it reviewed in the states’ ratification conventions. The state conventions consisted of elected representatives who informed the public about, debated over, and voted on the new proposed government. While many supported ratification of the Constitution, some opposed it. Those who favored ratification were known as “Federalists,” and those who opposed ratification were called “Anti-Federalists.” Federalists including James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay defended and explained the Constitution and its new government to the American people through a series of newspaper articles which became known as the “Federalist Papers.” For Madison and Hamilton described the new American system as “federal” in character. One of the main objections of the Anti-Federalists was that the Constitution did not include a Bill of Rights to ensure the protection of citizens’ rights. They sought reassurance and reinforcement of such protections. Federalists countered that an explicit list of rights might be incomplete and that the Constitution already protected individual rights because it granted only certain limited powers to the central government. Yet they agreed to add a Bill of Rights. With the Federalists’ assurance that a Bill of Rights would be added, the Constitution ultimately won the people’s approval and was finally ratified by the first nine states after ten months. The U. S. Bill of Rights was added in 1791.
In drafting the U. S. Constitution, the Founders developed an important governing principle and system called “federalism.” “Federalism” and “confederalism” both generally refer to an inter-governmental association of states. Federalism is a system of government in which political power is divided between the national and state governments. In confederalism, the states hold most of the power. Federalist systems differ from unitary systems in which the central government holds most or all governing power. Hamilton in Federalist Paper 9 generally describes a federalist system (using the terms federal and confederal interchangeably) in this way: …
The definition of a confederate republic seems simply to be “an assemblage of societies,” or an association of two or more states into one state. The extent, modifications, and objects of the federal authority are mere matters of discretion. So long as the separate organization of the members be not abolished, so long as it exists, by a constitutional necessity, for local purposes; though it should be in perfect subordination to the general authority of the union, it would still be, in fact and in theory, an association of states, or a confederacy.[1]
The essence of federalism, affirms Donald S. Lutz in his 1988 The Origins of American Constitutionalism, is “the preservation of local control, diversity, and the individual character of each component [as in each state], and the provision for unity on matters where unity is required [brackets mine].”[2] American federalism in the Constitution was more specifically characterized by 1) a consensual, binding agreement or compact among the states and people to associate or join together in unity for a common purpose, and 2) the division or sharing of power between the national and state governments—with further diffusion of central power through participation of representatives in the national government. In addition to some possible secular historical influences, the Founders’ federalist system was influenced to a degree by the early American Puritans and their Bible-inspired practice of covenants in their colonial constitutions. Building on these early influences, the Founders created a new, successful model of federalism to order and govern a large nation of many states. This unprecedented system created a strong, accountable union among the states and people, and preserved the states’ and people’s sovereignty and rights.

Moses Descends from Mount Sinai with the Ten Commandments by Ferdinand Bol, 1662.
Interestingly, the concept of federalism has an historical, philosophical root that stems back to the principle and practice of covenants as found in the Bible and Western reformed thought. As pointed out by Lutz in his Origins and by Gary Amos and Richard Gardiner in their 1998 Never Before in History: America’s Inspired Birth, the English word “federal” comes from the Latin word foedus which means “covenant or pact.”[3] The Latin Vulgate Bible of 405 notably uses foedus as a translation for the Hebrew word “berith” used to describe covenants in the Bible. The English word “covenant,” in turn, comes from the French word “convenir” which means “to agree on.” A covenant is a consensual, binding promise or agreement between two or more parties, often made in the presence of a higher authority like God or king who acts as a party, witness, or guarantor of the agreement to hold the parties accountable. This agreement centers on the relationship and responsibilities of those involved, and it creates a very strong bond or union between the parties.
According to the Bible, covenants originated with God, and they were practiced by God and His people in both the Old and New Testaments. They were the means by which God related with His people, and how His people related with one another. In the Old Testament, as described in Exodus 19:5-6, the tribes of ancient Israel entered into a covenant with God to be His people and follow His laws and so became a nation.[4] The nation of Israel, as it were, also entered into civil covenants with their civil rulers as found in 2 Samuel 5, 2 Kings 11, and 2 Chronicles 22-23.[5] In this civil covenant, the king agreed to rule justly and follow God, and the people agreed to submit to him based on those terms. If the king did not fulfill his duties or abused his power, the people could remove him from power.

Embarkation of the Pilgrims by Robert W. Weir, 1843. The painting depicts the Pilgrims’ migration to America and the Bible’s important role in their lives and move.
The Protestant Reformation in Europe in the 1500s led to the extensive study of covenants in the Bible. Religious and political reformers articulated it in religious and, ultimately, political terms. Reformation-era Protestants, for example, developed a Covenant Theology, asserting the belief that all creation, humans, and society—including government and politics—exist in covenant with God and are subject to God’s moral laws. Swiss reformer Heinrich Bullinger presented this theology in his 1534 Brief Exposition of the One and Eternal Testament or Covenant of God, and John Calvin taught it in his well-known 1536 Institutes of the Christian Religion. Subsequently, Calvinist political reformers such as Theodore Beza in his 1574 On the Rights of Magistrates and Stephen Junius Brutus in his 1579 Defense of Liberty Against Tyrants developed a modern civil covenant between rulers and ruled based on the practice of the ancient Israelites.[6] Others like Johannes Althusius in his 1603 Politics Methodically Set Forth developed a covenant-based political theory in which covenantal or contractual agreements are the basis of society and civil state.[7] The increased examination of covenants in the Bible during this period enabled the principle of covenants to advance in modern European religious and political thought prior to the Puritans’ migration to America in the 1600s.
In the 1600s and early 1700s, the Pilgrims and Puritans in America, as Calvinists, embraced and applied the Bible-inspired principle of covenants in both their church and civil bodies in their early American colonies. In a religious context, the Puritans practiced covenants in their Congregational churches and doctrines, and they included the concept in their Reformed confession of faith, the Westminster Confession of 1646. In a civil context, the Pilgrims who migrated to Plymouth in 1620 created the first civil covenant in America with their Mayflower Compact in which they joined together to form a civil body. In 1630, Puritan leader John Winthrop gave his well-known “city on a hill” sermon, A Model of Christian Charity, that spoke of the Puritans’ covenantal promise to love God and others, follow God’s moral law, and uphold justice and mercy. Ultimately, the Puritans created the first covenantal constitutions of law in their colonies of Connecticut and Massachusetts—with the Fundamental Orders of Connecticut of 1639 and the Massachusetts Body of Liberties of 1641.

The Puritans’ Fundamental Orders of Connecticut of 1639, the first written constitution. Connecticut State Library, 1934.
The Founders’ modern model of federalism was influenced, at least in part, by the early American Puritans’ practice of covenantal constitutions as found in the colony of Connecticut. Indeed, the Puritans’ Connecticut constitution, the Fundamental Orders of 1639, was the first constitution ever created, and, as Lutz asserts, the first expression of federalism in the American colonies.[8] Connecticut’s colonial government was federal in being based on a covenant among the colonists to join together to form a central governing body and to abide by a common set of laws. The Orders were adopted by the free men of the towns of Hartford, Wethersfield, and Windsor–binding the towns together by covenant. The colonists formed a central governing body, the Connecticut General Court, to govern the colony. The Orders thus state that the colonists “do therefore associate and conjoin ourselves to be as one Public State or Commonwealth; and do…enter into Combination and Confederation together.”[9] Connecticut’s colonial government was also federal in its sharing of political power between the central governing authority and the member towns. Under the Orders, for example, the free men of each town elected deputies and magistrates as local representatives to the General Court. They also elected a governor. The Orders gave each colonist one equal vote and so expressed the people’s will, says Lutz, through majority or plurality rule. As a result, it preserved the members’ local political power.[10] The Connecticut constitution was thus “the first of many federal designs made by Americans and their English colonial predecessors,” observes Lutz. It was “a covenant-derived compact written by a deeply religious people who knew a great deal about the political and religious covenants in the Bible.”[11] The New England Puritans and their covenantal constitutions thus became important initiators in the development of American federalism.
As such, the general principle of federalism was familiar to founding-era Americans when the Founders drafted the U. S. Constitution. Indeed, the Founder’s modern Constitution, though secularized, demonstrated similar qualities of federalism that were found in the Puritans’ covenantal colonial constitutions and governments. Drawing from this history and experience, the Founders developed a uniquely modern American governing system for the United States that would come to define American federalism.

