In Dr. Byrd’s book, he states that “covenant theology… may well have influenced republicanism. Puritans believed that God aligned with nations through covenants, with the classic case being ancient Israel… Nations that obeyed God and honored the covenant, avoiding vice and promoting virtue, enjoyed providential blessings while nations that disobeyed the covenant suffered devastation and defeat.” (Byrd 10)
According to Dr. Byrd, “In claiming to restore the true meaning of the English constitution, American revolutionaries were actually positing a new, somewhat radical interpretation of the constitution that separated them from the mainstream views of other English citizens.” (Byrd 29) In regards to the stamp act, Stephen Johnson stated that, “Parliament had violated the essence of the British constitution.” (Byrd 30) “These two authorities, scripture and the British constitution, claimed the loyalty of all good British subjects. The authority of scripture went unquestioned, and Britons prized their ‘excellent constitution… very highly, next to our bibles.’” (Byrd 30)
Thomas Paine goes so far as to not just question the crown’s breaking the constitution, but questioning its practicality to begin with. He stated, “But the constitution of England is so exceedingly complex, that the nation may suffer for years together without being able to discover in which part the fault lies… to say that the constitution of England is an UNION of three power, reciprocally CHECKING each other, is farcical...” (Paine 3).
Paraphrasing John Allen “the British had denied Americans their natural rights, and this was a sacred violation.. This sacred liberty was natural, but it was also biblical… God created kings to serve the people; he did not create people to serve kings.” (35) David Jones, in articulating the patriotic interpretations of Peter and Paul versus the loyalist interpretation, stated that “when Paul called for all to ‘be subject to the higher powers,’ therefore, he was referring to ‘the higher powers’ of law -- ‘the just, the good, the wholesome and constitutional laws of the land.’” (Byrd 127) And Zabdiel Adams "asserted the necessary qualifier: the rulers deserving of such respect were those who were 'introduced into the office by the choice of the people, and are upright and faithful in their stations.'" (Byrd 138)
Given the fact that colonists stressed the importance of the English Constitution -- and Paine’s call for replacing it -- can one view the colonists as trying to implement/ interpret the Constitution as “covenant theology” on a secular scale (ie: republicanism)? For instance, given the comments above, did the colonists view the English Constitution (and their soon to be new Constitution) as a “covenant” whereby the English government (or the new government) would be rewarded with faithful (law abiding) subjects as long as they upheld their end of the “covenant” and punished (revolt) if they did not? In essence, was it this strong Puritan heritage/ belief in Covenant Theology that allowed for the unique variation in how the colonists viewed not only that God established a covenant -- through the scriptures -- with British citizens (colonists included), but also the citizens right to establish a “covenant” with the government through the respective Constitutions? God -> BIBLE -> People -> CONSTITUTION -> Government. Could this “covenant” view of the Constitution as a Bible proxy account for why the sermons (and Paine’s use of scripture) were able to be so effective here in the colonies?
No comments:
Post a Comment