by David Barton
This reasoning was evident in the Founders’ plan for government. For example, George Washington, in his “Farewell Address,” confirmed that the Biblical teaching on the condition of the heart was sufficient reason for maintaining the separation of powers:
A just estimate of that love of power, and proneness to abuse it, which predominates in the human heart, is sufficient to satisfy us for the truth of this position. The necessity of reciprocal checks in the exercise of political power by dividing and distributing it into different depositories … has been evinced [established].8
Alexander Hamilton cited the same truth concerning the human heart:
Why has government been instituted at all? Because the passions of men will not conform to the dictates of reason and justice without constraint…. [T]he infamy of a bad action is to be divided among a number, than … to fall singly upon one.9
The transcendency of laws and the separation of powers were two of the many identifiable aspects of Montesquieu’s teachings to be found in the American system.
Sir William Blackstone
Blackstone (1723-1780), the second most invoked political authority during the Founding Era, was an English judge and law professor who authored the four-volume Commentaries on the Laws of England (1765-1769). His influence in America was so great that Edmund Burke told the British parliament:
I hear that they have sold nearly as many of Blackstone’s Commentaries in America as in England.10
Blackstone’s Commentaries were purchased as the law book for the U. S. Senate,11 and James Madison heartily endorsed Blackstone:
I very cheerfully express my approbation of the proposed edition of Blackstone’s Commentaries.12
Numerous other Founders also relied heavily on Blackstone,† and contributions from Blackstone’s political theories may be found in the phraseology of the opening sentence of the Declaration of Independence:
When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitles them … (emphasis added)
The two phrases, “the Laws of Nature” and the laws “of Nature’s God,” had received significant attention in Blackstone’s works. Notice his definition of “the law of nature,” and the laws “of Nature’s God” – or what was termed “the law of revelation”:
Man, considered as a creature, must necessarily be subject to the laws of his Creator, for he is entirely a dependent being…. And consequently, as man depends absolutely upon his Maker for every thing, it is necessary that he should in all points conform to his Maker’s will. This will of his Maker is called the law of nature…. This law of nature, being coeval [coexistent] with mankind and dictated by God himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times: no human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this; and such of them as are valid derive all their force, and all their authority, mediately or immediately, from this original…. The doctrines thus delivered we call the revealed or Divine law and they are to be found only in the holy Scriptures. These precepts, when revealed, are found upon comparison to be really a part of the original law of nature…. Upon these two foundations, the law of nature and the law of revelation, depend all human laws; that is to say, no human laws should be suffered to contradict these.13
These two aspects of natural law which Blackstone had identified (i.e., the law of nature and the Divine or revealed law of the Scriptures) are embodied in the Declaration’s phrase “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God” – the phrase the Founders invoked as the legal basis for their separation from Great Britain. Furthermore, Justice James Iredell (appointed to the Supreme Court by President George Washington) declares that Blackstone’s views were relied upon by those who formed the Bill of Rights.14
Not only was Blackstone’s influence apparent in our American government documents, it continued for decades afterwards as his Commentaries became the major foundation for the American system of jurisprudence. For example, in 1799, Justice Iredell noted:
[F]or near thirty years it [Blackstone’s Commentaries] has been the manual of almost every student of law in the United States, and its uncommon excellence has also introduced it into the libraries, and often to the favorite reading of private gentlemen.15
And in 1810, Thomas Jefferson commented that American lawyers used Blackstone’s with the same dedication and reverence that Muslims used the Koran.16
It was a fundamental precept under the natural law philosophy explained by Blackstone and embraced by the majority of the Founders that civil laws could not contradict the laws of God revealed either through nature or the Bible.
John Locke
Locke (1632-1704), a British philosopher and author, was the third most cited man in early American political thought. The Founders used many of his writings and especially drew from his Two Treatises of Government (1690). Locke concisely articulated the theory of social compact which helped the Founders formulate their belief on this issue. Social compact, as explained by Locke, is when:
Men…. join and unite into a community for their comfortable, safe, and peaceable living one amongst another in a secure enjoyment of their properties and a greater security against any that are not of it.17
Of Locke’s theory of social compact, William Findley, a Revolutionary soldier and a U. S. Congressmen, further explained:
Men must first associate together, before they can form rules for their civil government. When those rules are formed and put in operation, they have become a civil society, or organized government. For this purpose, some rights of individuals must have been given up to the society but repaid many fold by the protection of life, liberty, and property afforded by the strong arm of civil government. This progress to human happiness being agreeable to the will of God, who loves and commands order, is the ordinance of God mentioned by the apostle Paul and … the apostle Peter.18
Locke’s theory of social compact was manifested in the Declaration of Independence phrase that governments “derive their just powers from the consent of the governed.”