The Looking Glass for 1787, A house divided against itself cannot stand, Mat. chap 13th verse 26, by Amos Doolittle, New Haven, CT, 1787. This Connecticut political cartoon depicts the ratification of the Constitution. The wagon represents Connecticut, and the two groups are the Federalists and Anti-Federalists. The title references Matthew 12:25 where Jesus says to the Pharisees, “‘Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation, and every city or house divided against itself will not stand.'” The author clearly sided with the Federalists.
The U. S. Constitution demonstrates federalism, firstly, in that it created an association of states joined together by a consensual, binding agreement—by a compact or contract—to form and abide by a national law and government. In this arrangement, the states and people affirm mutual responsibility and make a strong commitment to the union. The written Constitution itself acts as the embodiment and proof of this agreement as well as defines the specific terms and responsibilities of the compact. The contractual nature of this arrangement required the states’ and peoples’ approval and ratification—the consent of the governed—to be legitimately enacted and recognized as civil law. Indeed, the Founders’ difficult task and feat included negotiating an agreement among all the diverse states and winning the support of the American people. The Constitution’s preamble thus begins, “WE THE PEOPLE of the United States…do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”[12]
Though the Constitution was expressed in secularized terms, its contractual nature reflected in spirit, form, and purpose the Puritans’ application of covenants in their colonial constitutions. For both applications involved a binding agreement—an essentially unbreakable bond—among constituents to the larger civil body or community. As Rozann Rothman explains in her 1980 essay, The Impact of Covenant and Contract Theories on Conceptions of the U. S. Constitutions, “The rhetoric of the Constitution was the rhetoric of contract and compact, for this language summed up the practical concerns as well as the hopes and fears of a revolutionary generation. But the constitution was permeated with the substance of covenant which anchored and perpetuated the commitment to the Union.”[13] She elaborates, …
Just as the [Puritan] leaders of Massachusetts interpreted the agreement of the people in a body as a covenant and used the covenant to secure the foundation of church and state in New England, so the Federalists [of the founding era] sought to use the agreements of an organized people as the foundation of the Union. … Whether the form of the bargain consciously or inadvertently reflected the form used by covenant theology is irrelevant; the fact is that the commitment to the Union and the resulting mutual obligation lies at the base of American constitutionalism. [brackets mine][14]
The requirement and act of ratification of the Constitution distinctly demonstrated the consensual agreement made by the people and highlighted the Constitution’s form and function as a compact. Ratification, says Rothman, “sealed the bargain” and “reflected a mixture of concepts derived from covenant theology and contract theories.”[15] She expounds, “Just as the Puritans anchored their theology and state in voluntary consent to the covenant, so was the Constitution anchored in the voluntary commitment of a people to the Union. This commitment was the source of obligation and proved strong enough to withstand the vicissitudes of American history.”[16] Clearly, the Founders’ Constitution was based on a consensual compact that resembled the Puritans’ covenant, and this compact engendered the states’ and people’s strong commitment to the union.

The Federal Pillars, a series of illustrations published in The Massachusetts Centinel in 1788, depicts the states that ratified the Constitution and the order (from left to right) in which they ratified. This edition shows the first nine states that ratified, August 2, 1788. The Constitution had to be ratified by nine out of thirteen states in order to go into effect.
The U. S. Constitution demonstrates federalism, secondly, in that it is characterized by a structural division or sharing of power and authority between the national and state governments, with each government holding exclusive and concurrent powers. The Constitution divided power by granting only necessary, enumerated powers to the national government and reserving all other powers to the states and people. Amendments 9 and 10 of the U. S. Bill of Rights, for instance, state respectively that “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people,” and “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”[17] This division of power spoke to the colonial and revolutionary American mistrust of absolute or overbearing centralized power and the valuing and protection of the people’s rule and rights through limited government. The Founders greater goal was to effectively order, secure, and govern the new nation while also protecting the sovereignty, rights, and powers of the states and people. The union aimed to serve the national good while preserving state and individual rights and freedoms.
The Founders further diffused central power by having representatives participate in the national government itself. In this system, local and national representatives are elected by the states and people to the national legislative and executive branches. Local representatives in the U. S. Congress, for example, participate by overseeing, drafting, or reviewing national legislation and/or by debating and voting in the national legislative process. The elected U. S. President, as the national head of state and commander-in-chief, executes and makes decisions about the manner in which to carry out national policy and defense. This representative system ensures that the states and people have a voice and representation in the national government, thereby making it accountable, directly or indirectly, to the electorate. In the process, as Rothman points out, it also strengthens the commitment of the states and people to the union. Rothman explains, …
An organized people was at the center of the constitutional balance, and a complicated representative system, securing the existence of the states, was constructed. … The participation of both the states and the people in the national government transformed the commitment to union from a private belief into a public, communal affirmation. The representative structure mandated the concurrence of a majority of the people and of the states before action could be taken, and the result was the development of political habits which strengthened and preserved both the contractual arrangements and the commitment.”[18]

Opening to the U. S. Constitution.
In conclusion, the American Founders developed a modern federalist system for the United States to effectively order and govern a large nation of many states while preserving the people’s sovereignty and natural rights. The United States Constitution expresses federalism in creating an association of states and people joined together by a compact and in dividing power between the nation and states, with further diffusion of central power through local and national representatives. Its character is federal, says Russell Kirk in his 1991 The Roots of American Order, in “reconciling national needs and self-government in its member states.”[19] Though secularized, the Constitution was notably influenced by and reflected in spirit, form, and purpose the early American Puritans’ Bible-inspired practice of covenants in their colonial constitutions. In fact, the Latin word foedus for “federal” was originally used to describe a covenant in the Bible. As Lutz affirms, “American federalism originated at least in part in the dissenting Protestants’ familiarity with the Bible,” and “its roots are in covenants.”[20] Rothman concurs, “Notions of covenant, albeit secularized and at times implicit, shaped the Framers’ conception of the form, purpose and function of a constitution.”[21]
With their Federal Constitution, the Founders created a new, modern, uniquely American system never before implemented in history, and it would come to define American federalism as we know it today. Daniel J. Elazar says in his 1969 The Politics of American Federalism that “for all intents and purposes, federalism as modern men know it is an American invention.”[22] This application of federalism, affirms Lutz, is a “central political symbol in the American constitutional tradition.”[23] Americans thus refer to the “federal constitution” and the “federal government.” This principle is further conveyed in the nation’s motto, E Pluribus Unum or “Out of Many, One.”
—
[1] Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Paper 9, 1787, in The Federalist Papers, ed. Clinton Rossiter (New York: Mentor Penguin Books, 1961), 76.
[2] Donald S. Lutz, The Origins of American Constitutionalism (Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana State U Press, 1988), 43.
[3] Lutz, Origins, 43; Gary Amos and Richard Gardiner, Never Before in History: America’s Inspired Birth, ed. William Dembski (Dallas, TX: Haughton, 1998), 141-145.
[4] “[God said to Moses and the Israelites] Now therefore, if you will indeed obey My voice and keep My covenant, then you shall be a special treasure to Me above all people; for all the earth is Mine. And you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.’”
[5] 2 Samuel 5:1-4, 2 Kings 11:4 & 17, and 2 Chronicles 22-23. 2 Samuel 5:3: “All the elders of Israel came to the king at Hebron, and King David made a covenant with them at Hebron before the Lord. And they anointed David king over Israel.” 2 Kings 11:4, 17: “Jehoiada [the prophet who represented God] sent and brought the captains of hundreds…into the house of the Lord to him. And he made a covenant with them and took an oath from them in the house of the Lord, and showed them the king’s son. … Then Jehoiada made a covenant between the Lord, the king, and the people, that they should be the Lord’s people, and also between the king and the people.” 2 Chronicles 23:3, 16, 20: “Then all the assembly made a covenant with the king [Joash] in the house of God. … Then Jehoiada [the prophet who represented God] made a covenant between himself, the people, and the king, that they should be the Lord’s people. … Then he took the captains of hundreds, the nobles, the governors of the people, and all the people of the land, and brought the king down from the house of the Lord; and they went through the Upper Gate to the king’s house, and set the king on the throne of the kingdom.”
[6] The pseudonymed author Stephen Junius Brutus was possibly Theodore Beza, Philippe de Mornay, or Hubert Languet.
[7] Althusius drew from the Bible, the Reformers, and Covenant Theology to develop his covenant-based political theory.
[8] Lutz, Origins, 44.
[9] Connecticut Secretary of State, The Fundamental Orders of Connecticut, 1639, in State of Connecticut Register and Manual, 1922 (Hartford, CT: State of Connecticut, 1922), 39-43. See also Angela E. Kamrath, The Miracle of America: The Influence of the Bible on the Founding History and Principles of the United States of America for a People of Every Belief (Houston, TX: American Heritage Education Fdn, 2013, 2015, 2020), 92.
[10] Lutz, Origins 45.
[11] Lutz, Origins, 44.
[12] Preamble, United States Constitution, 1787. See also Kamrath, Miracle of America, 289.
[13] Rozann Rothman, The Impact of Covenant and Contract Theories on Conceptions of the U. S. Constitutions in Covenant, Polity, and Constitutionalism, Publius: The Journal of Federalism, v10, n4, eds. Daniel J. Elazar and John Kincaid (Lanham, MD: U Press of America, 1980), 163.
[14] Rothman, Impact, 156-7.
[15] Rothman, Impact, 155.
[16] Rothman, Impact, 162.
[17] United States Bill of Rights, 1791. See also Kamrath, Miracle of America, 290.
[18] Rothman, Impact, 158-159.
[19] Kirk, Roots, 415.
[20] Lutz, Origins, 43, 44. For primary sources, see Stephen J. Brutus’s 1579 Vindiciae Contra Tyrannos or Defense of Liberty Against Tyrants; Johannes Althusius’s 1603 Politics Methodically Set Forth; Samuel Pufendorf’s 1673 Whole Duty of Man According to the Law of Nature, and John Locke’s 1690 Second Treatise of Civil Government.
[21] Rothman, Impact, 150.
[22] Daniel J. Elazar, The Politics of American Federalism (Lexington, MA: D. C. Health & Co., 1969), vii.
[23] Lutz, Origins, 44.
—
Contributed by AHEF and Angela E. Kamrath.
This essay (with endnotes) is available as a printable PDF handout in the member resources section on americanheritage.org. Simply sign up and login as a member (no cost), go to the resources page, and look under Miracle of America essays.
Related articles/videos:
1. The Principle of Popular Sovereignty
2. The Igniting of the Protestant Reformation – Martin Luther’s 95 Theses
3. Three P’s That Led to Freedom in the West: Printing Press, Protestant Reformation, and Pilgrims
4. The Reformation led to the Translation and Printing of the Bible into People’s Common Languages
5. The Mayflower Compact: The Pilgrims’ First Self-Governing Act in America.
6. The Pilgrims’ Mayflower Compact as Covenant
7. How the American Puritans Were Like the Bible’s Israelites
8. A City on a Hill: Why John Winthrop and the Puritans Came to America
9. The Puritans in America Created the First Written Constitutions of Law
10. Early American Puritan Thomas Hooker as the “Father of American Democracy”
11. Why the Puritans Elected Representatives to Govern in their American Colonies
12. Why the Puritans Favored Limited Government
13. American Revolution Debate: The Principle of Civil Covenants
14. The American Social Contract in the Declaration and Constitution
15. The Bible-Inspired Influences on the U. S. Constitution and Bill of Rights
Poster: Declaration of Independence
—–
Lesson: The Miracle of America High School Teacher Course Guide, Unit 8, Part 1, Activity 3: Principles of the United States Constitution, p. 270. MS-HS.
Principles of the United States Constitution….
Purpose/Objective: Students learn key principles of the U. S. Constitution including constitutional republic, rule of law, separation of powers, elected representatives, and federalism; and how influential thinkers and early Americans connected these concepts in the Bible.
Suggested Readings:
1) Chapters 1, Chapter 2 (2.4-2.6), Chapter 3 (3.3-3.5, 3.9-3.11) and Chapter 8 (8.3-8.7) of Miracle of America reference/text.
2) Principles of the U. S. Constitution and Principles of the U. S. Bill of Rights handouts by Angela E. Kamrath.
Activity: Reading and Questions
Have students read the “Principles of the United States Constitution” handout and, as desired, relevant sections in Miracle of America text as indicated. Have student read specific sections and then analyze and discuss the reading together as a class. You may wish to project some text or visuals on-screen. Answer questions, clarify vocabulary, and fill in other information as needed to help students grasp the terms and concepts. After the reading, students write answers to the questions that follow on the handout. Discuss. See “Principles of the United States Constitution” reading and questions in the “Supporting Resources” section of this course guide, pp. 393-397. (These and other review questions are also found in chapter 8 of the Miracle of America text, p. 297).
—–
To download this whole unit, sign up as an AHEF member (no cost) to access the “resources” page on americanheritage.org. To order the printed binder format of the course guide with all the units, go to the AHEF bookstore.
—–
To receive blog updates, we invite you to subscribe to the Founding Blog on this page.
This blog is provided by the American Heritage Education Foundation (AHEF). AHEF is a non-profit organization dedicated to the understanding and teaching of America’s founding philosophy, principles, documents, and history. AHEF’s work is made possible by the donations of private individuals and organizations. Please consider a tax-deductible donation to AHEF to support our mission. Thank you!
Copyright © American Heritage Education Foundation. All rights reserved.
The Bible-Inspired Influences on the U. S. Constitution and Bill of Rights


Scene at the Signing of the Constitution of the United States by Howard Chandler Christy, 1940.
Following the American Revolution and the birthing of the United States, the American Founders undertook the task of creating a new body of laws and a new civil government for the new nation. This agreed-upon set of laws became the United States’ Constitution of 1787. Russell Kirk elaborates in his 1991 The Roots of American Order, on the meaning of a constitution: “The true constitution of any political state is not merely a piece of parchment but rather a body of fundamental laws and customs that join together the various regions and classes and interests of a country, in a political pattern that is just.”[1] While the Declaration of Independence is an expression and agreement among Americans of the philosophical values and principles to which they adhere—the “who” and “why”—as a people and nation, the U. S. Constitution lays out a just, workable form of government and laws—the “how”—to practically order and govern the new nation according to its values and principles. The Constitution frames the United States government, provides for the country’s national security and defense, upholds justice, and protects the civil and religious liberties of the people. The Constitution is an important founding document of the American people.
While the U. S. Constitution is a practical legal document, it is based on a consensus of long-held moral, philosophical, and political beliefs, principles, and customs recognized and practiced by the American people. Some important philosophical influences on the Constitution include the colonial and state constitutions, the Great Awakening, modern Enlightenment thinkers, and the Declaration of Independence. Notably, all of these particular influences were shaped by a God-oriented worldview based on and/or consistent with the Bible. This worldview was held by colonial and founding-era Americans as well as by the political philosophers they read. In fact, the Bible itself was also a very strong, direct influence on founding-era Americans who drafted and ratified the Constitution.

The Puritans in the American colony of Connecticut drafted what is considered to be the first written constitution in the world, the Fundamental Orders of Connecticut of 1639.
The American colonial constitutions and the state constitutions in the new nation were a strong influence on the governing principles and laws of the U. S. Constitution. Drafted from 1776 to 1783, the state constitutions were themselves shaped by the colonial constitutions that preceded them. They were, as Donald Lutz explains in his 1980 essay From Covenant to Constitution in American Political Thought, the culmination of two centuries of governance and law in the American colonies and of selected European and American ideas. Particularly impactful on the state and federal constitutions were the Puritan constitutions of colonial Connecticut and Massachusetts, and the religiously tolerant colonies of Rhode Island and Pennsylvania. Many of these colonies’ laws and practices were inspired by and/or defended from the Bible. In fact, the American practice of constitutions began with the Puritans’ Bible-inspired covenantal constitutions in New England in the 1600s.[2] As Alexis de Tocqueville observes in his 1831-1832 Democracy in America, …
The general principles which are the groundwork of modern constitutions—principles which, in the seventeenth century, were imperfectly known in Europe, and not completely triumphant even in Great Britain—were all recognized and established by the laws of New England. The intervention of the people in public affairs, the free voting of taxes, the responsibility of the agents of power, personal liberty, and trial by jury, were all positively established without discussion [bold emphasis mine].[3]
Clearly, the Puritan constitutions, in their form and content, had a conspicuous impact on America’s modern constitutions. The state constitutions which drew from the colonial constitutions, as Founder John Adams indicates in his 1778 Defense of the Constitutions of Government of the United States, were the first modern constitutions and became models for the U. S. Constitution.[4] As such, the colonial constitutions and laws became a precedent through which the state and federal constitutions gleaned long-held American, Bible-inspired governing principles and customs.
Some important governing principles found in the Puritan colonial constitutions—the Fundamental Orders of Connecticut of 1639 and the Massachusetts Body of Liberties of 1641—that were taken up in America’s modern state and federal constitutions include popular sovereignty, consent of the governed, self-government, civil covenants, federalism, rule of law, constitutionalism, and limited government. The modern constitutions also took up religious freedom which was first attempted by religious non-conformists in the colonies of Rhode Island and Pennsylvania.

Though not distinctly political, traveling evangelist Rev. George Whitefield’s preaching during the Great Awakening had democratic elements in its style and message.
Another influence on founding-era Americans and the Constitution was the Great Awakening—the Christian evangelical revival that swept through the American colonies in the early to mid-1700s just prior to the American Revolution. Traveling evangelist George Whitefield and theologian Jonathan Edwards were the most prominent figures of this revival. Traveling evangelists’ teachings and preachings on the Bible during this period focused on spiritual life and devotion, and on spreading the Christian Gospel to all. While the revival was a religious movement, not a political one, it greatly affected American culture, society, and politics. For example, in teaching about Christ’s love and redemption for all mankind and about the individual’s choice in “born again” religious conversion, it advanced ideas of human dignity, equality, and religious tolerance. As Mark A. Noll notes in his 1992 A History of Christianity in the United States and Canada, it also had a democratic element in encouraging individuals to take an active role in their religious duties, relying less on the clergy. These ideas consequently affected Americans’ political views of democracy, freedom, and individual rights. Noll explains that this spirit of the Awakening that incorporated “a frank expression of popular democracy…had much to do with the rise of a similar spirit in politics later on.”[5] What is more, as historians observe, the revival helped to unify colonists under a common set of basic moral and civil values, and thus to develop a stronger national identity.

Portrait of French Enlightenment philosopher Charles-Louis de Montesquieu. Montesquieu was the most frequently cited secular writer of the American founding era.
Founding-era Americans also drew from the best ideas of the European Enlightenment to help develop and defend the U. S. Constitution. According to Lutz in his Origins, Americans most frequently cited French philosopher Charles-Louis de Montesquieu, English jurist William Blackstone, and British philosopher John Locke in their political writings during the American founding era from 1760 to 1805, with Montesquieu topping that list.[6] These particular thinkers resonated with early Americans who shared their moral and political values. Early Americans cited them to defend and justify the self-government they had practiced in their colonies, and to further inform and sharpen their political views and practices as they fought for and formed a new, independent nation. According to Donald Lutz in his 1988 The Origins of American Constitutionalism, Americans applied the works of these philosophers in order to “transform preferences into coherent theory, and thus to undergird familiar institutions. At the same time, these foreign-bred ideas were pressing Americans to think more deeply, reconsider their commitments and institutions, and seek a more secure political grounding for the future.”[7] Americans drew, for example, from Locke’s articulation of natural rights and Blackstone’s understanding of the Law of Nature to strengthen the basis for man’s unalienable rights and a moral standard for law and justice. Americans also drew from Montesquieu’s theory of separation of powers—with three governing branches including a separate judiciary—when considering constitutional design. Montesquieu’s separation of powers for fallible mankind informed the Founders’ system of checks and balances in the American government. Notably, all of these writers recognized a Creator of the universe, with a moral law for fallible mankind, and they applied this perspective to shape their political theories. Indeed, they often referenced the Bible and biblical ideas in their writings. As such, their political ideas easily aligned with the views and values of founding-era Americans.

Second Continental Congress voting on the United States Declaration of Independence by Robert Edge Pine c1784-1801.
Perhaps the most immediate and direct philosophical influence on the Constitution was the Declaration of Independence of 1776. Without the Declaration and its expression of the people’s philosophical values and principles, the Founders would have had no solid, formative basis or framework for constructing the Constitution and its laws. The Declaration necessarily established the moral, philosophical, rational, political, and legal ground of governance upon the Law of Nature and Nature’s God, the God-given equality and unalienable rights of man, popular sovereignty, consent of the governed, and social contract. Affirming this point, Ellis Sandoz in his 2006 Republicanism, Religion, and the Soul of America observes, “The philosophical foundation of the Bill of Rights [contained in the Constitution] is set forth in the Declaration of Independence’s first sentences, especially the announcement of ‘certain unalienable rights’ grounded in the ‘laws of nature and nature’s God.’”[8] Lutz similarly explains in his Origins, “If the social compact represented by the Declaration of Independence had not still been in effect, there would have been no basis for a new national constitution.”[9] The Declaration thus grounded the Constitution in certain Bible-aligned moral and social beliefs and understandings.

The Bible was the most frequently cited book in the political literature of the American founding era.
Ultimately, the Bible itself had a strong influence on early Americans in the development of the U. S. Constitution. For one, the aforementioned secular sources that influenced the Constitution aligned with biblical ideas of moral truth and law, and of mankind’s dignity and fallen condition. Through the moral and political principles in these secular historical sources, the Bible indirectly impacted Americans’ constitutional laws and design. In addition, the Bible also directly impacted the views of early Americans in being frequently cited by American founders and statesman, Whigs and revolutionaries, and clergymen and ministers during the founding era. In fact, according to Lutz’s research findings as presented in his Origins, the Bible was the most frequently cited book in the political literature of the American founding era from 1760 to 1805, surpassing all the secular writers.[10] Lutz further points out that the “prominence of ministers in the political literature of the period attests to the continuing influence of religion during the founding era.”[11] These findings reveal that the Bible was a very strong moral, philosophical, religious, and political influence on founding-era Americans and their political ideas. Lutz concludes, …
When reading comprehensively in the political literature of the war years, one cannot but be struck by the extent to which biblical sources used by ministers and traditional Whigs undergirded the justification for the break with Britain, the rationale for continuing the war, and the basic principles of Americans’ writing their own constitutions.[12]

James Madison, President of the United States by David Edwin and Thomas Sully, c1809-1817. Considered the “Father of the Constitution,” Madison drafted and promoted the U. S. Constitution and U. S. Bill of Rights.
Drawing from these sources, the Constitution applies a number of governing principles including popular sovereignty, consent of the governed, self-government, republicanism, federalism, social contract, rule of law, common law, constitutionalism, separation of powers, limited government, unalienable rights, and religious freedom. Some of these principles were legally expressed and implemented in the U. S. Constitution through, for example, constitutional law, checks and balances with three governing branches, elected or appointed representatives, the right to vote, habeas corpus, due process of law, and later through the Civil War Amendments abolition of slavery and equal protection of the laws. Further, the U. S. Bill of Rights of 1791—which comprises the first Ten Amendments to the Constitution—explicitly reinforces citizens’ rights to: …
- freedom of religion, speech, press, and peaceful assembly; and petitioning of the government for redress of grievances;
- bearing of arms;
- no non-consensual quartering of troops;
- no unreasonable search and seizure;
- habeas corpus; no double jeopardy; no self-incrimination; due process of law; just compensation for property for public use;
- speedy public trial by impartial jury; information about an accusation; confrontation and securing of witnesses; and assistance of counsel;
- trial by jury; and regard for the common law;
- no excessive bail and fines; and no cruel or unusual punishment;
- retaining of all rights of the people, though not specifically listed here;
- reservation of rights to the states and people which are not delegated to or prohibited by the United States.
These listed rights aim to reinforce the individual’s dignity and civil rights as well as the people’s free and just self-government.

The U. S. Constitution begins with “We the People” and creates a self-governing republic based on the moral and social beliefs and understandings of the people.
In conclusion, the U. S. Constitution, drafted by the American Founders and ratified by the American people, outlines a self-governing republic by and for the American people. Though a practical document of human governance and law, it embodies and implements in its content and design Americans’ long-held moral, philosophical, and political principles and values. These principles and values stem from, among other sources, the colonial and state constitutions, the Great Awakening, select Enlightenment-era thought, the Declaration, and the Bible. In these particular sources, colonial and founding-era Americans, as well as the political philosophers they read, adhered to a Creator-oriented, Bible-based worldview with certain understandings of truth, morality, and humanity. As such, their views ultimately shaped the laws, practices, and design of their Constitution. As Kirk observes, …
The written constitution has survived and has retained authority because it is in harmony with laws, customs, habits, and popular beliefs that existed before the Constitutional Convention met at Philadelphia—and which still work among Americans today. The written Constitution produced by the delegates from the several states drew upon the political experience of the colonies, upon their legacy of English law and institutions, upon the lessons of America under the Articles of Confederation, upon popular consensus about certain moral and social questions. Thus the Constitution was…a reflection and embodiment of political reality in America.[13]
Adhering to timeless truths, the Constitution still endures after 230 years and serves as an inspiration and model for nations around the world.
—
[1] Russell Kirk, The Roots of American Order, Third Edition (Washington, DC: Regnery Gateway, 1991), 416.
[2] Donald S. Lutz, “From Covenant to Constitution in American Political Thought,” in Covenant, Polity, and Constitutionalism: Publius: The Journal of Federalism, Vol. 10, No. 1, Fall 1980, eds. Daniel J. Elazar and John Kincaid (New York: U Press of America, 1980), 102.
[3] Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, 1831-1832, ed. Richard D. Heffner (New York: Penguin Books, 1956), 45-6.
[4] John Adams, A Defense of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America, 1778, Vol. 3 cont., in The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Vol. 6, ed. Charles F. Adams (Boston, MA: Charles C. Little and James Brown, 1851), 219.
[5] Mark A. Noll, A History of Christianity in the United States and Canada (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1992), 112.
[6] Donald S. Lutz, The Origins of American Constitutionalism (Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana State U Press, 1988), 139-147.
[7] Lutz, Origins, 139-140.
[8] Ellis Sandoz, Republicanism, Religion, and the Soul of America (Columbia, MO: U of Missouri Press, 2006), 68.
[9] Lutz, Origins, 112.
[10] Lutz, Origins, 140-142.
[11] Lutz, Origins, 140.
[12] Lutz, Origins, 142.
[13] Kirk, Roots, 416-7.
—
Contributed by AHEF and Angela E. Kamrath.
This essay (with endnotes) is available as a printable PDF handout in the member resources section on americanheritage.org. Simply sign up and login as a member (no cost), go to the resources page, and look under Miracle of America essays.
Source for more information: Kamrath, Angela E. The Miracle of America: The Influence of the Bible on the Founding History and Principles of the United States of America for a People of Every Belief. Second Edition. Houston, TX: American Heritage Education Foundation, 2014, 2015. Third edition (2020) is available!
Related articles/videos:
1. The Principle of Popular Sovereignty
2. The Mayflower Compact: The Pilgrims’ First Self-Governing Act in America
3. The Pilgrims’ Mayflower Compact as Covenant
4. The Puritans in America Created the First Written Constitutions of Law
5. Early American Puritan Thomas Hooker as the “Father of American Democracy”
6. Why Puritan Thomas Hooker Favored Democracy over Aristocracy
7. Why the Puritans Elected Representatives to Govern in their American Colonies
8. Why the Puritans Favored Limited Government
9. The First Experiments in Freedom of Belief and Religious Tolerance in America
10. Roger Williams: First Call for Separation of Church and State in America
11. Great Awakening Principle: The Judeo-Christian Law of Love
12. Great Awakening Principle: All Men Equal Before God
13. Great Awakening Principle: The Dignity of the Human Being
14. The American Revolution: An Introduction
15. The American Quest for Self-Government
16. American Revolution Debate: The American Quest for a New, Bible-Inspired Republic
17. The American Revolution was sometimes called the “Presbyterian Rebellion”
18. American Revolution Debate: God Desires Freedom, Not Slavery, for His People
19. American Revolution Debate: The Principle of Civil Covenants
20. Thomas Paine’s Common Sense: God’s Opposition to Absolute Rule
21. The American Social Contract
22. The Creator God: The Basis of Authority, Law, & Rights for Mankind in the United States of America
23. Self-Evident Truth: A Philosophy of Rights in the Declaration of Independence
24. The Law of Nature: The Universal Moral Law of Mankind
25. The Law of Nature and Nature’s God: The American Basis and Standard for Just Civil Law
26. John Locke and Algernon Sidney: A Bible-based Defense of Equality and Popular Sovereignty for the American Founders
27. The American, Bible-based Defense of Unalienable Rights
28. The American, Bible-based Defense of Religious Freedom
29. The Purpose of American Civil Government
30. The Bible was the Most Cited Source of the American Founding Era
Poster: Declaration of Independence
—–
Lesson 1: The Miracle of America High School Teacher Course Guide, Unit 3, Part 2, Activity 8: The Massachusetts Body of Liberties and Our Rights Today, p. 119-120. MS-HS. See also pp. 95-96 in The Miracle of America reference book.
The Massachusetts Body of Liberties and Our Rights Today….
Purpose/Objective: Students learn about the Puritans’ first covenantal constitutions of law including the Fundamental Orders of Connecticut 0f 1639 and the Massachusetts Body of Liberties of 1641, which laid the groundwork for many governing principles and laws in the United States’ Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Suggested Readings:
1) Chapter 3 of Miracle of America reference/text. Students read sections 3.13 and pp. 92, 95-96. And chapter 8, sections 8.3-8.8, 8.11, 8.14-8.16, 8.20, & pp. 288-296.
Activity: Matching Comparison Chart
Review the rights outlined in the Massachusetts Body of Liberties that still endure today. Match each law to the corresponding right in the U. S. Bill of Rights in the second column. You may draw a connecting line between them, color code them, etc. Both columns are listed in random order. See the Comparison Chart in Chapter 3 of The Miracle of America text, pp. 95-96, or in the “Supporting Resources” section of the HS course guide, pp. 346-347.
Lesson 2: The Miracle of America High School Teacher Course Guide, Unit 8, Part 1, Activity 3: Principles of the United States Constitution, p. 270. MS-HS.
Principles of the United States Constitution….
Purpose/Objective: Students learn key principles of the United States Constitution including constitutional republic, rule of law, separation of powers, elected representatives, and federalism; and how influential thinkers and early Americans connected these concepts with the Bible.
Suggested Readings:
1) Chapter 8 of Miracle of America reference/text. Students read sections 8.3-8.8, 8.11, 8.14-8.16, 8.20, & pp. 288-296.
Activity: Reading and Questions
Have students read the “Principles of the United States Constitution” and “Principles of the U. S. Bill of Rights” handouts and, as desired, relevant sections in Miracle of America text as indicated on the handouts. After the reading, students complete the questions and activities on the handouts. Discuss. See handouts in the “Supporting Resources” section of the HS course guide, pp. 392-402. The essays are also available in the member resources section of the AHEF website at americanheritage.org under “Miracle of America Snapshots.”
—–
To download this whole unit, sign up as an AHEF member (no cost) to access the “resources” page on americanheritage.org. To order the printed binder format of the course guide with all the units, go to the AHEF bookstore.
—–
To receive blog updates, we invite you to subscribe to the Founding Blog on this page.
This blog is provided by the American Heritage Education Foundation (AHEF). AHEF is a non-profit organization dedicated to the understanding and teaching of America’s founding philosophy, principles, documents, and history. AHEF’s work is made possible by the donations of private individuals and organizations. Please consider a tax-deductible donation to AHEF to support our mission. Thank you!
Copyright © American Heritage Education Foundation. All rights reserved.
You’re invited: ASHES IN THE SNOW Teacher Workshop – Nov. 25, 2019 (Houston area)

Dear Friends of AHEF,
You and your colleagues are invited to
The Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation’s
ASHES IN THE SNOW Teacher Workshop
(Houston area)
Date: Monday, November 25, 2019
Time: 9:30 AM to 1:00 PM (CST)
Location: Harris County Department of Education
Ronald Reagan Building
6300 Irvington Blvd.
Houston, TX 77022
Room 100A-C
This half-day professional development workshop will help you develop a better understanding of the ideology, history, and effects of communism in the 20th century.
As some today question our nation’s moral, political, and economic underpinnings, your knowledge of communism will help you compare/contrast and defend America’s founding heritage of individual rights, free enterprise, and private property. As American Founder James Madison once said, “The advancement and diffusion of knowledge is the only guardian of true liberty.”
This workshop will include a curriculum resource for teachers – Communism: Its Ideology, Its History, Its Legacy. It will be followed by a film screening of Ashes in the Snow (the movie adaptation of the bestselling YA novel Between Shades of Gray by Ruta Sepetys on the Baltic deportations in WWII) and a Q&A session.
Boxed lunches will be provided.
Credits: 6 hrs (includes 3 hrs GT credit)
Cost: $0.00 (free admission)
Please register to attend.
The Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation is a U.S-based non-profit educational organization. The mission of VOC is to educate this generation and future generations about the ideology, history, and legacy of communism. The foundation was established by an Act of Congress to build a memorial in Washington, D.C. to commemorate the more than 100 million victims of communism.
This notice is posted by the American Heritage Education Foundation in partnership with The Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation.
The American Defense of Religious Freedom in the First Amendment of the Constitution


Freedom of Worship by Norman Rockwell, 1943, Norman Rockwell Museum.
Following the American Revolution and the birth of the United States of America, the thirteen American colonies became states in the union and began to draft their state constitutions. One of the most significant issues within the states had to do with religion. Americans differed in their views about how to implement religious tolerance and freedom, and about state churches—in which one religious sect receives government financial support and legal privileges. For while all the states had become more religiously tolerant in the 1700s, nine of the thirteen states still had a state church. The state church, and the relationship between the church and civil government, was a source of intense debate for Americans. “The American revolution of religion began,” explains A. James Reichley in his 1985 Religion in American Public Life, “in the battle over religious clauses in the state constitutions.”[1]
Many Americans saw the importance and benefits of religion—namely Christianity—in society in promoting virtue and morality, peace and order among the people. But they disagreed over how to preserve it in a free society, or how to implement civil government in a Christian or moral context. Some supported state churches as they had known, while others called for the revolutionary separation of church and civil government. Heated debates arose in states with official churches like New England’s Massachusetts, Connecticut, and New Hampshire where Puritan Congregationalism was established and in the states of Virginia, New York, Maryland, the Carolinas, and Georgia where Anglicanism was established. The issue was less intense in middle colonies with no state churches like Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Delaware which began as pluralistic Christian societies. The arguments over religion in states like Virginia would later impact the American Founders’ approach to religious freedom at the national level in the U. S. Constitution.

Deal’s Island Camp Meeting. A sketch appearing in The Parson of the Islands: A Biography of the late Rev. Joshua Thomas by Adam Wallace, 1872. Thomas spread Methodism on the Eastern shores of Virginia and Maryland.
Americans who supported state churches saw this establishment as essential for promoting religion—specifically Christianity—and morality in society. They feared that separating church and government would lead to competition among religious groups, disturbance, disorder, disunity, and the downfall of Christianity in society.[2] They thus upheld the old-world view that civil rulers are the fathers and mothers of the church, tending to its welfare, as interpreted from Isaiah 49:23 where God tells His people, “Kings shall be your foster fathers, and their queens your nursing mothers.” Yet they saw the civil ruler’s role not to enforce church doctrine, as seen historically, but to financially support the church and protect religious tolerance. Tolerant state churches promoted religious freedom, they argued, because they allowed non-conformists to organize and pay taxes to their own churches, and to choose their own ministers. Pious individuals, they thus thought, should find no threat or violation of conscience in submitting to the authority of a tolerant state church.
In contrast, Americans who wanted to do away with state churches agreed about the benefits of religion in society but thought church and civil government should have distinct domains. They favored total religious freedom—not just tolerance—through the administrative and financial separation of these two institutions. Notably, supporters of separation, or Separationists, drew some of their key arguments from the Bible and its teachings—as did early proponents of religious freedom including Rhode Island founder Roger Williams, Pennsylvania founder William Penn, and British philosopher John Locke. Their primary argument for separation and total religious freedom was the Lockean principle that religious freedom is a natural right. They supported separation for the following reasons: 1) Separation protects man’s natural right of religious freedom; 2) Civil government has no authority over spiritual matters; 3) Separation reduces corruption in church and government; 4) State churches are not biblical; and 5) True religion can succeed on its own merits. The revolutionary idea of separation was defended by instrumental American founders including James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, and Benjamin Franklin. It was further strengthened by the American values of freedom and equality fought for in the revolution. To be sure, at the same time that they supported separation, the Founders repeatedly emphasized the importance of religion in a self-governing society in order to instill morality and virtue in the free people.
Separation Protects the Natural Right of Religious Freedom
First, Separationists acknowledged that religious freedom is a natural, unalienable right—a right given by God to all mankind and which cannot be taken away by man without just cause. Consequently, civil government’s proper role is simply to protect this right, not to regulate religion. Separation ensures that the proper roles of church and government are maintained. One leading New England Baptist pastor Rev. Isaac Backus expressed this idea in his 1779 Declaration of Rights of the Inhabitants of Massachusetts Bay, saying, …
As God is the only worthy object of all religious worship, and nothing can be true religion but a voluntary obedience unto his revealed will, of which each rational soul has an equal right to judge for himself, every person has an unalienable right to act in all religious affairs according to the full persuasion of his own mind, where others are not injured thereby. And civil rulers are so far from having any right to empower any person or persons, to judge for others in such affairs, and to enforce their judgements with the sword, that their power ought to be exerted to protect all persons and societies, within their jurisdiction from being injured or interrupted in the free enjoyment of this right.[3]

Isaac Backus. Backus also wrote a treatise against tax-supported religion titled Government and Liberty Described and Ecclesiastical Tyranny Exposed, 1778.
In his 1785 Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments, in which he opposed a church tax in Virginia, U. S. Constitution and Bill of Rights architect James Madison of Virginia also recognized this point. Drawing from Locke, he asserts, …
The Religion then of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate. This right is in its nature an unalienable right. It is unalienable because the opinions of men, depending only on the evidence contemplated by their own minds, cannot follow the dictates of other men. It is unalienable also because what is here a right towards men, is a duty towards the Creator. … This duty is precedent…to the claims of Civil Society. Before any man can be considered as a member of Civil Society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governor of the Universe…. We maintain therefore that in matters of Religion, no man’s right is abridged by the institution of Civil Society, and that Religion is wholly exempt from its cognizance.[4]

Portrait of James Madison by James Vanderlyn, 1816.
As long as civil liberties are not violated and civil society is not threatened, one’s religious beliefs and practices, Backus and Madison argued, are outside of government’s domain.
AHEF President and Miracle of America author Angela Kamrath speaks on religious freedom as an unalienable right at an HBU-AHEF Teacher Workshop, “The History and Foundation of Religious Freedom in America.”
For this reason, Separationists opposed even tolerant state churches because such establishments still assumed authority not just to protect but to grant religious rights to people. For if a state church or government has the power to grant religious tolerance, it also has the power to change or remove that tolerance. The establishment could then impose a different belief, intolerance, persecution, or other oppressions.[5] Madison stressed this danger, posing,
Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects? That the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute three pence only of his property for the support of any one establishment, may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever?[6]
Backus shared this concern, saying that though a current ruler or political power may enforce Christianity, earthly states can change, and a state power that at one time supports Christians may at another time persecute them. Consequently, Separationists wanted to do away with the notion that church and government are tied together.
Civil Government Has No Authority Over Spiritual Matters
Second, Separationists—just as Williams, Penn, and Locke—argued that civil government does not have authority over spiritual matters because it cannot properly discern or judge them. Drawing from Locke’s 1689 Letter Concerning Toleration and his definition of a commonwealth, Declaration author Thomas Jefferson of Virginia elaborated on this point in his 1776 Notes on Religion: …
Each church being free, no one can have jurisdiction over another one, not even when the civil magistrate joins it. … Every church is to itself orthodox, to others erroneous or heretical. …
The care of every man’s soul belongs to himself. … Laws provide against injury from others, but not from ourselves. God Himself will not save men against their wills. …
If the magistrate commands me to bring my commodity to the public storehouse, I bring it because he can indemnify [compensate or insure] me if he erred & I thereby lose it. But what indemnification can he give one for the kingdom of heaven?
I cannot give up my guidance to the magistrates, because he knows no more the way to heaven than I do, and is less concerned to direct me right than I am to go right. If the Jews had followed their kings, among so many, what number would have led them to idolatry? …
The commonwealth is ‘a society of men constituted for protecting their civil interests.’
Civil interests are ‘life, health, indolency of body, liberty, and property.’ That the magistrate’s jurisdiction extends only to civil rights appears from these considerations.[7]

Portrait of Thomas Jefferson by Charles Willson Peale, 1791.
Since government cannot determine the fate of a person’s soul, it has no reasonable authority over man’s conscience or religious belief.
Separation Reduces Corruption in Church and Civil Government
Third, Separationists, like Williams, Penn, and Locke, argued that a combined state-church system, as history shows, corrupts religion and civil government. In requiring people to engage in certain religious practices or else suffer punishment, such a system can violate people’s consciences and produce weak, insincere, and/or violent religion. In addition, a state church’s overseers can become complacent or more easily occupied with worldly interests like money, power, and position, and less concerned with spiritual life. Lay church members can become overly dependent on the clergy’s teachings and less on sacred scripture itself. Separation reduces corruption in both institutions and makes religion more free, pure, and true. As such, in their 1784 Petition Against the Religious Assessment Bill, a group of non-conformist citizens who petitioned against church taxes in Virginia lamented the historical mixing of church and government in the 300s by Roman Emperor Constantine I. Though originally well-intentioned, this ancient combined system, they saw, led to impure religion and church. They observe,
Nor was it better for the church when Constantine first established Christianity by human laws. True, there was rest from persecution. But how soon [was the church] overrun with error, superstition, and immorality. How unlike were ministers then, to what they were before, both in orthodoxy of principle and purity of life.[8]

Pope Sylvester I and Emperor Constantine I, 1247, San Silvestro Chapel at Santi Quattro Coronati, Rome.
This establishment only served to “call in many hirelings whose chief motive would be temporal interest.”[9] Madison similarly observed the corrupting effects of a combined state-church system on religion and churches in history:
During almost fifteen centuries, has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity. In both, superstition, bigotry and persecution.[10]
A combined system pollutes civil government, Madison further thought, in encouraging religious and political tyranny rather than government’s proper role as guardian of the people’s liberties. Madison believed that “religion & government will both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together.”[11] Jefferson similarly observed in his Notes on Religion that state churches often lead to false religion. Citing Romans 14:23, he expresses,
No man has power to let another prescribe his faith. Faith is not faith without believing. No man can conform his faith to the dictates of another. The life & essence of religion consists in the internal persuasion or belief of the mind. External forms of worship, when against our belief are hypocrisy & impiety. Rom. 14. 23: “He that doubteth is damned, if he eat, because he eateth not of faith. For whatsoever is not of faith, is sin.”[12]
Jefferson later reiterated this point in his 1786 Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, a bill which made separation a law in Virginia, providing total religious freedom. The statute says, …
Almighty God hath created the mind free; …all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burdens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the Holy Author of our religion, who being Lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either….[13]
Separationists thus sought for administrative and financial distinction between church and civil government in order to have less corruption in both spheres and more free, sincere religion.
State Churches Are Not Biblical
Fourth, Separationists argued that state churches are not biblical because they a) lead to religious oppression and b) depart from early church practice. For one, the religious oppression that often issues from state churches is contrary to the spirit of the Christian Gospel. Like Williams, Penn, and Locke, they argued that religious coercion goes against the teachings of Christ on life, faith, peace, meekness, gentleness, forbearance, and charity or love. These teachings are found, for example, in 1 Corinthians 13, Ephesians 4, and Colossians 3 and speak of “bearing with one another in love.” Madison thus denounced religious intolerance and oppression as contrary to “Christian forbearance, love and charity.”[14] Jefferson likewise observed in his Notes on Religion that “according to the spirit of the gospel, charity, bounty, liberality is due” to all.[15]

The Dunking of David Barrow and Edward Mintz in the Nansemond River, 1778. Preachers who did not conform to the state church in Virginia were harrassed.
Separationists also pointed out that the early Christian church in the Bible was not tied to civil government. It had no government aid where it emerged and did not grow by government force. It received only voluntary financial support. Despite no public financing, the early church and Christianity flourished in this period. Citing the example of the early church, the Virginia petitioners declared that “Christ the head of the Church has left plain directions concerning religion, and the manner of supporting its teachers, which should be by free contributions.”[16] They elaborated,
Certain it is that the Holy Author of our religion not only supported and maintained His Gospel in the world for several hundred years without the aid of civil power, but against all the powers of the earth. The excellent purity of its precepts and the unblameable behavior of its ministers (with the divine Blessing) made its way through all opposition.[17]
Madison affirmed that early Christianity survived on its own without government support. He expounds,
[A state-church establishment] is not requisite for the support of the Christian religion. To say that it is, is a contradiction to the Christian religion itself, for every page of it [the Bible] disavows a dependence on the powers of this world. It is a contradiction to fact, for it is known that this religion both existed and flourished, not only without the support of human laws, but in spite of every opposition from them; and not only during the period of miraculous aid, but long after it had been left to its own evidence and the ordinary care of Providence. Nay, it is a contradiction in terms. For a religion not invented by human policy, must have pre-existed and been supported before it was established by human policy.[18]
Because the Bible evidences that early Christianity existed and thrived apart from human government, it provided strong support for separation between church and civil government.
True Religion Can Succeed on its Own Merits
Fifth, many Separationists believed, like Locke, that religion should prosper or decline based on its own merits. Good religion like Christianity, they believed, can defend itself and prevail in a free exchange of ideas. Madison argued that state churches only weaken Christians’ “pious confidence in its [Christianity’s] innate excellence and the patronage of its Author [God],” and conveys this doubt to others. Alluding to Hebrews 12:2, he asserted that true faith trusts in God, the “Author and Finisher of our faith,” for its endurance.[19] Madison later reaffirmed that “there are causes in the human breast, which ensure the perpetuity of religion without the aid of law.”[20] Jefferson expressed this same idea in his Virginia Statute, writing, “[T]ruth is great and will prevail if left to herself, that she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error.”[21] American Founder Benjamin Franklin of Pennsylvania also shared this view that good religion can sustain itself. In a 1780 letter, he writes,
When a religion is good, I conceive it will support itself, and when it does not support itself, and God does not take care to support it, so that its professors are obliged to call for help of the civil powers, ‘tis a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one.[22]

Portrait of Benjamin Franklin by Joseph Duplessis, c1785
Incidentally, this reason echoes Acts 5:38-39 where Gamaliel advises the Pharisees not to fight against the Gospel and Jesus’ disciples since truth will prevail. He admonishes,
Keep away from these men [Jesus’ disciples] and let them alone; for if this plan or this work is of men, it will come to nothing; but if it is of God, you cannot overthrow it—lest you even be found to fight against God.
As such, many Separationists thus believed that good religion like Christianity would continue to spread and prosper based on its own qualities and virtues.
In defense of this argument, Separationists cited examples of early American colonies such as Pennsylvania which did not have a state church and was religiously diverse with Christians of many different sects and denominations. In this colony, morality, peace, and order were maintained. The Virginia petitioners observe,
That religious establishment and government are linked together, and that the latter cannot exist without the former, is contrary to experience. Witness the state of Pennsylvania, wherein no such establishment hath taken place. Their Government stands firm. And which of the neighbouring states has better members, or brighter morals, and more upright character?[23]

Penn’s Vision by Violet Oakley, 1902-1906, Pennsylvania State Capitol. In this mural, Penn points persecuted Christians in Europe to his colony in America.
Jefferson likewise observed in his 1785 Notes on the State of Virginia the voluntary support of religion and the preservation of morality, peace, and order in Pennsylvania. He notes,
Religion is well supported [in Pennsylvania]; of various kinds indeed, but all good enough; all sufficient to preserve peace and order; or if a sect arises whose tenets would subvert morals, good sense has fair play, and reason laughs it out of doors, without suffering the State to be troubled with it.[24]
Contrary to fears, the colonies without state churches, Separationists noted, did not experience disorder or the dissolution of Christianity due to greater religious freedom. Rather, churches and religious groups there were adequately sustained by voluntary support. Separationists concluded that independent, voluntary, privately-funded churches were possible.[25]
The Values of Freedom and Equality in the Revolution Reinforce Religious Freedom
The principles of religious freedom as a natural right and of separation between church and civil government were further reinforced at this time by Americans’ views and values of freedom and equality stemming from the American Revolution and as expressed in the Declaration of Independence. To many, state churches violated equal rights and were contrary to America’s fight for freedom. After the revolution, religious dissenters who had fought for freedom in the war would not tolerate religious discrimination by fellow Americans. Catholics, for example, who had previously lacked freedom to worship in many Protestant colonies, asserted their equal religious rights as citizens. Catholic statesman Charles Carroll of Maryland declared that “freedom and independence—acquired by the united efforts, and cemented with the mingled blood of Protestant and Catholic fellow-citizens, should be equally enjoyed by all.”[26] Citing his Virginia Declaration of Rights of 1776, Madison shared this view of religious freedom based on equality, arguing in his Memorial and Remonstrance: …
If ‘all men are by nature equally free and independent,’ all men are to be considered as entering Society on equal conditions; as relinquishing no more, and therefore retaining no less, one than another, of their natural rights. Above all are they to be considered as retaining an ‘equal title to the free exercise of Religion according to the dictates of Conscience.’ … If this freedom be abused, it is an offense against God, not against man….[27]
In the wake of the revolution, religious freedom was thus recognized and accepted by many Americans as something that should be equally enjoyed by all citizens in the new nation.
The Importance of Religion in a Free, Self-Governing Society
It is important to note that as the American Founders implemented separation at the national level, they repeatedly emphasized the importance of voluntary religion in promoting virtue and morality in a free society. For they knew that a self-governing republic like the United States requires a virtuous citizenry in order to successfully function and endure. For example, Declaration signer Benjamin Rush aptly expressed the relationship of religion to a republic, stating, “…[T]he only foundation for a useful education in a republic is to be laid in Religion. Without this there can be no virtue, and without virtue there can be no liberty, and liberty is the object and life of all republican governments.”[28] Statesman, commander general, and first U. S. President George Washington observed, “Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness—these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens.”[29] Declaration signer and second U. S. President John Adams also stressed the importance of religion for virtue and republicanism, writing in a letter, “Statesmen…may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is religion and morality alone, which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue.”[30] As such, the Founders strongly encouraged the teaching and expression of religion and morality.
Director of the Center for Law & Liberty and Professor of Government at Houston Baptist University Dr. Chris Hammons speaks on the American Founders’ views and value of religion in society at an HBU-AHEF Teacher Workshop, “The History and Foundation of Religious Freedom in America.”
Conclusion
In conclusion, the founding of the United States compelled the states in the union, as well as the national government, to recognize the religious rights of all citizens and to address the issue of state churches. While some Americans believed tolerant state churches were workable, others saw separation between church and civil government as the most effective way to protect citizens’ natural, unalienable right of religious freedom. Drawing from the Bible and Christian teaching, Separationists opposed state churches as unbiblical, corrupting, and outside proper domain; recognized that government cannot judge spiritual matters; and saw that true religion can prosper without force and regulation. In the end, the Separationists won the argument.
AHEF President and Miracle of America author Angela Kamrath speaks on the Virginia statute and how the American Founders applied religious freedom in the new nation at an HBU-AHEF Teacher Workshop, “The History and Foundation of Religious Freedom in America.”
Subsequently, some states like Virginia implemented complete separation for total religious freedom. Jefferson’s 1786 Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, for example, passed in Virginia with majority support a few months after Madison wrote his Memorial and Remonstrance. The bill asserted religious freedom as a natural right; eliminated the state church with its religious laws and taxes, and all government involvement in religion; separated civil rights from religious conviction; placed all religious groups on equal standing; and declared religion a voluntary pursuit. The approval of Jefferson’s statute, says Frank Lambert in his 2003 The Founding Fathers and the Place of Religion in America, provided “a truly revolutionary religious freedom” and was “one of the most revolutionary moments in the entire American Revolution.”[31] Indeed, Jefferson saw this bill as one of his greatest accomplishments. While some states maintained tolerant or partial state churches in the 1700s and early 1800s, all states gradually eliminated them in the 1800s as they fell out of favor, even before they were declared unconstitutional.

Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom of 1786 by Thomas Jefferson.
Despite the gradual separation of church and civil government in the states, nearly all the state constitutions from the late 1700s onward continued to reference God and acknowledge the need for religion in society. They either invoked the favor and guidance of God or expressed gratitude for His blessings of liberty. In a 1892 court case Church of the Holy Trinity v United States, Supreme Court Justice David J. Brewer noted the inclusion of God in most states’ constitutions, observing:
If we examine the constitutions of the various states, we find in them a constant recognition of religious obligations. Every constitution of every one of the forty-four states contains language which either directly or by clear implication recognizes a profound reverence for religion and an assumption that its influence in all human affairs is essential to the wellbeing of the community.[32]
Very notably, after implementing separation, the states continued to recognize in their founding documents God as the basis of their civil and religious liberties, and the need for religion in society.

The Religious Clause of the First Amendment to the U. S. Constitution states, “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
The move toward religious freedom and separation in states like Virginia was important nationally because the state constitutions provided precedents and practical models to the American Founders as they drafted the U. S. Constitution and Bill of Rights. Ultimately, the Founders separated church and civil government at the national level—prohibiting the establishment of a national church, and securing the “free exercise” of religion in the First Amendment of the Constitution. As such, they addressed the historically perplexing issue of religion through a Bible-inspired, natural-rights, and rational approach to religious freedom. This approach enabled them to meet the needs of a pluralistic society and provide greater religious freedom than ever before realized in any nation in history. In doing so, they created a society where true religious faith, practice, and expression could freely flourish and be enjoyed by all.
—–
[1] A. James Reichley, Religion in American Public Life (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, 1985), 219.
[2] James Madison, Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments, 1785, in The Writings of James Madison: 1783-1787, vol. 2, ed. Gaillard Hunt (New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1901), 189.
[3] Isaac Backus, A Declaration of the Rights, of the Inhabitants of the State of Massachusetts-Bay, in New England, 1779, in The Sacred Rights of Conscience: Selected Readings on Religious Liberty and Church-State Relations in the American Founding, eds. Daniel L. Dreisbach and Mark D. Hall (Indianapolis, IN: Liberty Fund, 2009), 276.
[4] Madison, Memorial, 184-5. Madison also acknowledged in the Virginia Declaration of Rights of 1776 that religion is “the duty which we owe to our Creator.”
[5] Madison, Memorial, 188-90.
[6] Madison, Memorial, 186.
[7] Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Religion, October 1776, in The Works of Thomas Jefferson in Twelve Volumes, vol. 2, Federal Edition, ed. Paul L. Ford (New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1904), 252-268.
[8] Virginia Citizens, Petition Against The Religious Assessment Bill to the Virginia General Assembly, 2 November 1784, in The Sacred Rights of Conscience: Selected Readings on Religious Liberty and Church-State Relations in the American Founding, eds. Daniel L. Dreisbach and Mark D. Hall (Indianapolis, IN: Liberty Fund, 2009), 308.
[9] Virginia Citizens, Petition, 308.
[10] Madison, Memorial, 187.
[11] James Madison to Edward Livingston, Montpelier, 10 July 1822, in United States Congress, Letters and Other Writings of James Madison: 1816-1828, vol. 3, Congress (Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott & Co., 1865), 275.
[12] Jefferson, Notes on Religion, 252-268. Williams had declared in his 1644 The Bloudy Tenent of Persecution for Cause of Conscience from Isaiah 10, “True it is, the sword may make, as one the Lord complained, Isa. x., a whole nation of hypocrites.” Penn had asserted in his 1671 The Great Case of Liberty of Conscience that “Force may make an hypocrite. It is faith, grounded upon knowledge and consent, that makes a Christian.”
[13] Thomas Jefferson, An Act for Establishing Religious Freedom, 1786, in Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, 8th ed. (Boston, MA: Printed by David Carlisle, 1801), 326-328. See also Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, 1786, in A History of Us: Sourcebook and Index: Documents That Shaped the American Nation, vol. 11, ed. Steven Mintz (New York: Oxford U Press, 2002), 56-58.
[14] Madison, Memorial, 189. Madison also used this phrase and argument in the Virginia Declaration of Rights of 1776 where he wrote of the “mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity towards each other.” Locke had asserted in his Letter Concerning Toleration that “If the gospel and the apostles may be credited, no man may be a Christian without charity, and without that faith which works, not by force, but by love.”
[15] Jefferson, Notes on Religion, 252-268.
[16] Virginia Citizens, Petition, 308.
[17] Virginia Citizens, Petition, 307-308.
[18] Madison, Memorial, 187.
[19] Madison, Memorial, 187. Hebrews 12:2 states, “Looking unto Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith, who for the joy that was set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.” (NKJV)
[20] James Madison to Edward Everett, Montpelier, 19 March 1823, in United States Congress, Letters and Other Writings of James Madison: 1816-1828, vol. 3 (Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott & Co., 1865), 307.
[21] Jefferson, Act for Establishing Religious Freedom, 326-328. Jefferson also expressed in his Notes on Religion, “Truth will do well enough if left to shift for herself. … She has no need of force to procure entrance into the minds of men. Error indeed has often prevailed by the assistance of power or force. Truth is the proper & sufficient antagonist to error.” Locke had asserted in his Letter Concerning Toleration that truth prevails “when strong arguments and good reason are joined with the softness of civility and good usage.” Locke, incidentally, saw Christianity as the true religion.
[22] Benjamin Franklin to Dr. Richard Price, Passy, 9 October 1780, in The Life and Writings of Benjamin Franklin in Two Volumes, vol. 1, eds. William Temple Franklin and William Duane (Philadelphia: M’Carty & Davis, 1834), 367.
[23] Virginia Citizens, Petition, 308.
[24] Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782, excerpted in The Life and Writings of Thomas Jefferson, ed. Samuel E. Forman (Indianapolis: Bowen-Merrill Co., 1900), 154.
[25] Madison, Memorial, 189.
[26] John Carroll to the Editor of Columbian Magazine, 1 September 1787, in Biographical Sketch of the Most Rev. John Carroll: first archbishop of Baltimore, ed. John Carroll Brent (Baltimore, MD: John Murphy, 1843), 142-3.
[27] Madison, Memorial, 186. Madison first used the phrase “free exercise of religion” in the religion clause of the Virginia Declaration of Rights of 1776 where he says that “all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience.” Madison later used the “free exercise” phrase in the First Amendment of the U. S. Constitution to secure religious freedom in the new nation.
[28] Benjamin Rush, Of the Mode of Education Proper in a Republic, in Essays, Literary, Moral and Philosophical, 2nd ed. (Philadelphia, PA: Printed by Thomas and William Bradford, 1806), 8.
[29] George Washington, Farewell Address, 17 September 1796, in The Addresses and Messages of the Presidents of the United States, 1789-1846, vol. 1, comp. Edwin Williams (New York: Edward Walker, 1846), 75.
[30] John Adams to Zabdiel Adams, Philadelphia, 21 June 1776, in The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, vol. 9, ed. Charles F. Adams (Boston: Little, Brown, & Co., 1854), 401.
[31] Frank Lambert, The Founding Fathers and the Place of Religion in America (Princeton, NJ: Princeton U Press, 2003), 225, 235.
[32] Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, 143 U.S. 457 (1892).
—–
Contributed by AHEF and Angela E. Kamrath.
This essay (with endnotes) is available as a printable PDF handout in the member resources section on americanheritage.org. Simply sign up and login as a member (no cost), go to the resources page, and look under Miracle of America essays.
Source for more information: Kamrath, Angela E. The Miracle of America: The Influence of the Bible on the Founding History and Principles of the United States of America for a People of Every Belief. Second Edition. Houston, TX: American Heritage Education Foundation, 2014, 2015. Third edition (2020) is available!
Related Videos:
1. American Founders Supported Natural Rights from the Bible, Nature & Reason – Angela E. Kamrath (3.32 min)
2. Natural Rights Central to the Declaration of Independence – Angela E. Kamrath (.49 min)
3. How the American Founders Applied Religious Freedom in the New Nation – Angela E. Kamrath (1.36 min)
4. American Founders Emphasized Religion’s Importance in Society – Dr. Chris Hammons (3.12 min)
5. The Issue of Religion in the U. S. Constitution – Dr. Chris Hammons (4.51 min)
6. Thomas Jefferson and the “Wall of Separation” – Dr. Chris Hammons (7.57 min)
Related Essays:
1. The Principle of Popular Sovereignty
2. The Two Kingdoms Doctrine
3. Challenges in the Early Puritan Colonies: The Dilemma of Religious Laws & Religious Dissent
4. Roger Williams and His Quest for Religious Purity
5. Roger Williams: First Call for Separation of Church and State in America
6. William Penn and His “Holy Experiment” in Religious Tolerance
7. Early Americans supported Religious Tolerance based on God as Judge of Conscience
8. Early Americans opposed Religious Persecution as contrary to the Biblical Teachings of Christ.
9. Early Americans argued Religious Coercion opposes Order of Nature
10. Early Americans Believed Religious Coercion Opposes Reason
11. Early Americans Supported Religious Tolerance within Civil Peace and Order
12. Philosopher John Locke & His Defense of Religious Tolerance
13. The Religious Landscape of the Thirteen Colonies in the Early 1700s
14. The American Revolution: An Introduction
15. The Creator God in the Declaration: The Basis of Authority, Law, & Rights for Mankind in the United States of America
16. Self-Evident Truth: A Philosophy of Rights in the Declaration of Independence
17. John Locke and Algernon Sidney: A Bible-based Defense of Equality and Popular Sovereignty for the American Founders
18. The American, Bible-based Defense of Unalienable Rights in the Declaration
19. America’s Founding Philosophy in the Declaration: God as Supreme Judge, Lawgiver, and King
20. America’s Founding Philosophy in the Declaration: Divine Providence
21. Gen. George Washington and the Continental Army Rely on God in the American Revolution
Additional Readings/Handouts:
1) Why Religious Freedom is an Unalienable Right in America by Angela E. Kamrath, American Heritage Education Foundation. Paper available to download from member resources, americanheritage.org.
2) Principles of the Bill of Rights by Angela E. Kamrath found in the “Supporting Resources” of the Miracle of America HS Teacher Course Guide, pp. 400-405, or in the “Miracle of America Snapshots” handout under member resources (see Miracle of America articles) at americanheritage.org. Corresponding educational activities are included in the course guide.
3) Principles of the First Amendment by Angela E. Kamrath found in the “Supporting Resources” of the Miracle of America HS Teacher Course Guide, pp. 406-416, or in the “Miracle of America Snapshots” handout under member resources (see Miracle of America articles) at americanheritage.org. Corresponding educational activities are included in the course guide.
4) Preamble Excerpts of 47 State Constitutions with Adoption Dates found in Miracle of America text, pp. 291-294.
5) Chapter 8 of Miracle of America reference book/text. Students read sections 8.1-8.2, 8.5, 8.12, and pp. 290-294.
6) See “Related Essays” and “Related Videos” listed above.
Poster: Declaration of Independence
—–
Activity: The Miracle of America High School Teacher Course Guide, Unit 8, Part 2, Activity 3: The Debate For or Against Religious Establishments, p. 254. MS-HS.
The Debate For or Against Religious Establishments….
Purpose/Objective: Students learn about the principle and natural right of religious freedom guaranteed by the First Amendment of the U. S. Bill of Rights and later by the states, and administrative separation of church and state; considering the meaning, worldview/philosophy, Bible-based connection, and application of these concepts by historical influential thinkers and early Americans.
Suggested Readings:
1) Chapter 8 of Miracle of America reference book/text. Students read sections 8.2, 8.5, 8.8-8.10, 8.12-8.13, 8.17-8.20, & pp. 288-296.
2) The American, Bible-based Defense of Religious Freedom by Angela E. Kamrath (above essay).
3) See also “Additional Readings/Handouts” listed above.
4) See also “Related Essays/Videos” listed above.
Activity: Virginia Mock Debate
- Virginia Mock Debate. The teacher will group students into two groups of founding-era Americans residing in Virginia—Virginians who were for and against religious establishments. Have students read copied selections from Miracle of America text, research, etc. to understand their position and arguments. Students should use their political pamphlets from the activity above as a large part of their research/preparation. Students should be familiar with important original documents, sermons, etc. along with Bible references historically applied by like-minded Americans in order to argue and defend their position. Student groups should prepare with notes or outlines beforehand as needed. Groups may decide to assign different points/arguments to different students. All students should have an opportunity to participate, contributing at least one point or piece of information. Giving students the option to dress in early American attire and/or to role play early American figures would add an additional element of fun and entertainment. See the “Class Debate Rubric” in the “Supporting Resources” section of the Miracle of America HS Teacher Course Guide, p. 321.
—–
To download this whole unit, sign up as an AHEF member (no cost) to access the “resources” page on americanheritage.org. To order the printed binder format of the course guide with all the units, go to the AHEF bookstore.
—–
To receive blog updates, we invite you to subscribe to the Founding Blog on this page.
This blog is provided by the American Heritage Education Foundation (AHEF). AHEF is a non-profit organization dedicated to the understanding and teaching of America’s founding philosophy, principles, documents, and history. AHEF’s work is made possible by the donations of private individuals and organizations. Please consider a tax-deductible donation to AHEF to support our mission. Thank you!
Copyright © American Heritage Education Foundation. All rights reserved.