Locke also believed that successful governments could be built only upon the transcendent, unchanging principles of natural law that were a subset of God’s law:
[T]he 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 must … be conformable to the Law of Nature, i.e. to the will of God.19 “[L]aws human must be made according to the general laws of Nature, and without contradiction to any positive law of Scripture, otherwise they are ill made.”20
So heavily did Locke draw from the Bible in developing his political theories that in his first treatise on government, he invoked the Bible in one thousand three hundred and forty nine references; in his second treatise, he cited it one hundred and fifty seven times. This is not surprising, however, since Locke was considered a theologian;21 and among his many works were two major religious writings, The Reasonableness of Christianity (1696) and A Vindication of the Reasonableness of Christianity (1697).
Yet, despite his contributions as a theologian, many current political scientists and law professors claim that Locke was irreligious and even a deist. Interestingly, this same charge was raised during the Founding Era, and it drew a sharp response from law professor James Wilson – a signer of the Constitution and an original Justice on the U. S. Supreme Court. Wilson declared:
I am equally far from believing that Mr. Locke was a friend to infidelity [a disbelief in the Bible and in Christianity22]…. The high reputation which he deservedly acquired for his enlightened attachment to the mild and tolerating doctrines of Christianity secured to him the esteem and confidence of those who were its friends. The same high and deserved reputation inspired others of very different views and characters … to diffuse a fascinating
kind of lustre over their own tenets of a dark and sable hue. The consequence has been that the writings of Mr. Locke, one of the most able, most sincere, and most amiable assertors of Christianity and true philosophy, have been perverted to purposes which he would have deprecated and prevented [disapproved and opposed] had he discovered or foreseen them.23
From the works of John Locke, American political theorists drew the concept of social compact as well as a reinforcement of the concept that Natural Law was derived from God and the Scriptures.
Of the three theorists thus far examined, John Locke’s writings chronologically preceded those of the other two; that is, he was the earliest of the preferred political theorists. Yet, from what source did he derive many of his political theories?
Richard Hooker
Many of Locke’s ideas were specifically drawn from British theologian and legal philosopher Richard Hooker (1554-1600).24 Hooker was a favorite not only of Locke but also of Founders like James Wilson who highly endorsed “the sublime language of the excellent Hooker,”25 “the judicious and excellent Hooker,”26 and “the sagacious Hooker.”27 Richard Hooker – as did Locke, Montesquieu, and Blackstone after him – began his legal discourses by first establishing the origin of all law. Hooker explained:
And because the point about which we strive is the quality of our laws, our first entrance hereinto cannot better be made than with consideration of the nature of law in general … namely the law whereby the Eternal Himself doth work. Proceeding from hence to the law, first of Nature, then of Scripture, we shall have the easier access unto those things which come after to be debated.28
Hooker asserted that if God had specifically addressed an issue, that was the final word on that subject. He explained:
For whereas God hath left sundry kinds of laws unto men, and by all those laws the actions of men are in some sort directed; they hold that one only law, the Scripture, must be the rule to direct in all things.29
Hooker believed that only God’s principles provided a stable basis for government. He declared:
[L]et polity [civil government] acknowledge itself indebted to religion…. So natural is the union of religion with justice that we may boldly deem there is neither where both are not.30
Hooker believed that man’s natural rights proceeded from the Bible. He explained:
The Scripture is fraught even with laws of Nature; insomuch that Gratian [a twelfth century philosopher] defining Natural Right … termeth “Natural Right, that which the ‘Books of the Law and the Gospel do contain.’ ”31
These “natural rights” flowed from the “natural laws” given by God Himself and were never to be violated nor abridged by any government; hence, these rights were termed unalienable (several of them are listed in the Declaration of Independence).
Understanding “natural rights” as the unalienable rights listed in the Scriptures aids in understanding both the Danbury Baptists’ complaint to President Jefferson and his response back to them in which he had invoked Hooker’s “natural rights” phraseology. Recall Jefferson’s words:
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions…. I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.32 (emphasis added)
The Baptists had been concerned that the government might try to regulate or limit public religious expression, but Jefferson had assured them that the exercise of any “natural right” (“that which the Books of the Law and the Gospel do contain”) would never violate any civic standard.
Although Hooker was not among those most frequently cited by the Founders, he was nevertheless a clear influence upon the works of the major theorists utilized by the Founders.
David Hume
David Hume (1711-1776), a British philosopher and author of the three-volume work Treatise of Human Nature (1739-1740), was the fourth most cited political authority during the Founding Era. However, unlike the other preferred theorists of the Founders, Hume did not approach government theory from a Biblical viewpoint. As he himself explained:
I expected, in entering on my literary course, that all the Christians … should be my enemies.33
Consequently, Hume was quoted by the Founders not so much to rely upon his political theories as to refute or to criticize them. For example, John Adams called Hume an “atheist, deist, and libertine [one not under the restraint of law or religion34].”35 James Madison considered him a “bungling lawgiver”36 with many of his theories being “manifestly erroneous”;37 John Quincy Adams called him “the Atheist Jacobite”;38 and Thomas Jefferson found him “endeavoring to mislead by either the suppression of a truth or by giving it a false coloring.”39 Jefferson actually lamented the influence that Hume had once had upon him:
I remember well the enthusiasm with which I devoured it [Hume’s work] when young, and the length of time, the research and reflection which were necessary to eradicate the poison it had instilled into my mind.40
Signer of the Declaration John Witherspoon, in identifying many specific fallacies of Hume’s theories, had urged:
See David Hume’s writings on morals throughout; where, besides leaving out entirely our duty to God (which he hath in common with many other late writers), he expressly founds justice upon power and conveniency, derides chastity, and turns many of the most important virtues into vices.41
In 1766, Dr. James Beattie, Professor of Moral Philosophy at Marisebal College in Scotland, authored his Essay on the Nature and Immutability of Truth to repudiate Hume’s theories. Signer Benjamin Rush was thrilled with that work and wrote one of Beattie’s friends, asking him to:
Reverberate over and over my love to Dr. Beattie. I cannot think of him without fancying that I see Mr. Hume prostrate at his feet. He was the David who slew that giant of infidelity.42
Hume’s fellow Englishman Richard Watson (who had written the rebuttal of Paine’s work which had so pleased Patrick Henry43), described Hume as “revengeful, disgustingly vain, and an advocate of adultery and self-murder [suicide].”44
Of the Founders’ most frequently invoked political authorities, Hume was the only non-Biblical theorist; and for those views he was attacked and discredited by many of the Founders.
Hugo Grotius and Baron Samuel de Puffendorf
In addition to Montesquieu, Blackstone, and Locke, several other political philosophers were highly esteemed by prominent Founders. For example, Alexander Hamilton recommended:
Apply yourself, without delay, to the study of the law of nature. I would recommend to your perusal Grotius, Puffendorf, Locke, Montesquieu.45
Signer of the Declaration John Witherspoon similarly declared that “the chief writers upon government and politics are Grotius [and] Puffendorf.”46 These two were respected not only by Hamilton and Witherspoon, but also by Benjamin Franklin, James Wilson, Samuel Adams, and numerous other Founders – a fact made clear in their political writings.
Hugo Grotius (1583-1645), a Dutch lawyer, theologian, and statesman, authored Concerning the Law of War and Peace (1625) – the first definitive text on international law – and The Truth of the Christian Religion (1627). Grotius’ overall philosophy on law and civil government was clear; he argued that, “What God has shown to be His will that is law.”47 In fact, so important did Grotius consider God’s principles to law and government that he declared:
It may seem impossible for any state so long to subsist unless it were upheld by a constant particular care and by the power of a Divine hand.48
Baron Samuel de Puffendorf (1632-1694), a high political figure and Professor of the Law and Nature at universities both in Sweden and Germany, authored Of the Law of Nature and Nations (1672). Puffendorf also believed that civil societies and governments could not successful
ly exist apart from God and His principles. As he explained:
‘Tis easier to build a city without ground to hold and support it than to make a Commonwealth either unite or subsist [survive] without the acknowledgment of a God and a Providence.49
In fact, Puffendorf explained that if a civil law violated the Divine law of God, men were required by God to disobey that civil law:
[N]ot to obey God, and not to obey the Civil Magistrate if taken asunder, are both notoriously sins; and yet … when the Magistrate commands any thing contrary to the Divine Law, in this case disobedience to our earthly governors ceases to be evil because that law which binds us to conform to the will of human sovereigns is always understood with this provision and condition that they enjoin nothing repugnant to [in violation of] the laws of God.50
Grotius and Puffendorf were not only favorites among the Founders but were also considered the two men most responsible for establishing the “law of nature” as the basis of International Law.
The Law of Nature
As has been evident, the ideas of each political theorist embraced by the Founders were all built upon a common foundation: the “natural law,” or “the laws of nature.” Today, many claim that “natural law” was a purely secular standard. While it is true that in France “natural law” excluded all Divine revelation and was man-centered not God-centered, such was not the case in America. For example, according to James Wilson:
