JCR Vol. 05 No. 02: Symposium On Puritanism and Law

1
7PMVNF 8JOUFSm /VNCFS
ѮF+PVSOBMPG
$ISJTUJBO
3FDPOTUSVDUJPO
4ZNQPTJVNPO
1VSJUBOJTNBOE-BX
"$)"-$&% 0/16#-*$"5*0/
A Chalcedon Publication [www.chalcedon.edu] 3/30/07
COPYRIGHT
The Journal of Christian Reconstruction

Volume 5 / Number 2
Winter 1978–79
Symposium on Puritanism and Law
Gary North, Editor
ISSN 0360–1420
A CHALCEDON MINISTRY
Electronic Version 1.0 / July 15, 2006
Copyright © 1978 Chalcedon Foundation. All rights reserved.
Usage: Copies of this file may be made for personal use by the
original purchaser of this electronic document. It may be printed
by the same on a desktop printer for personal study. Quotations
may be used for the purpose of review, comment, or scholarship.
However, this publication may not be duplicated or reproduced in
whole or in part in any electronic or printed form by any means,
uploaded to a web site, or copied to a CD-ROM, without written
permission from the publisher.
Chalcedon Foundation
P.O. Box 158
Vallecito, California 95251
U.S.A.
To contact via email and for other information:
www.chalcedon.edu
Chalcedon depends on the contributions of its readers,
and all gifts to Chalcedon are tax-deductible.
Opinions expressed in this journal do not necessarily reflect the
views of Chalcedon. It has provided a forum for views in accord
with a relevant, active, historic Christianity, though those views
may have on occasion differed somewhat from Chalcedon’s and
from each other.

THE JOURNAL OF
CHRISTIAN RECONSTRUCTION
This journal is dedicated to the fulfillment of the cultural mandate of Genesis
1:28 and 9:1—to subdue the earth to the glory of God. It is published by the
Chalcedon Foundation, an independent Christian educational organization (see
inside back cover). The perspective of the journal is that of orthodox Christian-
ity. It affirms the verbal, plenary inspiration of the original manuscripts (auto-
graphs) of the Bible and the full divinity and full humanity of Jesus Christ—two
natures in union (but without intermixture) in one person.
The editors are convinced that the Christian world is in need of a serious publi-
cation that bridges the gap between the newsletter-magazine and the scholarly
academic journal. The editors are committed to Christian scholarship, but the
journal is aimed at intelligent laymen, working pastors, and others who are
interested in the reconstruction of all spheres of human existence in terms of the
standards of the Old and New Testaments. It is not intended to be another outlet
for professors to professors, but rather a forum for serious discussion within
Christian circles.
The Marxists have been absolutely correct in their claim that theory must be
united with practice, and for this reason they have been successful in their
attempt to erode the foundations of the noncommunist world. The editors agree
with the Marxists on this point, but instead of seeing in revolution the means of
fusing theory and practice, we see the fusion in personal regeneration through
God’s grace in Jesus Christ and in the extension of God’s kingdom. Good princi-
ples should be followed by good practice; eliminate either, and the movement
falters. In the long run, it is the kingdom of God, not Marx’s “kingdom of free-
dom,” which shall reign triumphant. Christianity will emerge victorious, for only
in Christ and His revelation can men find both the principles of conduct and the
means of subduing the earth—the principles of Biblical law.
The Journal of Christian Reconstruction is published twice a year. Copyright by
Chalcedon, 1978. The reproduction of the Journal by any means, including Xerox
or photocopying, is strictly prohibited. An exception is made in the case of cita-
tions of less than 1,000 words in manuscripts and reviews, where the source is
indicated. Editorial and subscription offices: P.O. 158, Vallecito, California
95251.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright
Contributors
Editor’s Introduction
Gary North . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6
1. SYMPOSIUM ON PURITANISM AND LAW

Introduction to Martin Bucer’s De Regno Christi, Chapter 60
Jack Sawyer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15
Calvinism and “The Judicial Law of Moses”: An Historical Survey
James B. Jordan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25
Samuel Rutherford and Puritan Political Theory
Richard Flinn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .65
Introduction to John Cotton’s Abstract of the Laws of New England
Greg L. Bahnsen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .97
John Cotton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .105
Nonautonomy and Some Puritan Dilemmas
Terrill I. Elniff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .121
The Salem Witch Trials
Kirk House . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .165
Medieval Economics in Puritan New England, 1630–1660
Gary North . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .188
2. DEFENDERS OF THE FAITH

John Knox
David H. Chilton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .241
The Ministry of Chalcedon

CONTRIBUTORS
Greg Bahnsen, Th.M., Ph.D., is an instructor at the Atlanta Christian Training
Seminars. He is the author of Theonomy in Christian Ethics (1977) and Homosex-
uality: A Biblical View (1978).
David Chilton, B.A., is a pastor in California and a part-time employee of Chal-
cedon. In late 1978, an article by the Rev. Chilton criticizing the Internal Revenue
Service’s action against Christian schools was distributed nationally by the Los
Angeles Times-Washington Post News Service.
Terrill Elniff, M.A., is a teacher at the Ben Lippen School in Asheville, North
Carolina. He is the author of The Guise of Every Graceless Heart: Human Auton-
omy in Puritan Thought and Experience (1979).
Richard Flinn, M.Div., is pastor of a church in New Zealand.
Kirk House, B.A., teaches school in Pennsylvania.
James Jordan, B.A., is finishing his seminary education at Westminster Semi-
nary in Philadelphia.
Gary North, Ph.D., is president of the Institute for Christian Economics in
Durham, North Carolina. He is the author of How You Can Profit from the Com-
ing Price Controls (1977).
Jack Sawyer, B.A., is a student at Reformed Theological Seminary in Jackson,
Mississippi.

EDITOR’S
INTRODUCTION
Gary North
Since 1930, a true renaissance in Puritan studies has taken place. Schol-
ars in numerous academic disciplines have published a massive body of
materials. The late nineteenth century saw the publication in the
United States of painstakingly detailed reprints of the early colonial law
codes by men like Charles Hoadly, but for the most part, these dutiful
editors were not university professors, but self-educated antiquarians.
The pre–1930 attitude of American historians toward the Puritans can
probably best be seen in the writings of Vernon Parrington, who was
hostile toward the Puritan tradition in America. In the late 1920s,
when Perry Miller was trying to decide on a dissertation topic for his
Ph.D., he was warned by one professor not to touch the New England
Puritans, since Parrington had already dealt with them sufficiently, and
there was not much use in going over the subject again. Miller’s disser-
tation became Orthodoxy in Massachusetts (1933), a true classic, one
which was probably more responsible for reviving scholarly interest in
New England Puritanism than any other book, with the possible excep-
tion of Miller’s The New England Mind: The Seventeenth Century
(1939). (It is also a curious fact that Miller was not employed by Har-
vard’s history department, but by the English department, yet few
twentieth-century scholars have had the singular influence on Ameri-
can historians that Miller exercised.)
Another professor of English, William Haller, produced The Rise of
Puritanism in 1938, and it was followed by M. M. Knappen’s Tudor
Puritanism in 1939. After World War II, the interest of English scholars
in English Puritanism grew quite rapidly, led by the Marxist historian,
Christopher Hill, who produces massively documented books faster
than some of his colleagues can read them. The English scholarly jour-
nal, Past and Present (which was originally Marxist in perspective), has
devoted much of its space to the question of Puritanism. The Marxists

Editor’s Introduction 7
see the rise of Puritanism as the first major break with medievalism in
Britain. They also see Cromwell’s revolution as the first successful
modern revolution, and for obvious reasons, Marxist scholars are
interested in revolutions. A representative book is the one edited by
Trevor Aston, Crisis in Europe, 1560–1660 (1965), a collection of essays
taken from Past and Present. Also important is the extraordinary book,
Religion and the Decline of Magic (1971), by Keith Thomas, which Hill
has accurately described as {2} “majestic.” These scholars are interested
mainly in England’s social, political, economic, literary, and intellectual
traditions that had their origins in the Puritan movements.
Far more narrow in scope, but very important, are the reprints of
Puritan classics by the Banner of Truth Trust in Edinburgh. These
books focus on Puritan piety and theology, rather than the social con-
cerns of the Puritan divines. The scholars associated with Banner of
Truth have devoted their studies to the questions of evangelism, piety,
and worship that were dealt with by the Puritans. By making available
inexpensive reprints of Puritan classics, Banner of Truth in the British
Isles, and several Reformed Baptist publishers in the United States (Jay
Green, Lloyd Sprinkle), have performed a much-needed service in
bringing a forgotten Christian tradition to the attention of twentieth-
century Christians.
Our problem, however, stems from the wide gap between the schol-
ars and the churchmen. The secular historians are interested in the
wider impact of Puritanism in Anglo-American history: Puritanism as
ideology, Puritanism as community, Puritanism as innovation, etc.
They are interested in Puritan theology only insofar as this theology
explains the origins of Puritanism’s wider impact. Furthermore, they
tend to misunderstand Puritan theology, or garble their explanations,
because of their lack of familiarity with the Bible and Protestant theol-
ogy in general. They have a masterful grasp of the primary sources, of
both sermons and the economic and political documents, but they
cannot seem to get the theological categories straight. In contrast, the
churchmen and modern orthodox theologians who have taken interest
in Puritanism understand the subtle nuances of Puritan theology, but
they have limited knowledge of and limited interest in the broader
questions of Puritanism in social history.

8 JOURNAL OF CHRISTIAN RECONSTRUCTION
There is little likelihood that secular scholars who resist the truth of
Puritan preaching in their own lives will soon attain a mastery of the
meaning of Puritan theology. We need not be quite so pessimistic con-
cerning the possibility of neo-Puritans in the churches beginning to
concern themselves with the question of Puritanism’s impact on
Anglo-American society in general. Rushdoony’s comment that the
secularists are interested in history but not in God, and the modern
Christians are interested in God but not in history, seems accurate
when applied to the two-edged revival of interest in Puritanism. What
is needed is a fusion of the two concerns: an interest in God and there-
fore an interest in the working out of the plan of God in history.
The Journal of Christian Reconstruction is devoting two issues to a
consideration of Puritanism in history. This first issue concerns itself
with the question of Puritanism and law—specifically, biblical law. Bib-
lical law is the basis of a systematically Christian reconstruction of
every area of life. It is a tool of dominion. Therefore, it is important for
modern {3} neo-Puritans to understand the nature of their heritage of
law. The New England Puritans set forth Old Testament law as the ideal
for the civil government, the family, and the church. They wrote the
very first written constitutions in Connecticut (1639) and Massachu-
setts (1641). They provided later generations with a respect for the cat-
egories of biblical law, if not the actual content. Their vision became
secularized over time, but they did at least provide the legal foundation
which was to be secularized. Our next issue will deal with Puritanism
and society, to demonstrate the enormous impact of the Puritan tradi-
tion on science, economics, and social life in the West.
The heart of the Puritan view of God’s law is found in a passage writ-
ten by Thomas Hooker, the minister who founded the colony of Con-
necticut. It is cited in the essay by Terrill Elniff, and it provides the title
of Elniff ’s forthcoming book, The Guise of Every Graceless Heart:
Human Autonomy in Puritan Thought and Experience (Vallecito, CA:
Ross House Books):
Now by sin we justle the law out of its place, and the Lord out of his
glorious sovereignty, pluck the crown from his head, and the scepter
out of his hand, and we say and profess by our practice, there is not
authority and power there to govern, nor wisdom to guide, nor good
to content me, but I will be swayed by mine own will and led by mine

own deluded reason and satisfied by my own lusts. This is the guise of
every graceless heart in the commission of sin....
The assertion of human autonomy is necessarily an assertion of the
validity of some other law-order than that set forth by God in the Bible.
Therefore, the early New England Puritans were careful to establish
biblical law as the foundation of their legal codes, most notably the
Massachusetts Body of Liberties (1641). Of this code of law, the histo-
rian Edmund S. Morgan has written:
But the code was not merely a bill of rights to protect the inhabitants
of Massachusetts from arbitrary government. It was a blueprint of the
whole Puritan experiment, an attempt to spell out the dimensions of
the New England way. Trial by jury was part of the way (although the
General Court, exercising supreme jurisdiction, operated without a
jury) and so was freehold tenure of lands, but only because these prac-
tices seemed in accord with the laws of God; for the New England way
must be the way God wanted His kingdom on earth to be run, and
every law must be measured by His holy word. “No custom or pre-
scription,” said the Body of Liberties, “shall ever prevaile amongst us
in any morall cause, our meaning is [that no custom or prescription
shall] maintaine anythinge that can be proved to bee morallie sinfull
by the word of God.” And it enumerated all those crimes which the
laws of God branded as deserving of death: idolatry, witchcraft, blas-
phemy, murder, beastiality, sodomy, adultery, man-stealing, false wit-
ness, and treason. The list included several crimes which were more
lightly punished in England, but the very brevity showed that God
demanded lesser punishments for most offenses than the King of
England {4} did. In England the number of capital crimes amounted
to about fifty during the seventeenth century and rose to well over a
hundred in the eighteenth.1
We have reproduced the list of crimes that appeared in the Body of
Liberties in this issue of the Journal.
There are those who regard themselves as neo-Puritans who will
resent the very idea that many (though hardly all) of those who called
themselves Puritans in the seventeenth century believed that God’s Old
Testament law-order should be imposed in New Testament times. They
may resent the idea, but they cannot legitimately deny the evidence,
especially the evidence from Puritan New England. Here was the great
1. Edmund S. Morgan, The Puritan Dilemma: The Story of John Winthrop (Boston:
Little, Brown, 1958), 170–71.
experiment in setting forth the Puritan vision of God’s Holy Common-

wealth ideal. Undoubtedly, this vision was intermixed with foreign ele-
ments, most notably medieval notions of natural law and medieval
notions of the “just economy.” The effects of Protestant scholasticism,
which undermined the Reformation almost before it got started, could
not be completely avoided in New England; nor could the effects of the
Newtonian intellectual revolution at the end of the century, which
combined with the medieval concept of natural law to produce the
vision of a neutral, autonomous, and universal law-order—a vision
which led to Deism and Unitarianism in the eighteenth century in
England and on the Continent, and to a far lesser extent, in the Ameri-
can colonies. But in its origins, the Puritan experiment was officially
theonomic in outlook. It is not possible to understand New England
Puritanism apart from the first generation’s commitment to biblical
law.
There are also those who reject the heritage of Puritanism because of
their faulty understanding of the Cromwellian revolution in England
and the Puritan experiment in New England. They may choose to
think that their neo-Continental Calvinism tradition was as antino-
mian in outlook as they themselves are today. We have reproduced a
section of Bucer’s De Regno Christi to demonstrate that there is no easy
escape from God’s law-order even in the tradition of European Calvin-
ism. In fact, it takes a very one-sided view of Protestant history, not to
mention a one-sided view of biblical theology, to suppress the theon-
omic heritage of Western civilization. It is sad to report how wide-
spread this active intellectual suppression has become in the twentieth
century.
We need a book comparable to The Forgotten Spurgeon, which was
written, in part, to remind twentieth-century Baptists of the Reformed
perspective of the great Baptist preacher of the late nineteenth century,
whose theology is indeed forgotten today. We might call the book, {5}
The Forgotten Puritans, and there is no doubt that some who regard
themselves as neo-Puritans are those with the shortest memories. This
is not to say that every Puritan preacher was a fully developed theono-
mist; after all, they lived three centuries ago. It takes time to develop
basic strands in any theology. There are multiple heritages in the pages
of Puritan history. But there is great danger that Christians who have

been introduced to the Puritans through the recently published litera-

ture dealing with Puritan piety will fail to realize that Puritan piety was
only one concern of the Puritans themselves. Marxist historians under-
stand this; Christians ought to be at least as alert to the historical rele-
vance of Puritanism as the Marxists.
After presenting Bucer’s essay on biblical law, we present James Jor-
dan’s treatment of the background to the Westminster Confession’s
section 19:4, “Of the Law of God.” Specifically, he deals with the mean-
ing of the phrase, “general equity.” What he concludes is that “general
equity” was understood to mean that law-order which is in conformity
to the requirements of Old Testament law. The Puritans assumed that
the natural law-order visible to all rightly reasoning men reveals God’s
law-order. They assumed that the civil laws of Europe were in some
way natural and universal, and since these contained so many elements
of the Old Testament law structure, they concluded that “equity” could
be attained by enforcing the natural laws seen by all right reasoning
men. William Perkins, writing in “EPIEKEIA, or a Treatise of Christian
Equity and Moderation,” argued that civil lawyers must take the advice
of ministers, “touching Equity which is the intent of the law. Moreover,
their law is but the ministery of equity; but our law the word of God is
the fountaine of Equity: therefore the principall rules of Equitie, must
they fetch from our law: considering that law without equitie, is plaine
tyrannie.”2 Therefore, concludes Jordan, modern anti-theonomists
cannot legitimately appeal to the “general equity” clause of the Confes-
sion to refute the case for theonomic law.
To buttress the case against the misuse of the “general equity” clause
by contemporary theologians and scholars, Richard Flinn presents a
study of Samuel Rutherford, one of the Westminster divines. While
Flinn does not argue that Rutherford was a strict defender of every
aspect of Old Testament law, he does demonstrate how important Old
Testament law was in Rutherford’s discussion of civil law. As Flinn
states, “while we do not find in Lex Rex the doctrine of the continuity
of the case law, or of its application to the magistrate, stated in an
explicit and fully developed form, the roots and fundamental princi-
2. William Perkins, Workes, vol. 2, 441; reprinted in Edmund S. Morgan, ed.,

Puritan Political Ideas (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1965), 73.
ples upon which this doctrine is built are {6} plainly present.” Time and
again, Rutherford appealed to Deuteronomy, especially Deuteronomy
17, the great chapter on the rule of God’s law over rulers and ruled.
Coming across the Atlantic, Greg Bahnsen introduces the reader to
John Cotton’s Abstract of the Laws of New England (1641). This was
first printed in volume 2, number 2 of the Journal, and we think it
needs reprinting in this context. Cotton, New England’s most presti-
gious minister in the first generation, was a thoroughgoing theonomist.
While the civil magistrates of Massachusetts chose Nathaniel Ward to
compile the Body of Liberties in 1641, they consulted Cotton as well.
The list of capital crimes in the Body of Liberties is reproduced follow-
ing Cotton’s Abstract. The use of Old Testament citations by Ward
should be noted. These historical documents should not be dropped
down some pietistic neo-Puritan version of George Orwell’s “memory
hole.”
Terrill Elniff provides us with a comprehensive introduction to the
outlook and failures of New England Puritanism. This essay is a sum-
mary of his forthcoming book, The Guise of Every Graceless Heart:
Human Autonomy in Puritan Thought and Experience. New England
Puritans believed that purity of the church was important, not simply
for its own sake (as too many neo-Puritans seem to believe), but
because “on it depends the well-ordered liberty of the people, and on
both of these rests the well-balanced authority of the magistrate.” To
put it bluntly: “They are all of a piece; they stand or fall together.” The
heart of Puritanism was its commitment to the authority of the Bible in
every sphere of human existence. It was their failure to follow through
on this presupposition that led to the various internal crises of the holy
commonwealth.
Kirk House offers us an example of just such a violation of Puritan
principle at the end of the century: the Salem witchcraft trials. Con-
trary to popular belief, there is evidence that some of the accused were
indeed occultists, and that they demonstrated occult power. Cotton
Mather and seven other men saw one woman’s body levitate up to the
ceiling, and all of them pulling down on her body could not immedi-
ately pull her down. Furthermore, the local ministers who presided at
the trials did not abide by biblical rules of evidence, nor did they abide
by common law. They were not supported by other ministers in the

colony; in fact, they were opposed. The central government was in dis-
array because of the abrogation of the original Massachusetts charter,
and the new governor, Phips, was initally absent, commanding an
unsuccessful invasion of Canada. Thus, it was not New England Puri-
tanism that produced the trials, but the disintegration of New
England’s theocratic rule.
My own essay on Puritan economic thought is an attempt to show
the extent of the medievalism of the first generation of New England
settlers. Their attempt to impose “just” prices, “just” wages, profit con-
trols, import {7} restrictions, quality standards, and similar pieces of
medieval legislation failed to accomplish their stated goals. Step by
step, the early Puritans learned the lessons of government interference
with the operations of the market. However, their theology of human
responsibility before God, when combined with their optimistic escha-
tology, gave impetus to the creation of a modern economy. These
strands of Puritan thought were ultimately to become the lasting eco-
nomic heritage of Puritanism, overcoming the latent medievalism of
that first generation. The Puritans’ experiment with medieval guild
socialism was a failure, and being a practical people, they learned from
their failure. (Those neo-Dooyeweerdians who are unfamiliar with the
history of this failure seem prepared to repeat it in the name of the
principles of cosmonomic law.)

1.
SYMPOSIUM ON
PURITANISM AND LAW

INTRODUCTION TO
MARTIN BUCER’S
DE REGNO CHRISTI,
CHAPTER 60
Jack Sawyer
As the debate over the extent of the applicability of the law of God
rages on in our day, the charge is often pressed, against the Chalcedon
Foundation in general, and Greg Bahnsen’s Theonomy in Christian Eth-
ics in particular, that the position of theonomic social ethics is com-
pletely outside the consensus of Reformed tradition. This charge is
impossible to substantiate. When pressed, these objectors grudgingly
admit that the one exception to their thesis perhaps may be the “minor
exception” of the New England Puritans! In fact, others besides the
New England Puritans held to these views.
James B. Jordan has readily shown in his article (also appearing in
this issue) that the position of Bahnsen and Rushdoony, et al., is well
within the bounds of orthodox Reformed tradition. Along those same
lines, it is my purpose here to introduce the penultimate chapter of De
Regno Christi, a work of Martin Bucer, the first-generation Reformer
from the city of Strassbourg. Bucer was the leader of the reform in that
city and, indeed, throughout southern Germany. Next to Luther,
Melanchthon, Zwingli, and Calvin, he was the most prominent of all
the early Protestant leaders.3 From the beginning of the Reformation,
Bucer was a firm supporter of Luther, but
he went far beyond Luther in his insistence that not only the church as
an institution but the whole of human life, individual and social, must
be ordered according to the will of God as revealed in the Bible. He
3. Martin Bucer, De Regno Christi, trans. Wilhelm Pauck and Paul Larkin, ed.
Wilhelm Pauck, in The Library of Christian Classics, vol. 19 Melanchthon and Bucer
(Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1969), 155. I readily acknowledge my debt to Pauck’s
introductory essay to Bucer’s work.
regarded the Reformation as a movement through which the Chris-

tianization of all of human life was to take place. The Bible was for
him the source and pattern of all legislation required to this end. This
view was far different from Luther, because it did not agree with the
latter’s disjunction between law and gospel.4
Bucer’s influence upon Calvin himself cannot be adjudged as any-
thing but profound. There was a deep mutual affection between the
two. While in exile from Geneva, during his sojourn in Strassbourg,
Calvin’s mind was in fact shaped to a large degree by what he learned
from his older contemporary.5 Perhaps those who quote Calvin flip-
pantly {9} (Institutes, book 4; chap. 20; sec. 14) to ridicule those who
hold to the theonomic position, might do well to consider whether or
not Calvin could possibly be including Bucer (a man he revered
greatly) among those whose position he considers as “foolish, perilous,
seditious, etc.” Perhaps a more thorough exegesis of Calvin is in order
before jumping to such extreme conclusions about his position.
At the request of Archbishop Cranmer, Bucer became a professor of
divinity at Cambridge in 1549. Very popular among the English
Reformers, Bucer’s advice and counsel were repeatedly “sought out on
doctrinal and liturgical matters.”6 Though he suffered frequently from
ill health, his status and influence cannot be minimized. De Regno
Christi, written in 1550 and addressed to the young Edward VI, “repre-
sents the first Protestant treatise on social ethics, and is the product of a
mature man standing on the verge of old age. It reflects the experience
of a lifetime in manifold labors for an actual reformation of the church
as well as society.”7
Clearly Bucer “regarded the Old Testament and the New Testament
as a unity.”8 Thus, the case laws of the Mosaic law played an important
role in his concept of the Christian commonwealth. His position
regarding the general equity of the Mosaic judicials is certainly akin to,
if not exactly, that put forward by Bahnsen in Theonomy. An honest
4. Ibid., 156.
5. Ibid., 157.
6. Ibid., 160.
7. Ibid., xix.
8. Ibid., 165.

Introduction to Martin Bucer’s De Regno Christi, Chapter 60 17
reading of Bucer will readily reveal that theonomy is not something

new! This position was found, therefore, in the first generation of the
Reformation; it was to be found at Westminster, in New England, the
Netherlands, and today is beginning to flourish once again. So let us
once and for all be done away with the notion that theonomic social
ethics represents a novel position at odds with the historical Reformed
consensus. Clearly such a charge is patently false.
In concluding this introduction, a few pertinent notes are in order.
During the preparation of this essay, I took note of some charges made
by Wilhelm Pauck against Bucer’s position. First of all, he accuses
Bucer’s scheme of being utopian. Bucer, however, was aware of those,
even in his day, who might raise the same charge. In reply, he denied
that he was setting forth some ideal Platonic Republic. Because his
commonwealth was based upon the eternal, immutable word of God,
such a charge would in fact be one against God Himself!9 Is God’s word
less than practical or less than relevant? Surely God must have some
notion as to how a civil government might be duly framed! {10}
Pauck also accuses Bucer of biblicism, or more precisely, “biblical
legalism.” Obviously, he does not approve such extensive use of the
Bible. Bucer should have known that not only was it impractical of him
to use the Bible thus, but it was also improper! The Bible is a history of
redemption, the mighty acts of God, a laying out of our spiritual
“roots.” It (and most assuredly not the Old Testament) is not a “text-
book” for political science. Interestingly enough, within some
Reformed circles these same criticisms have been urged at Theonomy
with a vengeance by those who are supposed to be of a more conserva-
tive bent! Perhaps Bucer and Bahnsen have more in common than we
think. Let the reader take note and decide for himself.
9. Ibid., 164–65.

THE FOURTEENTH LAW:

THE MODIFICATION OF PENALTIES10
Martin Bucer
Lastly, the well-being of his people also demands of Your Majesty a
serious and thorough modification of penalties, by which wrongdoing
and crimes are kept in check in the commonwealth. But since no one
can describe an approach more equitable and wholesome to the com-
monwealth than that which God describes in his law, it is certainly the
duty of all kings and princes who recognize that God has put them over
his people that they follow most studiously his own method of punish-
ing evildoers. For inasmuch as we have been freed from the teaching of
Moses through Christ the Lord, so that it is no longer necessary for us
to observe the civil decrees of the law of Moses, namely, in terms of the
way and the circumstances in which they are described, nevertheless,
insofar as the substance and proper end of these commandments are
concerned, and especially those which enjoin the discipline that is nec-
essary for the whole commonwealth,11 whoever does not reckon that
such commandments are to be conscientiously observed is certainly
not attributing to God either supreme wisdom or a righteous care for
our salvation.
Accordingly, in every state sanctified to God capital punishment
must be ordered for all who have dared to injure religion, either by
introducing a false and impious doctrine about the worship of God or
by calling people away from the true worship of God (Deut. 13:6–10
and 17:2–5); for all who blaspheme the name of God and his solemn
services (Lev. 24:15–16); who violate the Sabbath (Ex. 31:14–15 and
35:2; Num. 15:32–36); who rebelliously despise the authority of parents
and live their own life wickedly (Deut. 21:18–21); who are unwilling to
submit to the sentence of a supreme tribunal (Deut. 17:8–12); who
have committed bloodshed (Ex. 21:12; Lev. 24:17; Deut. 19:11–13),
10. This is the last of the various subheadings dealing with all aspects of life in a
respublica Christiana.
11. See Westminster Confession 19.3, 4. This is for all intents and purposes the
position put forward by Bahnsen in Theonomy.
adultery (Lev. 20:10), rape (Deut. 22:20–25), kidnapping (Deut. 24:7);

who have given false testimony in a capital case (Deut. 19:16–21).
No one knows better or provides more diligently what is for man’s
salvation than God. In these sanctions of God, we see that he judges
that the death penalty should eliminate from his people whoever has
openly {12} defected from him or held him in contempt or persuades
others to do the same, to the betrayal and vitiation of true religion;
those who have done injury to his name and have obstinately detracted
from the authority of God as it is administered through his ordinary
agents, fathers of families or of country; or finally, those who have
attempted to take the life of a neighbor or of his wife or children. For
those who are involved in such enormous crimes cannot but inflict
great ruin on mankind. By the responsible cooperation of all good
men, these pests are therefore to be exterminated from human society
no less than fierce wolves, lions, tigers, dragons, and crocodiles which
occasionally attack men in order to tear them to pieces and devour
them.
For in God alone “we live and move and have our being” (Acts
17:28), and by his unique kindness we receive all things we can desire;
those, therefore, who reject God and make themselves enemies of God
rob themselves and others of all good. This is manifestly true of those
who do not acknowledge, hear, invoke, and worship God as their God,
and who do not constantly seek to increase in themselves that worship
which consists of trust in his words.
For these persons rob God of his divinity, as far as they can, and
openly deny him to be God, so that they prefer themselves and other
creatures before him. What evil, therefore, is not to be expected of
those who go to such lengths of impiety that they obstinately refuse to
hear the Word of God, and therefore God himself, and to acknowledge
that he is their God, as is demanded of us by the First Commandment
of the Decalogue: “I am the Lord your God,” etc. (Ex. 20:2). What, then,
if they also dare, as is the necessary consequence of that impiety, either
to adore instead of the true God images made by themselves, or
attempt to worship as the true God the imaginations of their hearts and
the works of their hands? God has forbidden this in the Second Com-
mandment of the Decalogue, by which he forbids the worship of
strange gods and idols (Ex. 20:3–5). Or what if they ridicule and blas-

pheme the Divine Majesty in their rashness, using his holy name for
matters and activities that are shallow, base, or superstitious? God calls
them away from this in the Third Commandment of the Decalogue, in
which through the term “perjury” he prohibits all unworthy invocation
of his name (Ex. 20:7). Or they dare to despise and neglect the holy
days decreed by God, and thus the whole administration of religion,
i.e., of eternal life, in which all true knowledge and adoration of God
are preserved and augmented (Ex. 20:8). They show themselves guilty
of manifest defection from God and of a spirit that treats God, the cre-
ator of all things, as nothing and as an empty name, and finally, they
condemn all his Scripture and religion as deceit and imposture. Those
who have become guilty of such impiety cannot help intruding it on
others also, both by word and deed. For everyone brings forth from the
treasure of his {13} heart what has been stored there (cf. Matt. 12:35).
And Satan, who keeps such persons as his captives according to his
good pleasure, which is always intent on the ruin of mankind, uses
them as weapons for inflicting all possible harm on men.
And so it is clear that there can be no dangerous beasts as harmful to
the commonwealth as men who are plainly godless, empty of God,
sons of the devil. And so all the sons of God must exert their utmost
concern and all their strength to purify the commonwealth of such
pests as soon as possible, according to the Word of the Lord. “You shall
exterminate” (indeed, the Hebrew word is “burn out”) “evil from your
midst” (Deut. 13:5).
Thus whoever is of such wickedness and obstinacy of life, and so
impatient with proper education and discipline both public and private
that he rejects the authority and judgment of the fathers of his family
and country, how can he do anything else but undermine all public and
private decency, order, peace, and well-being? There should therefore
be no toleration among Christians of those who are openly opposed to
this Fifth Commandment of God, which enjoins that parents should be
honored and obeyed (Ex. 20:12), and which, therefore, is especially
applicable to rulers and magistrates of the commonwealth and all who
discharge paternal duties of teaching, exhorting, correcting, feeding,
and protecting.
Hence those people should not be tolerated among men from whom
human life is not safe, nor the chastity of wife and daughters, and the

liberty of one’s own people, which is no less dear to honest hearts than
life itself. Therefore, in every commonwealth consecrated to Christ the
Lord, there should be the penalty of capital punishment for everyone
apprehended in violating the Sixth and Ninth Commandments (Ex.
20:13 and 16), by bloodshed, or false testimony, or calumnious accusa-
tion, either personally or through others; or the Seventh Command-
ment by the ravishing of anyone’s wife, fiancée, or daughter (Ex. 20:14);
or the Eighth by stealing from one of the brethren, namely, a free man
(Ex. 20:15).
If men do not abhor such vicious crimes and misdeeds more than
death itself, how can there be preserved among them honesty, true
charity, humaneness, and a wholesome and necessary sharing of goods
and life which is worthy of human beings? And so there is required a
real desire both for showing forth the glory of God and obtaining the
salvation of men, so that these evils also may be completely removed
and burned away from the commonwealth, with no trace not even of
their names remaining, according to that saying: “Let not fornication
be named among you nor any uncleanness or greed”12 “as befits the
saints” (Eph. 5:3). {14}
For bringing this about, God has judged it necessary that those guilty
of these crimes and misdeeds should pay the commonwealth the pen-
alty of death in order to spread the fear of offending, since by their sins
they have done damage by suggesting a license for delinquency. And so
whoever decides that these misdeeds of impiety and wickedness are to
be kept out or driven from the commonwealth of Christians by more
mitigated punishment than death necessarily makes himself wiser and
more loving than God as regards the salvation of men.
Many worldly-wise men who are defenders of crime and wickedness
are wont to object against this severity commanded by God, which is at
the same time so uniquely salutary and necessary for the common-
wealth, by saying that those who have fallen into graver sins must be
renewed by penance and that the punishments decreed by God must
be relaxed. I have replied to their sophistry above,13 when I answered
them in accordance with the law of God which orders that the death
12. Here Bucer uses the word pleonexia and he adds in brackets this definition: “a
cupidity which seeks for itself more than is equitable.”
penalty be inflicted on adulterers. May the Lord grant the shepherds of

his people the gift of not wanting to seem wiser than God, or more
clement and humane, so that they may at length see what a pleasing
sacrifice it is to God and how necessary and how effective a remedy
against the deadly diseases of mankind it is to impose just punishments
on godless, criminal, and wicked men. Let them consider and promptly
imitate the example of the prince and king who was a man after God’s
heart (1 Sam. 13:14). He sings thus in Ps. 101:8: “Early in the morning I
shall strike all the wicked on the earth, and I shall cut off from the city
of God all doers of iniquity.”
For thieves and robbers (except in case one is caught breaking into a
home, in which case God has given the one catching him the power of
killing him [Ex. 22:21]), God has decreed only the penalty of restitu-
tion, either five times, four times, double, or simple repayment. Nor do
the Roman laws avenge simple theft with capital punishment, but most
of the Gentiles, since they were not able adequately to repress rash
thievery by lesser penalties, sentenced thieves to death and strenuously
observed this severity.
But what shall we say is the reason that theft is dealt with so fiercely,
whereas all too many wink at rape and adultery, at offenses against
divine worship, at the distortion of the heavenly doctrine in which both
the present and eternal salvation of men is contained, and at blasphemy
of the Divine Majesty? Why, unless it is because money and external
wealth are so much more dear to men than God himself, their eternal
salvation, and decency and honesty? {15}
And when the worldly-wise are today so severe against so-called
common thieves, how is it that they not only cooperate but even give
great honors to much more harmful thieves, namely, those who exact
most wicked and pernicious usury, monopolies, and a thousand other
frauds by which they mislead and rob their brethren? Certainly one
can imagine no other cause for this than the fact that in these great
thefts which are so harmful to the commonwealth rather rich and pow-
erful men are involved, who either themselves preside over the admin-
istration of government and justice or have those who regulate such
13. Bk. 2, chap. 33. [Unfortunately, this chapter has not been translated into English
either by Milton or by Pauck.—J.W.S.]
things obligated to them; but those more common thefts are commit-
ted by unimportant men who rely neither on wealth of their own nor
on powerful patrons. As the common German proverb goes which cir-
culates among us: “Big thieves, who have accumulated immense lucre
by stealing and defrauding, are hung with golden necklaces; little
thieves, with hemp nooses.”
For if it seemed good to drive injustice, fraud, and injury of one’s
neighbors from the commonwealth, as it is fitting and as God requires
and urges in his law and prophets, clearly those thefts, robberies, and
plunderings should first be punished, and as severely as possible, which
damage and harm men most; for example, cruel usuries, monopolies,
portentous frauds in merchandise, counterfeiting and fraudulent
exchange of money, wicked pricing of goods, embezzlements and
devaluations, wickedly increased prices for produce and all the goods
that the present life cannot do without.
Your Majesty should decree such penalties for these frauds and
wrongs as will drive away and stamp out from his people every attempt
to harm one’s neighbor either publicly or privately, and bring it about
that everyone truly favors and seeks the advantage of others, so as to
buy and sell, lend and repay, and conduct all business of this present
life in such a way as to make it manifest that he desires and seeks with
his whole heart not only the public but also the private advantage of
every neighbor and puts it ahead of his own interests. Moreover, in
view of the fact that luxury, feasting, and pomp generate such ruin-
ously harmful avarice, and arouse and encourage boldness for robbing
both the commonwealth and private persons, these pests of human life
will also have to be excluded and driven from the common life by
means of very grave penalties.
In this institution, modification, and enforcement of penalties Your
Majesty will prove his trust and zeal for governing the commonwealth
in a holy way for Christ the Lord, our heavenly King, if for every single
crime, misdeed, or offense he establishes and imposes those penalties
which the Lord himself has sanctioned. By means of these, in addition
to changing and arousing to true repentance those who have sinned, he
will strike the others with fear and dread of sinning; thus he will seek to
burn away, i.e., deeply excise and exterminate, not only all licentious-
ness and boldness in {16} wrongdoing, but also all yearning and desire

for it. This is the purpose of penalties and punishments which God
proposes in his law.
For the nature of all men is so corrupt from birth and has such a pro-
pensity for crimes and wickedness that it has to be called away and
deterred from vices, and invited and forced to virtues, not only by
teaching and exhortation, admonition and reprimand, which are
accomplished by words, but also by the learning and correction that
accompany force and authority and the imposition of punishments.
Remedies of this kind are so efficacious and salutary for mankind
against its inborn ills that Plato rightly judged it the proper role of the
art of true rhetoric to require the accusation before a magistrate even of
oneself if one had committed some offense, and also of close friends
and relatives if they had been in any way delinquent, and to seek pun-
ishments prescribed by law as a necessary medicine of primary impor-
tance.

CALVINISM AND
“THE JUDICIAL LAW OF MOSES”:
AN HISTORICAL SURVEY
James B. Jordan
The problem of relating the Christian faith to vital social and political
issues is very much before the evangelical and Reformed communities
today. The Christian capital laid up by former generations has just
about been used up as the 1980s draw near. The left wing, with its opti-
mistic view of human nature, offers little to the Christian thinker, while
the negativism and rootlessness of the American right wing prevent it
from articulating a clear-cut alternative.
Into this milieu has come the suggestion that the Christian finds a
political philosophy laid out in the specific social laws of Scripture.
These laws, it is contended, exemplify Christian principles in socio-
political affairs, for they express God’s unchanging standard of justice.
Thus, they should be studied as guidelines for Christian thought today.
To the extent that these laws, given comprehensively through Moses,
address abiding social problems, such as adultery or theft, their dictates
are binding. The remaining laws should still be consulted, and the wis-
dom gained from meditating upon them should be applied to latter-
day affairs.
Recent writers defending this basic view include most prominently
R. J. Rushdoony and Greg L. Bahnsen.14 Others have proven sympa-
thetic to this thesis, and the reasons are not far to seek. As John Frame
has noted in his review of Bahnsen’s book, “It might turn out that our
search will lead us after all to a closer imitation of the old covenant
order, not out of Biblico-theological necessity, but out of a general
Christian political wisdom; for ‘what nation is there so great, that hath
14. Rousas J. Rushdoony, Institutes of Biblical Law (Nutley, NJ: Craig Press, 1974);
Greg L. Bahnsen, Theonomy in Christian Ethics (Nutley, NJ: Craig Press, 1977).
statutes and judgments so righteous as all this law, which I set before
you [Israel] this day?’ (Deut. 4:8)”15
The thesis that the whole law of God—including details addressing
social and political morality—is valid today must, of course, be
attacked or defended on the basis of Scripture alone. As of the date of
this essay, no Scriptural argument against the whole-law position has
been issued, either {18} into print or into the many discussions the
present writer has engaged in. A variety of questionable arguments
have been presented at various times to the present writer, and since
these arguments apparently do circulate in conversations regarding the
whole-law position, it may be well to deal with them at this point as a
debris-clearing operation before moving to the matter at hand.
Criticisms of Theonomic Ethics

1. It has been contended that the laws of the Bible are harsh and
unreasonable. Indeed, some have engaged in ridicule of them.16 What
are we to make of this argument? Marcion, the early church heretic,
argued the same way, maintaining that the God of the Older Testament
was harsh and cruel, but that the God of the New Testament is kind
and loving. This is an ancient heresy. Christianity has always main-
tained that when men accuse God of being “harsh,” it is only because
they want an excuse for sin. Is God’s law really harsh, however? The law
states, for instance, that homosexual acts should be punished by death,
on the testimony of two or three eyewitnesses. What is the effect of this
law? It can be seen right away that few if any homosexuals would ever
be executed under this law, since it would be very difficult to procure
two eyewitnesses to such an act. The effect of this law would be to drive
homosexuality far, far underground. It would help to protect young
persons from homosexual solicitation. It would be an incentive to
those of homosexual tendencies to prevent them from turning to a life
of depravity. It would help to protect society at large from the judgment
God visited on Sodom and Gomorrah. It would help to protect society
15. In the Presbyterian Journal, August 31, 1977, 18.

16. A treatment that borders on ridicule is G. Aiken Taylor, “Theonomy and
Christian behavior,” in the Presbyterian Journal, September. 13, 1978, 9ff.
Calvinism and “The Judicial Law of Moses”: An Historical Survey 27
from the rampant moral decay seen in the history of the Roman
Empire. Is this “harsh”?
2. It has been contended that we today are not living in a “theocracy,”
but are living under “pluralism.” What does this mean? Surely every
Christian desires Christ to be King in some sense, and thus in some
sense desires a “theocracy.” Moreover, even if we are not living today in
a theocracy, is this not just the issue at stake? To argue that our present
government is pagan is simply to admit the need for a Christian theoc-
racy. Theocracy, after all, means “the rule of God” or “the authority of
God.” Common use of the term has equated it with “the rule of church-
men,” but ecclesiocracy has always been denied by Reformed Protes-
tants, especially those in the Puritan tradition.
The modern concept of “pluralism” is to the political order what
polytheism is to the religious order. Surely “pluralism” is the devil’s own
lie, that society can be neutral, neither for nor against God. In reality,
no zone of life is neutral, and “pluralism” is heresy. That some modern
{19} Calvinists believe that total religious pluralism is the proper goal
of Christian politics simply illustrates the poverty into which such
“Calvinism” has sunk.
3. It has been contended that the Older Testament does not actually
set forth a series of judicial or civil laws. With this criticism we may
agree. A simple reading of Exodus or Deuteronomy will show that
there is no place where a set of laws constituting a legal civil code is to
be found. Rather, social, personal, civil, familial, and “ceremonial” laws
are found all mixed up together. This shows that the law of God all
stands or falls together. It would be improper to maintain, as some of
the Fifth Monarchy Men did, that we find in the Bible a full-blown legal
system. Rather, what we find is the basis for a Christian legal system.
The laws of the Bible are case laws, and it is the duty of the Christian
ruler to extend the equity of these cases to cover the details he finds in
his own society.
To return to the case we discussed above, the Bible prescribes death
for a man who lies with another man in the way a man lies with a
woman (i.e., for homosexual acts). This case does not explicitly con-
demn lesbian acts, and we do not find a parallel case law forbidding a
woman to lie with a woman. If the Bible intended to set forth a com-
prehensive legal code, we should expect to find such an anti-lesbian

law. It is rather the case that the Bible expects us to extend the equity of
the anti-homosexual law so as to cover lesbian activities, pornography,
solicitation, and so forth. We are not free, however, to change the case
law so as, for instance, to punish homosexuality with prison rather
than with death.17
This criticism does, however, raise a difficult point. In the literature
of Protestantism, it is assumed that the law of God comes in three cate-
gories: moral, judicial, and ceremonial. The criticism rightly shows that
this category scheme is erroneous. What has been termed “judicial law”
is not in fact a legal code, but rather is a set of explanations of the moral
law. These explanations have judicial aspects and judicial implications,
but are not a judicial code.
What this means is that it cannot be argued that “the judicial law of
Moses” has been dropped out in the New Testament era, because there
is no such thing in Scripture as “the judicial law of Moses.” What the
opponent of theocracy must argue is this: that the judicial implications
of the moral law have dropped out in the New Covenant era. This argu-
ment, however, proves too much, for virtually nobody wants to main-
tain that our legal code should be totally divorced from moral
considerations.
It would seem that there is greater wisdom in humbly and gratefully
receiving from the hand of God whatever explanations of the moral
law He sees fit to reveal, whether such explanations be personal, famil-
ial, or civil. {20}
4. It has been contended that this position does not do justice to
“common grace”—whatever that extraordinarily ambiguous term
means. However the term is used, it is not apparent how “common
grace” removes the revealed laws of God from operation. Did not
“common grace” operate in ancient Israel? Did God not give sunshine
and rain to the reprobate in Israel? Did God not restrain the sin of rep-
robates in the Older Testament era? If it is contended that “common
grace” has been increased in the New Covenant, so that the Older Tes-
tament laws have dropped away, where is the textual, Scriptural evi-
dence for this? Moreover, such a contention assumes a “law versus
grace antagonism,” which is anathema to the Reformed faith.18
17. Cf. note 14 above.

5. It has been contended that this position does not do justice to the
“flow of redemptive history.” This contention, however, is not an argu-
ment, but only the form of an argument. It is necessary for the oppo-
nent to come forth with texts which demonstrate that the “flow of
redemptive history” has removed from operation God’s own explana-
tions of His moral law. Bahnsen’s book has shown at great length that,
despite very real and great changes in economy from the Older to the
New Covenant, the laws of God are not among the changes.19
6. A similar contention has been that the theonomic-theocratic posi-
tion is against the “tenor” of the New Testament.20 Like the preceding
argument, this is only the form of an argument, not the substance of
one. If there be such a thing as a “tenor” of a book,21 such a “tenor” or
“feel” would have to be built up from the text of the book.
7. It has been contended that whatever is not repeated in the New Tes-
tament has been dropped from the Older. No argument is offered in
defense of this slogan, except the assertion that the Older and New
Covenants are wholly disparate. Against this dispensationalistic argu-
ment is (a) the fact that Matthew 5:17–19 asserts that nothing of the
Older Testament has been dropped, and (b) the fact that the weekly
Sabbath is usually admitted to be nowhere explicitly repeated in the
New Testament, yet Calvinists continue to observe it.
8. It has been contended that the theocratic position fails to interpret
the Older Testament in the light of the New, but reverses the order.
Those arguing in this fashion reveal that they have read neither Rush-
doony nor Bahnsen, both of whom rigorously argue from the New to
the Older.
The fact that such arbitrary, sloganizing, and prejudicial arguments
are {21} seriously advanced calls into question the theological compe-
tency of those advancing them. These “arguments” have weight only
18. These notions are set forth in germinal form in Meredith Kline, The Structure of
Biblical Authority (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1972). Kline’s theology
is a neo-dispensationalism as rigorous as anything generated from the Scofieldian
camp.
19. Cf. note 14 above.
20. No one has yet argued that it is against the “soprano” of the New Testament.
21. Caruso’s biography would be an exception, of course.
for those who already agree with them. They are embarrassingly light-
weight arguments.
9. An emotionally more cogent and persuasive argument has been
that the Reformed tradition has always maintained that “the judicial
laws of Moses” no longer bind the New Covenant community, and that
the Westminster Confession of Faith, at section 19:4, stands against
theonomy. If this were truly the case, it would not settle the matter
once and for all, since creeds and councils can err. Moreover, the Prot-
estant principle is not to test new ideas by tradition, but by Scripture.
Traditionalism, however, does hold sway unofficially in modern
Reformed circles. Thus, it is the purpose of this essay to take up this
argument from history. Our purpose is not to try to prove that historic
Calvinism has always held to the whole-law position, or even that a
majority of Calvinists have held to it. Rather, our purpose is to demon-
strate that many within the Reformed fold, especially during the first
one hundred years of its existence, highly favored “the judicial laws of
Moses” as a model for the civil magistrate, and thus that there is no
valid historical argument against the position advanced by Rushdoony
and Bahnsen.
At the outset, however, it should be noted that the phrase “the judi-
cial law of Moses” is problematic. We saw above, under argument 3,
that the Mosaic law does not set forth a civil code, and thus that the
phrase “judicial law of Moses” is theologically erroneous. Moreover, the
phrase is ambiguous, in that the social or case laws in the Older Testa-
ment address much more than only judicial or civil penalties. There are
laws for the family, for the individual, for ecology, and for many other
areas of life. The only “civil laws,” properly speaking, are those which
have civil penalties attached to them. Thus, even if we were to try to
break down the law of God into categories—and it would be a reduc-
tionistic error to attempt it—we would find far more than the three cat-
egories of moral, civil, and ceremonial. We would also find ecological,
familial, marital, and other kinds of laws as well. Because of this, we
can expect to find much confusion and ambiguity in any discussion of
“the judicial laws of Moses.” And this is what we do in fact find. Many
writers state that “the judicial laws of Moses” no longer bind Chris-
tians, and then turn around and cite the Mosaic prescriptions as if they
were binding. Martin Bucer is a perfect example of this.22 One is left

wondering precisely what the author had in mind when he used the
term “judicial law,” and it is usually impossible to find out, since few
writers actually discussed the matter at any length.
John Calvin and Martin Bucer

In researching historical documents, the student can easily be fooled
if {22} he fails to take into account historical context. John Calvin can
serve as a case in point. At first glance, Calvin’s hostility to the modern
use of the Mosaic judicials could hardly be more marked:
For there are some who deny that a commonwealth is duly framed
which neglects the political system of Moses, and is ruled by the com-
mon law of nations. Let other men consider how perilous and sedi-
tious this notion is; it will be enough for me to have proved it false and
foolish.23
What could be clearer? Yet in fact what Calvin calls the “common law
of nations” included much that was derived from Moses, via Justinian
and other sources. This “common law of nations” is no longer available,
in our era of relativism on the one hand and Communist
totalitarianism on the other, for twentieth-century Calvinists to appeal
to. What would Calvin have written had he faced today’s naked
choices?
Although the quotation cited above seems completely clear in indi-
cating a radical hostility toward the Mosaic judicials on Calvin’s part,
there are several reasons against taking it as such. Firstly, Calvin uses
the Mosaic judicials in arguing for the death penalty for adultery. Com-
menting on Deuteronomy 22:22, he writes:
Nay, by the universal law of the Gentiles, the punishment of death is
always awarded to adultery; wherefore it is all the baser and more
shameful in Christians not to imitate at least the heathen. Adultery is
punished no less severely by the Julian law than by that of God; whilst
those who boast themselves of the Christian name are so tender and
remiss, that they visit this execrable offence with a very light reproof.24
22. Cf. Bucer, De Regno Christi, bk. 2, chap. 60, reprinted elsewhere in this issue.
23. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, trans. Ford L. Battles
(Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1975), 4:20:14:.
24. John Calvin, Commentaries, trans. C. W. Bingham (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans
Publishing Co., 1950), Deut. 22:22.
Note that the punishment is said to be that of the law “of God,” not
more restrictedly the law of Moses. It is clear that Calvin is
commending the Mosaic penalty here, yet an element of confusion still
remains in the text. Whatever this “universal law of the Gentiles” may
have been, it operates no longer in the twentieth century.
Secondly, Calvin writes in his defense of the execution of Servetus:
Whoever shall now contend that it is unjust to put heretics and blas-
phemers to death will knowingly and willingly incur their very guilt.
This is not laid down on human authority; it is God who speaks and
prescribes a perpetual rule for his Church. It is not in vain that he ban-
ishes all those human affectations which soften our hearts; that he
commands paternal love and all the benevolent feelings between
brothers, relations, and friends to cease; in a word, that he almost
deprives men of their nature in order that nothing may hinder their
holy zeal. Why is so implacable a severity exacted but that we may
know {23} that God is defrauded of his honor, unless the piety that is
due to him be preferred to all human duties, and that when his glory is
to be asserted, humanity must be almost obliterated from our memo-
ries.25
Philip Schaff ’s comment is important:
Calvin’s plea for the right and duty of the Christian magistrate to pun-
ish heresy by death, stands or falls with his theocratic theory and the
binding authority of the Mosaic code. His arguments are chiefly
drawn from the Jewish laws against idolatry and blasphemy, and from
the examples of the pious kings of Israel.26
Thus, Schaff considers that Calvin held a high respect for the Mosaic
judicials.
Thirdly, Calvin was a close friend and, in his earlier years, a disciple
of the first-generation Reformer Martin Bucer. Bucer plainly held that
the penal sanctions of the Older Testament were the best ever devised,
being authored by God Himself, and thus should be enacted in all
25. Cited in Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church (Grand Rapids, MI:
Eerdmans Publishing Co. 1950), 8:791–92, emphasis added. Calvin is referring
throughout to Deuteronomy 13:6–10.
26. Ibid., 792.
Christian states.27 Calvin’s high regard for Bucer may be seen in the fol-
lowing statement by Calvin:
Martin Bucer, a most faithful doctor of the Church of Christ, besides
his rare learning and copious knowledge of many things, besides his
clearness of wit, much reading and other many and various virtues
(wherein he is almost by none now living excelled, has few equals, and
excels most), has this praise peculiar to himself, that none in this age
has used exacter diligence in the exposition of Scripture.28
This statement is important in two respects. First, it shows the very
great respect Calvin had for Bucer. Second, it shows in particular that
Calvin regarded Bucer as a master exegete. It must be remembered that
even today Calvin himself is regarded as the greatest expositor of
Scripture of the Reformation era, and his works are still cited in Bible
commentaries written today. Thus, if Calvin held Bucer’s use and
exegesis of Scripture in high regard, this is no faint praise.
Also, Bucer’s personal friendship and influence on Calvin must be
considered. Pauck notes:
There was a deep affinity between Bucer and Calvin, not only because
their outlook, especially on the needs of the Church, was similar ... ,
{24} but chiefly because Calvin’s mind was profoundly shaped by what
he learned and took over from Bucer, particularly during the years
(1538–1541) when they were associated in common work in Strass-
burg.29
When Bucer died, Calvin told a friend he felt as lonesome as an
orphan, so close and personal was the relationship between the two
men.30
27. Cf. Bucer, De Regno Christi, bk. 2, chap. 60, reprinted elsewhere in this issue, as
well as J. W. Sawyer’s introduction thereto.
28. From Bucer, Scripta Anglicana, ed. Conrad Hubertus (Basle, 1577); trans. John
Milton in The Judgment of Martin Bucer Concerning Divorce (1644). Cf. Complete Prose
Works of John Milton, vol. 2 (New Haven, CT: Yale, 1959), 422. Spelling and punctuation
modernized and emphasis added. Further praise of Bucer by Calvin can be found in
Calvin’s prefaces to his own commentaries on Romans, Psalms, and the Gospels.
29. Wilhelm Pauck, “Editor’s Introduction to Bucer’s De Regno Christi,” in
Melanchthon and Bucer, Library of Christian Classics, vol. 19 (Philadelphia:
Westminster, 1959), 157.
30. Wilhelm Pauck, “Butzer and Calvin,” in The Heritage of the Reformation, 1st ed.
(Glencoe, IL: Free Press, 1950), 88.
Bucer placed a tremendous emphasis on the love of the brethren and

the communion of the saints. Thus, he ever worked for the uniting of
the Lutheran, Reformed, and Roman churches. When Bullinger
attacked Bucer for compromising too much in this direction, Calvin,
though sometimes having sentiments similar to Bullinger’s, neverthe-
less defended Bucer. Because of his emphasis on love and community,
Bucer stressed church discipline and the rule of discipline, the law of
God.31 As a result, Bucer readily turned to the social legislation
recorded in the books of Moses, and held that modern Christian states
should conform to them.
Bucer distinguished between the state “sanctified to God”32 and the
non-Christian civil order. With respect to the latter, he was antirevolu-
tionary.
It is agreed by all who determine the Kingdom, and offices of Christ
by the Holy Scriptures, as all godly men ought to do, that our Saviour
upon the earth took not on him either to give new laws in civil affairs,
or to change the old, but [commanded] his own, in respect to civil life,
to be subject themselves to the laws of the commonwealth in which
they might live.33
The Christian civil order was different. While Christians are not bound
to the Mosaic legislation in terms of circumstances peculiar to the
Older Testament era, yet,
whoever does not reckon that such commandments are to be con-
scientiously observed is certainly not attributing to God either
supreme wisdom or a righteous care for our salvation.34
Bucer’s position thus is this: in a Christian state, the Mosaic legislation
has a binding force; but Christians in a pagan state should submit to
the powers that be, until a time of reformation.
Now, the issue at hand is whether or not it is reasonable to think that
Calvin’s attack on those advocating the Mosaic judicials has application
to his close friend Martin Bucer. Is it likely that Calvin would term
31. Ibid.
32. Bucer, De Regno Christi, bk. 2, chap. 60, second paragraph.
33. Ibid., bk. 2, chap. 28; trans. Milton. Cf. note 28. In Milton’s Prose Works, vol. 2,
456.
34. Ibid., bk. 2, chap. 60, first paragraph, trans. Pauck. Cf. note 29.

Bucer’s {25} position “perilous, seditious, false, and foolish”? Moreover,

is it in fact the case that Bucer’s position is seditious? The answer to
these questions is clearly “no.” Bucer is not advocating sedition.
Is there, then, some other person or group to whom Calvin might be
referring? There is indeed: the Anabaptists. Calvin’s hostility to the
Anabaptists is well known. That he regarded them as seditious is clear
from many parts of the Institutes. Some of the Anabaptists did advocate
the Mosaic judicials, and did so in a revolutionary manner.
In 1534 the Anabaptists of Münster drew up a legal code which
restored the capital offences of the Bible, such as blasphemy, adultery
and disobedience to parents, as well as imposing death for theft, beg-
ging, and even greed. The radical German reformers Müntzer and
Carlstadt were in favor of restoring the judicial laws.35
The Anabaptists did indeed recommend the Mosaic judicials, but they
also recommended civil disobedience and revolution. Calvin is
attacking a position that is “perilous and seditious.” There can be no
question but that he has in mind not Bucer but the Anabaptists.
The final question, then, is this: does the modern theonomic-theo-
cratic position advocated by Rushdoony, Bahnsen, et. al., stand in line
with Bucer or with the Anabaptists? Rushdoony’s and Bahnsen’s writ-
ings make it more than plain that they are not sympathetic to the use of
violence as a means to institute the Mosaic judicials. Thus, the modern
theonomic position is a descendent of Bucer, and is not condemned by
Calvin.
While Calvin did not himself advocate the Mosaic judicials, he
regarded some of them at least as permanently binding, and did not
condemn those such as Bucer (and Rushdoony, and Bahnsen) who
sought their implementation in a peaceful manner.
The Sixteenth Century

The Belgic Confession of 1561 actually makes no remarks on our
subject one way or another. Of interest, however, is the fact that one
entire chapter (Article 25) is given over to “Of the Abolishing of the
Ceremonial Law,” while there is no equivalent statement regarding the
35. B. S. Capp, The Fifth Monarchy Men (Totowa, NJ: Rowman and Littlefield, 1972),
169–70.
judicial laws. Also, Article 36 states that it is the duty of the civil magis-
trate to “remove and prevent all idolatry and false worship,” indicating
a rather more favorable view of the Older Testament “legislation” than
we meet with in some today.36
The Second Helvetic Confession, of 1566, was almost entirely the
work of Heinrich Bullinger of Zurich, one of the great second-genera-
tion Reformers, who lived from 1504 to 1575. In an earlier work, {26}
Antiquissima Fides et vera Religio, translated by Miles Coverdale (1488–
1568) as The Old Faith, Bullinger had written regarding the judicial
law:
Whereas, besides the ceremonies, there is much written also in the law
concerning civil polity, ordinance, judgment, to live peaceable and
well in city and land; of buying and selling, of war and peace, of inher-
itance and properties, of laws matrimonial, of the punishment of the
wicked, of the judgment and council, of lending and borrowing, etc.; it
is no news at all, and serveth altogether for the declaration of the six
commandments of the second table....
Such laws and rules to live in peace, in a civil order and virtue, have
also the holy fathers had from the beginning of the world written in
their hearts by God himself. Now hath God also caused all to be com-
prehended in writing by Moses, to the intent that the world might
have all more clearly and perfectly, and that no man might excuse
himself of ignorance.37
Bullinger’s Second Helvetic Confession does not, any more than the
Belgic Confession, state that the judicial law of Moses has expired.
Chapter 27 clearly states that the ceremonial was abolished. In chapter
12, “Of the Law of God,” we read:
For plainness’ sake we divide it into the moral law, which is contained
in the commandments, or the two tables expounded in the books of
Moses; into the ceremonial, which does appoint ceremonies and the
worship of God; and into the judicial, which is occupied about politi-
cal and domestic affairs.
We believe that the whole will of God, and all necessary precepts, for
every part of this life, are fully delivered in this law. For otherwise the
36. Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom, vol. 3 (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book
House, 1966), III, 412–13, 432.
37. Miles Coverdale, The Old Faith, Parker Society ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, [1541] 1844), 47–48.
Lord would not have forbidden that “anything should be either added
or taken away from this law” (Deut. 4:2, 12:32); neither would he have
commanded us to go straight forward in this, and “not to decline out
of the way, either to the right hand or to the left” (Josh. 1:7).38
The second paragraph cited above certainly reads as if Bullinger
intended us to keep all of the Mosaic law. The same is the case in
chapter 30, “Of the Magistracy”:
In like manner, let him govern the people, committed to him of God,
with good laws, made according to the Word of God in his hands, and
look that nothing be taught contrary thereto….
Therefore let him draw forth this sword of God against all malefac-
tors, seditious persons, thieves, murderers, oppressors, blasphemers,
perjured persons, and all those whom God has commanded him to
punish or even to execute. Let him suppress stubborn heretics (who
are {27} heretics indeed), who cease not to blaspheme the majesty of
God, and to trouble the Church, yea, and finally to destroy it.39
Noteworthy is the statement that the laws of nations are framed
according to the word of God, and that additionally the state is to
ensure that nothing be taught contrary to the Bible. Of further note is
the phrase “and all those whom God has commanded him to punish or
even to execute.” Apparently God has commanded the magistrate to
execute some criminals. These commands are found nowhere but in
Scripture, so that penal sanctions of Scripture must of necessity be
what is referred to here. This statement, as it stands in and of itself, can
only mean that those things which were civil offenses in the Older
Testament economy continue to be civil offenses in the New Testament
era (these offenses are listed), and also that the specific punishment
ordered by God for some crimes (execution) is still mandated.
In the Decades, however, Bullinger firmly insists upon the abroga-
tion of the Mosaic judicials.40 No nation is bound to receive them as its
laws. Nonetheless, “the substance of God’s judicial laws is not taken
away or abolished, but ... the ordering and limitation of them is placed
in the arbitrement of good Christian princes....”41 Bullinger also argues
38. Schaff, vol. 3, 855.

39. Ibid., 907–8.
40. Parker Society ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1850), Decade 3,
280.

that the good laws of the ancient world (Calvin’s “common law of
nations”) trace back to Moses,42 so that one reason Moses’s specifics are
no longer binding is that the laws of the nations so closely approximate
them.43 Thus, in a concrete sense, Bullinger’s rejection of the letter of
the Mosaic judicials is related to the fact that he saw their continuation
in spirit in his own culture.
Bucer and Bullinger have a number of things in common. It would
be well to summarize these, for we shall find them commonly occur-
ring in Calvinistic writings of this century and the next.
1. Both state categorically that the Mosaic judicial laws were
designed for ancient Israel and no longer bind modern
Christian nations.
2. Both turn around and invoke the penal sanctions of the
Mosaic laws as if they were fully binding on modern
magistrates.
3. Both hold that even though the Mosaic judicials are not
binding, yet they are also not abolished or removed.
4. Both hold that the Mosaic judicials must inform the
thinking of good Christian princes, who nonetheless have
the right to alter them somewhat.
5. Both seem to believe that the Mosaic judicials cannot be
improved upon. {28}
How are we to understand this? We should like to suggest that the
following is what is meant by these men. The civil aspects of the
unchanging moral law of God were phrased in case law, dealing with
cases common and sometimes peculiar to the ancient, agrarian Israel-
ite economy. Some, perhaps many, of these cases no longer exist in the
modern world. Nonetheless, the basic principles contained in the case
laws can be and must be applied to the modern civil order. Some cases,
such as murder, adultery, blasphemy, and Sabbath breaking, remain the
same; and thus the civil laws regarding these also remain the same
from age to age. As will appear later on, the English Puritans used the
41. Ibid., 282.

42. Ibid., 218.
43. Ibid., 280–81.

term “equity” to denote this phenomenon of basic principles and com-

mon cases still being binding in the New Testament era.
Turning, then, to the English Reformers, we must examine the views
of Hooper, Latimer, and Becon. Bishop John Hooper died a martyr of
the Reform in 1555. His work is useful in showing that the biblical
death penalty was commonly received in his day.
It sufficeth us loyallement and with good faith to hear this command-
ment, ‘Commit no adultery’; which forbiddeth not only to abstain
from another man’s wife, the which both God’s laws and man’s laws,
Christians’ and gentiles’, punisheth with death, Deut. 22, Lev. 24....44
Hugh Latimer (1485–1555) was also a bishop and martyr. The fol-
lowing quotation demonstrates a high regard for the civil use of the law
of Moses.
There is no king, emperor, magistrate, and ruler, of what state soever
they be, but are bound to obey this God, and to give credence unto his
holy word, in directing their steps ordinately according to the same
word. Yea, truly, they are not only bound to obey God’s book, but also
the minister of the same, “for the word’s sake,” so far as he speaketh
“sitting in Moses’ chair”; that is, if his [the preacher’s—J.B.J.] doctrine
be taken out of Moses’ law. For in this world God hath two swords, the
one is a temporal sword, the other a spiritual. The temporal sword
resteth in the hands of kings, magistrates, and rulers, under him;
whereunto all subjects, as well the clergy as the laity, be subject, and
punishable for any offence contrary to the same book.45
In short, the preacher explains the law of Moses to the civil magistrate,
who then enforces the relevant sections of it with the sword. Latimer
also declared, “I would wish that Moses’s law were restored for
punishment of lechery.”46 {29}
Thomas Becon (1512–1567) studied under Latimer. He was a chap-
lain to Archbishop Cranmer, and his Catechism was written during the
44. John Hooper, “A Declaration of the Ten Commandments,” in Early Writings of

Bishop John Hooper, Parker Society ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1843),
376.
45. Hugh Latimer, Sermons, Parker Society ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1844), 85. The quotation is taken from a sermon preached before Edward VI on
March 8, 1549.
46. J. W. Blench, Preaching in England in the Late Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries
(Oxford, 1964), 274.
reign of Edward the Sixth, during the period of Bucer’s influence in

England. Becon cites the penal laws of Moses as examples to civil mag-
istrates of every age.47 He emphasizes that if wrongs against man are to
be punished—the second table of the law—how much more should
wrongs against God be punished.48 He adds: “But we have ... an
expressed commandment to kill and put out of the way all idolaters
and false prophets....”49
This evidence from the mid-sixteenth century, while not always evi-
dence of a rigorously consistent approach to the matter, surely does
serve to indicate a deep respect for the civil implications of the law of
Moses.
The Rise of Puritanism

The term “Puritan” is very difficult to define closely, and we need not
enter the controversy over exactly what it denotes. For our purposes,
Puritanism reflected an attitude regarding God and man which
stressed the sinfulness and the duty of man, and the sovereignty and
law of God. As to doctrine, the Puritans were strongly predestinarian.
As to law, they believed that the Bible sets forth the specific pattern for
church government, though they were not all in agreement regarding
exactly what that pattern is. With regard to society, they were not
retreatist, but maintained the old Christian and medieval notion of a
Christian social order, of “Christendom.” In terms of this, they had a
high regard for the judicial laws of Moses.50
There was a long legal tradition favoring the Mosaic judicials, which
fed into Puritanism. B. S. Capp has noted that the Lollards were
strongly influenced in their social programs by the laws of Moses.
Wyclif attacked the profiteering lawyers and argued that men were not
bound to obey laws not based on scripture. He condemned the view
that “sinful men’s laws, full of error, be more needful than the gospel.”
47. Thomas Becon, Catechism, Parker Society ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press, 1844), 310.
48. Ibid., 311.
49. Ibid., 312.
50. For a summary of Puritan attitudes toward the law of God, cf. Bahnsen,
Theonomy, appendix 3.

William Swynderby condemned the imprisonment of debtors. Walter

Brute, preaching in 1392, declared it was “to be wondered at, why
thieves are, among Christians, for theft put to death, when after the
law of Moses they were not put to death. Christians suffer adulterers
to live, Sodomites, and they who curse father and mother, and many
other horrible sinners; ... So we neither keep the law of righteousness
given by God, nor the law of mercy taught by Christ.” This sermon
was printed by Foxe, and was thus readily available in the seventeenth
century. The chronicler, Henry of Knighton, claimed that the cry {30}
“Legem dei, Goddis lawe,” was the watchword of the Lollard move-
ment.51
Another source of Puritanism was John Knox. Thomas M’Crie com-
ments on Knox’s view in a passing remark while discussing Knox’s
debate with Maitland: “... both parties held that idolatry might justly be
punished by death. Into this sentiment they were led in consequence of
their having adopted the untenable opinion, that the judicial laws given
to the Jewish nation were binding upon Christian nations, as to all
offenses against the moral law.”52
Thomas Cartwright was among the most highly respected Puritan
leaders of English Presbyterianism. He lived from 1535 to 1603. In a
lengthy interchange with Archbishop Whitgift, his Second Reply
included the following remarkable statement:
And, as for the judicial law, forasmuch as there are some of them made
in regard of the region where they were given, and of the people to
whom they were given, the prince and magistrate, keeping the sub-
stance and equity of them (as it were the marrow), may change the cir-
cumstance of them, as the times and places and manners of the people
shall require. But to say that any magistrate can save the life of blas-
phemers, contemptuous and stubborn idolaters, murderers, adulter-
ers, incestuous persons, and such like, which God by his judicial law
hath commanded to be put to death, I do utterly deny, and am ready to
prove, if that pertained to this question.53
51. Capp, Fifth Monarchy Men, 168–69.

52. Thomas M’Crie, Life of John Knox (Glasgow: Free Presbyterian Pub., [1811]
1976), 216.
53. Thomas Cartwright, Second Reply [1575], cited in Works of John Whitgift, vol. 1,
Parker Society ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1851), 270, emphasis
added.
Archbishop Whitgift complained in 1574 that “it is now disputed at

every table, whether the magistrate be of necessity bound to the judi-
cials of Moses, so that he may not punish otherwise than is there pre-
scribed ...; which is most absurd, ...and ...seditious.”54 Whitgift, ever a
determined foe of Puritanism, was happy to be able to apply Calvin’s
adjective “seditious” to them, for it was the Puritans who advocated the
Mosaic judicials.
William Perkins (1558–1602) argued in the same vein. Perkins was
one of the formative thinkers of the Puritan movement. Perkins’s dis-
cussion of witchcraft brings out his view of the Mosaic judicials. Tho-
mas Pickering, a contemporary of Perkins, summarized his view
thusly: “That the witch truly convicted is to be punished with death,
the highest degree of punishment, and that by the law of Moses, the
equity whereof is perpetual.”55 {31} Perkins specifically noted that not
only evil witches but also good witches were to be executed under
Moses’s law, because the essence of the anti-sorcery law was not
directed against those who harm others but against those in pact with
Satan.56
It should not escape notice that Cartwright and Perkins were two of
the greatest and most influential of the early Puritans. Note that both
use the term equity, which is used in the Westminster Confession of
Faith, chapter 19:4. This will be explained further below. Note also that
Cartwright is “ready to prove” the continuing validity of the Mosaic
judicials. This is no mild view, but a very confident and assured one.
Note finally that, according to Whitgift, the subject was under constant
discussion at the end of the sixteenth century. It was a live issue in Brit-
ish Calvinism.
On the separatist side of Puritanism, Henry Barrow (d. 1593) was
one of the principal leaders. His Discovery of the False Church (1590)
included the following:
54. Cited in Capp, 169.

55. Rossell H. Robbins, Encyclopedia of Witchcraft and Demonology (New York:
Crown, 1959), 382, emphasis added.
56. William Perkins, A Discourse on the Damned Art of Witchcraft, in John Chandos,
ed., In God’s Name (New York: Bobbs-Merrill, 1971), 135.
But the statutes and judgments of God which are delivered and
expounded unto us by his holy prophets, endure for ever; the pure
wisdom, the upright justice, the true exposition and faithful execution
of his moral law, which laws were not made for the Jews’ state only (as
Mr. Calvin hath taught) but for all mankind, especially for all the
Israel of God, from which laws it is not lawful in judgment to vary or
decline either to the one hand or to the other.57
Barrow is quite straightforward: the judicial law (“statutes and
judgments”) is “the true exposition and faithful execution of God’s
moral law.”
Philip Stubbs (ca. 1555–1610?), a Puritan pamphleteer, composed
An Anatomie of Abuses in 1583. Very popular, it ran through three edi-
tions in two years, and was reprinted a fourth time in 1595.58 His view
was as follows:
S. What kind of punishment would you have appointed for these
notorious bloody swearers? P. I would wish (if it pleased God) that it
were made death. For we read in the law of God, that whosoever blas-
phemeth the Lord, was presently stoned to death without all remorce.
Which law judicial standeth in force to the world’s end.59
We have seen that the early leaders of Puritanism in England fre-
quently espoused the normativity of the judicial law of Moses, insofar
as that law addressed abiding circumstances. This is important as back-
ground to the Westminster Assembly, especially the use of the term
equity. The question {32} may well be asked, however: did the Puritan
movement retain this emphasis in its full bloom? The answer has to be
an unequivocal “yes,” for precisely when the Puritans had opportunity
to begin de novo with a new society, in New England, they turned to
Moses’s law as their own social code.
The Era of the Westminster Assembly

Chapter 19:4 of the Westminster Confession of Faith reads as fol-
lows:
57. Cf. Thomas Rogers, Exposition of the Thirty-nine Articles, Parker Society ed.
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1854), 90.
58. Dictionary of National Biography, vol. 19 (Oxford, 1968), 120.
59. Cf. Rogers, Exposition, 91.

To them [Israel] also, as a body politic, He gave sundry judicial laws,

which expired together with the State of that people; not obliging any
other now, further than the general equity thereof may require.
What precisely does this mean? How are we to understand the phrase
“general equity”? This will be the substance of our discussion in this
section. In order to discover what this statement intends to set forth,
we shall examine opinions from several contemporary quarters: the
Continent, the Scottish Presbyterians, the English Congregationalists,
and the New World colonists. Representatives from each of these
groups will prove to have taken a very high view of the Mosaic
judicials, and this will demonstrate that the Westminster Confession
does not militate against such a view, but may well assume it.
A. The Continent
Johannes Wollebius (1586–1629), a theologian at Basel, published in
1626 a Compendium Theologia Christianae. According to Beardslee,
Wollebius provides us here with “the best brief summary of Reformed
dogmatics available from the period”—the period being the first third
of the seventeenth century.60 Beardslee further informs us that
Wollebius’s work was very popular on the Continent, and circulated
widely. In chapter 14, “The Ceremonial and Political Law,” section 6
reads as follows:
So much for the ceremonial law. The political law dealt with the civil
constitution of the Jews.
Propositions
1. As the ceremonial law was concerned with God, the political was
concerned with the neighbor.
2. In these matters on which it is in harmony with the moral law and
with ordinary justice, it is binding on us.
3. In those matters which were peculiar to that law and were pre-
scribed for the promised land or the situation of the Jewish state, it has
no more force for us than the laws of foreign commonwealths.61 {33}
60. Reformed Dogmatics, trans. and ed. John W. Beardslee III (New York: Oxford,
1965), 10.
61. Ibid., 84.
Notice that according to Wollebius all of the judicial law is perma-

nently binding except what is unique to the geography of Palestine or
deals with the formal construction of the state. As will be seen in the
sequel, these same provisions were made by the New England Puritans.
B. Scotland
Turning to Scotland, we have an interesting and detailed series of
remarks on this subject by George Gillespie, one of the Scottish
commissioners to the Westminster Assembly. Gillespie’s full remarks
on the relation between church and state consume a very large volume
and cannot be treated of here. He does, however, identify his sympa-
thies immediately in Aaron’s Rod Blossoming (1646), where in 1:1 he
writes:
I know some divines hold that the judicial law of Moses, so far as con-
cerneth the punishments of sins against the moral law, idolatry, blas-
phemy, Sabbath-breaking, adultery, theft, etc., ought to be a rule to the
Christian magistrate; and, for my part, I wish more respect were had
to it, and that it were more consulted with.
Gillespie goes on to distinguish between the roles of state and church in
civil matters. A clearer statement is found in his CXI Propositions
Concerning the Ministry and Government of the Church (1644), where
he states:
47. ... It is one thing to govern the commonwealth, and to make politi-
cal and civil laws; another thing to interpret the word of God, and out
of it to show the magistrate his duty, to wit, how he ought to govern
the commonwealth, and in what manner he ought to use the sword.
The former is proper and peculiar to the magistrate (neither doth the
ministry intermeddle or entangle itself into such businesses), but the
latter is contained within the office of the ministers.
48. For to that end also is the holy Scripture profitable, to show which
is the best manner of governing a commonwealth, and that the magis-
trate, as being God’s minister, may by this guiding star be so directed,
as that he may execute the parts of his office according to the will of
God, and may perfectly be instructed in every good work....
Note that Gillespie states that the Bible instructs the magistrate on how
to use the sword, i.e., on penal sanctions. Gillespie saw the magistrate
bound to rule according to the Scriptures, and especially according to
the judicial laws of Moses. Gillespie’s testimony is highly significant,
since it addresses the issue directly, and in that Gillespie was very
influential at the Westminster Assembly.62 {34}
C. England
John Owen (1616–1683) wanted Oliver Cromwell to rule by the
Mosaic judicials. In a sermon, “Christ’s Kingdom and the Magistrate’s
Power,” preached before Parliament on October 13, 1652, the great
congregationalist leader said:
Although the institutions and examples of the Old Testament, of the
duty of magistrates in the things and about the worship of God, are
not, in their whole latitude and extent, to be drawn into rules that
should be obligatory to all magistrates now, under the administration
of the gospel,—and that because the magistrate was “custos, vindex, et
administrator legis judicialis, et politiae Mosaicae,” from which, as
most think, we are freed;—yet, doubtless, there is something moral in
those institutions, which, being unclothed of their Judaical form, is
still binding to all in the like kind, as to some analogy and proportion.
Subduct from those administrations what was proper to, and lies upon
the account of, the church and nation of the Jews, and what remains
upon the general notion of a church and nation must be everlastingly
binding.63
We must not miss the force of the last sentence. What Owen is saying is
that whatever can be applied must be applied. Notice the parallel with
the Westminster Confession statement: some laws applied to the Jews
as a national entity, and had to do with their structures and institutions.
These have passed away. Other laws, however, are equally applicable to
all nations, and these are binding. In the language of Westminster,
“further than the general equity thereof may require.”
Thomas Gilbert was chaplain of Magdalen College, Oxford, from
1656 to 1660. In the Whitehall debates of December 1648, he argued
that insofar as the judicial law “was a fence and outwork to the Moral
62. For a discussion of the views of Samuel Rutherford, the reader is directed to the
essay by Richard Flinn, elsewhere in this issue.
63. John Owen, Works, vol. 8 (London: Banner of Truth, 1967), 394, emphasis added.
The Latin phrase means, “guardian, vindicator, and manager of the judicial law, and of
the constitution of Moses.”
law, it stands with the Moral law, and that still binds upon men.... So ...
the Judicial law ... is still the duty of Magistrates.”64
D. New England
The Puritan experiments in the New World clearly reveal what their
conceptions were. Whatever ambiguity may have afflicted them in
England, given the opportunity to start from scratch they turned unan-
imously to the judicials of Moses for their civil order. We shall look
briefly at three of their leaders, and then examine the laws of three col-
onies, in order to confirm this point.
John Cotton (1584–1652) was one of the most prominent of the
Puritan pastors in Massachusetts Bay. He was an unabashed theocrat.
{35} Like all Puritan thinkers, he did not interpret theocracy to entail
the unification of church and state, but rather saw both institutions as
under the one rule of Christ. Greg L. Bahnsen has reprinted Cotton’s
most succinct theocratic work, An Abstract of the Laws of New England,
as They are Now Established (1641), which is (apparently) the same
work as Cotton’s Moses His Judicials (1636).65 This work consists
largely of verbatim quotations from the law of Moses. Although it was
not adopted by Massachusetts, it greatly influenced the Bible-based
code which was adopted, Nathaniel Ward’s Body of Liberties (1641).
The Body of Liberties influenced the Massachusetts Code (1648), and
this in turn influenced the constitutions of all the colonial states.
Cotton distinguished between the permanent judicials, which were
appendages to the moral law, and temporary judicials, which were
appendages to the ceremonial law. Some examples of temporary laws,
peculiar to the Israelite state, were:
1. the Levirate,
2. some aspects of the Jubilee,
3. Spirit-inspired Judges and the hereditary monarchy,
64. Cited in Capp, 171.

65. Cf. Bahnsen, Theonomy, appendix 3, consisting of an introduction by Bahnsen to
Cotton’s work, and of the text of Cotton’s Abstract. These have also been reprinted
elsewhere in this issue. For a corroboration of Bahnsen’s opinion that the Abstract is
really a later edition of Moses His Judicials, cf. Worthington C. Ford’s discussion in the
Transactions of the Massachusetts Historical Society 16, 2nd ser. (October 1902):274–80.
4. putting away heathen wives,

5. the inalienability of family property,
6. prohibition on mixed cloth,
7. prohibition on yoking ox and ass,
8. prohibition on rounding beard,
9. the Levitical requirement to drain blood from meat
(though the prohibition on drinking fresh blood is
permanent).66
Another prominent pastor was Thomas Shepard (1605–1649), who
ministered at Newtown, Massachusetts, from 1636 until 1649. Shepard
provides us with an extended comment on the permanent aspects of
the Mosaic judicials:
Thesis 42: The judicial laws, some of them being hedges and fences to
safeguard both moral and ceremonial precepts, their binding power
was therefore mixed and various, for those which did safeguard any
moral law, (which is perpetual,) whether by just punishments or
otherwise, do still morally bind all nations; ... and hence God would
have all nations preserve their fences forever, as he would have that
law preserved forever which these safeguard.... As, on the contrary,
{36} the morals abiding, why should not their judicials and fences
remain? The learned generally doubt not to affirm that Moses’ judi-
cials bind all nations, so far forth as they contain any moral equity in
them, which moral equity doth appear not only in respect of the end
of the law, when it is ordered for common and universal good, but
chiefly in respect of the law which they safeguard and fence, which if it
be moral, it is most just and equal, that either the same or like judicial
fence (according to some fit proportion) should preserve it still,
because it is but just and equal that a moral and universal law should
be universally preserved.... 67
Several aspects of this quotation are noteworthy. First is Shepard’s
assertion that the “just punishments” or something proportionately
like them are included in the permanently binding aspects of the
Mosaic judicials. Second is his statement that the educated thinkers of
66. “How far Moses Judicials bind Mass[achusetts],” Transactions of the

Massachusetts Historical Society 16, 2nd ser. (October 1902):280–84.
67. Thomas Shepard, The Morality of the Sabbath, in Works, vol. 3 (Boston:
Doctrinal Tract and Book Society, 1853), 53–54.
his day were in agreement that insofar as the Mosaic judicials con-
tained equity, they were binding on all nations.
Third, Shepard contends that the equity is not contained in the pur-
pose of the moral law, but in the moral law itself. According to the
Oxford English Dictionary, “equity” is here used in the sense of a
recourse to a general principle of justice. To be precise, “Equity of a
statute according to its reason and spirit so as to make it apply to cases
for which it does not expressly provide.”68 Thus, what Shepard is saying
is that the case laws of the Mosaic system reflect perfectly, in their par-
ticular applications, the universal justice of the moral law. Though
some of these cases do not apply directly today, they do show con-
cretely how the general principles are to be worked out in particular
situations.
Some cases apply directly to all times, such as death for adultery,
since adultery is the same in all times and places. Other cases, such as
the requirement that a fence be put on the roofs of newly constructed
houses, have little relevance to us today as they stand, since our roofs
are not flat and we do not use them for social gatherings. There are,
however, similar situations and equivalent circumstances in the mod-
ern world (such as high porches), and by studying the Mosaic legisla-
tion, we can discern how properly to apply the moral law equitably to
our modern situation.
It is very important that this concept of equity be understood, for it
is this very concept which is employed by the Westminster Confession
of Faith in section 19:4. The equity of the Mosaic judicials is perma-
nently binding, even though some of the cases or particular illustra-
tions in the Mosaic law do not appear today.
Shepard also is helpful in delimiting the use of the law of the Older
Testament in another way. In A Wholesome Caveat (1648), he notes
that {37} there were various forms of government authorized by God in
the Older Testament.69 Thus, as regards the precise form of govern-
ment, as distinct from its legal matter, none is legislated by Scripture.
The other work cited above was published in 1649. These works, writ-
ten and issued in the same decade as the Westminster Assembly, give
68. Compact Edition of the Oxford English Dictionary, vol. 1 (Oxford, 1971), 888.
69. Shepard, vol. 3, 289, 340.

us a good idea of what the consensus must have been among the
stricter Calvinists at that august assemblage.
More rigorous in his views was John Eliot, the apostle to the Indians.
Eliot was one of the most remarkable missionaries of all time, in that he
not only brought the good news of personal salvation to his Indian
hearers, but also sought to reorganize completely their societies in
order to make them prosperous, productive, and happy. His labors,
which were ceaseless, ran until his death in 1690 at the age of 86. In a
remarkable book, The Christian Commonwealth (1659), he argued
from Exodus chapter 18 that society should be organized by house-
holds, with elders over groups of ten, of fifty, of one hundred, and so
forth. He noted that Jesus operated on this principle in the New Testa-
ment (Mark 6:40). Eliot worked out this surprising scheme in great
detail, going into relatively fine points regarding at which level in the
pyramid capital crimes should be tried, and so forth.70 If this seems
innocuous to us today, it was regarded as “full of seditious principles
and notions” by the Governor and Council of Massachusetts when they
took it up on March 18, 1660. This extreme denunciation reflects the
fact that Charles II had ascended the throne in Britain, and all Puritan
thought was suspect.71 Eliot was required to renounce it, and with wise
discretion (Matt. 5:41) he did so.72 Still in all, his little work shows us to
what lengths the careful Puritans were ready to go in order to follow
the dictates of Cod. We must note, then, that if Eliot was to the right of
the consensus of his times, that consensus must have been well to the
right of what is popular in Reformed circles today.
We turn now to consider the legislation of three of the New England
settlements. Revisions were made in English law under the Crom-
wellian administration, as might be expected. Capp notes that “the
Rump [Parliament] actually passed measures establishing the death
penalty for adultery, incest, and blasphemy, and severe penalties for
swearing and for profanation of the Sabbath.”73 Despite this, the Cal-
70. John Eliot, The Christian Commonwealth (New York: Arno Press, 1972).
71. Convers Francis, Life of John Eliot (Boston: Hillard, Gray, and Co., 1836), 210.
72. The office of tithingman, established in 1675, divided Massachusetts into groups
of ten families for certain governmental purposes. Cf. Edmund S. Morgan, The Puritan
Family (New York: Harper, 1966), 148–49.
vinistic experiment did not have full opportunity to do things its own
way except in the New {38} World, where there were no traditions to
overcome, no unbelieving power bloc to contend with, and little social
inertia from within the ranks, the New England breed being by and
large the stricter sort. In America they had a chance to start from
scratch, and it is surely significant that they turned directly to the
Mosaic judicials in doing so. We have noted already John Cotton’s
input in this, but let us now briefly examine the legal records them-
selves.
The Records of the New Haven Colony include the following entry,
which speaks for itself.
March 2, 1641/2: And according to the fundamental agreement,
made, and published by full and general consent, when the plantation
began and government was settled, that the judicial law of God given
by Moses and expounded in other parts of scripture, so far as it is a
hedge and a fence to the moral law, and neither ceremonial nor typical
nor had any reference to Canaan, hath an everlasting equity in it, and
should be the rule of their proceedings.74
Note that the judicial law is that of God, not that of Moses. Note also
the recurrence of “equity,” which is here said to be “everlasting.”
Thomas Hutchinson summarizes the laws of Massachusetts Bay Col-
ony. As regards the 1648 Code, referred to above in our discussion of
John Cotton, Hutchinson notes that, in common with English law, it
penalized with death: murder, sodomy, witchcraft, arson, and the rape
of a child under ten years of age. Added to these were: idolatry, blas-
phemy, kidnapping, adultery (several were executed under this law),
willful perjury designed to do another to death, unprovoked cursing or
striking of parents by children over 16 years of age. Additionally, many
lesser crimes were capital if repeated twice or thrice. Since high treason
against the king and rape of an unengaged girl were not capital crimes
in the Biblical system, neither were they capital in Massachusetts.75
Hutchinson also gives an interesting case of the application of Biblical
73. Capp, 167–68.

74. Charles Hoadly, ed., Records of the Colony and Plantation of New Haven from
1638 to 1649 (Hartford: for the Editor, 1857), 69.
75. Thomas Hutchinson, The History of the Colony and Province of Massachusetts
Bay, vol. 1, ed. Lawrence S. Mayo (New York: Kraus reprint, 1970 [1836–1864]), 371ff.
restitution laws: “Josias Plaistowe, for stealing four baskets of corn from
the Indians, was ordered to return them eight baskets....”76 Werten-
baker adds that, according to an order of the General Court on
November 4, 1646, incorrigibly delinquent teenagers were to be put to
death. This also was according to the Biblical judicials. No Massachu-
setts teenager was ever actually executed under this law—it seems to
have had its intended sobering influence.77 {39}
At Plymouth Colony the same situation prevailed. Hutchinson
remarks, “Cartwright, who had a chief hand in reducing Puritanism to
a system, held, that the magistrate was bound to adhere to the judicial
law of Moses, and might not punish or pardon otherwise than they
prescribed, and him the Massachusetts people followed.”78 Hutchinson
here is speaking specifically of the Plymouth settlement, which was of a
slightly different theological stripe than the Massachusetts Bay settle-
ment, but was Puritan all the same.
E. The Westminster Standards

We have now spiraled in upon the actual Westminster Assembly and
Standards themselves: in that influential Continental, Scottish,
Congregational, Puritan, and colonial divines of the period highly
favored the civil use of the Mosaic judicials, and many maintained that
their use was not optional for a Christian state, we may be certain that
the Westminster Standards were not intended to exclude their views.
Summarizing our case to this point, we have found in the background
and milieu of the Westminster Assembly the following factors:
1. The Wycliffite background of the English Reformation
favored the continued use of the Mosaic judicials.
2. The influential Bucer insisted that the Mosaic judicials
could not be improved upon.
3. The influential Bullinger was more ambiguous, but
generally favored the Mosaic judicials.
76. Ibid., 367.

77. Thomas Jefferson Wertenbaker, The Puritan Oligarchy (New York: Scribners,
1947), 166.
78. Hutchinson, vol. 2, 354.

4. The English Reformers, Hooper, Latimer, and Becon, were

favorable to the Mosaic judicials.
5. John Knox held to the binding nature of the Mosaic
judicials.
6. Thomas Cartwright, the father of Puritanism, held
rigorously to the Mosaic judicials, and was ready to debate
the point.
7. Archbishop Whitgift, the opponent of Puritanism,
complained that the Mosaic judicials were being advocated
and debated everywhere.
8. Wollebius held that the Mosaic judicials were still binding.
9. Gillespie noted that many were advocating the Mosaic
judicials at the time of the Westminster Assembly, and
expressed his partiality to their view.
10. John Owen advocated the Mosaic judicials.
11. The New England colonies implemented the Mosaic
judicials. It is important to note that many books written in
New England were printed and distributed in England, at
precisely the time during which the Westminster Assembly
was meeting. It is also important to remember that the
most brilliant and influential theologians {40} of
Puritanism were among those who migrated to New
England. Their opinions were highly respected by their
contemporaries. (For instance, John Owen was converted
to Congregationalism by John Cotton.)
If the Westminster Standards do not contradict the whole-law posi-
tion, how favorable are they to it? Or are the Standards ambiguous? An
examination of the evidence will show that the Standards are ambigu-
ous regarding the Mosaic judicials, but mildly favorable to them. Given
the consensus of the time, this is what we should expect to find.
The ambiguity is clear in Confession section 19:4, which reads in
such a way as almost to contradict itself.
To them also, as a body politic, He gave sundry judicial laws, which
expired together with the State of that people….
We have noted that the Confession is in error at this point in assuming
that the Mosaic case laws were designed as a civil code for any nation.
Rather were they explanations of the moral law, and thus form a
foundation for civil codes. Howbeit, this statement of the Confession

seems clearly to state that the Mosaic case laws no longer bind the
Christian community. The second half of the statement, however, gives
back with the right hand what was removed with the left:
... not obliging any other now, further than the general equity may
require. (emphasis added)
Modern readers will interpret this statement to mean that there is a
“spirit of fairness” in the laws which ought to be emulated by modern
states. This, however, is not the meaning of the term “equity” in its his-
torical context. As noted above, the Oxford English Dictionary gives the
meaning of “equity” as follows: “Equity of a statute according to its rea-
son and spirit so as to make it apply to cases for which it does not
expressly provide.” In other words, the Confession is saying that
though the precise cases addressed by the case law may no longer be
found in modern society, there are parallel cases to which they do apply,
and where these parallel cases are found, the case laws are binding
(“require”).
The proof texts of this paragraph reveal some of the same ambiguity.
The pattern of the proofs in the Standards is that each phrase or term is
footnoted with texts. Thus, we should expect that proof texts would be
given at three points in this paragraph: after “sundry judicial laws,”
after “of that people,” and after “equity thereof may require.” This, how-
ever, is not the case. Rather, the whole paragraph is given one footnote.
The texts given do point to the various phrases of the paragraph, how-
ever. Exodus 21 and 22 are cited as being the laws in question. Genesis
49:10, 1 Peter 2:13–14, and Matthew 5:17–39 are cited apparently to
show changes or expirations in the law. Finally, 1 Corinthians 9:8ff. is
cited to {41} show the permanent equity of the law. What are we to
make of this? It is clear that the framers of the Standards felt that there
was both continuity and discontinuity in the law of God. God had given
to ancient Israel a civil code, which was designed for that people at that
time. This code, in the strict sense, was not designed for other nations
particularly, and thus expired: Jesus was free to make some changes in
this law. At the same time, this civil code was based on eternal moral
principles, and these moral principles could clearly be seen in the laws
themselves, so that these laws should form the basis of all Christian
civil codes, according as the “general equity thereof may require.” Thus,

these laws could not be ignored or overlooked. Christians are not free
to take them or leave them. They must be consulted for their “equity.”
What the Standards do not do is spell out to what extent and how
these laws are binding and to what extent and how they have been
loosed. This is doubtless because this was an open question, much
debated at the time. Some held, as we have seen, that whatever could be
applied from these laws had to be applied, without any alteration. Oth-
ers held more lax views regarding their binding nature. The Standards
do not settle this issue in full. If, however, we make a careful examina-
tion of the Standards, we will be able to see at some points how the
framers regarded the binding nature of the judicial aspects of the law of
God, and to this we now turn.
In Confession 1:2, the Confession affirms that all of the books of
Scripture, not just the New Testament, are given by God “to be the rule
of faith and life.” In 1:6 we are told that everything man needs for his
life is “either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary
consequence may be derived from Scripture.” Since civil life is not
optional but needful for man, the Confession implies that to some
degree, at least, the ordering of civil life is found in Scripture. This is an
implicitly anti-pluralistic declaration.
In 20:1, discussing liberty of conscience, the Confession states:
But, under the new testament, the liberty of Christians is further
enlarged, in their freedom from the yoke of the ceremonial law, to
which the Jewish Church was subjected, and in greater boldness of
access to the throne of grace, and in fuller communications of the free
Spirit of God, than believers under the law did ordinarily partake of.
(emphasis added)
Mark that in noting the New Testament’s improvements over the Older
Covenant, nothing whatever is mentioned by the Confession regarding
the abrogation of the judicial laws. This is, granted, an argument from
silence, but it is a significant silence in context. Most modern writers
would surely have added the judicial laws’ abrogation as an
enlargement of Christian liberty. That the Standards do not do so
indicates that at the very least the framers as a group had no settled
opinions on the matter. {42}
In 20:4, the Confession affirms that the magistrate must punish those
who teach against Christianity or against the church. The proof texts

begin with Deuteronomy 13:6–12, which requires death for those who
advocate false religions. Also cited are Nehemiah 13:15–25 on the
enforcement of the Sabbath, 2 Kings 23:5–21 and several other pas-
sages in Kings and Chronicles wherein a godly ruler executed the
priests of false religions, and Zechariah 13:2–3, which makes the same
point as Deuteronomy 13.
In 22:3, the case law of Numbers 5:19ff. is cited as still binding with
respect to oaths and vows, as is Exodus 22:7–11. In 22:7, the case law
provisions of Numbers 30:5–13 are invoked as still regulative with
respect to oaths and vows.
In 23:3, the civil ruler is directed to suppress all “blasphemies and
heresies.” The proof texts include Leviticus 24:16 and Deuteronomy
13:5, which order death for blasphemers and heretics respectively.
In 24:4, the Older Testament laws regarding degrees of consanguinity
and affinity in marriage are cited as binding (Lev. 18; 20). In 24:6, the
case law of Deuteronomy 24:1–4 is cited as procedurally binding in
cases of divorce.
Larger Catechism question 28 tells us that the blessings and curses of
the Covenant operate under the New Covenant in the same way as
under the Older Covenant, citing Deuteronomy 28:15ff.
In Q. 99:7 the Catechism directs “that what is forbidden or com-
manded to ourselves, we are bound, according to our places, to
endeavor that it may be avoided or performed by others, according to
the duty of their places.” This statement is wholly anti-pluralistic, in
that it requires those in positions of authority to enforce the law of God
on unbelievers. Cited is Exodus 20:10, the law of the Sabbath.
In Q. 108 we are directed to remove false religions, according to our
position in life (Deut. 7:5), and in Q. 109 we are told that “tolerating a
false religion” is a sin (Deut. 13:6–12; Zech. 13:1–3). According to the
Catechism, thus, pluralism is wicked and evil.
In Q. 128, Exodus 21:15 and Deuteronomy 21:18ff. are cited, which
require the death penalty for striking parents and for rebellion.
In Q. 136, Numbers 35:31 is cited in defense of capital punishment,
and Numbers 35:16–21 and Exodus 21:18ff. are cited “concerning the
laws for smiters, for an hurt by chance, for an ox that goreth, and for
him that is an occasion of harm.” Apparently the permanent equity of
these laws was regarded as binding by the Assembly. These laws, it

would seem, are not among those that “expired together with the State
of that people.”
In Q. 139 the Catechism cites Leviticus 20:15–16, which requires
death for bestiality.
In Q. 141 restitution is required for theft. Leviticus 6:2–5 is cited, and
the command to add a fifth part in making voluntary restitution is ital-
icized, {43} showing that the concept of 120 percent restitution was
embraced by the Assembly. Also cited are the case laws concerning
helpfulness: Leviticus 25:35, Deuteronomy 21:1–4, and Exodus 23:4–5.
In Q. 142 the sins forbidden include the removing of landmarks, cit-
ing Deuteronomy 19:4.
In Q. 145 the sins include concealing the truth (Lev. 5:1; Deut. 13:8),
failure to reprove sin (Lev. 19:17), lying (Lev: 19:11), talebearing (Lev.
19:16), and raising false rumors (Ex. 23:1).
Finally, in Q. 151:3, Deuteronomy 22:22, 28–29 are cited as binding
exemplars of differing degrees of sin.
Much of the preceding argument has been taken from the proof texts
appended to the Confession and Catechisms, and of course these origi-
nal proof texts are not considered as having creedal status. Modern
Presbyterian denominations have often replaced these proof texts with
new sets of texts. Our concern, however, is to locate the thinking of the
framers of the Standards, and for this purpose a consultation of their
original proof texts is helpful.
It is also often noted that the Assembly did not originally attach
proof texts, and was reluctant to do so when so ordered by Parliament.
This reluctance is probably overdrawn by modern observers, in that
the delegates to the Assembly had been removed from their families for
several years already by this time. Even if they did have principled
objections to proof-texting, and were reluctant for this reason, the fact
remains that their thinking had been so shaped by Older Testament laws
that they instinctively wrote the content of these into the Standards, and
thus had to cite the Mosaic judicials when they added in the proof
texts. Thus, the proof texts are indeed of value in indicating the think-
ing of the delegates to the Westminster Assembly.
In summary, then, these citations serve to highlight the ambiguity of
the Standards’ position, and demonstrate that modern opponents of
the whole-law theonomic-theocratic position cannot appeal to the

Westminster Standards to back up their views. Particularly as regards

the suppression of heresy and idolatry, the Standards are thoroughly
theocratic and wholly anti-pluralistic.
The Later Colonial Period in America

Samuel Willard (1640–1707) was for many years the pastor at Bos-
ton’s Old South Church. His Compleat Body of Divinity, when pub-
lished after his death in 1726, was at that time the largest volume ever
issued from the presses in America: it was close to 1,000 folio pages.
Because several printing presses were used, some page numbers were
repeated. The second time page 622 is encountered, we read: {44}
With respect to the Judicial Laws, we must observe, that these were
Appendices, partly of the Moral, partly of the Ceremonial Law: Now
such as, or so far as they are related to the Ceremonial, they are doubt-
less Abolished with it. As, and as far as they bear respect to the Moral
Law, they do, eo Nomine, require Obedience perpetual, and are there-
fore reducible to Moral Precepts….79
Willard goes on to distinguish, within the penal laws, those which
are permanent and those which are not:
Some indeed were Moral, as the Death of a Murderer, and without any
Ransom; and some also suppose that the making Adultery a Capital
Crime belongs hither. But others were proper only to the Time and
State of that People, as the Law about Profaning the Sabbath, Numb.
15:33, etc.80
Unfortunately, that is as far as Willard takes us. We do not discover
precisely where he draws the line because his principle of
differentiating the moral judicials from the ceremonial judicials is not
made explicit. His view does, however, place him squarely in the
Puritan tradition.
Samuel Sewell in his famous diary gives the best picture of New
England life at the time of Willard’s pastorate. The two men were close
friends. In his entry for April 2, 1674, Sewell records that “Benjamin
Gourd of Roxbury (being about 17 years of age) was executed for com-
mitting Bestiality with a Mare.…”81 The recent editor of Sewell’s diary,
79. (New York: Johnson reprint, 1969).

80. Ibid.

M. Halsey Thomas, notes that by the Province Laws of 1697, twenty-

three years after this incident, the death penalty was still on the books
for rape and bestiality, and atheism and blasphemy were also legislated
against.82 The Puritan legal system was being modified, but was still
highly influential.
In closing, let us look at the thought of John Witherspoon (1723–
1794), president of Princeton University. Witherspoon would have
liked for the lex talionis to be incorporated into American legislation:
I make one particular remark, that though many things are copied
from the law of Moses into the laws of modern nations, yet so far as I
know none of them have introduced the lex talionis in the case of inju-
ries, an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth, etc. and yet perhaps
there are many instances in which it would be very proper.83
This again demonstrates a rather high view of the Mosaic judicials, and
that by a man very influential in the thought of the Founding Fathers of
the United States of America, a man who signed the Declaration of
Independence. {45}
Later English Writers

Two authors come before our view in this section: Thomas Ridgeley
and Thomas Scott. Both continued the earlier tradition of taking a high
view of the judicial law. Ridgeley provides a list of seven kinds of judi-
cial laws that expired with the coming of the New Testament era:84
1. The levitate and the inalienability of property.
2. The jubilee.
3. The six-year limit on slavery.
4. The sabbatical year.
5. The usury prohibitions.
6. The annual festivals.
7. The cities of refuge and the avenger of blood.
81. Samuel Sewell, Diary, ed. M. Halsey Thomas (New York: Farrar, Straus, and
Giroux, 1973), 4.
82. Ibid., 380.
83. John Witherspoon, Works, vol. 3 (Philadelphia: Woodward, 1800), 356–57.
84. Thomas Ridgeley, A Body of Divinity, vol. 2 (New York: Robert Carter and
Brothers, 1855), 307–8.

By inference, all other laws were binding. (It should be noted that
Rushdoony and Bahnsen maintain the permanence of the six-year
limitation on slavery and of the usury legislation, as well as at least
some aspects of the jubilee and sabbatical year.) Ridgeley (ca. 1667–
1734) was an English Independent. His Body of Divinity, one of the few
commentaries on the Westminster Larger Catechism, was published
between 1731 and 1733. Later editions (the work was highly regarded
and reissued several times) included notes from the hand of John
Wilson, who comments in connection with Ridgeley’s views:
Dr. Ridgeley is of the class who appeal to the enactments of the judi-
cial law; and he even seems to maintain that these enactments, just in
the state in which they were made for the Israelites, are still in force.
He does not anywhere say, in as many words, that the judicial law is
permanently and universally binding; but, in several instances, when
expounding the decalogue, and especially when teaching the results of
transgression in the present life, he quotes its provisions in the same
manner, and with the same drift, as if they were precepts of the moral
law.85
Thomas Scott (1747–1821) was an Anglican minister who had been
converted under John Newton. His extremely popular Holy Bible with
Notes was issued in sections between 1788 and 1792. The following two
statements were read in many households across Britain and America
during the ensuing years.
Making some allowance for the circumstances varying in different
ages and nations, there is a spirit of equity in these laws, which is well
worthy of being transfused into those of any state.86 {46}
... a full investigation of the subject would evince, that the laws enacted
by him [Moses] were uniformly more wise, equitable, humane, mild,
and salutary in their tendency, than the complex body of laws, even of
the most civilized nations, nay of those where Christianity has most
flourished. For the former bear the evident stamp of a divine original;
the latter are tarnished by the infirmities and passions of our fallen
nature.87
85. Ibid., 386ff.

86. Thomas Scott, Holy Bible with Notes (Philadelphia: Woodward, 1807), at “Notes
on Ex. 21:1.” Emphasis added.
87. Ibid., at “Practical Observations on Ex. 22:1–15.” Emphasis added.

It is inconceivable that a man would have this view of the worth of the
judicial law of God, and not want it to be enacted in his own homeland.
Southern Presbyterian Writers

We turn in conclusion to the thought of the two most excellent theo-
logians of Southern Presbyterianism: James H. Thornwell and Robert
L. Dabney. When the Confederate States of America were formed, in
response to a perceived economic and atheistic threat from the North-
ern States, it was widely hoped that the new nation would be explicitly
Christian. A petition was sent to the Congress of the CSA from the
General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the CSA, authored by
Thornwell, to that end. The proposed amendment to the CSA Consti-
tution, to be added to the section providing for liberty of conscience,
read:
Nevertheless we, the people of these Confederate States, directly
acknowledge our responsibility to God, and the supremacy of His Son,
Jesus Christ, as King of kings and Lord of lords; and hereby ordain
that no law shall be passed by the Congress of these Confederate States
inconsistent with the will of God, as revealed in the Holy Scriptures. 88
Thornwell argued that though “the will of God, as revealed in the
Scriptures, is not a positive Constitution for the State,”89 yet the State
must believe the Scriptures “to be true, and regulate its own conduct
and legislation in conformity with their teachings.”90 (Note that this is
the position of Bahnsen and Rushdoony.) Beyond these general
statements Thornwell does not go, yet his emphasis that modern civil
law should be tied to and regulated by Scripture makes it hard to
believe he could have held the kind of negative opinion regarding the
Mosaic judicials that is sometimes encountered today. He was surely no
“pluralist.”91
Robert L. Dabney, like Ridgeley, nowhere in his works explicitly
states that the judicial law of God is binding, yet seems to assume it as a
principle {47} in his writings. In his Lectures in Systematic Theology he
88. James H. Thornwell, “Relation of the State to Christ,” in Collected Writings, vol. 4
(Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1974), 549ff.
89. Ibid., 553.
90. Ibid., 552.

cites the Older Testament capital punishments for murder, striking

parents, adultery, and religious imposture, without any hint that he
thought these had ceased to bind nations.92 With respect to adultery,
his statement is explicit:
The law of Moses, therefore, very properly made adultery a capital
crime; nor does our Saviour, in the incident of the woman taken in
adultery, repeal that statute, or disallow its justice. The legislation of
modern, nominally Christian nations, is drawn rather from the gross-
ness of Pagan sources than from Bible principles.93
This statement, especially its reference to “nominally Christian
nations,” makes it evident that, in Dabney’s view, a genuinely Christian
nation would draw its legislation from the law of God, including the
penal particulars, rather than from pagan sources. Dabney here
explicitly disagrees with Calvin’s notion of a “common law of nations.”
Pagan sources are contrasted with Biblical law.
Dabney’s view is further elaborated and brought into sharper focus
in his discussion of the lex talionis.
The application of the lex talionis made by Moses against false wit-
nesses was the most appropriate and equitable ever invented. What-
ever pain or penalty the false swearing would have brought on the
innocent man maligned had the law followed the false witness
unprotected, that penalty must be visited on the perjurer maligning
him.
Let the student compare the admirable symmetry of Moses’ provision
with the bungling operation of our statute against perjury. He dis-
criminates the different grades of guilt with exact justice. We punish
the perjurer who swears away his neighbor’s cow with imprisonment,
and the perjurer who swears away his neighbor’s honor and life, still
with imprisonment.94
91. On the supposedly Thornwellian concept of the “Spirituality of the Church,” as

well as on Southern Presbyterian theocratic views in general, cf. Jack P. Maddex, “From
Theocracy to Spirituality: The Southern Presbyterian Reversal on Church and State,”
Journal of Presbyterian History 54 (1976):438–57.
92. Robert L. Dabney, Lectures in Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids, MI:
Zondervan, [1898] 1972), 402–3.
93. Ibid., 407–8. See also his The Practical Philosophy (Mexico, MO: Crescent Book
House, 1896), 362–63.
94. The Practical Philosophy, 513–14.
Conclusion
Three matters of interest to modern Calvinists have emerged from
this study. The first is that the apparent condemnation of the whole-
law position by Calvin in his Institutes almost certainly does not apply
to modern theonomists, who stand with Bucer, not with the Anabap-
tists. The second is that the Westminster Confession of Faith and the
Catechisms do not condemn the whole-law position, but to a consider-
able degree presuppose it. The third is that during the period of Cal-
vinism’s greatest strength there were many, and often the most notable
theologians were among them, who advocated the same position taken
by Rushdoony and Bahnsen today. {48}
This demonstrates that the theonomic-theocratic position is not
“outside the Reformed tradition,” as some have charged.
Earlier editions of this study have circulated here and there, and one
verbal response has been made to it which requires attention at this
point. It has been contended that, whereas these earlier Calvinists
stressed that the “Mosaic judicials” could not be improved upon and
thus should be followed, Bahnsen and Rushdoony argue from Matthew
5:17–19 that every jot and tittle of the Older Testament law is binding
on Christians, save for the “ceremonial” laws, which the New Covenant
altered. Bucer’s argument, it is contended, is based on reason, while
Bahnsen’s is based on exegesis.
In reply we simply note that there is no conflict between these two
routes, both of which lead to an identical conclusion. Both Bucer and
Bahnsen (to continue to use these men as examples) hold that the judi-
cial aspect of God’s law is a revelation of His eternal standards. Both
hold that these laws are binding on modern magistrates. The fact that
Bahnsen’s arguments are primarily exegetical while Bucer’s are prima-
rily rational only demonstrates what Christians have always main-
tained, that there is no conflict between Scripture and reason. One can
divide Bucer from Bahnsen only by pitting reason against revelation.
Additionally, it should be noted that the whole-law position asserts
that the judicial aspects of the law of God are part of the moral law, and
thus are written on the hearts of all men (Rom. 1:32). Upon conversion,
men stop suppressing the law written on their hearts, and the more
men grow in grace, under the Spirit’s influence, the more responsive to
that law they become. The Reformation was a great movement of the
Spirit. The fact that during the period after the Reformation, when
Christianity was at a height, the judicial aspects of the law of God were
widely regarded as binding is thus very significant. It indicates that
there is moral equity in these laws, and serves as a general and indirect
substantiation of the theonomic or whole-law position.
The fact that discussions of this subject in the past have not been as
clear as today’s discussion is becoming, only demonstrates the validity
of the remark by William Cunningham, the eminent church historian,
regarding the nature of theological controversy.
It holds almost universally in the history of the church, that until a
doctrine has been fully discussed in a controversial way by men of tal-
ent and learning taking opposite sides, men’s opinions regarding it are
generally obscure and indefinite, and their language vague and con-
fused, if not contradictory.95
95. William Cunningham, Historical Theology, vol. 1 (London: Banner of Truth

Trust, 1969), 179.
SAMUEL RUTHERFORD AND
PURITAN POLITICAL THEORY
Richard Flinn
In the course of his lifetime, Samuel Rutherford, like many Puritan

divines, was a prolific writer. The volume entitled Lex Rex, or The Law
and the Prince is one of his more substantial volumes, and certainly one
of the most comprehensive expressions of Calvinistic political theory. It
is also one of the keystones in the development of modern political the-
ory. Understandably, it has been studiously avoided by secular political
philosophers, for it is unabashedly Christian and Calvinistic. Less
understandably, however, it has also been avoided or overlooked by
many in the neo-Puritan movement of our own day. The intention of
this article is to represent Rutherford’s Lex Rex to those interested in
Calvinistic reformation, in the hope that we can profit from the wis-
dom of our forefathers in the area of political theology.
We are all captives, to a greater or lesser extent, of the age in which
we live. This is just as true of Rutherford as it is of us. But Rutherford’s
age was a Christian age; ours is not. He wrote in an age when Calvinis-
tic political theory was reaching its zenith; from the time of Rutherford
onwards, a secularizing trend set in which effectively emasculated the
political theology of the Reformation. We now live in an age where the
humanistic political consensus of our day has come to full flower and
has imprisoned the minds of even God’s children. Most Calvinists in
our day tend to be conservative in their political and economic out-
look. But they have no theology to underpin their conservatism. They
have either a world and life view which is nebulously connected to the
Scriptures, or one which is encrusted with meaningless slogans. The
result is that the doctrines of either the Left or the humanistic Right
(depending on one’s personal proclivities) are poured into Calvinistic
political theology. Fortunately, there seems to be a growing number of
Calvinists, at least in the United States, who would prefer, if they have

to deal with humanism, to have it “straight” rather than served up in a

pseudo-Christian garb.
Then there are those Calvinists who spurn political and economic
theology, preferring to hold that the Scriptures do not speak clearly or
authoritatively in these areas, and that one should look to “common
grace” in developing these fields. Such men argue that it is the better
part of wisdom to keep quiet on such matters, at least in public. Both
popular “Calvinistic”{50} alternatives—the “common grace” approach
and the “gut reaction” approach—have resulted in a thorough Babylo-
nian captivity of the church organic in the absolutely vital areas of poli-
tics and economics. Fortunately, our Puritan forefathers were more
jealous for the honor of God, and they were determined to be more
faithful to the Scriptures. This article, then, attempts to present Puritan
political theory through the mouthpiece of one of its leading expo-
nents—Samuel Rutherford.
Rutherford: A Short Biography

Samuel Rutherford was born in 1600. Early in his life, his intellectual
acumen helped his parents determine that he was properly called into
the ministry. At the age of 25 he began his theological studies in ear-
nest. Two years later he was licensed as a preacher of the gospel and
was appointed to the parish of Anwoth at Kirkcudbright. Rutherford
was an effective minister of the gospel. Like many other divines of his
day, he would rise about three in the morning and would labor ear-
nestly over his flock. In 1630 his wife died after only five years of mar-
riage, causing great personal sorrow. Then, four years later, his patron
and personal friend, Lord Kenmure, died, which again seemed to cause
Rutherford great sorrow. It is to Lady Kenmure that many of his
famous letters are addressed. Rutherford is rightly esteemed in the neo-
Puritan movement, firstly as a model Puritan pastor, having great zeal
for the spiritual welfare of his flock. Secondly, he is famous for his let-
ters, for the deep piety and love of Christ which they express. But other
aspects of his life, just as important, and probably more influential in
the church, have been long overlooked.
By the mid–1630s, Arminianism was on the rise in Scotland,
through the influence of Archbishop Laud. Rutherford loved his Lord
too much to stand idly by while the Scottish church was sunk by the
Samuel Rutherford and Puritan Political Theory 67
doctrines of human sovereignty. He contended against these heresies

so earnestly, effectively, and obnoxiously (as far as his enemies were
concerned) that he was tried at Edinburgh before the High Commis-
sion, where he was defrocked and refused permission to preach. In
1636 he was incarcerated in Aberdeen, an Arminian stronghold. Ruth-
erford, ever a contender for the faith, soon entered into debate and dis-
pute with the learned doctors of the town, apparently proving too
much for them to handle.
With the Bishops War of 1637, Rutherford was released from prison
and appointed to the chair of theology at the University of St. Andrews.
In 1644 he was appointed one of the eight Scottish commissioners to
the Westminster Assembly. One year later, while the Assembly was in
progress, he wrote and published Lex Rex. The work was a polemical
piece, styled as a point by point refutation of the doctrine of the divine
right of kings, as presented in the work of a “popish prelate,” John Max-
well (who had been excommunicated from the Church of Scotland),
entitled “The Sacred and {51} Royal Prerogative of Christian Kings,” or
Sacro-Sancta Regnum Majestus. Rutherford’s work caused a great sen-
sation upon publication, particularly in the Assembly. That it was an
accurate reflection of the political philosophy of the Assembly is evi-
denced by Bishop Guthrie, who writes that every member of the
Assembly
had in his hand that book lately published by Mr Samuel Rutherford,
which was so idolized, that whereas Buchanan’s treatise (de Jure Regni
Apud Scotus) was looked upon as an oracle, this coming forth, it was
slighted as not anti-monarchial enough, and Rutherford’s Lex Rex only
thought authentic.96
This attestation of the popularity of Lex Rex is significant, for it
indicates that Rutherford’s political philosophy was in the mainstream of
Puritan political thought. There was nothing unusual, peculiar,
extremist or reactionary in Lex Rex, as far as the Westminster Divines
were concerned.
In 1647, Rutherford returned to Scotland, and in 1651 he was elected
rector of the university. He had now risen to one of the highest posi-
96. Samuel Rutherford, Lex Rex, or the Law and the Prince (Edinburgh: Robert Ogle
and Oliver & Boyd, 1843), xix.
tions of eminence to which a clergyman in the Church of Scotland

could be raised. With the restoration of Charles II to the throne in
1660, the Scottish church again suffered a period of persecution. Lex
Rex was banned in Scotland and England and publicly burned. Ruther-
ford was placed under house arrest. He was summoned to appear
before the Parliament at Edinburgh, where almost certain execution
awaited him. He died, however, on the 20th of March, 1661, before he
could be made to comply with the order.
The Calvinistic Roots of Rutherford’s Political Theory

With the coming of the Reformation, there developed a strong inter-
est amongst the forces of the Reform in the role and place of the state.
Hitherto dominated by Rome and the Church, the minorities produced
by the Reformation sought to free themselves from Caesaro-papist
control and to enunciate a theory of the state which protected their
own interests, on the one hand, and allowed the state to stand free from
the control of Rome or the Holy Roman Empire, on the other. The
gamut of political theories were advanced, from passive obedience to
active resistance. No attempt was made to separate religion from the
state; that was to emerge much later, primarily through the influence of
John Locke, and reaching its logical extrapolation in Rousseau, for
whom the state (the corporate individual) was divine.
Calvin introduced what was to become the hallmark of Calvinistic
political theology. Calvin held to an aristocratic view of society, and
believed in the dominion of Christ over all the world. That meant that
the {52} magistrates and political figures were under the authority of
God—they were His ministers. When the will of the magistrate clearly
conflicts with the will of God, private persons ought to obey God and
suffer the consequences at the hand of the ungodly magistrate. When a
tyrant reigns, there is room for the possibility of active resistance, but it
must be initiated and led by the lesser magistrates, who have an equal
authority and responsibility to obey God’s will and God’s law.
The nation on the Continent which spawned the most fruitful Cal-
vinistic interchange in this field was that of France, and that through
the writings of the Huguenots. By and large, the Huguenots were loyal
royalists who believed that toleration had not been granted them by the
throne because the royal ear had fallen prey to the wrong advisers. The
St. Bartholemew’s Day massacre of 1572, however, dispelled that

notion. Harold Laski sums up the reason why this event was a water-
shed in Calvinistic political theology:
The court had made the holocaust; Charles IX himself had gloried in
its success. It was no longer possible to make any distinction between
the King and his advisers. It was the person and position of the Crown
that was now in question. If Kingship existed for the protection of sub-
jects, what were their rights when the very basis of its meaning was
taken away?97
Now the powers, prerogatives, responsibilities, and duties of the king
and the highest magistrates of the land had to be considered.
Of great significance in this regard was a work written by Theodore
Beza entitled The Rights of Magistrates Over Their Subjects. Laski sum-
marizes this work, suggesting that it sets forth the basic lines of Calvin-
istic politics. The central premise: to God alone belongs absolute
power. Magistrates cannot be held accountable to the people, but when
they command something contrary to true religion they are to be
resisted. Ultimately this may mean rebellion. Officers of the state must
secure the authority of laws, and in every state there was a body of citi-
zens whose duty it was to ensure that the sovereign did his duty.98
Thereafter followed a spate of pamphlets and treatises expressing a
similar doctrine of the state. One of the most famous and influential of
these was the work entitled Vindiciae Contra Tyrannos (1579), written
under the pseudonym Junius Brutus, but almost certainly written by
Duplessis-Mornay, a Huguenot statesman.99 This work deals with four
central questions: Firstly, should subjects obey princes when they com-
mand that which is contrary to God’s law? Secondly, should such a {53}
prince be resisted, and by whom? Thirdly, if a prince seeks to ruin the
state, should he be resisted, and by whom? Finally, are princes bound to
oppose tyranny in other states? “Junius Brutus” argues that whenever a
prince commands that which is contrary to the law of God, or when he
follows a policy which is destructive of the church or the state, he
97. Harold Laski, “Historical Introduction” (1924), in “Junius Brutus,” A Defence of

Liberty Against Tyrants (Gloucester, MA: Peter Smith, [1579] 1963), 22.
98. Ibid., 25.
99. This work is published in English under the title, A Defence of Liberty Against
Tyrants; see note 97.
should be resisted. Princes are to be resisted by the people, but by the

term “people” was understood those who hold their responsibility from
the people and represent them. This included the lesser magistrates,
the town officials and magistrates, the nobility or the prominent family
heads in the society, and the ecclesiastical leadership.100 These three
groups—the burgesses (magistrates), the nobles, and the ecclesiastical
leaders—formed the three estates who represented the people and who
appointed and controlled kings.101 Whereas the king was over each
individual member of these estates, collectively, because they repre-
sented the community, they held higher authority than the king. We
must bear in mind that when Rutherford and the Puritans spake of “the
people” in this context, they have in mind the representative body of the
people—namely, the three estates.
It is upon the political tradition and outlook detailed above that
Rutherford builds in Lex Rex. To anyone familiar with political writings
by Calvinists of the sixteenth century, there is very little that is novel or
radical in Lex Rex. Its particular contribution lies in its polemical
nature. Rutherford took up the opponents of his own day and
employed the arguments and theology of his forefathers to counter
them. When this article, then, speaks of Rutherford’s doctrine or polit-
ical philosophy, we must understand that what is found therein is not
the product of one man’s pen, nor the reflection of one man’s mind, but
a proper representation of one hundred and fifty years of virile Chris-
tian thought on the problems of government and the state.
The Foundation and Basis of Government

The question of the proper ethical foundation of government has
been a central and perplexing question in the history of political phi-
losophy. The proper answer to this question will establish the basis of
obligation or the moral right of the state to command the obedience of
its citizens. There are a variety of approaches which have been ten-
dered. In the first place, there is the power theory—that is, that “might
makes right.”102 Then there is the answer of traditionalism which sug-
gests that because the state is there, independent of our will, we are
100. Defence, 97.

101. Ibid., 133.

morally obligated to submit to it, in the same way that a child should
submit to its parents. Thirdly, there is {54} the true-self theory which
holds that the individual has objective individuality and true person-
hood only as part of the collective universal Man—that is, the state.
The state is to be obeyed because it is necessary for my fulfilled exist-
ence. Fourthly, there is the natural law theory, which suggests that
human beings are naturally social and political animals; this being so,
some form of regulation of that society is rational and necessary. Then
there are the views which posit that choice and consent of the governed
are the factors which determine moral obligation. These usually have
to do with the notion of a social contract whereby the citizens commit
to a government certain responsibilities and obligate themselves to
obey. The contractual promise of obedience provides the basis of the
moral obligation to obey.
As with most unbelieving systems, each approach contains elements
of truth. But these elements of truth have been absolutized, and idola-
try is the result. These elements of truth can be properly balanced and
apprehended only within the Christian perspective. What, then, is the
biblical perspective? What does Rutherford suggest is the basis of the
obligation to obey government? He employs basically two arguments:
First, civil government is warranted by divine law. It is God who has
established and appointed government.103 The second argument is
drawn from the natural or creation order. Looking first at the argument
from divine law, Rutherford suggests that Romans 13 indicates that all
power is from God. In verse 5, God commands obedience and, there-
fore, subjection of conscience, to government. Now, declares Ruther-
ford, “God only by a divine law can lay a band of subjection on the
conscience, tying men to guilt and punishment if they transgress.”104
Government, therefore, is ordained and instituted by the law of God.
The principle enunciated here—namely, that only God can bind men to
guilt and punishment—is one with radical implications. It forms the
keystone of Calvinistic political theory. Rutherford develops some of the
102. I have taken this summary from Fred J. Abbate, A Preface to the Philosophy of the
State (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Co., 1977), 29ff.
103. Lex Rex, 1.
104. Ibid.

implications. For example, because God alone, as the Creator, can

determine right and wrong, guilt and punishment, it follows inexorably
that, because the civil magistrate has the sword of punishment, he is
absolutely bound to the direction of the Creator in the way he wields that
sword. The moral system that defines guilt and transgression is God’s
law. There is a further implication which follows, not fully developed
by the author, namely, that God alone can determine just and equitable
punishment. Let us look more closely at these two implications which
flow from the conclusion that because government has to do with eth-
ics, crime, punishment, and morality, it must be instituted and gov-
erned by God. {55}
Some might prefer to argue that although the institution of govern-
ment is established by God and ordered by Him in the Scriptures, it
does not necessarily follow that the standards of justice and equity
employed by a particular government must also come from the Scrip-
tures. In other words, some might suggest that God has established the
institution of government, but common grace or providence deter-
mines which standards of justice should be employed by any particular
government. Rutherford faced a similar argument in his day from the
Papists. His opponents had sought to argue for a similar bifurcation.
They declared that the king as a man was subject to God, but as a king,
that is, in the practice of his office and government, he was not subject
to God’s law. Rutherford quickly presents the alternatives. He suggests
that his opponents
will have the king, as king, under no law of God; so he must either be
above God, as king, or co-equal with God; which are manifest blas-
phemies.105
A Christian either must hold that civil government must be under
God’s law, or he is expressing “manifest blasphemies.” This is one of the
keynotes of Calvinist and biblical political theory. Unless we are willing
to grant this doctrine and build upon it, there can be no Christian poli-
tics; there can only be humanistic politics, which, when practiced by
Christians, is idolatry.
Turning now to the second implication, we note that Rutherford
does not develop a doctrine of crime and punishment and its relation
105. Ibid., 57.

to the case law of Scripture. But the germs of such a doctrine are surely
there.106 He has {56} hinted at it when he argues that God alone can
bind the conscience and can punish or direct punishment for right and
wrong. He also gives an insight into his position when he discusses the
question of whether the king has the right to pardon criminals who
have committed crimes which God’s law says should be punished by
death.107 According to Rutherford, the king does not have this right of
pardon, but must faithfully carry out the sentence ordered by God.
Whereas a private man may forgive sin, one who holds the office of
magistrate may not do so. Using the example of murder, he reasons that
not to punish according to God’s law, when God’s law gives punish-
ment, is to be guilty of the crime that is pardoned. Pardons may be acts
of grace to one man, but they are acts of blood to the community.108 I
quote Rutherford at length here, because his argument is revealing:
106. There is a perplexing problem of historical interpretation here, which in our day
is causing some worthy men to engage in some rather vain polemics. In the face of the
political, economic, and social theory enunciated from the Scriptures by the Chalcedon
Foundation, some in the neo-Puritan movement have argued that the doctrine of the
continuity of the case law and its relevance for the church, state, family, and society was
never part of Calvinistic and Puritan tradition. The dispute arises partly because of the
ambiguity of the Puritans on this matter. There was some discussion amongst them on
exactly how far the judicial law of Moses was to be carried over. The doctrine of the
continuity of the case law was not articulated, to my knowledge, in a fully self-
consistent, self-conscious form. But the case law did form the bedrock of the Puritans’
outlook on society, as we will demonstrate below from Rutherford. To declare that the
doctrine of the continuing relevance of the case law was never part of Puritan theology is
errant nonsense, but I readily grant that it had not been developed as consistently by
them as it has been in our day by men like Rushdoony, Bahnsen, and others of the
Chalcedon Foundation. What we find in the Puritans and in Rutherford are the
principles—biblical, theological, and hermeneutical—upon which the case for
theonomy is built. The medieval social consensus was a Christian consensus. There was
much biblical truth that the Puritans could assume to be the “law of nations” and the
“rule of nature,” because from their perspective it seemed as though it was. But three
hundred years of humanistic autonomy give us a profounder insight, and enable us to be
more consistent and epistemologically self-conscious. We must ground our outlook on
the Scripture, if for no other reason than that there is no longer any social consensus
that is Christian.
107. Lex Rex, 107.
108. Ibid.
Because the prince is the minister of God for the good of the subject;
and therefore the law saith, “He cannot pardon and free the guilty
from punishment due to him”; ... and the reason is clear. He is but the
minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil.
And if the judgment be the Lord’s, not man’s, not the king’s, as it is
indeed (Deut. 1:17; 2 Chron. 19:6) he cannot draw the sword against
the innocent, nor absolve the guilty, except he would take on himself
to carve and dispose of that which is proper to his master.109
The magistrate, then, is bound to the Scripture in his doctrine of crime
and punishment, because judgment belongs to the Lord. Either the
magistrate must judge according to God’s law, or he blasphemously
assumes the prerogatives of deity.
We will look more closely at this line of thought below. To summa-
rize, however, we have seen that a keynote of Calvinistic political the-
ory is that government is ordained by God, by divine law, and this obliges
the citizens of the state to obey. Turning briefly to Rutherford’s argu-
ment from natural law, he says that God created man a gregarious and
social creature. When men became numerous, it was natural that they
combine in a civil society. We must be aware that there is a profound
difference between Rutherford’s doctrine of natural law with respect to
civil government and, say, that of Aquinas. For the latter, “natural” is
that state of affairs which usually happens or is expected to happen.110
What is expected to happen can be discovered by the exercise of rea-
son. Because men naturally congregate together and do so more effec-
tively when they are governed, it follows that they ought to do so. But,
actually, this does not follow at all. Aquinas and other natural law theo-
rists err by committing the naturalistic fallacy: just because something
is a certain way, does not establish that it should {57} be that way. You
cannot reason from the is to the ought on rationalistic or autonomous
grounds. Rutherford effectively avoids this fallacy by beginning with
positive, divine law as revealed in the Scripture. But, further, he does
not draw the conclusions from the natural creation order which are
normally drawn by natural law theorists. He argues that civil society is
natural only insofar as God has created man a social creature. Civil
society, therefore, is natural in its root, but as to its mode or manner it is
109. Ibid. (emphasis mine).

110. Abbate, Preface, 52.

entirely voluntary. When men choose to defend themselves by handing

power and authority to another, that is not natural, for men are not
born in subjection to each other. Rather, when men devolve power on
to a particular official, it is a positively moral action, not a natural one.
Natural law theorists and traditionalists often draw the parallel
between natural submission to parents and submission to rulers.
Fatherly power, or the authority of parents over their children is of dif-
ferent proportion, however, from political power.111 The first is war-
ranted by nature’s law even in specie or kind. But the second—political
power—is warranted only in general by the creation order. The specific
form or kind of government which may be found at any one time is war-
ranted only by specific positive law. It follows, therefore, that God has
appointed the power and authority of government immediately; but as
to the specific form of government and who should govern, God has
appointed this mediately through the choice of the community, which
is to be governed.112 In biblical times the positive, moral institution
came both by revelation and by community sanction; now that revela-
tion has ceased, it comes by the sanction of the community only. It fol-
lows that there is no one form or institutional manifestation of
government which is particularly sanctified by Scripture. This, of
111. Ibid., 3.
112. Ibid. We must be aware that the Puritans generally believed in natural law and
revelation, but in a way that was very different from the medieval scholastics or
contemporary Roman Catholicism. Jack Rogers, Scripture and the Westminster
Confession: A Problem of Historical Interpretation for American Presbyterianism (Grand
Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1967), points this out in his discussion of the Puritan
conception of “right reason.” The Puritans have been charged with fideism because they,
like Augustine, refused to give reason an independent sphere of operation prior to faith
(Rogers, 85). But, rather than being fideists, the Puritans acknowledged the noetic
effects of sin. Because God was the Creator, the universe could be inductively investigated
through the employment of reason: God had revealed Himself in some degree in the
world of nature. But, as a presuppositional commitment, it was impossible that there
could be any real conflict between “such disclosure and that other revelation which God
makes of himself in the written word” (cited in Rogers, 97). We see a good example of
this in the case of Rutherford, I believe. He refuses to allow the law of nature to inform
us of the form of government, because Scripture does not give us any particular form,
but clearly leaves it to the choice of the people. Natural law must not be set up against the
written revelation of God, but must always be in subjection to it.
course, makes null and void the arguments of those in our day who
suggest that because the form of the Mosaic theocracy passed away,
{58} and the form of the Davidic kingship has ceased with the New
Age, therefore the case law has ceased to bind God’s people. Rutherford
would instruct us more correctly. The institution of civil government
and of magistrates to administer God’s justice is perpetually binding. It
is immediately given by God. Because God is just, and the magistrate is
an avenger of God’s wrath, the binding validity of the law does not
change. But the particular form or structure by which His justice is
administered is mediate and can change without the former being
negated in any way. There is a general equity in the divine institution of
civil government and in God’s justice that is timeless.
In summary, we find that natural law theorists argue that both the
institution of civil government and its form or structure are grounded
upon natural law and the exercise of human reason. The upshot is that
civil government in both its form and ethical roots becomes arbitrary
and autonomous. Eventually either tyranny or anarchy will result. The
pseudo-Christian position, popular in many Calvinistic circles, is that
both the institution of government and its form have changed with
time. A variety of reasons are offered, ranging from the unfolding of
redemption, the administration of a new divine economy, or a confus-
ing of God’s perceptive will with His providential government. (After
all, now that we are blessed with a pluralistic society, how could Ruth-
erford ever be right?) The upshot is the same, however, as the secular
natural law position: civil government becomes arbitrary and autono-
mous. It will end either in tyranny or anarchy.
The biblical perspective, which avoids these errors, calls for a careful
distinction between the institution of civil government and its form or
expression at any particular time. Government has been directly insti-
tuted by God, and in its exercise of justice, it must be governed by God
immediately. On the other hand, the particular method or form which
that civil government may take can vary, for here God works through
secondary means—that is, through the people who are governed.
Forms may change, but the root and basis of government does not.113
People, then, are obliged to obey governments, because they are
ordained by God’s law. This is the foundation of civil government,
according to Rutherford. But, as to whether citizens should submit to a

particular civil government, or whether they should have this man or

that to govern them, is another issue. It is here that the conditional
consent and choice of the people become important. {59}
The Doctrine of Covenant or Contract

in Calvinistic Political Theory
In its secular form, the notion of the civil contract has been problem-
atic, to say the least. Its popularity in the Enlightenment stems from the
fact that it gave cognizance to popular sovereignty, and provided, at
least on the surface, a tool for limiting and controlling government. But
as a notion of obligation, it is tenuous. The contract theorists suggest
that the state should be obeyed because the citizens have entered into a
contract with it, and by the word of their promise, therefore, they are
obligated to submit to it. The state has been freely given certain power
and the responsibility to maintain life, liberty, and property. There
seems to be little doubt that these secular forms of contract theory are
perversions of the political theology of Calvinists on the Continent and
in Great Britain. But, because they are a secularized form, they mani-
fest the internal contradictions that are part of all unbelieving systems.
Let us pursue these, and contrast them with the Puritan notion of con-
tract.
Thomas Hobbes suggested that the “state of nature” was one of con-
tinual war or threat; in order to survive, men had to (were obligated to)
band together. All power was to be given to the state, for then the state
could be much more effective. Even when the state was tyrannical,
order and government were preferable to the anarchy of the state of
nature. Hobbes’s position collapses into totalitarianism and presup-
poses the neutrality of the state.
John Locke’s position is that power is not given to a sovereign ini-
tially, but each citizen yields the power of personal defense to all other
citizens. This is how a community is formed. Then the community
vests power in a civil government to do the will of the community.
113. This may help explain why, traditionally, Calvinistic political philosophers have
paid very little attention to institutional forms of government, or to methodology or
policy manifestos. They have been more concerned to establish the proper root and
basis of government in their writings.
Problematic here is whether one can ever conceive of a community

without civil government of some form. If civil government collapses,
or has to be changed, can the community survive as a community?
Rousseau turned the notion of contract a full circle and used it to
deify the collective community. Each individual is to give all his rights
over to the community (that way it is fair and just to all), so that no one
is self-seeking any more. He writes:
The alienation [of self, in preference to the community] is made with-
out reservations, so that ... no more perfect union is possible, and no
associate has any subsequent demand to make upon the others.... Each
gives himself to everybody, so that ... he gives himself to nobody.114
Each citizen commits himself to be governed by the general will,
which is the consensus that emerges when each citizen votes in a man-
ner to promote the general good. Once that general will has been dis-
covered, all must be {60} forced into compliance, because that is what
everybody really wants anyway. “The political society is allowed to do
this because such pressure on the renegade is ‘forcing him to be
free.’ ”115 The horrors of such a system are so obvious that we need not
spend further time here.
There are a series of problems that inhere in all secular contract the-
ories. (a) We can never be sure whether a citizen or a ruler is acting
selflessly or is promoting his own ends and means. Even in my own
case, how can I be sure that I am not simply rationalizing my own
wants?116 (b) Even if all did act selflessly and genuinely sought the
good of the community, it is still not established that what the commu-
nity decides would be right. One has to depend upon a moral system
which lies outside the community, outside the contract, with which to
judge the morality of the government’s actions. (c) Because it is natural
to enter into a governed community (Locke) or because it is necessary
for survival (Rousseau and Hobbes), it follows that resistance to the
will of the sovereign is either irrational or suicidal. Contract theories,
spawned to ensure that government served the needs of the people, are
inherently absolutistic. (d) If government is to be based upon the con-
114. Rousseau, cited in Abbate, 68.

115. Abbate, 68.
116. Ibid., 72.

sent of the governed, we must ask in what sense people in a state have
consented to obey the law. To suggest that people can and do consent
implies that they have a real choice as to whether they will obey or not.
But, de facto, that is a choice most people do not have and never make.
The vast majority of citizens have grown up in states where they have
not freely decided to obey the law. They have grown up obeying. The
notion of consent is little more than a figure of speech. (e) Even if it
could be established that citizens do give their free consent to be gov-
erned, how long does that consent last? As William Godwin has asked:
Allowing that I am called upon, at the period of my coming of age for
example, to declare my assent to dissent to any of the systems of opin-
ions or any code of practical institutes; for how long a period does this
declaration bind me? Am I precluded from better information for the
whole course of my life? And, if not the whole of my life, why for a
year, a week, or even an hour?117
These are some of the inherent tensions and prevailing problems
which can be found in any secular notion of contract or consent being
the basis of government. I have chosen to dwell at some length here
because modern democratic theory rests on notions such as these. The
Puritans, along with other Calvinistic political philosophers, also had a
notion of contract or consent. Its similarity with the secular aberrations
of it, however, is formal only. Let us see how Rutherford’s presentation
avoids the dilemmas introduced above. {61}
We have seen that Rutherford draws a distinction between the insti-
tution of civil government, which is given immediately by God, and the
form, which is given mediately. Rutherford goes to great lengths to
establish that God has given to the governed the responsibility to
choose and establish their own rulers. By this mediate means, God
establishes forms of government and appoints men to govern. The
office, then, of king or magistrate or ruler is from God alone, but as to
which particular man or person should rule, God establishes His pur-
poses and makes known His will through the second cause of the peo-
ple’s consent. What is the office or ruler which has been given by God?
Rutherford explicitly draws from Scripture as he delineates the func-
tions of the civil magistrate: they are God’s lieutenants and deputies on
117. Cited in Abbate, 77.

the earth (Ps. 82:1, 6–7; Ex. 22:8); they are feeders of the Lord’s people
(Ps. 78:70–72); they are shields of the earth (Ps. 47:9); they are nursing
fathers of the church (Ps. 49:23); they are captains of the Lord’s people (1
Sam. 9:19); and their throne is the throne of God (1 Chron. 22:10). 118
With this doctrine of the office of the ruler, some of the problems of
the secular consent theories are immediately removed. One does not
call upon either citizens or rulers to act selflessly for an amorphous
“good of the community”: one calls upon rulers to be God’s deputies on
the earth. Secondly, it has already been established what is right and
just and good. When rulers fulfill the obligations of office listed above,
then their actions are morally right and correct, irrespective of the “gen-
eral will of the community.” It also follows that the consent given by the
people to rulers is legitimate consent only if it is a warrant and consent
to be governed by the office of magistrate that has been instituted of
God.
Rutherford uses three arguments from Scripture which prove that
the people have power to appoint rulers. First, if it can be demonstrated
that in the Bible the people made one man king and not another, we
can infer that they have the power to make kings. The people made
Omri king, and not Zimri (1 Kings 16),119 and they made Solomon
king and not Adonijah (1 Kings 1). Some might object that the people
were simply publicly ratifying God’s choice. But this is not the case, for
we see, for example, in the case of David that he was anointed and cho-
sen king by God many years before he assumed the office, but he was
not a king before the people chose him as such. The fact that God sov-
ereignly chooses or appoints kings does not at all negate the consent of
the people, for {62} God’s sovereignty does not exclude, but establishes
the reality of second causes.120
118. Lex Rex, 4. Notice how Rutherford draws freely from the Old Testament text—
the law, the writings, and history—to establish his doctrine of the magistrate for our
day. That is why I suggest that the seeds of theonomy are present in Rutherford. He has
no hesitation in taking the institution (not the form) of government from the Old
Testament and applying it to the present.
119. Ibid., 6.
120. Ibid., 33.
It follows, of course, that there is no such thing as a natural ruling

class or people who are created as rulers and others created to be sub-
servient. Follow Rutherford’s argument from the case of David:
... nor is David by the act of creation by which he is made a man, cre-
ated also king over Israel; for then David should from the womb and
by nature be a king, and not by God’s free gift. Here both the free gift
of God, and the free consent of the people intervene. Indeed God
made the office and royalty of a king above the dignity of the people,
but he, by the intervening consent of the people, maketh David a king,
not Eliab; and the people maketh a covenant at David’s inauguration,
that David shall have so much power, to wit, power to be a father, not
power to be a tyrant—power to fight for the people, not power to
waste and destroy them.121
Numerous other Old Testament examples are cited to show that it was
the people who appointed and made kings.122
The second argument employed to show that rulers are appointed by
the consent of the people is that God regulates and instructs His people
in whom they shall make a king, and whom they shall exclude from the
office. Since God so regulates the people, it follows that they have the
lawful power to do what the law commands. The case is built upon
Deuteronomy 17:14–15. God here instructs the people in whom they
shall set as king over them. The prophets, by contrast, were not
appointed by the people; they were immediately called of God and were
prophets whether the people consented or not. Kings were not imme-
diately appointed in this way, but through the choice of the people.123
The people themselves had to approve of, and appoint a king over
them.
Finally, the consent of the people is evidenced because the Scripture
explicitly says that the people made the kings under God. See, for
example, the account of Saul’s investiture (1 Sam. 11:15) and that of
David (1 Chron. 12:38: “All those came with a perfect heart to make
David king in Hebron”).124 Rutherford concludes: “There is no title on
earth now to tie crowns to families, to persons, but only the suffrages of
121. Ibid., 38 (emphasis mine).

122. Ibid., 7.
123. Ibid.
124. Ibid.

the people ....125 And further, arguing again from the case of Saul and
David, we read:
... Saul, after Samuel from the Lord anointed him, remained a private
man, and no king, till the people made him king, and elected him;
{63} and David, anointed by that same divine authority, remained for-
mally a subject, and not a king, till all Israel made him king at
Hebron.…126
Turning to the specific nature of the covenant, we see that it was “an
oath betwixt the king and his people, laying on, by reciprocation of
bands, mutual civil obligation upon the king to the people, and the
people to the king.”127 For example, the elders made a covenant with
David before the Lord prior to their appointing him king (2 Sam. 5:3;
see also 2 Chron. 23:2–3 and Eccles. 8:2, both of which indicate the
existence of an oath which binds both king and people). With our bet-
ter understanding of covenants and treaties in the Near Eastern world,
we see immediately that what we have here is not a vassal treaty, but a
treaty between equals.
This civil covenant made between the king and the represented peo-
ple is not the same as the covenant made between the king and the
Lord (2 Kings 11:17). The former was made and ratified publicly and
was solemnly made in the house of the Lord. When any party thus
enters into such a covenant, he, by definition, becomes bound by the
law. If the obligations of a covenant are broken, then those who break it
can be disciplined according to the oath made to God.128 The cove-
nant, then,
giveth the ground of a civil action and claim to a people and the free
estates against a king, seduced by wicked counsel to make war against
the land, whereas he did swear by the most high God, that he should
be a father and protector of the church of God.129
But what are the terms of the contract? Rutherford has already
hinted at this. Both people and king bind themselves to God. The king
125. Ibid., 8.
126. Ibid., 9.
127. Ibid., 54.
128. Ibid.
129. Ibid.

promises to govern according to the law of God and in such a manner

as to defend the true religion. The people promise obedience to God
and to the king. Hence:
He who is a minister of God, not simply, but for the good of the sub-
ject, and so he take heed of God’s law as a king, and govern according
to God’s will, he is in so far only made king by God as he fulfilleth the
condition; and in so far as he is a minister for evil to the subject, and
ruleth not according to that which the book of the law commandeth
him as king, in so far he is not by God appointed king and ruler.…130
The nature of the contract, then, is that both rulers and ruled mutually
obligate themselves to the law of God. It is important to realize that the
citizens have a police power inherent in themselves, for they have an
equal responsibility to see that the king, as king, keeps the law of God.
For example, when idolatry became rife in the land, God rebuked the
{64} people as well as their rulers (2 Kings 17:11); when there remains
impurity in the land, the people are held responsible (2 Chron. 20:33).
Further, all the elders, princes, and magistrates of the land are
commanded to judge in such a fashion that they maintain pure religion
(Deut. 1:16), but when the judges decline from this standard and
corrupt God’s law, we find that the people are judged and rebuked for it
(Jer. 15:4).131
Some may argue that there are no rulers with whom this formal cov-
enant has been made today, and so the obligations of such a covenant
cannot be pressed upon them, particularly now that we live in a plural-
istic society. Rutherford agrees that where no formal written covenant
can be produced between any particular people and their rulers, then
there is a problem when you are dealing with positive laws or mediate
conditions. But the natural or immediate covenant among God, the
king, and the people is automatically presupposed in any expression of
civil government, even when there is no vocal or written covenant.
Thus, the obligation to rule according to God’s law is not part of the
mediate, accidental, particular choice of the people. Theonomic rule is
obligatory for all societies at all times. The aspect of consent or choice
has to do with the particular individual or system of government that is
130. Ibid., 57.

131. Ibid., 55.

to be instituted: for example, whether the government be a monarchy, a

democracy, or an aristocracy. Rutherford writes that if there are no
conditions which have been established between the king and the peo-
ple,
then those things which are just and right according to the law of God,
and the rule of God in moulding the first king, are understood to rule
both king and people, as if they had been written; and here we pro-
duce our written covenant, Deut. 17:15; Josh. 1:8–9; 2 Chron. 31:32.
132
The paradigm of all civil power is given in Deuteronomy 17. Even

when there is no formal contract which has been made, that immediate
divine stipulation that the king is bound to obey God’s law is to govern
all civil power.
We are now in a position to appreciate how the Christian notion of
consent and contract differs from, and avoids the problems of, the secu-
lar aberrations. First, the notion of contract or consent does not have to
do with whether a community will enter into civil obligations. That is
already commanded by God, and the mutual obligations of that civil
bond are already presupposed by His law. The Christian notion of con-
sent does not have to do with what is justice, or what is crime and what
its proper punishment is. These definitions are already given by the
absolute Lawgiver. Nor is it a contract whereby the people give govern-
ment authority and responsibility to protect life, health, and property;
these are accidental {65} to the notion of Christian government and
flow from the ruler’s obligation to the law of God. Further, the problem
of Rousseau’s doctrine—that of the inability to determine whether the
general will of the community is morally right—is avoided because, in
the Christian perspective, the general will of the community is irrele-
vant to what is morally right. Rather, the general will of the community
must at all times be bound by God’s law. God’s law, then, is the constitu-
tional or fundamental law of all civil society. The consent of the gov-
erned and the rule of the governor must abide within that framework.
In the second place, biblical contract theory does not lead to
totalitarianism, because rulers are bound to God’s law, and the subjects
have an obligation to see that they are governed by God’s law. When a
132. Ibid., 59.

ruler transgresses the boundaries of God’s law he must be resisted by

the people. If the latter do not do so, they are held accountable before
God.
Third, the people do not give consent to be governed by God’s law;
they are bound by it whether they give consent or not. Rather, they give
consent to a particular king or ruler to govern and they to obey, but
always this is a mutually conditional consent. The people have a moral
obligation, not a freedom right, to resist the ruler when he governs
contrary to God’s law. Their resistance may develop to the point where
they give their consent to another ruler. In secular theories, the notion
of consent is little more than a figure of speech, because the warrant of
consent has to do with the law itself by which people will be governed,
not simply the particular person of the ruler. In the Christian position,
the notion of consent is a reality, because all political figures, all rulers,
and all magistrates hold their power conditionally, even when no for-
mal contract has been entered into. It follows that the people may
choose to replace one ruler with another, if he breaks the contract.
Finally, the issue of how long the consent of the governed is given to
rulers is irrelevant in the Calvinist schema. Consent is always condi-
tional, but not conditional upon the whim of the governed or the gov-
ernor, but upon mutual obedience to God’s law.
In conclusion, it can be seen that the watershed which divides Chris-
tian from humanistic theories of government is that the former insists
both upon the transcendence of the Creator and, therefore, upon the
immanent relevance of His absolute law-word to every area of life,
including the state.
The Doctrine of Civil Disobedience

in Calvinistic Political Theory
The issue of civil disobedience has also been a problematic one in
the history of political philosophy. It is ironic that the Calvinistic Ref-
ormation, which more than any other theological movement in the six-
teenth and seventeenth centuries, spawned violent resistance in France,
Holland, Scotland, and England, should be inherited today by churches
that are profoundly {66} embarrassed by the notion that the civil state
may be lawfully resisted. The Christian consensus of our day, one to
which many Calvinists automatically subscribe, is that the civil govern-
ment belongs in the realm of God’s providential rule and that, while we
may enjoy the right of representation and remonstration, it remains
that when the highest authority in the land has spoken (be it the
Supreme Court or some other body), Christians are obliged to obey.
Here again the Puritans and Samuel Rutherford have much to teach us.
My intention is simply to give an outline of Rutherford’s doctrine of
resistance. This will not solve all the problems, by any means. In all
cases of resistance against constituted authorities, there is a situational
element. This means that in each situation where active resistance
might be obligatory, there must be a careful evaluation of the facts by
the norms. Without those situational facts, it is impossible to establish
ethically whether it is right to resist in any specific instance. The
emphasis in this section will be upon the norms which must be brought
to bear upon the facts.
The first principle we must comprehend from the implications for
civil government is the distinction between God’s perceptive will and
His providential ordering of the world. The fact that a government may
be allowed to engage in tyrannical acts under God’s sovereign pleasure
indicates, in no sense, His moral approval of that government. For
example, although Herod massacred children in Judea, and although
Christ was executed on the cross by the will of God, this does not make
either action morally right.133 It follows that a particular government
does not have God’s moral approval, nor is necessarily a minister of
God, simply because it exists.
Further, a tyrannical government is always immoral. Rutherford
defines tyranny in the following manner: the king is appointed by God
to save, defend, feed, and protect the people; he is a minister of God for
their good.134 Tyranny exists when the king or political authority exerts
its power for ends other than those given in the nature of the office.
Scripture has given us a proper guide to evaluate whether a king is ful-
filling his office: the law of God. Rutherford asserts that the power of
the king is the
133. Ibid., 47.

134. Ibid., 78.

power to rule according to God’s law, as he is commanded (Deut. 17),

and this is the very office or official power which the King of Kings
hath given to all kings under him....135
Tyranny, then, exists when the king exerts an arbitrary authority over
his subjects; that is, when he replaces God’s law with his own. But,
argues Rutherford, when a state of tyranny exists, we have an act and
work of Satan. He writes: {67}
I lay down this maxim of divinity: Tyranny being a work of Satan, is
not from God, because sin, either habitual or actual, is not from God:
the power that is, must be from God; the magistrate, as magistrate, is
good in nature of office, and the intrinsic end of his office (Ro. 13:4),
for he is a minister of God for thy good; and, therefore, a power ethi-
cal, politic, or moral, to oppress, is not from God, and is not a power,
but a licentious deviation of a power; and is no more from God, but
from sinful nature and the old serpent, than a license to sin.136
When a tyrannical government is in power, then, we are not to imagine
that the power is from God, but rather we are to understand that it is
Satanic. It is no more from God than a license to sin is from God. That
particular government is not from God, because the obligation to sin is
not from God.
Some may argue here that tyranny would be legitimate if a people
contracted or agreed to be governed by a tyrant. Not so, argues Ruther-
ford, for the people can never enter into a contractual obligation with a
ruler in which the terms of the contract are outside the law of God.
God has given people the duty and obligation not to kill, from which
we infer the duty not to kill oneself. From this, we further infer that
self-defense is obligatory. No people, either individually or corporately,
have the power to dismiss the obligation to self-defense A tyrannical
government takes away the people’s right to defend themselves. It is,
therefore, illegitimate for a people to enter into a contractual obligation
with a tyrannical government.137 The implications of this are stagger-
ing, for it makes the vast majority of governments in the world today ille-
gitimate and Satanic and contrary to Romans 13 to some degree, even
if they were elected by popular suffrage. This does not necessarily
135. Ibid., 72.

136. Ibid., 34.
137. Ibid., 34, 46.

mean that such governments should be dismissed or overthrown, for

there are various levels and expressions of resistance, as we shall see
below.
On the basis of the foregoing, Rutherford presents three basic argu-
ments to establish the right and duty of resistance to unlawful govern-
ment. In the first place, since tyranny is Satanic, not to resist it is to
resist God, or expressing this in positive terms, to resist tyranny is to
honor God. Secondly, since the obligation of self-defense is given by
God, to give up that right is sin. Thirdly, since the king is granted
power conditionally, it follows that the people have the power to with-
draw their sanction if the conditions are not fulfilled. The king or polit-
ical authority or civil magistrate is a fiduciary figure—that is, he holds
his authority in trust.138
What is especially interesting to note, and which follows consistently
from the arguments above, is that citizens have a moral obligation to
resist unjust and tyrannical government. Unfortunately, this has long
been overlooked in the churches of our day. While we must always be
subject {68} to the office of the magistrate, we are not to be subject to
the man in that office who commands that which is contrary to God’s
law. Whoever shall resist the office of the magistrate shall receive dam-
nation; but whoever, for conscience sake, refuses to obey a man who is
king, but seeks “to obey God rather than man, as all the martyrs did,
shall receive to themselves salvation.”139 To resist unjust government,
then, is an element of Christian sanctification. To do so for conscien-
tious, God-honoring reasons is to procure salvation.
We come now to the question of the levels of resistance which may
be expressed. Rutherford offers some distinctions which may be help-
ful here. In the first place, we should not imagine that a ruler should be
deposed because of a singular breach of the covenant between ruler
and people. Suppose a ruler or government makes a law which some
feel is contrary to the constitution or terms of investiture. In such a sit-
uation, the contractual conditions or covenant between king and peo-
ple must be exposited by the law of God (Deut. 17).140 If the terms of a
138. Ibid., 35, 38, 69.

139. Ibid., 145.
140. Ibid., 58.

covenant between king and people are altered, it is important to ascer-

tain whether such a breach constitutes a breaking of God’s law. Further,
while any breaking of God’s law is contrary to the covenant, we must
realize that one or two singular acts of transgression, while they assail
the covenant, do not result in the dissolution of the covenantal bond
between king and people. There is room for correction and for disci-
pline. But when a king acts in such a way that the commonwealth is
being destroyed—that is, when he is attacking the fundamental consti-
tution of the society—then he is to be denuded of his royal power and
authority.141 Thus, in dealing with the sinful acts of government, we
must firstly determine whether the act in question is a singular,
uncharacteristic act, or an act that is deliberately calculated to erode
and destroy the ethical commitment to the law of God. The latter act
justifies a far greater level of resistance than the former.
Secondly, there is a distinction to be made between an act of tyranny
against a private individual and one that is against a corporate body or
a commonwealth. This, in turn, leads to a distinction to be made
between the types of resistance that are offered by the respective par-
ties. If a government commits an act of unlawful violence against an
individual, the latter has the right of self-defense, and that defense may
be by force. Rutherford suggests that there are levels of resistance in
which a private person may engage. Firstly, he must defend himself by
supplications and apologies; secondly, he must seek to flee if at all pos-
sible; and, thirdly, he may use violence to defend himself. One should
not employ violence if he may save himself by flight; so one should not
employ flight if he can save {69} and defend himself by supplications
and the employment of constitutional means of redress.142 Rutherford
illustrates this pattern of resistance from the life of David. He con-
cludes:
... so the private man, in his natural self-defence, is not to use reaction,
or violent re-offending, in his self-defence against any man, far less
against the servants of a king, but in the exigence of the last and most
inexorable necessity.143
141. Ibid.
142. Ibid., 160.
143. Ibid.

According to Rutherford, that is why David merely cut the garment of

Saul while the latter was sleeping, for there was no actual invasion of
the life of David at that moment by Saul and his men, and flight for
David was still a viable means of defense.
On the other hand, when the offense is against a corporate group
such as a duly constituted state or town or local body, or such as a
church, then flight is often an impractical and unrealistic means of
resistance. It cannot be a natural means of self-preservation when it is
physically impossible. He writes:
So, to a church and a community of protestants, men, women, aged,
sucking children, sick, and diseased, who are pressed either to be
killed or forsake religion and Jesus Christ, flight is not the second
mean, nor a mean at all, because not possible, and therefore not a nat-
ural mean of preservation....144
So with respect to a corporate group or community, there are two levels
of resistance: remonstration, and then, if necessary, violent self-defense.
Finally, Rutherford would have us realize that there is a distinction
between a lawless uprising and lawful resistance. When tyranny is
enjoined upon a community, resistance must be under the aegis of the
duly constituted authorities: in particular it must be under the rule of
the lesser magistrates. All inferior magistrates are just as much immedi-
ate vicars of God as the king. They all represent God and they are all
bound to carry out His law. All magistrates are ordained by God, all are
to be a terror to evildoers, and all are to be ministers of God for our
good.145 It follows that if a higher power wishes to pardon someone
justly condemned by an inferior magistrate, or condemn one justly
acquitted (we are not speaking of legitimate judicial review, but of the
attempt of higher powers to subvert God’s justice which has been done
by lesser officials), then the lesser magistrate must resist the higher
power and fulfill the obligations of his office.146 Further, when a king
commits acts of tyranny against a community, the lesser magistrates
have an obligation to resist that tyranny by {70} organizing armed
resistance if necessary. A similar obligation rests upon the estates of the
144. Ibid.
145. Ibid., 91.
146. Ibid., 88.

commonwealth—magistrates, nobles, and ecclesiastical leaders—who,

instituted with responsibility of representing the commonwealth, are to
resist tyranny. Rutherford writes:
When the supreme magistrate will not execute the judgment of the
Lord, those who made him supreme magistrate, under God, who
have, under God, sovereign liberty to dispose of crowns and king-
doms, are to execute the judgment of the Lord, when wicked men
make the law of God of none effect.147
These men have an obligation to execute the judgment of God upon
those who would set God’s law aside, even though the latter be the
highest officials in the land.
In summary, Rutherford’s doctrine of resistance is built upon
Romans 13, being a description of an office, which places an obligation
upon officials. When there is a man holding the office who usurps the
obligations and responsibilities of the office, replacing God’s law with
his own, then the office gives legitimate sanction to the citizens to resist
the man.
The Use of the Case Law in Lex Rex

We return now to the issue of the case law and Rutherford’s attitude
toward it. The question is whether Rutherford thought that the validity
of the case law had passed away, or whether he thought that it was still
binding upon civil governments in the Gospel Age. It has already been
stated that while we do not find in Lex Rex the doctrine of the continu-
ity of the case law, or of its application to the magistrate, stated in an
explicit and fully developed form, the roots and fundamental princi-
ples upon which this doctrine is built are plainly present. We have seen,
first of all, that the Old Testament model for the civil magistrate is
directly and unashamedly assumed to be binding upon the civil govern-
ments of our day. The conditions, the stipulations, the law which gov-
erned the kings and lesser magistrates in the Old Testament are clearly
seen as being held by Rutherford as equally binding upon magistrates
today. Even if Rutherford had nothing else to say on the matter of the
case law, this general principle on the continuing validity of Old Testa-
ment stipulations would nevertheless establish the continuing validity
147. Ibid., 96.

of the case law. If civil magistrates in the Old Testament had to apply
the case law in their judgment and deliberation at the gate, then con-
temporary magistrates, being bound under the same covenantal obli-
gations as their Old Testament counterparts, are equally bound to
apply the case law. No one would deny, however, that the Old Testa-
ment magistrates had an obligation to apply the case law in judgment.
It cannot be legitimately denied, therefore, that Rutherford believed
that the case law is relevant to crime and punishment. {71}
But there are other indications that we are properly interpreting
Rutherford at this point. We have seen, second, that Rutherford holds
that God’s law alone can define crime. We have seen that the magistrate
cannot arbitrarily suspend punishment from or pardon those crimes
which God’s law stipulates as capital crimes, and requiring the death
penalty. To do so is to deify the state. While Rutherford is unclear as to
whether the penal sanctions should be carried over in all cases (for
example, he is prepared to suspend the death penalty for Sabbath
breaking, while maintaining it as a civil crime),148 he is explicit on the
fact that all crime and punishment must be tied to God’s law. For exam-
ple, he writes that
As the king is under God’s law both in commanding and in exacting
active obedience, so he is under the same regulating law of God, in
punishing or demanding of us passive subjection, and as he may not
command what he will, but what the King of kings warranteth him to
command, so he may not punish as he will, but by warrant of the
Supreme Judge of all the earth.…149
The general principle upon which this doctrine of crime and
punishment is based is, of course, that the magistrate is God’s minister
and His deputy. One of the strongest statements in Lex Rex on this
reality reads as follows:
Now certain it is, God only, univocally and essentially as God, is the
judge (Ps. 75:7), and God only and essentially king (Ps. 97:1 and Ps.
99:1), and all men in relation to him are mere ministers, servants,
legates, deputies; and in relation to him, equivocally and improperly,
judges or kings, and mere created and breathing shadows of the power
of the King of kings. And look, as the scribe following his own device,
148. Ibid., 232.

149. Ibid. (emphasis mine).

and writing what sentence he pleaseth, as not an officer of the court at

that point, nor the pen and servant of the judge, so are all kings and all
judges but forged intruders and bastard kings and judges, in so far as
they give out the sentences of men, and are not the very mouths of the
King of kings to pronounce such a sentence as the Almighty himself
would do, if he were sitting on the throne or bench.150
Again it follows inescapably that insofar as the case law defines the
righteousness of God which is absolutely unchangeable and binds all
periods of redemption and all human cultures, the case law, or the
equity of the case law, therefore binds all cultures. The fact that judicial
sentence must be given by the civil magistrate as though God were
sitting on the throne or bench demands that His standards of
righteousness and the definition of His righteousness given in the case
law be brought to bear upon the particular problems at hand.
The third principle of Rutherford’s doctrine of the civil magistrate
which bears upon the question of the case law is that Rutherford holds
that {72} it is the duty of the civil magistrate to preserve the two tables of
the law.151 It is impossible to preserve the two tables of the law without
reference to the case law. For example, the sixth commandment is a
tautology (insofar as the commandment is understood to teach “thou
shalt not murder,” and murder is unlawful killing, then without further
definition the commandment becomes “thou shalt not kill unlawfully”)
without the further specification of the case law. It is the case law which
defines what murder is and its distinction from manslaughter. Ruther-
ford turns to the case law in establishing the distinction between mur-
der and manslaughter, thereby demonstrating that he is perfectly
prepared to use the case law in penology. He cites in defense of this dis-
tinction Deuteronomy 4:42; 19:6; and Joshua 20:5.152 Further, it is
impossible for the magistrate to ascertain how he should ensure that
people in society preserve the first three commandments without the
case law. Rutherford turns to the case law to establish how magistrates
should act towards blasphemers and cites Deuteronomy 13:6. He
repeatedly uses this particular case law also to establish the limits of
submission to lawful authority under the fifth commandment.153
150. Ibid., 107-8.

151. Ibid., 142.
152. Ibid., 166.

Again we see that the case law is used to interpret and explicate the
Decalogue with respect to civil government, crime, and punishment.
The point, then, is that if the magistrate is to preserve the two tables of
the law, then the case law is indispensable in judgment and in crime and
punishment. Rutherford does not at all hesitate in thus employing it.
The most conclusive evidence for Rutherford’s position on the case
law being one of continuing validity for jurisprudence, government,
and theology is the way in which the author uses the case law in his
arguments. A cursory reading of Lex Rex, for example, will demon-
strate that Rutherford’s whole case is predicated upon Deuteronomy
17. This part of the case law is what he uses to provide the foundation
for his doctrine of the civil magistrate and civil government. What is of
particular interest in the use of this case law is that it specifically calls for
the application of that same case law to civil government, crime, law-
making, and punishment. If it could be demonstrated that this passage
of Scripture has no continuing validity in our day, as some self-pro-
claimed Calvinists and “neo-Puritans” loudly claim, then Rutherford
would have no thesis. But, what is of further interest in this regard, is
that whereas Deuteronomy 17 is the most frequently quoted passage of
Scripture in Lex Rex, it is followed in only slightly less frequency by ref-
erences to Romans 13:1–6. This is highly significant, for it proves
beyond doubt that Rutherford believed that there is continuity through-
out history of the divine prescriptions for civil government and the civil
magistrate. The doctrine of Romans 13 does not abrogate {73} the Old
Testament stipulations for government, but ratifies them and builds
upon them.
Further, scattered throughout the text there are arguments about
civil government that are based on Old. Testament case laws.154 (a) The
law of rape, where a girl is commanded to cry out (Deut. 22:23–27)
and, by implication, others are obliged physically to defend her, is used
by Rutherford to prove that God’s law commands self-defense. He
employs the same argument from the case of the neighbor’s ox which
153. Ibid., 180.

154. As we briefly consider some of these, it will give us some insight into the notion
of “general equity” which is employed in the Westminster Confession of Faith with
respect to the case law.
has fallen in a pit, and of the obligation of the observer to rescue the
animal, whereby the obligation to defend my neighbor is established.
The author uses this to demonstrate that we have an obligation to
defend ourselves and others from tyrannical government.155 (b) The
case law about defending one’s house (Ex. 22:2) is cited as proof of the
right of violent self-defense against tyrants and unjust governments.156
(c) The case law is used to prove that the lesser magistrates are minis-
ters of God and are responsible to Him. He cites the following texts:
Numbers 11:16–17; Deuteronomy 1:16; 5:18–21; 17:5; 19:12–13; and
21:19, 21.157 All of these case laws give the civil authority of the sword
to the lesser officials. Notice also how the case law is employed to bind
the institution of government in our day. No embarrassed equivocation
here about theocracies which pass away! (d) Although the Decalogue
commands obedience to mother and father, and hence to kings, judges,
and civil magistrates, Rutherford uses the case law to demonstrate that
such submission has its limits. Rulers can be resisted because, although
we are commanded to submit to parents, the law also directs that if
family members blaspheme, they are to be put to death. He cites Deu-
teronomy 13:6–9 and Leviticus 24:26.158 The principle of general
equity commands that when rulers command that which is contrary to
Gods law, they are to be resisted. Again, Rutherford’s use of Scripture is
significant. He cites Ephesians 5:25 to demonstrate that we are com-
manded to love members of our family, and juxtaposes this text with
Deuteronomy 13:8–9, which shows the limits of family loyalty. Both
texts are assumed to be equally binding upon believers and society. (e)
Although there were no examples in Israel of executions for blasphemy
(Deut. 13:6) or sodomy (Ex: 22:19), the author confirms that the moral
duty of the law still holds.159 (f) Rutherford argues from the case law
that governments should aid the church and others who are suffering
under {74} tyranny in foreign countries. The reason he gives is that the
155. Ibid., 163.

156. Ibid.
157. Ibid., 173, 184.
158. Ibid., 176, 180.
159. Ibid., 180.

law says we are to rebuke our brethren lest we hate them (Lev.
19:17).160
These six examples of the author’s use of the case law are not
exhaustive by any means, but they establish beyond doubt that Ruther-
ford believed in, and used, the case law, even to the extent that he freely
applied it to civil society, government, crime, punishment, interna-
tional relations, and domestic relations in his own day. There is no
theological argument in Lex Rex to justify his using the case law in this
way. It seems fair to conclude that he did not feel the need to justify or
explain or warrant his use of the case law. This, in turn, can be
explained only if he was genuinely and accurately reflecting the theo-
logical consensus of his day.
Conclusion
In the course of this article we have looked at one Puritan writer who
faithfully represents the tradition of Puritan political philosophy and
political theology. I have sought to relate his philosophy to some of the
more perplexing problems which have emerged in the history of politi-
cal philosophy down through the centuries. It is my conviction that the
approach to government presented by Rutherford and the tradition of
which he was a part do not suffer from the rational-irrational dichoto-
mies which are so much part of the unbelieving systems. Because his
approach to politics was firmly based on the infallible Word of God, it
provides the only satisfying answers to the issues and questions raised
with respect to the state and civil government. It is my hope that the
Calvinists of our day will become increasingly faithful to the tradition
which he and his peers have bequeathed to us.
160. Ibid., 187.

INTRODUCTION TO
JOHN COTTON’S ABSTRACT OF
THE LAWS OF NEW ENGLAND
Greg L. Bahnsen
It is well known that the rise of Puritanism in Britain led to the found-
ing of America’s New England some three and a half centuries ago.161
“Under the leadership of William Laud ... friends of the king deprived
Puritan ministers of their pulpits and moved the church of England
even closer to Rome in its ceremonies, vestments, and doctrines.... In
despair and hope [the Puritans] too turned their thoughts to America,
where they might escape God’s wrath, worship in purity, and gather
strength for future victory.”162 In 1630 a thousand people sailed with
John Winthrop to Massachusetts; soon they were joined by twenty
thousand others.
The attitude of the Puritans in founding this new land was governed
by the model set by Calvin in Geneva. They were convinced of the dire
need for godly politics and determined to let God’s infallible word
guide their endeavors. The renewed emphasis we see today on the
application of Christianity to every area of life and human activity is
the heritage of Reformed theology; much can be learned from the New
England Puritans in this regard. Their goal was to see the kingdom of
Jesus Christ come to expression in society as well as the private, inner
heart of man. Due to their zeal for a righteous political structure, they
“preferred a wilderness governed by Puritans to a civilized land gov-
erned by Charles I.... Here, in truth, was a self-governing common-
wealth, a Puritan Republic…. The New England Puritans agreed on a
161. Cf. William Haller, The Rise of Puritanism (New York: Harper Torchbooks,
[1938] 1957), 5.
162. J. M. Blum, et al., The National Experience (New York: Harcourt, Brace & World,
1963), 21–22.
great deal.... They wanted a government that would take seriously its
obligation to enforce God’s commandments.”163
The Puritans were first and foremost men of the word of God writ-
ten. They acknowledged the authority of Scripture for all things, and
this naturally led to their affirmation of the full validity of God’s law. A
dispensational antagonism between law and grace was abhorrent to
them. Hence Samuel Bolton wrote in the Epistle Dedicatory for his
1645 masterpiece, {76} The True Bounds of Christian Freedom, that his
purpose was “to hold up the Law, as not to intrench upon the liberties
of Grace, and so to establish Grace, as not to make void the Law, nor to
discharge believers of any duty they owe to God or man.” The law was
integral to every area of theology. Sin is the transgression of God’s law,
for the law itself reveals the holiness of God. Christ’s death was the sat-
isfaction of the law; justification is the verdict of the law, and sanctifica-
tion is the believer’s obedience to the law.
Since God’s law reflects His immutable character, it is impossible
that the law should be abrogated; to speak of the law’s abrogation, said
the Puritans, is to dishonor God Himself. Thus, in Regula Vitae, The
Rule of the Law under the Gospel (1631), Thomas Taylor said, “A man
may breake the Princes Law, and not violate his Person; but not Gods:
for God and his image in the Law, are so straitly united, as one cannot
wrong the one, and not the other.” The moral law was viewed as “con-
sonant to that eternall justice and goodness in [God] himself ” so that
God could turn it back only if He would “deny his own justice and
goodnesse” (Anthony Burgess, Vindiciae Legis, 1646). Ralph Venning
expressed the view succinctly, declaring, “To find fault with the Law,
were to find fault with God” (Sin, the Plague of Plagues, 1669).
Therefore, in Puritan theology the law of God, like its Author, is eter-
nal (cf., e.g., William Ames, The Marrow of Sacred Divinity, 1641, or
Edward Elton, Gods Holy Minde Touching Matters Morall, 1625). Every
jot and tittle of it was taken as having permanent validity. John Cran-
don stated in 1654, “Christ hath expunged no part of it” (Mr. Baxters
Aphorisms exorcized and Authorized). Christ’s confirmation of the law
of Moses was likened to a goldsmith newly minting a valuable coin
(Vavasor Powell, Christ and Moses Excellency, 1650) or a painter who
163. Ibid., 22–23.

Introduction to John Cotton’s Abstract of the Laws of New England 99
works over and recovers the glory of an older picture (Anthony Bur-
gess, Vindiciae Legis). “Every beleever ... is answerable to the obedience
of the whole Law,” said Thomas Taylor (Regula Vitae). Unlike modern
theologians, the Puritans did not seek clever schemes for shaving the
law of God down to the preconceived notions of man or society. The
validity of the law meant the validity of all the law.
Without doubt, this had tremendous implications for their approach
to civil government. One of the key functions of the law is that of
restraining sin (cf. the works by Burgess and Powell mentioned above).
The law does this by means of its sanctions. Thomas Manton noted
that “a law implies a sanction,” and Burgess commented that such sanc-
tion is imposed “that the Law may be the better obeyed.” Consequently,
the penal commandments of the law of God need to be enforced by
godly magistrates, for to fail in this matter is to violate God’s righteous
demand. The positive attitude of the Puritans toward every stroke of
God’s law led them to oppose {77} antinomianism in both theology and
politics. Indeed, as Henry Burton recognized in 1631, theological anti-
nomianism leads to political antinomianism (Law and Gospel Recon-
ciled). Therefore, a proper political order had to conform to the
dictates of God’s law. As Ernest F. Kevan says in his brilliant study, The
Grace of Law, A Study in Puritan Theology, “This acknowledgment of
the authority of the Law of God affected the attitude of the Puritans to
the civil law.”164
Because the Puritans were students of God’s word and held to its
unity and abiding authority, their thinking and living aimed to be gov-
erned by the principle that only God can diminish the requirements of
His law (Deut. 4:2). Not one jot or tittle of it was abrogated by the Mes-
siah (Matt. 5: 17–19), and hence no man dare tamper with its full
requirements. The law is to be used as a social restraint on crime (1 Tim.
1:8) as well as guidance in holy living for individuals. The state, no less
than any other area of life, was taken to be subject to God’s authority
via His written revelation. The magistrate cannot escape his obligation
164. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1965), 21. This was Kevan’s doctoral
dissertation at the University of London and is well worth the reader’s full examination.
The preceding quotations from the Puritan writers have been derived from Kevan’s
study.
to be “a minister of God” appointed as an avenger of God’s wrath

against evildoers—that is, against transgressors of God’s law (Rom.
13:1–7; cf. vv. 8–10). The civil leader is called to be a blessing to his
public, which can mean nothing other than following God’s prescribed
moral pattern. The magistrate is required to establish justice in the gate
(Amos 5:15), and justice is preeminently defined by the law of Moses
given to Israel (Deut. 4:8). Thus, when the statesman forgets the law of
God, he inevitably perverts justice (Prov. 31:5) and thereby betrays his
vocation. The Puritans took seriously the magistrate’s responsibility
not to swerve to the right or left of God’s revealed law (Deut. 17:18–
20). This law was not a standard of righteousness merely in Israel; it is
universal in its application and demand, for God does not have a dou-
ble standard (cf. Deut. 25:13–16). The justice of God’s law has been
established as a light to the peoples (Isa. 51:4; Matt: 5:14, 17); it should
guide their steps just as it was intended to guide the steps of Israel in
ethics. God’s law binds all nations and their leaders, for sin is a disgrace
to any people (Prov. 14:34). This truth led David to promote God’s law
before kings (Ps. 119:46) and to declare that all rulers must fear the
Lord in their government and become thereby a blessing to the people
(2 Sam: 23:3–4). The kings and judges of all the earth, then, are called
upon to serve the Lord with fear (Ps. 2:10–12). Having learned these
truths well, the Puritans had to conclude that it is an abomination for
kings to violate the law of God, for in so doing justice is perverted and
the people are brought under oppression (Prov. 16:12; 28:28). There-
fore, {78} the New England Puritans sought a government which
would enforce God’s commandments, knowing that the sure word of
the sovereign Lord required, endorsed, and undergirded this project.
Among the Puritans who came to America, John Cotton (1584–
1652) stands out as one of most prominent and influential pacesetters
and theologians of the Massachusetts Bay Colony. A convert under the
ministry of Richard Sibbes, Cotton created enough of a reputation and
stir in England that he was summoned before the High Court to
answer to William Laud in 1632. However, the well-organized Puritan
underground concealed him and enabled him to take flight to New
England, where his presence was eagerly anticipated. In Boston, Cotton
was a leader in Christian doctrine and ecclesiastical polity. His political
influence is here to be noted. In his work, A Discourse about Civil Gov-

ernment in a New Plantation whose Design is Religion (published in

Cambridge, 1663), Cotton (perhaps in association with John Daven-
port) wrote that a theocracy is the proper and best form of government
to endorse, and he defined a theocracy as where the Lord God is our
Governor and where the laws by which men rule are the laws of God
(14–15, original edition). A theocracy does not mean the erasing of the
distinction between church and state:
The best form was theocracy, which for Cotton meant separate but
parallel civil and ecclesiastical organizations framed on the evidence
of scriptures. Church and state, he believed, were of the same genus,
“order,” with the same author, “God,” and the same end, “God’s glory.”
On the level of species, however, the two diverged. Here the end of the
church was salvation of souls while that of the state was the preserva-
tion of society in justice.165
The law of God is binding on the civil magistrate, then, and the
government of the state ought to be molded in conformity to God’s
revealed direction. “The laws the godly would rule by were the laws of
God, and in all hard cases, the clergy could be consulted without
danger of a confusion of church and state.”166 Cotton’s attitude was that
“the more any law smells of man the more unprofitable.” Cotton and
his Puritan contemporaries applied the revealed law of God to the
state’s constitution and stipulations. If any provision of the civil code
was not explicitly warranted by God’s word, then it was looked upon
with great suspicion and accepted only with great caution. It should be
remarked here that, just as Cotton’s theocratic ideal did not confuse
church and state, neither did it blur the difference in Scripture between
cultic or restorative laws which anticipated the redemptive economy of
Christ and moral laws with eternal rectitude or holiness as their
essence. “Moses’ laws, Cotton affirmed, were ceremonial as well {79} as
moral, and the former were to be considered dead while the latter were
still binding in a civil state.”167
In May of 1636, Cotton was given his greatest opportunity to exert
his theological influence on the framing of the commonwealth when
165. Larzer Ziff, The Career of John Cotton: Puritanism and the American Experience
(Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1962), 97–98.
166. Ibid.
167. Ibid.

he was appointed to the constitutional committee charged with draft-

ing laws agreeable to God’s word for the new plantation. Cotton’s con-
tribution to the effort was his work, Moses His Judicials; the chapters on
crime and inheritance were drawn directly from the Scriptures.168 The
other chapters followed the existing civil code, with Cotton providing
the biblical support for its various articles. Cotton’s excellent work in
this regard had effect beyond Boston, being influential in the settle-
ments at New Haven and Southampton, Long Island. Later, on Decem-
ber 10, 1641, the Massachusetts Bay Colony adopted a biblically based
civil code authored by Nathaniel Ward (another Christian pastor) and
given scriptural annotations by John Cotton.169 It was called the Body
of Liberties, and it explicitly provided that no law was to be prescribed
contrary to the word of God.170 The 1648 Massachusetts Code was
based upon the Body of Liberties, and in turn it became the prototype
for the legislation of every other state constitution in the early days of
America.
A further manuscript written by John Cotton, but difficult for most
readers to obtain, is his An Abstract of the Laws of New England, As
They are Now Established, which was originally published in London in
1641. William Aspinwall republished it in 1655, unequivocally attribut-
ing it to John Cotton in the printer’s foreword to the reader. A copy of
the manuscript by this title was found in Cotton’s study after his death;
it was handwritten and agrees by and large with the Aspinwall publica-
tion. In the early archives of the Massachusetts Historical Society, the
work was bound along with Mr. Cotton’s Discourse on Civil Government
in a New Plantation whose Design is Religion. Thus, there is every rea-
son to assign its authorship to Cotton, even though the original publi-
cation was anonymous. It is quite likely that Cotton was assisted in this
work by Sir Henry Vane, the Massachusetts governor in 1636, whom
Milton highly commended for properly seeing the bounds of civil and
168. Cf. Isabel M. Calder’s study in Publications of the Colonial Society of

Massachusetts 28 (Boston, 1935): 86–94.
169. George L. Haskins, Law and Authority in Early Massachusetts (New York:
Macmillan Co., 1960), 130, 199.
170. Cf. Puritan Political Ideas, ed. Edmund S. Morgan (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill,
1965).
religious power. Vane was a great friend of Cotton’s and shared the
same political and religious principles with him.
The character of this important historical piece is evident from its
lengthy subtitle: “wherein, as in a mirror, may be seen the wisdom and
{80} perfection of Christ’s kingdom, accommodable to any state or
form of government in the world, that is not antichristian and tyranni-
cal.” Cotton was convinced that believers ought to promote the pattern
of justice embodied in God’s revealed law as the guideline for any civil
community. Indeed, God’s law is the only alternative to despotism as he
saw it. A godly state will bring its laws into conformity with God’s,
thereby serving His just ends in society.
A copy of this document is reprinted below, serving as an illustration
of a civil code which attempted to be founded upon the word of God. It
is taken from the Collection of the Massachusetts Historical Society For
the Year 1798, volume 5 (Boston: Samuel Hall, 1798, reprinted 1835),
pages 173–187. It deserves the serious attention of all those concerned
with the Christian reconstruction of society along godly and God-
pleasing lines. Today we are seeing a renewed interest in the Christian’s
obligation to be the light of the world and salt of the earth—in seeing
the influence of Christian faith permeate every aspect of life and effect
a widespread cultural renovation. As usual, history has instructive les-
sons for us here. The seventeenth-century Puritans laid a groundwork
and forged a path to which today’s Christian should pay attention.
This is not to say that everything we find written in Cotton’s work
should meet with our approval. Indeed, a disclaimer is necessary. There
are matters which today’s Bible student may wish to dispute in Cotton’s
analysis (e.g., in chapter 7, article 24, Cotton appears to make all per-
jury punishable by death, whereas the law of God more strictly says
that the false witness is to receive whatever punishment would have
been due to the accused—and that was not always death). There is
surely room to challenge some of his conclusions or applications (e.g.,
price and wage controls in chapter 5). Thus the reader should not
understand that the reprinting of Cotton’s work constitutes a blanket
endorsement of each of his various positions. Nevertheless, the docu-
ment is of significant weight in the history of Christian thought, and it
should not be lost from sight. Its noble attempt to bring God’s law to

bear on the civil magistrate in a real historical situation should serve as

an encouragement, a rebuke, and an ideal for us today.
Given this document’s publication in London in 1641, it also pro-
vides valuable background to Reformed thought at the time of the
Westminster Assembly, which convened just two years later. Reflecting
popular Reformed sentiment with respect to civil government at that
time, this work can be of hermeneutical benefit when it comes to
present-day understanding of the Westminster Confession’s declara-
tions about God’s law and the civil magistrate.
A further observation should be made for the reader prior to repro-
ducing Cotton’s Abstract here. Although it is quite evident at many spe-
cific points that the author was grounding his legislation in the law of
God, since {81} he gave concrete scriptural citations along with his
articles, the reader must not overlook the fact that in many other places
Cotton simply quoted the Mosaic law and, expecting his reader’s
acquaintance with God’s word, did not attach a scriptural citation. For
instance, chapter 6 in the Abstract (“Of Trespasses”) has no biblical
citations listed, and yet it comes right out of Exodus 22. The effort to
build on God’s law is evidenced, then, throughout the work.
Finally, we can introduce John Cotton’s Abstract of the Laws of New
England by quoting from Aspinwall’s “Address to the Reader” in the
1655 reprinting of it:
[This model] far surpasseth all the municipal laws and statutes of any
of the Gentile nations and corporations under the cope of Heaven.
Wherefore I thought it not unmeet to publish it to the view of all, for
the common good.... Judge equally and impartially, whether there be
any laws in any state in the world, so just and equal as these be. Which,
were they duly attended unto, would undoubtedly preserve inviolable
the liberty of the subject against all tyrannical and usurping powers....
This Abstract may serve for this use principally (which I conceive was
the main scope of that good man, who was the author of it) to show
the complete sufficiency of the word of God alone, to direct his people
in judgment of all causes, both civil and criminal.... But the truth is,
both they and we, and other the Gentile nations, are loth to be per-
suaded to ... lay aside our old earthly forms of governments, to submit
to the government of Christ. Nor shall we Gentiles be willing I fear, to
take up his yoke which is easy, and burthen light, until he hath broken
us under the hard and heavy yokes of men, and thereby weaned us
from all our old forms and customs.... So that there will be a necessity,

that the little stone, cut out of the mountain without hands should
crush and break these obstacles ere the way can be prepared for erect-
ing his kingdom, wherein dwells righteousness.—And verily great will
be the benefit of this kingdom of Christ, when it shall be submitted
unto by the nations ... [Ps. 95:10; Isa. 66:12]. All burdens and tyranni-
cal exactions will be removed; God will make their officers peace, and
their exactors righteousness, Isa. 60:17.
AN ABSTRACT OF THE LAWS OF NEW ENGLAND,

AS THEY ARE NOW ESTABLISHED.
Printed in London in 1641.
From: Collections of the Massachusetts
Historical Society (1798); reprinted 1835.
John Cotton
The Contents.
Chap. I. Of magistrates, 82
Chap. II. Of the free burgesses and free inhabitants, 84
Chap. III. Of the protection and provision of the country, 85
Chap. IV. Of the right of inheritance, 86
Chap. V. Of commerce, 88
Chap. VI. Of trespasses, 89
Chap. VII. Of crimes, 90
Chap. VIII. Of other crimes less heinous, such as are to be punished
with some corporal punishment or fine, 91
Chap. IX. Of the trial of causes, whether civil or criminal, and the
execution of sentence, 92
Chap. X. Of the causes criminal, between our people and foreign
nations, 93
CHAPTER I.
Of Magistrates.
1. ALL magistrates are to be chosen. Deut. 1:13, 17, 15.
First, By the free burgesses.
Secondly, Out of the free burgesses.
Thirdly, Out of the ablest men and most approved amongst them.
Ex. 18, 21.
Fourthly, Out of the rank of noblemen or gentlemen among them,
the best that God shall send into the country, if they be qualified with
gifts fit for government, either eminent above others, or not inferior to
others. Eccle. 10:17, Jer. 30:21.
2. The governor hath power, with the assistants, to govern the whole
country, according to the laws established, hereafter mentioned: he
hath power of himself, and in his absence the deputy-governor, to
moderate all public actions of the Commonwealth, as {83}
First, To send out warrants for calling of the general court. Josh. 24:1.
Secondly, To order and ransack all actions in the court where he sit-
teth: as, to gather suffrages and voices, and to pronounce sentences
according to the greater part of them.
3. The power of the governor, with the rest of the counsellors, is
First, To consult and provide for the maintenance of the state and peo-
ple. Num. 11:14–16.
Secondly, To direct in all matters, wherein appeal is made to them
from inferior courts. Deut. 17:8–9.
Thirdly, To preserve religion. Ex. 32:25, 27.
Fourthly, To oversee the forts and munition of the country, and to
take order for the protection of the country from foreign invasion, or
intestine sedition, as need shall require, with consent of the people to
enterprise wars. Prov. 24:5.
And because these great affairs of the state cannot be attended, nor
administered, if they be after changed; therefore the counselors are to
be chosen for life, unless they give cause of removal, which if they do,
then they are to be removed by the general court. [1] Kings 2:6.
4. The power of the governor, sitting with the counsellors and assist-
ants, is to hear and determine all causes whether civil or criminal,
which are brought before him through the whole Commonwealth: yet
reserving liberty of appeal from him to the general court. Ex. 18:22. Deut.
1:16, 18.
5. Every town is to have judges within themselves, whose power shall
be once in the month, or in three months at the farthest, to hear and
determine both civil causes and pleas of less value, and crimes also,

which are not capital: yet reserving liberty of appeal to the court of
governor and assistants. [Deut. 1:16, 18].
6. For the better expedition and execution of justice, and of all affairs
incident unto every court; every court shall have certain officers, as a
secretary to enrol all the acts of the court; and besides ministers of jus-
tice, to attach and fetch, and set persons before the magistrates; and
also to execute the sentence of the court upon offenders: and for the
same end it shall be lawful for the governor or any one or two of the
counsellors, or assistants, or judges, to give warrants to an officer, to
fetch any delinquent before them, and to examine the cause, and if he
be found culpable of that crime, to take order by surety or safe custody
for his appearance at the court. Deut. 16:18. [Deut. 1:16, 18]. Jer. 36:10,
12. 1 Sam. 20:24–25. Acts 5:26–27.
And further for the same end, and to prevent the offenders lying
long in prison, it shall be lawful for the governor, with one of the coun-
cil, or any two of the assistants or judges, to see execution done upon
any offenders for any crime that is not capital, according to the laws
established: yet {84} reserving a liberty of appeal from them to the court,
and from an inferior court to a higher court.
CHAPTER II.
Of the free Burgesses and free Inhabitants.
1. FIRST, all the free burgesses, excepting such as were admitted men
before the establishment of churches in the country, shall be received
and admitted out of the members of some or others of the churches in
the country, such churches as are gathered or hereafter shall be gath-
ered with the consent of other churches already established in the
country, and such members as are admitted by their own church unto
the Lord’s table.
2. These free burgesses shall have power to choose in their own
towns, fit and able men out of themselves, to be the ordinary judges of
inferior causes, in their own town; and, against the approach of the
general court, to choose two or three, as their deputies and committees,
to join with the governor and assistants of the whole country, to make
up and constitute the general court.
3. This general court shall have power,

First, By the warrant of the governor, or deputy-governor, to assem-

ble once every quarter, or half a year, or oftener, as the affairs of the
country shall require, and to sit together till their affairs be dispatched.
Secondly, To call the governor, and all the rest of the public magis-
trates and officers into place, and to call them also to account for the
breach of any laws established, or other misdemeanor, and to censure
them as the quality of the fact may require.
Thirdly, To make and repeal laws.
Fourthly, To dispose of all lands in the country, and to assign them to
several towns or persons, as shall be thought requisite.
Fifthly, To impose of monies a levy, for the public service of the
Commonwealth, as shall be thought requisite for the provision and pro-
tection of the whole.
Sixthly, To hear and determine all causes, wherein appeals shall be
made unto them, or which they shall see cause to assume into their
own cognizance or judicature.
Seventhly, To assist the governors and counsellors, in the mainte-
nance of the purity and unity of religion; and accordingly to set forth
and uphold all such good causes as shall be thought fit, for that end, by
the advice and with consent of the churches, and to repress the con-
trary.
Eighthly, In this general court nothing shall be concluded but with
the common consent of the greater part of the governors, or assistants,
together with the greater part of the deputies of the towns; unless it be
in election of {85} officers, where the liberty of the people is to be pre-
ferred, or in judging matters of offence against the law, wherein both
parties are to stand to the direction of the law.
4. All the householders of every town shall be accounted as the free
inhabitants of the country, and accordingly shall enjoy freedom of
commerce, and inheritance of such lands as the general court or the
several towns wherein they dwell, shall allot unto them, after they have
taken an oath, or given other security to be true and faithful to the
state, and subject to the good and wholesome laws established in the
country by the general court.

CHAPTER III.
Of the Protection and Provision of the Country.
1. FIRST, a law to be made (if it be not made already) for the training
of all men in the country, fit to bear arms, into the exercise of military
discipline and withal another law to be made for the maintenance of
military officers and forts.
2. Because fishing is the chief staple commodity of the country,
therefore all due encouragement to be given unto such hands as shall
set forwards the trade of fishing: and for that end a law to be made, that
whosoever shall apply themselves to set forward the trade of fishing, as
fishermen, mariners, and shipwrights, shall be allowed, man for man,
or some or other of the labourers of the country, to plant and reap for
them, in the season of the year, at the public charge of the common-
wealth, for the space of seven years next ensuing; and such labourers to
be appointed and paid by the treasurer of the commonwealth.
3. Because no commonwealth can maintain either their authority at
home, or their honor and power abroad, without a sufficient treasury: a
law therefore to be made for the electing and furnishing of the treasury
of the commonwealth, which is to be supplied and furnished,
1st. By the yearly payment,
First, Of one penny, or half a penny an acre of land to be occupied
throughout the country. Land in common by a town, to be paid for out
of the stock or treasury of the same town.
Secondly, Of a penny for every beast, horse or cow.
Thirdly, Of some proportionable rate upon merchants.—This rate to
be greater or less, as shall be thought fit.
2d. By the payment of a barrel of gunpowder, or such goods or other
munitions, out of every ship that bringeth foreign commodities.
3d. By fines and mulets upon trespassers’ beasts. {86}
4. A treasurer to be chosen by the free burgesses, out of the assis-
tants, who shall receive and keep the treasury, and make disbursements
out of it, according to the direction of the general court, or of the gov-
ernor or counsellors, whereof they are to give an account to the general
court. It shall pertain also to the office of the treasurer, to survey and
oversee all the munitions of the country, as cannons, culverins, mus-
kets, powder, match, bullets, &c. and to give account thereof to the gov-
ernor and council.
5. A treasury also, or magazine, or storehouse, to be erected, and fur-

nished in every town, [as Deut. 14:28] distinct from the treasury of the
church, that provision of corn, and other necessaries, may be laid up at
the best hand, for the relief of such poor as are not members of the
church: and that out of it such officers may be maintained, as captains
and such like, who do any public service for the town. But chiefly, this
treasury will be requisite for the preserving of the livelihood of each
town within itself. That in case the inheritance of the lands that belong
to any town come to be alienated from the townsmen, which may
unavoidably fall out; yet a supply may be had and made to the liveli-
hood of the town, by a reasonable rent charge upon such alienations,
laid by the common consent of the landowners and townsmen, and to
be paid into the treasury of the town. This treasury to be supplied,
First, By the yearly payment of some small rate upon acres of land.
Secondly, By fines and amercements put upon trespassers’ beasts.
A town treasurer to be appointed for the oversight and ordering of
this, chosen out of the free burgesses of the same town, who is so to
dispose of things under his charge, according to the direction of the
judges of the town, and to give account, at the town’s court, to the
judges and free burgesses of the town, or to some selected by them.
CHAPTER IV.
Of the right of Inheritance.
1. FIRST, forasmuch as the right of disposals of the inheritance of all
lands in the country lyeth in the general court, whatsoever lands are
given and assigned by the general court, to any town or person, shall
belong and remain as right of inheritance to such towns and their suc-
cessors, and to such persons and to their heirs and assigns forever, as
their propriety.
2. Whatsoever lands, belonging to any town, shall be given and
assigned by the town, or by such officers therein as they shall appoint,
unto any person, the same shall belong and remain unto such person
and his heirs and assigns, as his proper right forever.
3. And in dividing of lands to several persons in each town, as regard
is to be had, partly to the number of persons in a family—to the more,
assigning {87} the greater allotment, to the fewer, less—and partly by
the number of beasts by which a man is fit to occupy the land assigned
to him, and subdue it; eminent respect, in this case, may be given to
men of eminent quality and descent, in assigning unto them more large
and honorable accommodations, in regard of their great disbursements
to public charges.
4. Forasmuch as all civil affairs are to be administered and ordered,
so as may best conduce to the upholding and setting foward of the wor-
ship of God in church fellowship; it is therefore ordered, that whereso-
ever the lands of any man’s inheritance shall fall, yet no man shall set
his dwelling-house above the distance of half a mile, or a mile at the
farthest, from the meeting of the congregation, where the church doth
usually assemble for the worship of God.
5. Inheritances are to descend naturally to the next of kin, according
to the law of nature, delivered by God.
6. Observe, if a man have more sons than one, then a double portion
to be assigned and bequeathed to the eldest son, according to the law of
nature; unless his own demerit do deprive him of the dignity of his
birthright.
7. The will of a testator is to be approved or disallowed by the court
of governor and assistants, or by the court of judges in each town: yet
not to be disallowed by the court of governors, unless it appears either
to be counterfeit, or unequal, either against the law of God, or against
the due right of the legators.
8. As God in old time, in the commonwealth of Israel, forbade the
alienation of lands from one tribe to another; so to prevent the like
inconvenience in the alienation of lands from one town to another, it
were requisite to be ordered:
1st. That no free burgess, or free inhabitant of any town, shall sell the
land allotted to him in the town, (unless the free burgesses of the town
give consent unto such sale, or refuse to give due price, answerable to
what others offer without fraud), but to some one or other of the free
burgesses or free inhabitants of the same town.
2d. That if such lands be sold to any others, the sale shall be made
with reservation of such a rent charge, to be paid to the town stock, or
treasury of the town, as either the former occupiers of the land were
wont to pay towards all the public charges thereof, whether in church
or town; or at least after the rate of three shillings per acre, or some
such like proportion, more or less, as shall be thought fit.

3d. That if any free burgesses, or free inhabitants, of any town, or the
heir of any of their lands, shall remove their dwelling from one town to
another, none of them shall carry away the whole benefit of the lands
which they possessed, from the towns whence they remove: but if they
still keep the right of inheritance in their own hands, and not sell it as
before, {88} then they shall reserve a like proportion or rent charge out
of their land, to be paid to the public treasury of the town, as hath been
wont to be paid out of it to the public charges of the town and church,
or at least after the rate of three or five shillings an acre, as before.
4th. That if the inheritance of a free burgess, or free inhabitant of any
town, fall to his daughters, as it will do for defect of heirs male, that
then if such daughters do not marry to some of the inhabitants of the
same town where their inheritance lyeth, nor sell their inheritance to
some of the same town as before, that then they reserve a like propor-
tion of rent charge out of their lands, to be paid to the public treasury
of the town, as hath been wont to be paid out of them, to the public
charge, of the town and church; or at least after the rate of three or five
shillings an acre; provided always that nothing be paid to the mainte-
nance of the church out of the treasury of the church or town, but by
the free consent and direction of the free burgesses of the town.
CHAPTER V.
Of Commerce.
1. FIRST, it shall be lawful for the governor, with one or more of the
council, to appoint a reasonable rate of prices upon all such commodi-
ties as are, out of the ships, to be bought and sold in the country.
2. In trucking or trading with the Indians, no man shall give them,
for any commodity of theirs, silver or gold, or any weapons of war,
either guns or gunpowder, nor swords, nor any other munition, which
might come to be used against ourselves.
3. To the intent that all oppression in buying and selling may be
avoided, it shall be lawful for the judges in every town, with the consent
of the free burgesses, to appoint certain selectmen, to set reasonable
rates upon all commodities, and proportionably to limit the wages of
workmen and labourers; and the rates agreed upon by them, and rati-
fied by the judges, to bind all the inhabitants of the town. The like
course to be taken by the governor and assistants for the rating of
prizes throughout the country, and all to be confirmed, if need be, by

the general court.
4. Just weights and balances to be kept between buyers and sellers,
and for default thereof, the profit so wickedly and corruptly gotten,
with as much more added thereto, is to be forfeited to the public trea-
sury of the commonwealth.
5. If any borrow ought of his neighbour upon a pledge, the lender
shall not make choice of what pledge he will have, nor take such a
pledge as is {89} of daily necessary use unto the debtor, or if he does
take it, he shall restore it again the same day.
6. No increase to be taken of a poor brother or neighbour, for any
thing lent unto him.
7. If borrowed goods be lost or hurt in the owner’s absence, the bor-
rower is to make them good; but in the owner’s presence, wherein he
seeth his goods no otherwise used than with his consent, the borrower
shall not make them good; if they were hired, the hire to be paid and no
more.
CHAPTER VI.
Of Trespasses.
1. IF a man’s swine, or any other beast, or a fire kindled, break out
into another man’s field or corn, he shall make full restitution, both of
the damage made by them, and of the loss of time which others have
had in carrying such swine or beasts unto the owners, or unto the fold.
But if a man puts his beasts or swine into another’s field, restitution is
to be made of the best of his own, though it were much better than that
which were destroyed or hurt.
2. If a man kill another man’s beast, or dig and open a pit, and leave it
uncovered, and a beast fall into it; he that killed the beast and the
owner of the pit, shall make restitution.
3. If one man’s beast kills the beast of another, the owner of the beast
shall make restitution.
4. If a man’s ox, or other beast, gore or bite, and kill a man or woman,
whether child or riper age, the beast shall be killed, and no benefit of
the dead beast reserved to the owner. But if the ox, or beast, were wont
to push or bite in time past, and the owner hath been told of it, and
hath not kept him in, then both the ox, or beast, shall be forfeited and
killed, and the owner also put to death, or fined to pay what the judges
and persons damnified shall lay upon him.
5. If a man deliver goods to his neighbour to keep, and they be said
to be lost or stolen from him, the keeper of the goods shall be put to his
oath touching his own innocency; which if he take, and no evidence
appear to the contrary, he shall be quit: but if he be found false or
unfaithful, he shall pay double unto his neighbour. But if a man take
hire for goods committed to him, and they be stolen, the keeper shall
make restitution. But if the beast so kept for hire, die or be hurt, or be
driven away, no man seeing it, then oath shall be taken of the keeper,
that it was without his default, and it shall be accepted. But if the beast
be torn in pieces, and a piece be brought for a witness, it excuseth the
keeper. {90}
CHAPTER VII.
Of Crimes. And first, of such as deserve capital punishment, or
cutting off from a man’s people, whether by death or banishment.
1. FIRST, blasphemy, which is a cursing of God by atheism, or the
like, to be punished with death.
2. Idolatry to be punished with death.
3. Witchcraft, which is fellowship by covenant with a familiar spirit,
to be punished with death.
4. Consulters with witches not to be tolerated, but either to be cut off
by death or banishment.
5. Heresy, which is the maintenance of some wicked errors, over-
throwing the foundation of the christian religion; which obstinacy, if it
be joined with endeavour to seduce others thereunto, to be punished
with death; because such an heretick, no less than an idolater, seeketh
to thrust the souls of men from the Lord their God.
6. To worship God in a molten or graven image, to be punished with
death.
7. Such members of the church, as do wilfully reject to walk, after
due admonition and conviction, in the churches’ establishment, and
their christian admonition and censures, shall be cut off by banish-
ment.

8. Whosoever shall revile the religion and worship of God, and the
government of the church, as it is now established, to be cut off by ban-
ishment. [1] Cor. 5:5.
9. Wilful perjury, whether before the judgment seat or in private
conference, to be punished with death.
10. Rash perjury, whether in public or in private, to be punished with
banishment. Just is it, that such a man’s name should be cut off from his
people who profanes so grosly the name of God before his people.
11. Profaning of the Lord’s day, in a careless and scornful neglect or
contempt thereof, to be punished with death.
12. To put in practice the betraying of the country, or any principal
fort therein, to the hand of any foreign state, Spanish, French, Dutch, or
the like, contrary to the allegiance we owe and profess to our dread
sovereign, lord king Charles, his heirs and successors, whilst he is
pleased to protect us as his loyal subjects, to be punished with death.
Num. 12:14–15.
13. Unreverend and dishonorable carriage to magistrates, to be pun-
ished with banishment for a time, till they acknowledge their fault and
profess reformation.
14. Reviling of the magistrates in highest rank amongst us, to wit, of
the governors and council, to be punished with death. 1 Kings 2:8–9, &
46.
15. Rebellion, sedition, or insurrection, by taking up arms against
the present government established in the country, to be punished with
death. {91}
16. Rebellious children, whether they continue in riot or drunken-
ness, after due correction from their parents, or whether they curse or
smite their parents, to be put to death. Ex. 21:15, 17. Lev. 20:9.
17. Murder, which is a wilful manslaughter, not in a man’s just
defence, nor casually committed, but out of hatred or cruelty, to be
punished with death. Ex. 21:12–13. Num. 35:16–18, to 33. Gen. 9:6.
18. Adultery, which is the defiling of the marriage-bed, to be pun-
ished with death. Defiling of a woman espoused, is a kind of adultery,
and punishable, by death, of both parties; but if a woman be forced,
then by the death of the man only. Lev. 20:10. Deut. 22:22 to 27.
19. Incest, which is the defiling of any near of kin, within the degrees
prohibited in Leviticus, to be punished with death.

20. Unnatural filthiness to be punished with death, whether sodomy,

which is a carnal fellowship of man with man, or woman with woman,
or buggery, which is a carnal fellowship of man or woman with beasts
or fowls.
21. Pollution of a woman known to be in her flowers, to be put to
death. Lev. 20:18–19.
22. Whoredom of a maiden in her father’s house, kept secret till after
her marriage with another, to be punished with death. Deut. 22:20–21.
23. Man-stealing to be punished with death. Ex. 21:16.
24. False-witness bearing to be punished with death.
CHAPTER VIII.
Of other Crimes less heinous, such as are to be punished
with some corporal punishment or fine.
1. FIRST, rash and profane swearing and cursing to be punished,
1st. With loss of honour, or office, if he be a magistrate, or officer:
meet it is, their name should be dishonoured who dishonoured God’s
name.
2d. With loss of freedom.
3d. With disability to give testimony.
4th. With corporal punishment, either by stripes or by branding him
with a hot iron, or boring through the tongue, who have bored and
pierced God’s name.
2. Drunkenness, as transforming God’s image into a beast, is to be
punished with the punishment of beasts: a whip for the horse, and a
rod for the fool’s back.
3. Forcing of a maid, or a rape, is not to be punished with death by
God’s law, but,
1st. With fine or penalty to the father of the maid.
2d. With marriage of the maid defiled, if she and her father consent.
{92}
3d. With corporal punishment of stripes for his wrong, as a real slan-
der: and it is worse to make a whore, than to say one is a whore.
4. Fornication to be punished,
1st. With the marriage of the maid, or giving her a sufficient dowery.
2d. With stripes, though fewer, from the equity of the former cause.

5. Maiming or wounding of a freeman, whether free burgess, or free

inhabitant, to be punished with a fine; to pay,
1st. For his cure.
2d. For his loss. Ex. 21:18–19. And with loss of member for member,
or some valuable recompence: but if it be but the maiming or wound-
ing of a servant, the servant is to go free from such a service. Lev.
24:19–20. Ex. 21:26–27.
6. If any man steal a beast, if it be found in his hand he shall make
restitution two for one; if it be killed and sold, restitution is to be made
of five oxen for one; if the thief be not able to make restitution, then he
is to be sold by the magistrate for a slave, till by his labour he may make
restitution. Ex. 22:1, 4.
7. If a thief be found breaking a house by night, if he be slain, his
smiter is guiltless; but in the daytime, the thief is to make full restitu-
tion as before; or if he be not able, then to be sold as before. Ex. 22:2.
8. Slanders are to be punished,
First, with a public acknowledgement, as the slander was public.
Secondly, By mulets and fine of money, when the slander bringeth
damage.
Thirdly, By stripes, if the slander be gross, or odious, against such
persons whom a man ought to honor and cherish; whether they be his
superiors, or in some degree of equality with himself and his wife.
CHAPTER IX.
Of the trial of causes, whether civil or criminal,
and the execution of sentence.
1. IN the trial of all causes, no judgment shall pass but either upon
confession of the party, or upon the testimony of two witnesses.
2. Trial by judges shall not be denied, where either the delinquent
requireth it in causes criminal, or the plaintiff or defendant in civil
causes, partly to prevent suspicion of partiality of any magistrates in
the court.
3. The jurors are not to be chosen by any magistrates, or officers, but
by the free burgesses of each town, as can give best light to the causes
depending in court, and who are least obnoxious to suspicion of par-
tiality; and the jurors then chosen, to be nominated to the court, and to
attend the service of the court. {93}
4. The sentence of judgment given upon criminal causes and per-

sons, shall be executed in the presence of the magistrates, or some of
them at least.
5. No freeman, whether free burgess or free inhabitant, to be
imprisoned, but either upon conviction, or at least probable suspicion,
or some crime, formerly mentioned; and the cause of his imprison-
ment, be declared and tried at the next court following, at the furthest.
6. Stripes are not to be inflicted, but when the crimes of the offender
are accompanied with childish or brutish folly, or with lewd filthiness,
or with stubborn insolency, or with brutish cruelty, or with idle
vagrancy; but when stripes are due, not above forty are to be inflicted.
CHAPTER X.
Of causes criminal, between our people and foreign nations.
1. IN case any of our people should do wrong to any other nation,
upon complaint made to the governor, or some other of the council or
assistants, the fact is diligently to be inquired into, and being found to
be true, restitution is to be made of the goods of offenders, as the case
shall require, according to the quality of the crime.
2. In case the people of another nation have done any important
wrong to any of ours, right is first to be demanded of the governor of
that people, and justice upon the malefactors, which if it be granted
and performed, then no breach of peace to follow. Deut. 20:10–11; 2
Sam. 20: 18–19.
3. If right and justice be denied, and it will not stand with the honor
of God and safety of our nation that the wrong be passed over, then war
is to be undertaken and denounced.
4. Some minister is to be sent forth to go along with the army, for
their instruction and encouragement. Deut. 20:2–4.
5. Men betrothed and not married, or newly married, or such as have
newly built or planted, and not received the fruits of their labor, and
such as are faint-hearted men, are not to be pressed or forced against
their wills to go forth to wars. Deut. 20:5–7, 8, & 24:5.
6. Captains are to be chosen by the officers.
7. All wickedness is to be removed out of the camp by severe disci-
pline. Deut. 23:9, 14.

8. And in war men of a corrupt and false religion are not to be

accepted, much less sought for. 2 Chron. 25:7–8.
9. Women, especially such as have not lain by man, little children,
and cattle, are to be spared and reserved for spoil. Deut. 20:14. {94}
10. Fruit trees, whilst they may be of use for meat to our own sol-
diers, are not to be cut down and destroyed, and consequently no corn.
Deut. 20: 19–20.
11. The spoils got by war are to be divided into two parts, between
the soldier and the commonwealth that sent them forth. Num. 31:27.
12. A tribute from both is to be levied to the Lord, and given to the
treasury of the church; a fiftieth part out of the commonwealth’s part,
and a five hundredth part out of the soldiers’ part. Num. 31:28–29, &
47.
13. If all the soldiers return again in peace, not one lacking, it is
acceptable to the Lord if they offer, over and above the former tribute, a
voluntary oblation unto the treasury of the church for a memorial of
the redemption of their lives by the special providence and salvation of
the Lord of Hosts.
Isaiah 33:22
The Lord is our Judge,
The Lord is our Law-giver,
The Lord is our King: He will save us.
CAPITAL CRIMES IN THE MASSACHUSETTS

BODY OF LIBERTIES (1641 )171
1. If any man after legal conviction shall have or worship any other
god, but the Lord God, he shall be put to death. (Deut. 13:6, 10; Deut.
17:2, 6; Ex. 22:20)
171. Spelling modernized. Scripture references appear in the original charter. The
complete document is reproduced in Edmund S. Morgan, ed., Puritan Political Ideas
(Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1965), 178–203. “Capital Laws” were listed in section 94
of the Body of Liberties. This document served as Massachusetts’ first legal code. It was
written by the Rev. Nathaniel Ward, pastor of Ipswich, who had received ten years of
training and practice in the law in London. The Body of Liberties was thoroughly
discussed in the towns and General Court (colony legislature) before it was ratified.
2. If any man or woman be a witch (that is, has or consults with a

familiar spirit), they shall be put to death. (Ex. 22:18 ; Lev. 20:27 ; Deut.
18:10)
3. If any man shall blaspheme the name of God the Father, Son, or
Holy Ghost, with direct, express, presumptuous, or high handed blas-
phemy, or shall curse God in the like manner, he shall be put to death.
(Lev. 25:15–16)
4. If any person commits any willful murder, which is manslaughter,
committed upon premeditated malice, hatred, or cruelty, not in a man’s
necessary and just defense, nor by mere casualty against his will, he
shall be put to death. (Ex. 21:12; Num. 35:13–14, 30–31)
5. If any person slays another suddenly in his anger or cruelty of pas-
sion, he shall be put to death. (Num. 25 [35]:20–21; Lev. 24:17)
6. If any person shall slay another through guile, either by poisoning
or other such devilish practice, he shall be put to death. (Ex. 21:14)
7. If any man or woman shall lie with any beast or brute creature by
carnal copulation, they shall surely be put to death. And the beast shall
be slain and buried, and not eaten. (Lev. 20:15–16)
8. If any man lies with mankind as he lies with a woman, both of
them have committed abomination, they both shall surely be put to
death. (Lev. 20:13)
9. If any person commits adultery with a married or espoused wife,
the adulterer and adulteress shall surely be put to death. (Lev. 20:19,
and 18, 20; Deut. 22:23–24.
10. If any person steals a man or mankind, he shall surely be put to
death. (Ex. 21:16)
11. If any man rises up by false witness, wittingly and of purpose to
take away any man’s life, he shall be put to death. (Deut. 19:16, 18–19)
12. If any man shall conspire and attempt any invasion, insurrection,
or public rebellion against our commonwealth, or shall endeavor to
surprise any town or towns, fort or forts therein, or shall treacherously
and perfidiously attempt the alteration and subversion of our frame of
polity of government fundamentally, he shall be put to death.

NONAUTONOMY AND
SOME PURITAN DILEMMAS
Terrill I. Elniff
Modern historians, in their study of the Puritan mind and worldview,

have made much of what they call the “Puritan dilemma,” the apparent
paradox in so much of the Puritan life and thought between ideals and
reality, the flesh and the spirit, nominalism and realism, monism and
dualism, unity and diversity, abstinence and excess, between loving the
world but with “weaned affection.” Puritanism, writes Edmund Mor-
gan in his work, The Puritan Dilemma, did great things for England
and America, “but only by creating in the men and women it affected a
tension which was at best painful and at worst unbearable.”
Puritanism required that a man devote his life to seeking salvation,
but told him he was helpless to do anything but evil. Puritanism
required that he rest his whole hope in Christ but taught him that
Christ would utterly reject him unless before he was born God had
foreordained his salvation. Puritanism required that man refrain from
sin but told him he would sin anyhow. Puritanism required that he
reform the world in the image of God’s holy kingdom but taught him
that the evil of the world was incurable and inevitable. Puritanism
required that he work to the best of his ability at whatever task was set
before him and partake of the good things that God had filled the
world with, but told him he must enjoy his work and his pleasures
only, as it were, absentmindedly, with his attention fixed on God.172
This is a theme that runs through much of the modern treatment of
the Puritans. Perry Miller, in his Orthodoxy in Massachusetts, 1630–
1650, and in The New England Mind: The Seventeenth Century, sees the
history of Massachusetts Bay as a series of crises brought on by intellec-
tual dilemmas, each of which was resolved by the deft application of
Peter Ramus’s logic and Ames’s federal theology into a yet higher syn-
172. Edmund S. Morgan, The Puritan Dilemma: The Story of John Winthrop (Boston:
Little, Brown, 1958), 7–8.
thesis. Edmund Morgan traces the life of John Winthrop in much the
same terms.
Yet the existence of this fundamental paradox presents a problem to
the student of Puritanism. Looking back at the Puritan, the modern
historian can see the contradictions and dilemmas, but the Puritans
who preached the doctrines and formulated the policies and practices
seem blithely unaware {98} of them, or at least unconcerned about
them. Not that the contradictions failed to cause them problems—they
did, and the history of the first sixty years of the Massachusetts Bay
Colony contains a variety of efforts and adjustments designed to deal
with these problems. Yet the Puritan leaders never seemed to under-
stand that the problems were caused by the inherent contradictions of
the Puritan world and life view. At least in an age and climate that gave
careful attention to every problem, however minute, we find little in
the Puritan’s writings to indicate that he was aware of the fundamental
dilemma which Morgan describes. Why not? Did the Puritan have
some other view of the problems that we have not yet understood, so
that when they appeared, he was able to fit them into his mental frame-
work rather than being disillusioned by them? What understanding of
reality did the Puritan have that enabled him to cope realistically with
the problems of life without either denying his theological perspective
or separating from the world into isolation and asceticism? Further,
why did these problems arise in the first place, and, finally, if he was
able to cope with them realistically so well, why did the Holy Com-
monwealth fail ultimately?
It is my purpose in this essay to reexamine the Puritan’s own under-
standing of reality and its implications for his social and institutional
thought. It will be my contention that in the Puritan view of sin and of
authority we may find a key to the Puritan understanding of the Puri-
tan dilemma. We shall examine first the doctrines of authority and sin,
then apply them in a survey of the Puritan institutions of church and
state, and the concept of liberty, and conclude with a survey of the
major Puritan dilemmas and their causes.
The Purity of the Church

John Cotton did not believe in the Puritan dilemma.

Nonautonomy and Some Puritan Dilemmas 123
In 1636, as word filtered back to England about New England’s new

“way” of doing things in church and state, Lord Say and Seal, a Puritan
nobleman who was considering emigration to New England, wrote to
John Cotton, one of Massachusetts’ leading apologists for the “way,” of
restricting the franchise to the limited church membership of “visible
saints.” “How can you justify such a policy?” Say apparently asked.
Won’t this make the church the main influence in human affairs, draw-
ing all things “under the determination of the church” (as Cotton sum-
marized it)? What happens when the magistrates and the church
differ? Won’t this ultimately throw the commonwealth into distractions
and “popular confusions”?
Cotton’s reply to Say’s letter sets forth, in summary fashion, all the
essentials of the Puritan view of political structure and philosophy: the
division of power between church and state, the limitation of the fran-
chise {99} to church members, the necessity of theocracy in both
church and state, and his classical refutation of “democracy”— “If the
people be governors, who shall be governed?”173
Having said all that, Cotton turns his attention to the charge that the
New England Way will lead to distractions and popular confusion,
answering that,
These three things do not undermine, but do mutually and strongly
maintain one another (even those three which we principally aim at)
authority in magistrates, liberty in people, purity in the church. Purity,
preserved in the church will preserve well-ordered liberty in the peo-
ple, and both of them together establish well-balanced authority in the
magistrates. God is the author of all these three, and neither is himself
the God of confusion, nor are his ways the ways of confusion, but of
peace.174
In this passage Cotton not only names the three principal aims of the
Holy Commonwealth, but also argues their relative importance and
interconnectedness. They are all of a piece; they stand or fall together.
Purity in the church is most important because on it depends the well-
ordered liberty of the people, and on both of these rests the well-bal-
anced authority of the magistrate. There can be no well-ordered liberty
173. Perry Miller and Thomas H. Johnson, The Puritans, vol. 1, rev. ed. (New York:
Harper and Row, 1963), 207–8.
174. Ibid., 212.
in the people or well-balanced authority in the magistrate apart from

the purity of the church. Let purity wane, and the effects will be felt in
the realms of liberty and authority. If Cotton is correct, I think his con-
cept would serve as a new key to the Puritan worldview, namely, the
dependence in Puritan thought on what Herman Dooyeweerd has
called the “religious root” of all human thought.175 Cornelius Van Til, a
contemporary orthodox theologian, has expressed the problem as one
of an “ultimate personal point of reference”:
In the last analysis, every theology or philosophy is personalistic.
Everything “impersonal” must be brought into relationship with an
ultimate personal point of reference. Orthodoxy takes the self-con-
tained ontological trinity to be this point of reference. The only alter-
native is to make man himself the final point of reference.176
Thus, the significance of what Cotton seems to be saying is that if well-
ordered liberty and well-balanced authority depend on the nature of
one’s spiritual condition and theological viewpoint, then it becomes
very important {100} to know what an individual believes and what his
society as a whole accepts as “public belief ” (the expression of truths
publicly taken for granted). This means that whenever there is a change
of content or appropriation in the system of belief, we ought to expect
certain changes in such tangible areas as the spheres of liberty in the
people and authority in the magistrate. Conversely, whenever we see a
change taking place in these areas, we ought to be able to trace it back
to a change in the belief-system. In other words, Cotton might have
said, it is out of the abundance of the heart that the mouth speaks.
Consequently, the key to social and political welfare in a society is the
content of the heart, that is, the seat of faith and belief, which content is
the meaning of “purity in the church.”
But Cotton seems to be saying even more than that: “God,” he says
“is the author of all these three....” With this statement Cotton asserts
the “nonautonomy” of human thought and temporal reality (though
neither he nor any of the other Puritans ever called it that), the concept
175. Herman Dooyeweerd, In the Twilight of Western Thought: Studies in the

Pretended Autonomy of Philosophical Thought (Nutley, NJ: Craig Press, [1960] 1968).
176. Quoted in Rousas John Rushdoony, The One and the Many: Studies in the
Philosophy of Order and Ultimacy (Nutley, NJ: Craig Press, 1971), 354.
that no part of the creation, including man or any part of man, can
claim autonomy or self-sufficiency in any way. That is, in Van Til’s
words, man’s “ultimate personal point of reference” is not in human
thought or any part of the temporal reality. Cotton, whom Van Til
would accept as “orthodox,” did just what Van Til says that orthodoxy
does: he made the self-contained ontological trinity (God) to be the
source and ultimate personal frame of reference.
And more: Cotton further asserts that God is not the author of con-
fusion, and His ways are not the ways of confusion, but of peace. For
this reason, I think Cotton would have been surprised to hear the mod-
ern historian discuss the “Puritan dilemma.”
There seems to be a fundamental difference between Cotton’s asser-
tion that God’s ways are the ways of peace and not of confusion and
Morgan’s assertion that Puritanism created a dilemma which was “at
best painful and at worst unbearable.”177 In this light, it is not hard to
see why the Puritan seemed to think that his problems were caused by
his critics and opponents and departures, not by his own inherent
inconsistencies. From the Puritan point of view, the appearance of a
dilemma in Puritan life and thought occurs only because the critic is
looking at the Puritan from an autonomous point of view, not accept-
ing either the basic need for spiritual and doctrinal purity as a basis for
sound thought in the tangible spheres of liberty and authority or the
presupposition of the nonautonomy of human thought and temporal
reality.
The Puritan idea of nonautonomy may be seen in every area of his
life, but the idea was spelled out most clearly in his concepts of author-
ity and of sin. In the first the Puritan bowed his will and conscience to
an {101} ultimate source of authority outside himself; in the second he
defined what it meant to turn away from the authority toward auton-
omy.
The Authority of the Bible

It was the Puritan’s view of authority that did most to make him a
“Puritan.” It is common to associate Puritanism with certain social
class movements and aspirations in the sixteenth century, but it is
177. Morgan, Puritan Dilemma, 7.

important to realize that the Puritans never started out to be dissenters

or revolutionaries. Alan Simpson has observed in regard to the revolu-
tionary social effect of Puritanism that
First, Puritanism never offered itself as anything but a doctrine of sal-
vation, and it addressed itself neither directly nor indirectly to social
class but to man as man. Secondly its attractions as a commitment
were such that it made converts in all classes—among aristocrats,
country gentry, businessmen, intellectuals, freeholders, and small
tradesmen.178
Puritanism was, instead, a theological interpretation of life.179 It was not
only a religious creed, writes Perry Miller, “it was a philosophy and a
metaphysic; it was an organization of man’s whole life, emotional and
intellectual, to a degree which has not been sustained by any
denomination stemming from it.”180
What brought the Puritans into clash with the civil and ecclesiastical
settlement was Puritanism’s radical insistence on judging civil and
ecclesiastical issues on the basis of the Bible, which they took to be the
Word of God; that is, in other words, by making revelation their theo-
logical interpretation of life. Miller has also pointed out, however, that
there was a “vast substratum” of agreement which actually existed
between the Puritans and their Anglican opponents, and that much of
what is today mistaken for Puritanism was actually the standard intel-
lectual climate (the truths taken for granted) of that day:
The vast substratum of agreement which actually underlay the dis-
agreement between Puritans and Anglicans is explained by the fact
that they were both the heirs of the Middle Ages. They still believed
that all knowledge was one, that life was unified, that science, eco-
nomics, political theory, aesthetic standards, rhetoric and art, all were
organized in a hierarchical scale of values that tended upward to the
end-all and be-all of creation, the glory of God.181
178. Alan Simpson, Puritanism in Old and New England (Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1955), 11.
179. C. Gregg Singer, A Theological Interpretation of American History (Nutley, NJ:
Presbyterian and Reformed, [1964] 1969), 9.
180. Miller and Johnson, The Puritans, vol. 1, 4.
181. Ibid., 10.

The rest, Miller says, the “relatively small number” of disputed ideas,
{102} “made all the difference between the Puritan and his fellow-
Englishmen,” so much difference that he was willing to leave England
and migrate to the wilderness “rather than submit to apparent
defeat.”182 This should indicate for us how seriously the Puritan took
the matter of biblical truth and “discipline out of the word.”
To understand how this came about, it is necessary to go back to the
history of the Reformation in England. During the 1530s, King Henry
VIII had repudiated the Roman Catholic Church for personal reasons
and established the Church of England. When his 10-year-old son
Edward inherited the throne in 1547, a group of English reformers
gained an important influence in his court and were able to take some
first steps toward reforming the English church in Protestant direc-
tions. But when Mary came to the throne in 1553, she returned the
church to the Roman fold, and the English reformers were executed or
exiled. Then, in 1558, Queen Elizabeth came to the throne. The exiles
returned and began again to agitate for reform in the Church of
England. In 1559, what was called the Elizabethan Settlement was
enacted, containing two major acts, the Act of Supremacy, which made
Elizabeth the supreme governor of the church, and the Act of Unifor-
mity, which authorized a “slightly moderated version” of the prayer
book which had been developed in Edward’s day.183 In 1563, the doc-
trinal standard of the Thirty-nine Articles and set forms of worship
and common prayer were adopted.
It was during this period of time that what is called Puritanism
began to develop. The term itself was originally used as a kind of slur,
implying that those who believed, as the Puritans did, in purifying the
church were Donatists, or perfectionists, an ancient heresy which
Augustine had fought against in the fifth century. But, slur or not, the
Reformers picked up the term and used it in their campaign to com-
plete all of the implications of the Reformation and of Protestant doc-
trine in church and state. The American Puritans left England in the
culmination of a long dispute between those who favored this Elizabe-
182. Ibid., 7.
183. Sidney Ahlstrom, A Religious History of the American People (New Haven, CT:
Yale University Press, 1972), 89.
than Settlement of 1559 and those who opposed it. Thus, the Puritan
found himself confronted, writes Simpson, “by that Anglican piety
which had developed side by side, and in conflict with his own, within
the framework of the Establishment erected by Queen Elizabeth.” The
complexion of that settlement was “thoroughly frustrating” to the Puri-
tan.184 Simpson’s summary of the Puritan’s doctrinal problems with the
settlement is instructive:
He believed in the total depravity of nature; he was told that men were
not so fallen as he thought they were. He believed that the natural
{103} man had to be virtually reborn; he was told that he could grow
in grace. He believed that the sermon was the only means of bringing
saving knowledge and that the preacher should speak as a dying man
to dying men. He was told that there were many means of salvation,
that sermons by dying men to dying men were often prolix, irrational,
socially disturbing, and that what they had to say that was worth say-
ing had usually been better said in some set form that could be read
aloud. He demanded freedom for the saints to exercise their gifts of
prayer and prophecy, only to be told that the needs of the community
were better met by the forms of common prayer. He felt instinctively
that the church was where Christ dwelt in the hearts of the regenerate.
He was warned that such feelings threatened the prudent distinction
between the invisible church of the saved and the visible church of the
realm. He insisted that the church of the realm should be judged by
Scripture, confident that Scripture upheld him, and prepared to assert
that nothing which was not expressly commanded in Scripture ought
to be tolerated in the church. He was told that God had left much to
the discretion of human reason; that this reason was exercised by pub-
lic authority, which in England was the same for both church and
state; and that whatever authority enjoined in its large area of discre-
tion, ought to be loyally obeyed.185
The Thirty-nine Articles also caused another problem for the Puri-
tan dissenter in England, in that in requiring submission to these Arti-
cles and the set forms of worship which embodied them, the Church of
England was violating the Puritan’s liberty of conscience, which con-
science, the Puritan claimed, was to be subject only to the authority of
God. Thus, the difference between the Anglican and the Puritan was
184. Simpson, Puritanism, 8–9.

185. Ibid., 9.

not only or not so much a theological struggle as a difference in what

Clifford Shipton called “the locus of authority.”186
The Puritans’ locus of authority was in the Bible, the Word of God.
As Puritans in England began to seek for “discipline out of the Word,”
they began to work for a purification of the Church of England and for
a completion of the Reformation in England. They organized, “using
every available means for the infiltration of English life and conversion
of authority to their point of view”187—in the universities, the inns of
court, the commercial companies, municipalities, and Parliament.
They also began to search the Scriptures for the very forms and
models they should use in reforming England, especially the church
and its relation to the state, as well as the government of the church
itself. Throughout the controversies between the leaders of the estab-
lishment, on the one hand, and separatists on the other, the Puritan
non-conformist continued to insist {104} upon two things, each of
which contained an apparent paradox: (1) church and state must be
separated from each other in their functions, but the magistrate must
continue to be the “ordinance of God,” maintaining a civil orthodoxy in
doctrine and behavior; and (2) the churches must be independent con-
gregations of like-minded believers and yet in the aggregate were to
constitute a national and uniform church. These principles they
claimed to derive from their study of the Bible.
It was in the Word that they looked for the solution to these dilem-
mas, and it was to Massachusetts that they went to work them out in
the visible world. They went with the goal of reconciling the “spiritual
and political discord ... reform the magistrate, and the church, and
enforce complete obedience to it.”188 The occasion of their departure
was the dissolution of the Parliament in 1629. With it, their hopes for
reforming the church in England were dashed. Bishop William Laud
was given the responsibility of enforcing uniformity in the church, and
186. Clifford K. Shipton, “The Locus of Authority in Colonial Massachusetts,” in

George Athan Billias, ed., Law and Authority in Colonial America: Selected Essays (New
York: Dover, [1965] 1970), 147.
187. Simpson, Puritanism, 10.
188. Perry Miller, Orthodoxy in Massachusetts, 1630–1650 (Boston: Beacon Press,
1959), 100.
the Puritans were faced with the sad alternative of choosing between
their religious beliefs and their political loyalty, between their belief in
the king’s supremacy or their obedience to God, between surrendering
their heads to the block or obedience to their consciences under the
discipline of the Word. Yet, writes Miller,
Precisely at the moment when this dismal solution seemed to be the
only one which would ever come out of England, a new enterprise was
born, a way conceived of resolving the conflicting allegiances that had
not yet been thought of.…189
And not only was a door of liberty thrown open to those who were able
to walk through it, but “through a remarkable concatenation of events,”
the door had been opened “by the unwitting hand, ironically enough,
of no less a person than King Charles himself.”190
So it was that Governor John Winthrop could tell his Massachusetts-
bound audience on the Arabella in 1630 that
For the work we have in hand, it is by a mutual consent through a spe-
cial overruling providence, and a more than an ordinary approbation
of the churches of Christ to seek out a place of cohabitation and con-
sortship under a due form of government both civil and ecclesiasti-
cal.191
It is clear that the Puritan believed that the Bible is the Word of God
and that the Word of God is true, that is, true in the sense that its oppo-
site was not true. Miller writes,
That Protestantism appealed to the authority of the Bible against the
{105} authority of the Pope is a platitude of history. That the Calvin-
ists were vehement asserters of its finality is also common knowledge.
What is frequently forgotten is that without a Bible, this piety would
have confronted chaos. It could not have found guidance in reason,
because divine reason is above and beyond the human; not in the
church, because God is not committed to preserving the orthodoxy or
purity of any institution; not in immediate inspiration, because inward
promptings are as apt to come from the Devil as from God; not from
experimental science, because providence is arbitrary and unpredict-
able; not from philosophy, because philosophy arises from the senses
189. Ibid., 52.

190. Ibid., 101.

which are deceptive, or from innate ideas, which are corrupted, or

from definitions of the attributes, which are mental creations. Unless
the formless transcendence [God?] consents, at some moment in
time, to assume the form of man and to speak “after an humane man-
ner,” men will have nothing to go upon.192
Thus it was that in Jesus Christ, the transcendent God took on the
“form of man,” and in the Bible He spoke “after an humane manner.”
“Scripture,” said Calvin, “obtains the same credit and authority with
believers ... as if they heard the very words pronounced by God
Himself.”193
The authority of Scripture in the Puritan view was also transcendent
and not merely immanent. It was given by the condescension of the
“formless transcendence” and was not subject in any way to human
modification. William Ames argued in his Medulla “that scripture was
‘not a partial but a perfect rule of Faith and manners,’ and that nothing
in the Church depended in any way upon human tradition.”194 And
William Bradshaw wrote that “it is not left in the power of men, offic-
ers, churches, or any state in the world, to add, diminish, or alter any-
thing in the least measure therein.”195 And in the legal code of 1648,
the Massachusetts Bay Colony provided that “no human power [is]
Lord over the Faith and Conscience of men, and therefore may not
constrain them to believe or profess against their consciences.”196 New
Haven Colony passed a similar provision in 1656. The implication is
that the only power which can bind men’s consciences is the transcen-
dent power of the Word of God. This meant in practice a certain
human freedom of conscience, but necessarily premised on a nonauton-
omous submission to transcendent authority.
But even as he asserted that the Bible is true and its authority
transcendent, the Puritan always made a distinction between the abso-
lute truth of the Word of God (the truth as it really is) and his appre-
hension of that {106} truth (the truth as he saw it). The truth of the
192. Perry Miller, The New England Mind: The Seventeenth Century (Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press, 1954), 19–20.
193. Quoted in Miller, Orthodoxy, 15.
194. Ibid., 160.
195. Ibid.
196. Shipton, in Billias, Law, 142.

Word of God does not come from man, but has been revealed from
God—through holy men who spoke as they were moved by the Holy
Spirit. This had two consequent implications. First, whatever the Bible
said is absolutely true and not conditioned by time and place, condi-
tions, or circumstances. It might not tell him everything there is to
know or everything he wanted to know, but whatever it did tell him is
absolutely true. Miller has explained the Puritan view:
He has not therein uttered the naked truth about Himself, He has not
revealed His essence; His secret will remains secret still, as we witness
daily in the capricious orderings of providence. The Bible contains His
revealed will, tells men what is expected, but does not explain why, for
even if it were explained men could never understand their relation to
the whole drama of creation.197
Miller goes on to point out that this distinction between the revealed
and the unrevealed was one of the “fissures” in the “impregnable wall
of systematic theology” which left the Puritan open to intellectual
development.198 The Puritans would not have put it in those words,
not recognizing the contradiction, but they would have recognized the
privilege of work and study (within the bounds of nonautonomy) in
areas which had not been revealed.
The second implication of the Puritan’s distinction between absolute
truth and finite apprehension was the distinction between the fact of
truth and appropriation of truth. The Bible, therefore, is to be studied
by men and progressively appropriated. But there is no apprehension of
truth apart from the Bible. The Puritans, says Miller, “agreed on the
essential Christian contention that though God may govern the world,
He is not the world itself, and that though He instills His grace into
men, He does not deify them or unite them to Himself in one personal-
ity. He converses with men only through His revealed Word, the
Bible.... He delivers no new commands or special revelations to the
inward consciousness of men.” Shipton records that the Puritans
“thought of themselves as in a current sweeping toward a better knowl-
edge of God, a knowledge to be reached by learning and study, not by
unpredictable personal revelations.”199 Consequently, one of the results
197. Miller, New England Mind, 20.

198. Ibid., 21.

of sin is that man will never come to a full knowledge of reality, to

things “as they be,” because in sin man turns from God and His
truth.200 {107}
In these three ways, then, the Puritans took a nonautonomous view of
human authority: the truth and authority of the Bible is transcendent,
not immanent; true, but not exhaustive, and there, but only more or
less appropriated. According to the Puritan, “we must not be wise
‘above what is written’; if we inquire further into the mystery of the
Godhead than what is revealed, we will attain not knowledge but blind-
ness. The visible church is not founded upon the secret intention, ‘but
only on his revealed will signified in the Scriptures.’ ”201
This may have been the source of Puritanism’s secret strength. Miller
records that “Puritanism was regulated by the possibility of each man’s
achieving this insight [of reality] on whatever level of culture or educa-
tion he dwelt, with the aid of divine grace; the assumption was that
once this comprehension was gained, men would be able to live amid
disappointments without being disappointed, amid deceptions without
being deceived, amid temptations without yielding to them, amid cru-
elties without coming cruel.”202 And A. S. P. Woodhouse, noting the
Puritans’ sources of authority, observed that “the sense of special
insight into, and cooperation with, the purposes of God, is a distin-
guishing work of the Puritan, and it sets him at a distance from other
men. It is both a strength and a weakness. At its worst it issues in self-
righteousness.... But it nerved the arm and brought an access of cour-
age, which on any other premise would have been reckless.”203
199. Shipton, in Billias, Law, 144.

200. Perry Miller, “Puritan Spirituality and Predestination,” in David D. Hall,
Puritanism in Seventeenth-Century Massachusetts (New York: Holt, Rinehart, and
Winston, 1968), 12.
202. Miller, in Hall, Puritanism, 12.
203. A. S. P. Woodhouse, Puritanism and Liberty: Being the Army Debates (1647–49)
(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1951), 42.

Sin and the Assertion of Autonomy

It follows, then, that if the source of authority is a transcendent truth
in the Word of God, and the strength of the Puritan comes in his non-
autonomous submission to it, the nature of sin must in some way be
related to the issue of God’s transcendence and man’s nonautonomy;
that is, the turning away from God’s transcendence to man’s autonomy.
The Puritan’s concept of sin may be summarized briefly by recount-
ing the main points from Thomas Hooker’s sermon, “A True Sight of
Sin,” which Perry Miller describes as an “exhaustive analysis.”204
Hooker begins by pointing out that if we would gain a true sight of sin,
we must see sin “1. clearly 2. convincingly what it is in itself and what it
is to us, not in the appearance and point of it, but the power of it....”205
We must do this, Hooker says, because “it is one thing to say sin is thus
and thus, another thing to see it to be such; we must look wisely and
steadily upon our distempers, look sin in the face, and discern it to the
full; the want whereof {108} is the cause of mistaking our estates, and
not redressing of our hearts and ways.…206 Sin, in other words, is a
fact, not a theory; experience, not an idea just to be discussed; and real,
not imaginary. As there is a difference between the traveler who has
actually visited the extremities of the earth and the one who has merely
read about them, so there is a difference between him who has under-
stood the true nature of sin in himself and him who has merely heard
the doctrine preached:
The one sees the History of sin, the other the nature of it; the one
knows the relation of sin as it is mapped out, and recorded; the other
the poison, as by experience he both found and proved it. It’s one
thing to see a disease in the book or in a man’s body, another thing to
find and feel it in a man’s self. There is the report of it, here the malig-
nity and venom of it.207
What, then, is the malignity and venom of sin? Hooker examines the
nature of sin in its “naked hue” in two particulars: as it respects God
and as it concerns man. The first has to do with what makes sin sin

205. Ibid., 293.
206. Ibid.
207. Ibid., 293.

(“the vileness of the nature of sin”), and the second with what the result
of sin is.
Concerning the first particular, according to Hooker, the vileness of
the nature of sin lies precisely in the issue of nonautonomy. Sin would
dispossess God of His absolute supremacy: “Now herein lies the
unconceivable heinousness of the hellish nature of sin, it would justle
the Almighty out of the throne of His glorious sovereignty, and indeed
be above Him.” Man’s will is the chiefest of all God’s workmanship and
is made to attend upon God—to choose Him. God did
in an especial way intend to meet with man, and to communicate
Himself to man in His righteous law, as the rule of His Holy and righ-
teous will, by which the will of Adam should have been ruled and
guided to Him, and made happy in Him; and all creatures should have
served God in man, and been happy by or through him, serving of
God being happy in Him; but when the will went from under the gov-
ernment of His rule, by sin, it would be above God, and be happy with-
out Him....208
The nonautonomous Puritan, in other words, would be ruled by
God’s law in submission to God’s Word and find his happiness on
God’s terms; the autonomous man would attempt to be above God and
would try to find his happiness on his own terms. But how does auton-
omous man do this?
Now by sin we justle the law out of its place, and the Lord out of His
glorious sovereignty, pluck the crown from his head, and the scepter
{109} out of his hand, and we say and profess by our practice, there is
not authority and power there to govern, nor wisdom to guide, nor
good to content me, but I will be swayed by mine own will and led by
mine own deluded reason and satisfied by my own lusts. This is the
guise of every graceless heart in the commission of sin.…209
Hooker concludes with a passage that describes the dilemma of
those who choose the way of autonomy and reject the laws of God:
It’s a grievous thing to the loose person [that] he cannot have his plea-
sures but he must have his guilt and gall with them; It’s grievous to the
worldling that he cannot lay hold on the world by unjust means, but
conscience lays hold upon him as breaking the law. Thou that knowest
208. Ibid., 294.

209. Ibid.

and keepest thy pride and stubbornness and thy distempers, know
assuredly thou dost justle God out of the throne of his glorious sov-
ereignty and thou dost profess, not God’s will, but thine own (which is
above his) shall rule thee, thy carnal reason and the folly of thy mind,
is above the wisdom of the Lord and that shall guide thee; to please
thine own stubborn crooked perverse spirit, is a greater good than to
please God and enjoy happiness, for this more contents thee.210
It is a wonder, Hooker concludes, that “the great and terrible God doth
not pash such a poor insolent worm to powder, and send thee packing
to the pit every moment.”211
The essence of sin, then, as it respects God, is that man tries to replace
God with himself, or, better, to be like God, knowing good and evil and
living by his own standards and law and not by God’s. Hooker then
turns his attention to the second particular, sin as it concerns man. Sin,
he says, affects man in four ways:
1. It makes a separation between God and man and thereby deprives
man of a “universal good” which does not include all the evil in the
world. The only universal known to sinful man is a universal that con-
tains all the good and all the evil and therefore cannot be truly good: “...
sin takes away my God, and with him all good goes.... A natural man
[i.e., man without God] hath no God in any thing, and therefore hath
no good.”212
2. It brings an incapability and an impossibility to receive grace from
God when man remains impenitent. The man who continues obsti-
nately in his sin is like one who spills the medicine that would cure him
or the meat that would nourish him, and thus he must die. “It’s thy life,
thy labor, the desire of thy heart, and thy daily practice to depart away
from the God of all grace and peace, and turn the tomb-stone of ever-
lasting destruction upon thine own soul.”213 {110}
3. It is the cause which brings all evil of punishment into the world,
for without sin the troubles of this world would not be evil: “The sting
of a trouble, the poison and malignity of a punishment and affliction,
the evil of the evil [emphasis supplied] of any judgment, it is sin that
210. Ibid., 295.

211. Ibid.
212. Ibid., 297.
213. Ibid., 298.

brings it, or attends it.... So Paul ... plays with death itself, sports with
the grave. ‘Oh, Death, where is thy sting? Oh Grave, where is thy vic-
tory? the sting of death is sin.’ ”214 Hooker concludes by reasoning that
if sin brings all evils and makes them evil to us, then it is worse than all
the evils themselves.
4. It makes all the good and glorious things of life evil to us. “ ‘To the
pure all things are pure’ he said, quoting the Bible, ‘but to the
unbelieving there is nothing pure, but their very consciences are
defiled.’ It is a desperate malignity in the temper of the stomach, that
should turn our meat and diet into diseases, the best cordials and pre-
servatives into poisons, so that what in reason is appointed to nourish a
man should kill him.”215
Such are the effects of sin on man. Hooker concludes his sermon by
considering the holiness of God in contrast to the evil of sin: “But that
which I will mainly press is, sin is only opposite to God, and cross as
much as can be to that infinite goodness and holiness which is in His
blessed majesty; it’s not the miseries or distresses that men undergo,
that the Lord distastes them for, or estrangeth Himself from them ...
but He is not able to bear the presence of sin.” Therefore, he says, “it’s
certain it’s better to suffer all plagues without any one sin, than to com-
mit the least sin, and to be freed from all plagues.... Thou dost not
think so now, but thou will find it so one day.”216
These doctrines of authority and sin, and the concept of nonautonomy
which they embody, are the key to the Puritan dilemma, and we may
study the effects of them in two ways: their application and their viola-
tion.
Nonautonomy: Applications
In terms of the application of the principle of nonautonomy, there
were three aspects of the application that influenced the specific fea-
tures of Puritan institutions in the Holy Commonwealth.
1. The nonautonomy of man meant the absoluteness and sovereignty
of God. It followed that there is not only to be no sovereign power on
214. Ibid.
215. Ibid., 299.
216. Ibid., 299, 301.

earth, but that earthly power should be so divided and diffuse that no
one man or group of men can gain absolute or sovereign power. This
principle is the key to the Puritan’s resistance to the Elizabethan Settle-
ment and to the established Church of England. In the joining of
church and state, men gained or tried to gain supreme power; in sepa-
rating the church from the state, the Puritans intended that supreme
power would be prevented {111} by the check and balance of the coor-
dinate but unconfounded spheres of church and state. Thus, John Cot-
ton wrote to Lord Say and Seal that
It is very suitable to God’s all-sufficient wisdom, and to the fulness and
perfection of Holy Scriptures, not only to prescribe perfect rules for
the right ordering of a private man’s soul to everlasting blessedness
with Himself, but also for the right ordering of a man’s family, yea, of
the commonwealth too, so far as both of them are subordinate to spir-
itual ends, and yet avoid both the church’s usurpation upon civil juris-
dictions, in order toward things spiritual, and the commonwealth’s
invasion upon ecclesiastical administrations, in order to civil peace,
and conformity to the civil state. God’s institution (such as the gov-
ernment of church and of commonwealth be) may be close and com-
pact, and coordinate one to another, and yet not confounded.217
Cotton went on to say that the government of the church as set forth
in Scripture is compatible with any form of civil government (because
of the separation and non-confounding of the respective powers of the
spheres), but that if a commonwealth should have the liberty to form
its own frame of government, the Scriptures are also adequate for that
as well: “I conceive that the scripture hath given full direction for the
right ordering of the same, and that, in such sort as may best maintain
the vigor of the church.”218
Thus, the Puritan, coming to form a church government, developed
congregationalism, a form which so divided authority and power in the
church that there was no center of authority anywhere. It is my opinion
that in this he went too far in the other direction, as I shall show later,
but for now it is sufficient to note that in the congregational form of
government there was no final authority externally or even internally
except the sovereignty of God working by the Holy Spirit in the hearts
217. Ibid., 209.

218. Ibid.

and minds and the individual consciences of the members. Therefore,

consociations and synods could not impose their decisions on the
churches or coerce them in any way. The individual conscience alone
was regarded as inviolable, and things are accomplished only when
there is sufficient consensus among those individual consciences to
begin to move by a vote of one kind or another. The Puritans made no
provision for resolving differences formally because they really didn’t
expect any major and irreconcilable differences. After all, did they not
all take their orders from the same God by the Holy Spirit? The extent
to which they had problems with the system in Massachusetts occurred
only by one or the other of two factors: (1) they forgot or did not pro-
vide in their frame of church government for the effects of man’s sinful
nature, which even the regenerate man does not lose but which rather
continues to plague him throughout his life; and (2) they {112} were
faced with unexpected problems arising from the growing existence of
a group of people who were in the church, but whose consciences were
not apparently subjected or submissive to the authority of the Holy
Spirit.
In dealing with these problems, the Puritans were led into their
greatest violations of the principle of nonautonomy, and the effects are
both disastrous and well known, as we shall see below.
2. The corollary to the idea of divided sovereignty (or non-sover-
eignty) is the idea of limited human authority. John Cotton was one of
the most vocal of the Puritans in articulating the idea of limitation on
power, “that all power that is on earth be limited.”219 He had led the
argument for limiting the power of the magistrates, which led to the
adoption of the Massachusetts Body of Liberties in 1641. Indeed, his
own work, “Moses His Judicials,” was an early attempt to codify the
laws and practices of Massachusetts by an application of Old Testament
law. Man, Cotton held, is a creature of God and a fallen one at that, and
thus man is subject to limitations, including limited power and liberty.
But sinful men would attempt to destroy the limits. In his series of ser-
mons on the thirteenth chapter of Revelation, Cotton warned:
Let all the world learn to give mortal men no greater power than they
are content they shall use, for use it they will.... This is one of the
219. Ibid., 213.

strains of nature, it affects boundless liberty, and to run to the utmost

extent: Whatever power he hath received, he hath a corrupt nature
that will improve it in one thing or another…. It is therefore most
wholesome for magistrates and officers in church and commonwealth,
never to affect more liberty and authority than will do them good, and
the people good; for whatever transcendent power is given, will cer-
tainly overrun those that give it, and those that receive it.220
The converse of man’s exceeding the limits of his power is to be
deprived of his rightful power, an error of equal import:
It is, therefore fit for every man to be studious of the bounds which the
Lord hath set: and for the people, in whom fundamentally all power
lies, to give as much power as God in His word gives to men: And it is
meet that magistrates in the Commonwealth, and so officers in the
churches should desire to know the utmost bounds of their own
power, and it’s safe for both: All intrenchment upon the bounds which
God hath not given, they are not enlargements, but burdens and
snares; they will certainly lead the spirit of a man out of his way
sooner or later.221
If the boundaries are properly drawn, Cotton continued, giving nei-
ther too much power nor too little, the boundaries need not be impos-
ing: if they are but banks of sand, they will contain the sea as long as
they be in the right place. On the other hand, “if you pinch the sea of its
liberty, {113} though it be walls of stone or brass, it will beat them
down....”222 “So it is with Magistrates, stint them where God hath not
stinted them, and if they were walls of brass, they would beate them
down, and it is meet they should: but give them the liberty God allows,
and if it be but a wall of sand it will keep them.”223
Cotton applied this concept not only to the bounds of the church
and the state, but also to marriage and family relations as well:
So let there be due bounds set, and I may apply it to families; it is good
for the wife to acknowledge all power and authority to the husband,
and for the husband to acknowledge honour to the wife, but still give
them which God hath given them, and no more nor less: Give them
the full latitude that God hath given, else you will find you dig pits,
220. Ibid., 212–13.

221. Ibid.
222. Ibid.
223. Ibid.

and laye snares, and cumber their spirits, if you give them less: there is
never peace where full liberty is not given, nor never stable peace
where more than full liberty is granted....224
And the same principle applies to children and servants or “any others
you are to deal with: Give them the liberty and authority you would
have them use, and beyond that stretch not the tether, it will not tend to
their good or yours.”
Cotton concluded his sermon and told his hearers to go home with
this meditation: “That certainly here is this distemper in our natures,
that we cannot tell how to use liberty, but we shall very readily corrupt
ourselves: Oh the bottomless depth of sandy earth! of a corrupt spirit,
that breaks over all bounds, and loves inordinate vastness; that is it we
ought to be care of.” Loving “inordinate vastness” is a good description
of what it means to reject nonautonomy.
This concept of limited spheres of authority and power and the need
to find a precise boundary of power for each sphere provides an under-
standing of the Puritan’s efforts to develop a due form of government
in the Bay Colony. As the colony changed itself from a trading com-
pany into a society, and the leadership from a management team to an
elected magistracy and a representative government, there were several
conflicts and disputes over rights, powers, interpretations of laws, and the
application of justice. Some of these disputes were over the “bounds” of
the respective spheres of authority (both of the extent and the degree of
power); others were caused by various violations of the boundaries that
were set. A brief recounting of what is called the “Deputy dispute”
should illustrate both points. The charter for the Massachusetts Bay
Company, issued by the king in 1629, had granted to the company and
its officials authority
to make, ordain, and establish all manner of wholesome and reason-
able {114} orders, laws, statutes, and ordinances, directions, and
instructions, not contrary to the laws of this our realm of England, as
well as for settling of the forms and ceremonies of government and
magistracy fit and necessary for the said plantation and the inhabit-
ants there, and for naming and styling [stiling] all sorts of officers,
both superior and inferior, which they shall find needful for that gov-
224. Ibid., 214.

ernment and plantation, and the distinguishing and setting forth of

the several duties, powers, and limits of every such office and place.225
The charter did not say where the company was to meet, nor did it
place any particular restrictions on the company’s officers, except that
whatever laws they should make should not be contrary to those of
England. The charter did set the form of government of the company,
however. The body of shareholders in the company were called “free-
men.” These freemen were to meet four times a year to make laws for
the company and the colony and to elect for one-year terms, the man-
agement officials—a governor, a deputy governor, and eighteen assis-
tants—who were to run the company and the colony between meetings
of the general court of freemen. The management officials (the execu-
tive council of governors and assistants) were to meet once a month to
take care of necessary business. It is important to note that in the first
years of the colony, the freeman and the assistants (as the executive
council was called) were virtually identical, since freemen had to be
shareholders and there had to be twenty men on the executive council.
The rest of the shareholders were still in England. So the shareholders
in America met, elected themselves assistants, and then ruled the col-
ony. Edmund Morgan records that “all but one of the members who are
known to have migrated the first year were assistants.”226 But it did not
remain that way for long. After all, Winthrop and his company came
with the intention of setting up a “due form of government both civil
and ecclesiastical” to the end of improving their lives:
... to do more service to the Lord, the comfort and increase of the body
of Christ whereof we are members that ourselves and posterity may be
the better preserved from the common corruptions of this evil world
to serve the Lord and work out our salvation under the power and
purity of His holy ordinances.227
They also came to bring in “familiar and constant practice” that which
“most in their churches maintain as a truth in profession only.”228

226. Ibid., 86.
228. Ibid., 198.

The first step in setting up a due form of civil government was,

therefore, to expand the base of the government. The first meeting of
the assistants was held on August 23, 1630, and it transacted some
rather routine business {115} involved in organizing the colony. The
assistants also met on September 7 and 28, to transact routine business.
Then on October 19, the General Court meeting was held. At that
meeting it was decided to have the freemen choose the assistants, who
in turn would elect the governor and deputy governor, and together
they and the assistants would make and enforce all laws for the colony.
The significance of this was the “expansion” of the “freeman” from a
shareholder in the company to a citizen of the commonwealth and,
accordingly, at the next meeting of the General Court, 116 men were
admitted as freemen. Likewise the assistants had become the legislative
body, a privilege taken away from the freemen when the position was
opened to the general populace. The freemen had the privilege of elect-
ing the leaders, but not to make the law. It was also decided to restrict
the privilege of freemanship in the future to those who were the mem-
bers of some church within the colony—a move which at once (1)
restricted political activity to those who were under the discipline of
the church morally and spiritually and (2) invited all church members
to participate in the political activity of the commonwealth.
The second step came in 1632 when the General Court ordered that
two men be chosen from each town to sit as a body and confer with the
governor and assistants on matters of taxation. It was also decided at
that meeting to have the freemen rather than the assistants elect the
governor and deputy governor. These moves were in response to criti-
cisms of the people that they were not being adequately represented in
the government, since the representation of the assistants elected by
the freemen was neither direct nor locally oriented.
A third step came in 1634 when the representatives of the freemen
(the two appointed from each town) demanded to see the charter and
discovered that the original charter had granted the freemen legislative
power. The cause of the dispute went back several years to a running
debate between John Winthrop and Thomas Dudley over what we
might call “substantive justice.” Winthrop believed that in its early years
a plantation should be ruled with leniency and liberality. Justice should
be done, but governors should be more informal and discretionary,

concentrating on the substantial issues, than formal and inflexible, as

Dudley insisted. Also, it was obvious that the form of government in
the colony had changed over the years, so when Dudley asked for the
source of Winthrop’s authority, Winthrop faced a dilemma. If he
answered that his authority (and the frame of government then
erected) stemmed from the agreement of the people that had been
made in 1630 (when the freemanship had been expanded but legisla-
tive power taken away), Massachusetts would be in trouble from
England for violating the charter and setting up an independent state.
On the other hand, if he claimed the charter, he would have to face up
to the fact that freemanship included legislative power. It did {116} not
matter that Massachusetts had reinterpreted freemanship. He could not
sustain the argument as long as he ignored the 1630 agreement of the
people. Winthrop chose to stand for the charter in his 1631 debate with
Dudley, and now in 1634 the freemen’s representatives wanted to see
the charter to check his power and to check their own privileges. And
they were inclined to claim their privileges because they feared Win-
throp’s concept of discretionary power, not because he misused it, but
because it could be misused, as their experience in England had shown.
Winthrop explained the situation to the freemen’s representatives
and offered to make them into an advisory body to the assistants, to
revise laws, but not to make new ones.229 But the freemen wanted
more: a full body of legislation drawn up by themselves as a protection
against a discretionary government which might become arbitrary.230
The result was a change in the frame of government in which the free-
men would elect deputies to represent them in a legislative body to
serve along with the governor and the assistants, who served as judges
in the government. The next step was to give the magistrates a veto
over the deputies as a check and balance to democratical tendencies.
Thus it was that the search for the proper bounds of authority developed,
and continued, for it was not yet finished. The Body of Liberties was
not completed until 1641, and there were other conflicts and violations,
as we shall see, but the proper bounds of power, neither more nor less,
were being discovered, and the wall of sand between them, being laid

230. Ibid., 113.

down, giving to the people, in the words of Nathaniel Ward, who drew
up the Body of Liberties, “their proper and lawful liberties.”231
3. One of the major disputes over the problem of power and the lim-
its of authority in the colony came in 1645 and brings us to the third
aspect or implication of the application of the principle of nonauton-
omy: non-neutrality or nonuniversality. (Nonuniversality is not the best
word to describe the concept and yet better than any of the others that
come to mind.) Nonuniversality is the idea that nothing except God is
to be interpreted in terms of itself. Everything on earth, in the view of
nonautonomy, is always interpreted in terms of something else. There
is no neutral standard behind God, as it were, whereby we may judge
both God and the creation. Instead, we see the creation either in terms
of God’s standard or in terms of some other standard. Thus, in Puritan
thought there was a great debate over the nature of good: is a thing good
because willed by God or does God will something because it is good?
Perry Miller records Samuel Willard’s intimation that by the end of the
century congregations were growing weary of the endless dispute. Wil-
lard, he says, “endeavored {117} to silence the debate by awarding judg-
ment to both contentions at once. Since all the attributes are one, he
said, ‘then God both wills the things because they are good ... and also
they are good because he wills them, his active will put the actual good-
ness into them.’ ”232 Miller calls this a disposition to “compromise”
indicating a retreat away from the position of the earlier Puritans, who
“unhesitatingly founded the goodness upon the fact of their having
been willed.”233 According to William Perkins, the central Puritan
theologian, “A thing is not first of all reasonable and just, and then
afterward willed by God: but it is first of all willed by God, and there-
upon becomes reasonable and just.”234 John Preston relates the concept
to the issue of man’s nonautonomy (though he does not call it that, of
course) and nonuniversality:
In our judging of the ways of God, we should take heed of framing a
model of our own, as to think because such a thing is just, therefore
231. Ibid., 170.

233. Ibid.
234. Quoted in Ibid.

the Lord wills it: the reason of this conceit is, because we think that
God must go by our rule; we forget this, that everything is just because
he wills it; it is not that God wills it, because it is good or just.... What
God wills is just, because He is the rule itself.…235
To deny this is to make man and man’s “rule” autonomous and uni-
versal rather than nonautonomous and nonuniversal. There is no
universal rule that man can place behind God; He is the rule and the uni-
versal, ruling according to His character and perfection, and therefore
all on earth must be judged on His terms and by His standard.
The significance of this doctrine as it relates to the Puritan view of
nonautonomy may be seen in John Winthrop’s “little speech” on liberty
at the close of the Hingham affair in 1645. The trouble began when a
disputed election in the town of Hingham came up before the magis-
trates for settlement. Winthrop, then deputy governor but acting as a
magistrate (judge), ordered the faction led by the Rev. Peter Hobart to
appear at court, and, when they refused, committed them for con-
tempt. The Hobart faction then petitioned the deputies for a consider-
ation of Winthrop’s charges against them and of their charge that the
magistrates had acted without authority in imprisoning them. The
deputies, not knowing how to handle the case, asked advice of the mag-
istrates, who agreed to hear the case if the petitioners would make a
specific charge against a specific officer. The petitions named Win-
throp and charged him “for illegal imprisoning of some of them and
forcing the first with others to give bond with sureties to appear and
answer at the next general court.”236
The details of the case and the decision are not our concern here.
{118} Winthrop was acquitted of the charges against him. After the
case was settled and the sentences read, Winthrop asked permission to
address the court. His “little speech,” as he called it, is, according to
Perry Miller, the “classic expression of Puritan political theory.” It is
also the clearest example of the Puritan rejection of human autonomy.
Winthrop begins by saying that he is satisfied with the decision of
the court and glad that the case’s “troublesome business” is done, but
yet humbled before God because to be charged at court (even though
235. Ibid.
236. Miller, Orthodoxy, 289.

acquitted) is a matter of humiliation before God, “who hath seen so

much amiss in my dispensations as calls me to be humble.”237
He continues with a dissertation on the authority of the magistrates
and the liberty of the people, the “great questions that have troubled
the country.” Of authority, he said, “It is yourselves who have called us
to this office, and being called by you, we have our authority from God,
in way of an ordinance, such as hath the image of God eminently
stamped upon it, the contempt and violation whereof both have been
vindicated with examples of divine vengeance.” The authority of the
magistrate is from God even though it is the people who decide who
the authorities shall be. Therefore the contempt or violation of that
authority is a very serious matter both for the rulers and for the ruled.
The ruled are to remember always that the magistrates are “men sub-
ject to like passions as you are” and therefore, “when you see infirmities
in us, you should reflect upon your own, and that would make you bear
the more with us, and not be severe censurers of the failings of your
magistrates, when you have continual experience of the like infirmities
in yourselves and others.” The ruler is responsible to be faithful and not
to break his covenant with his people. As long as the magistrate is faith-
ful and of good, not an evil, will, the people are to bear with him even
in his error.
On the matter of liberty, Winthrop observed “a great mistake in the
country” on the nature of liberty. There are, he said, two kinds of lib-
erty, natural and civil or federal. Natural liberty is an autonomous kind
of liberty: it is liberty in man’s terms and on man’s terms, liberty relative
to man: “By this, man, as he stands in relation to man simply, hath lib-
erty to do what he lists; it is a liberty to evil as well as to good.” The
other kind of liberty is civil, or federal, or moral liberty: liberty in and
on God’s terms, relative to God and to His appointed authorities, “a lib-
erty to that only which is good, just, and honest.” The first liberty is
incompatible and inconsistent with authority: the second is the proper
end and object of authority, and is “maintained and exercised in a way
of subjection to authority.”238 {119}
237. John Winthrop, Journal: History of New England, 1630–1649, vol. 2, ed. James K.
Hoomer (New York: Barnes and Noble, 1908), 237.
238. Ibid., 239.
Winthrop makes it clear that men choose between these two views of
liberty and authority. They will either see the issue in man’s terms or in
God’s terms, and that will make all the difference in public life:
Even so, brethren, it will be between you and your magistrates. If you
stand for your natural corrupt liberties, and will do what is good in
your own eyes, you will not endure the least weight of authority, but
will murmur, and oppose, and be always striving to shake off that
yoke; but if you will be satisfied to enjoy such civil and lawful liberties,
such as Christ allows you, then you will quietly and cheerfully submit
unto that authority which is set over you, in all the administrations of
it, for your good.239
If the answer to the problem of authority in the colony was not an
autonomous and arbitrary power in the magistrate (as the deputies
argued against Winthrop), neither was the answer in an autonomous
view of liberty (as Winthrop cautioned the deputies). Autonomy
belongs only to the sovereign and transcendent God. The freedom of
all on earth could be preserved by preserving the nonautonomous sta-
tus of human institutions. Thus, the Puritans divided and limited the
spheres of authority of earth and balanced them one against the other.
The aspect of nonuniversality was necessary to keep men thinking in
those terms. Let man gain a human or temporal or immanent universe,
and the limited and divided spheres would soon be united under it, as
autonomous liberty struggles to cast off “the least restraint of the most
just authority.”
Nonautonomy: Violations
It was these three aspects of the application of the principle of non-
autonomy that played such a large part in the shaping of Puritan
institutions. We have mentioned a few of them in passing and yet we
have said nothing on the relations of church and state, which come into
clear focus once the problem of nonautonomy is understood and its
aspects defined. Such a study needs to be done.
There were, however, a few features of Puritan society that denied the
principle of nonautonomy, and it is these areas of violation that have
led the historians to remark the existence of a “Puritan dilemma.” It
239. Ibid.

was at these points that the Puritans departed from their views of non-
autonomy and therefore reaped the consequences. The toll taken by
these compromises was great and in many cases vital in the long-run
effort to establish a Holy Commonwealth.
Following Cotton’s thought on the bounds of power, we can observe
two kinds of violations: (1) those which tended toward an autonomy in
human thought and a temporal reality, that is, violations in which there
is an attempt to fix an immanent and final authority; and (2) those
which {120} tended toward disorder, that is, in which there was a lack
of due order or arrangement.
1. The first and most important violation was in the area of intellec-
tual activity. Perry Miller has documented the toll taken in Puritan
thought by the logic of Peter Ramus which gave much authority to
man’s unaided reason and which was based essentially on natural pre-
suppositions rather than on revelation.240 Miller concludes his study of
Ramus’s influence on the Puritans with this comment:
They (the Puritans) often said, “Our Saviour Christ hath taught us
how to argue”; the historian, accustomed to the more conventional
attributions of the “source study” method, may at first be prompted to
counter that all the evidence of Puritan writing, education, and intel-
lectual history goes to show that Puritans were taught to argue not by
Christ but by Ramus, Richardson, and Ames. Yet he pauses just long
enough to remember that these men were spokesmen for Protestant-
ism and for the Renaissance, and that by appealing to the Bible both
reformers and humanists did indeed seem to discover new ways of
arguing, and that out of the consequent debates came, at the end of the
seventeenth century, a general movement toward rehabilitation of the
natural reason.241
2. Another violation came in the area of church membership. Puritans
of all kinds believed in a limited membership within the visible church,
but up until the mid–1630s, both in England and in America, this was
thought of as being a profession of faith in Jesus Christ and as a sub-
mission to the moral and spiritual discipline of the church. But in the
mid–1630s, the congregational churches of Massachusetts went one
240. Rousas John Rushdoony, This Independent Republic: Studies in the Nature and
Meaning of American History (Nutley, NJ: Craig Press, 1964), 4.
step further and began to demand, not profession of faith and submis-
sion to discipline, but a recounting of one’s experience of salvation
before the church, after which he could be questioned and then
accepted or rejected by a vote of the congregation. The object was to
try to make the visible church as nearly as possible identical to the
invisible church (the elect known only to God).242
“Seen in full perspective,” writes Ahlstrom, “this was a radical
demand. For the first time in Christendom, a state church with vigor-
ous conceptions of enforced uniformity in belief and practice was
requiring an internal, experiential test of church membership. Many
future problems of the New England churches stemmed from this deci-
sion.”243 The reach for autonomy has been pointed out by Alan Simp-
son: “This New England church is going to be built out of the
conversion experience, and it is {121} assumed that a subjective experi-
ence can be detected by objective tests.”244
The consequences came almost at once. At one extreme stood men
like Roger Williams, who carried the test to the extreme by making
experience the only requirement for membership. And at the other
extreme stood Anne Hutchinson, who insisted that the Holy Spirit
could reveal to men with absolute certainty whether a man was truly
saved or not.245 Rushdoony’s comment on Anne Hutchinson’s position
is pertinent:
Salvation is in the covenant of grace, but, if the church or men rather
than God is the judge of that grace, then an omniscience is claimed, a
knowledge of the heart impossible to men. The Puritan position (in
opposition to Hutchison) was that a tree was to be judged by its fruits,
and faith by its works.246
In between these extremes, of course, were two possibilities: (a) the
return to nonautonomy, or (b) some kind of adjustment to reality to
which the Puritans were eventually forced in one form or another. In
242. Edmund Sears Morgan, Visible Saints: The History of a Puritan Idea (New York:
New York University Press, 1963), 89–90.
243. Ahlstrom, 146.
244. Simpson, 25.
245. Morgan, Visible Saints, 109.
246. Rushdoony, This Independent Republic, 103.

one form it was a return to nonautonomy in the form of a return to pro-

fession and discipline as the only requirements for full church member-
ship, as expressed by Thomas Shepard. Sadly, this possibility was
generally ignored:
The meaning is not as if we allowed none to be of the Church but real
saints, and such as give demonstrative evidence of being members of
the invisible church; for we profess ... that it is not real, but visible
faith, not the inward being, but the outward profession of faith ... that
constitutes a visible church.247
The other form was a readjustment that came in the development of
the halfway covenant, wherein visible sainthood was not abandoned,
but a distinction was drawn between the purity of full membership and
halfway status of the unconverted (meaning non-experiential, non-
member) second generation who had been baptized in the church and
now wished to have their children (the third generation) baptized. It is
common to blame the halfway covenant on the doctrine of infant bap-
tism; it was rather a problem caused by the concept of visible saint-
hood, as has been pointed out by Morgan: “The halfway covenant,
while wholly insufficient as a recognition of the church’s relationship to
the world, was probably the most satisfactory way of reconciling the
Puritan’s conflicting commitments to infant baptism and to a church
composed exclusively of saints.” The concept of visible sainthood
involved a rejection of nonautonomy; the doctrine of infant baptism
does not, but rather the opposite, symbolizing to the Puritan the child’s
and parent’s dependence on God for grace and salvation.
3. There are two more departures from the principle of non-auton-
omy that we need to discuss in order to understand the Puritan
dilemma, and {122} both involve the problem of church government
and the relation of the church and the state, matters which were closely
intertwined in the Puritan period. It is necessary, therefore, in order to
separate some of the overlapping areas, to distinguish between (a) the
matter of the forms of church government and (b) the matter of the
establishment of a state church. By so separating them and distinguish-
ing carefully, it is possible to see that what often appears to be opposi-
tion to a form of government is actually opposition to the establishment

of that form of government in a state church. This distinction is impor-

tant if we are to think clearly about the next two departures from non-
autonomy.
It will help also if we go back to the situation in England which gave
rise to the Puritan emigration. In England in the hundred years
between 1560 and 1660 there were four groups—the Anglicans, the
Presbyterians, the Congregationalists (non-separating), and the Sepa-
ratists. There were also four main issues that separated them, phrased
here as questions to focus on the conflicts:
1. Supremacy—Who is the Head of the church?
2. Church Government—How should the church be ruled?
3. Uniformity—What kind of church should the state have?
4. Membership—Who should be a member of the church?
The various positions of the groups may be charted as follows:
Church
Supremacy Government Uniformity Membership
King as Bishops and
Anglicans Supreme Hierarchy Establishment Comprehensive
King under Synods and Comprehensive
Presbyterians Law Councils Established by Profession
Restricted by
Congregations Profession,
and National Discipline
Congregationalists Christ Consociations Church (Visibility)
Independent Restricted by
Congregations Church in a Profession and
Separatists Christ alone Secular State Discipline
On the issue of supremacy or the ultimate authority in the church,

the Anglican position was that of the Elizabethan Settlement: the king
is supreme in both church and state. The Puritan position (whether
Presbyterian [right], Congregationalist [center], or Separatist [left])
was that the king’s supremacy is not absolute (or autonomous). The
Presbyterians saw the king under law, the non-separating and separat-
ing Congregationalists saw even less connection with the church than
that. Christ alone is to rule in the congregational church and that
directly by the Holy Spirit, as we {123} have seen. The difference
between the Presbyterians and the Congregationalists on this point

came to the fore in the period of the English civil wars and Cromwell’s
Protectorate in the late 1640s and 1650s.
In the matter of church government, the Anglicans favored a hierar-
chical form of government ranging from the local parish to the king, all
deriving their authority from the king in a bureaucratic chain of com-
mand in which the bishops would rule over local groups of local
churches. The Presbyterians wanted a system of representative councils
ranging from the local church to the general assembly of the entire
national church, preserving both the independence of the local church
and an involvement in a system of wider courts of appeal. The Congre-
gationalists stood only for the existence and autonomy of the local con-
gregation; their church would begin and end with the local
congregations, as would the Separatists.’ The difference between the
Congregationalist and the Separatist on this came in the Congregation-
alists’ willingness to engage in what they called “consociations” or
“noncoercive synods.” Recognizing the need occasionally for a wider
court of appeal or fellowship, the Congregationalist churches would
come together for that purpose, but it was always on a voluntary and
noncoercive basis.
In the matter of uniformity or of the state church, both the Anglicans
and the Presbyterians were agreed on an established church, that is, one
supported by the state and ruled by the state. They simply differed on
the organization of that church. The Congregationalists wanted a
“national” church as opposed to an “established” church, that is, the
Congregationalist church would be the only uniform tolerated church
within the national boundaries and would be supported by the state,
but it would not be ruled by the state. The difference between the Pres-
byterians and the Congregational groups on this issue determined the
ultimate difference between those Puritans who ruled and fell with
Cromwell in the 1650s (the Congregationalists) and those who joined
the Anglicans in restoring Charles II in 1660, only to be expelled from
the church in 1662. The Separatists wanted a complete separation of
church and state—an independent church in a secular state.
The fruit of the Reformation was to see that the church and state were
to be separated. The significance of the Puritan movement was that it
came at the precise moment that this issue was being worked out. It
was the particular fate of the non-separating Congregationalists, who

ruled in New England, that they stood for the separation of church and
state institutionally while opposing the separation of church and state
spiritually. It is not hard for us to see the consistency of the Anglican
idea that the church and the state are joined under a supreme king. Nor
is it difficult for us to see Roger Williams’s idea that the state is a tem-
poral kingdom and the church is a spiritual kingdom, and the two
should be separated. But the Puritan {124} idea is opposed to both of
these. It is that the church and the state are to be separated institution-
ally but to be joined spiritually under Jesus Christ, who is supreme Lord
and King. Puritan thought often seems to be confusing the two
spheres, but they were attempting to keep hold of the state as a spiritual
entity, recognizing that the magistracy is a religious work even if the
magistrate himself is not religious. In this view, the movement toward a
secular state is thus a move with significant spiritual overtones. We will
consider the differences between the Congregationalists and the
Presbyterians below.
On the matter of church membership, the Anglican Church was to be
comprehensive, embracing all the people of the nation. The Presbyte-
rian idea, following the idea of the established church, was that the
Presbyterian Church would be comprehensive, embracing all the
nation, but communing membership in the church would require a
specific profession of faith and submission to the discipline of the
church. The Congregational and Separatist churches shared a view of a
church membership as restricted only to those who professed faith in
Jesus Christ and submitted to the discipline of the church. The New
England Congregationalists, as we have seen, added a new wrinkle
when they added the idea of visibility to the profession and discipline,
requiring additionally an experiential testimony of conversion.
It is obvious that these positions and issues overlap in places, yet
from them we may plot the problems that came when the Puritans
sought autonomy in the area of church-state relations and in the area of
church government.
In the area of church-state relations, the problem may be seen by
concentrating on the significance of the Presbyterian and Congrega-
tional points of view. In New England, there was no established church
until late in the seventeenth century. It is true that the franchise was
limited to church members only, but that practice was as consistent

with the Congregational idea of a national church as with the Presbyte-

rian idea of an established church. There was no established church
because the state or magistrate did not rule the church. In Puritan the-
ory, church and state were to be cooperating but unconfounded
spheres within the society. The churches were responsible for man in
his spiritual relationship to God, and the state was responsible for man
in his social relationships with other men. For the Puritan there could
be no segregation of spiritual life and social life. The two were all of a
piece; life was inescapably religious.
When they came therefore to consider the relationship between
Christianity and civil government and began to work out the separa-
tion of church and state, the Puritans considered that the state should
not have governing power in the churches and that the church should
not rule in civil matters as a church. One effort at definition was made
by John {125} Davenport, who wrote that the two different orders
be not set in opposition as contraries that one should destroy the
other, but as coordinate states, in the same place, reaching forth help
mutually to each other, for the welfare of both according to God, so
that both officers and members of churches be subject in respect of
the outward man, to the civil power, of those who bear rule in the civil
state according to God and teach others to do so; and that the civil
magistrates and officers in regard of the inward man subject them-
selves spiritually to the power of Christ in church ordinances and by
their civil power preserve the same in outward peace and purity.248
Though church and state shared the same ends and served the same
purpose, they did not have the same function. Functionally, the church
and state were carefully distinguished and kept strictly separated. Thus
the relationship between church and state became a question of the
specific power of the state in matters of religion. In Massachusetts the
magistrate was given both compulsive and restricted powers. Compul-
sive power was power to compel certain religious practices such as
attendance at church or the payment of the tithe, which was collected
like taxes for the support of the church. The restrictive power of the
magistrate was that of preserving the state from erosion by outlawing
certain beliefs, practices, or even people from the colony. In either its
248. John Davenport, A Discourse About Civil Government (Cambridge, 1663), 8–9,
quoted in C. Gregg Singer, A Theological Interpretation of American History, 15–16.
compulsive or restrictive function, however, the state was still only

concerned with external action. It could not compel belief or deal with
opinion. It could act only to compel outward action or to curb the open
expression of heretical ideas. It is important to note, however, that in
exercising his compulsive or restrictive function, the magistrate was
not autonomous and could not be arbitrary. It was the basic contention
of all Puritanism that the Word of God was the fundamental law, bind-
ing both subject and magistrate.
Such was the orthodox Puritan theory of church and state. Put into
practice, however, two difficulties soon became apparent: (1) not all
people were regenerate and willing to view church and state from this
biblical point of view, and (2) as religious fervor waned, it was more
and more difficult to maintain the fiction of a holy commonwealth
made up of and ruled by a covenant people who were committed to the
law of God. Massachusetts tried to meet these difficulties by restriction
of the franchise to those who were accounted “visible saints.” Yet when
membership in the church was limited to visible saints and that by
means of an internal and experiential test, church and state, having
been separated in Puritan theory, became confused again, the church
controlling the state through its judgment of the conversion experi-
ences and visibility of the saints who were also the electorate. Thus,
again, the Puritans reaped the fruit of the {126} autonomous doctrine
of the visible saint, this time in the realm of establishment.
Rushdoony, commenting that the Puritans in Massachusetts were in
varying degrees of rebellion against establishment and civil supremacy,
writes that
the establishment, when it came to Massachusetts, was a product of a
mutual compromise designed to perpetrate the holy commonwealth
rather than return to the English pattern. The theological issues are
not our ... concern except in that, as the requirements for the mature
fulfillment of the personal covenant moved from the Reformed doc-
trine of piety to Arminian moralism and experientialism, the people
found themselves less able to share in the more private demands and
tests of faith. Antinomianism had been the first manifestation of this
demand for a private as against public test.249
249. Rushdoony, This Independent Republic, 97.

The compromise, he says, appeared in two ways: “The church was

established to create a formally Christian state and thereby retain the
holy commonwealth goal. The church in turn established the world by
means of the halfway covenant to ensure formally the co-existence of
the church in the Christian commonwealth.” By thus substituting a for-
mal relationship for the internal and experiential test of visibility, the
halfway covenant restored the proper separation between church and
state. By means of the halfway covenant, Massachusetts could retain
what was good about visible sainthood (the church in the control of the
visible, or mature, saints) and yet have a national and comprehensive
church which would include under its “watch, discipline, and govern-
ment” everyone in the colony who desired association with the church,
regardless of whether they met the test of visible sainthood.
In England, establishment caused an even greater conflict. There the
Presbyterians stood for an established church, while the Congregation-
alists opposed it. The idea of establishment is, of course, the demand
for a supreme temporal ruler of the church. To the English Congrega-
tionalist, the establishment of the church conflicted with his view of
church government and of restricted membership. If the church were
established, his synods would become coercive and his church mem-
bership comprehensive. Then when the Congregationalists came into
power with Oliver Cromwell, a new factor entered the picture. Crom-
well, unable to decide between the conflicting theories of the various
sects, and needing the political support of all, began to advocate reli-
gious toleration. As he let the “hundred flowers bloom” in England—as
Mao was to do three centuries later in China, except that Mao did it to
lure “traitors” into the open—the New England Congregationalists
looked on in horror and joined the English Presbyterians in condemn-
ing Cromwell. In England, Presbyterians joined with Anglicans {127}
to restore Charles II to the throne in 1660, shortly after which the
Anglicans turned on the Presbyterians and expelled them from the
Church of England. The Presbyterians had no ground to stand on
other than an appeal to justice and charity. In the Westminster Confes-
sion of 1648, they had asserted that the civil magistrate had authority
“to take order, that unity and peace be preserved in the church, and
that the truth of God be kept pure and entire, that all blasphemies and
heresies be suppressed, all corruptions and abuses in worship and dis-

cipline prevented or reformed, and all the ordinances of God duly set-
tled, administered, and observed. For the better effecting whereof, he
hath power to call synods, to be present at them, and to provide that
whatsoever is transacted in them be according to the mind of God.”250
This section of the confession was in conflict with a later part (30:1)
which asserted that “the Lord Jesus, as king and head of his church,
hath therein appointed a government in the hand of church officers,
distinct from the civil magistrate.” A modern commentator on the con-
fession has written of this conflict in the confession and of this period
of history that
it is not to be forgotten that subsequent to the Westminster Assembly,
the Scottish Covenanters were called upon to suffer unto death from
civil oppression. To these rugged Presbyterians, who more than oth-
ers, resolutely adhered to the testimony of the Confession, we owe
much, for it was to assert the absolute spiritual independence of the
Church of Jesus Christ from civil authority that they gave their all.
Those who loved the testimony of the Confession best, suffered most
for the principle which was—after all—compromised in the original
formulation of these sections.251
The compromise, of course, was to allow a temporal ruler over the
church, and the result was autonomy, dilemma, and ultimately, death.
4. Finally, in the area of church government, the departure from non-
autonomy, coupled with the effects of the establishment, created a
dilemma of the second kind, one which tended toward disorder rather
than toward temporal autonomy. We have seen already that the Con-
gregationalists and the Separatists opposed any kind of synod or con-
sociation with coercive power, and though the Congregationalists did
see the need occasionally for a voluntary meeting of the churches as a
court of wider appeal, the Presbyterian alternative of a system of courts
of higher appeal in the church was not open to the Congregationalists,
not because they did not see the value of it, but because the accompa-
nying idea of a state-established and comprehensive church made the
synods coercive. Coercive synods, declared John Davenport, had been
“the cause of many mischiefs in the church, for {128} thereby the writ-
250. G. I. Williamson, The Westminster Confession of Faith for Study Classes

(Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1964), 23:3.
251. Ibid., 246.
ings and decrees of men are made infallible and equal with the word of
God, which is intolerable.”252 “Congregationalists had glibly predicted
that the instructions of the Bible were explicit enough to keep
autonomous organizations facing in the same direction,” says Miller,
“but when they at last set up a number of such churches, they realized
that interpretations might vary more than they had imagined. Little by
little they came to rely upon periodic consociations of elders from the
various churches to make sure that they were all continuing in substan-
tial agreement.”253 There, says Miller,
Congregationalists had confidently predicted that the loyalty of Chris-
tian congregations would keep them obedient to the law as
expounded by the elders; confronted with the problem of ruling an
actual and often cantankerous crowd of erstwhile dissenters, they real-
ized this obedience had to be insured by more potent guarantees. If
the clergy failed to control the internal affairs of their churches, then
for all their attempts to maintain non-separation and unity, their par-
ishes would inevitably drift apart, divergences and schisms appear,
and popular frenzies break out.254
Thus, the Puritans developed two ways of taking up the slack caused
by too much disorder in the churches. Within the church, the power of
the elders, as opposed to the congregation, grew, and among the
churches the synod became more significant as a checking device.
Within the church, once the members had covenanted together to
form a church, they were expected to elect elders to rule the church.
John Cotton, says Miller, “insisted that the elders were given to the
church, ‘not as mere adjuncts given to a subject, but as integral parts
given to the whole body of the church, for completing the integrity and
perfection of it.’ ”255
These elders enforced the discipline of the church and directed the
church trials whenever discipline had to be exercised. They interpreted
the laws of the church, preinterviewed candidates for membership, and
advised the congregation whenever it was to take action. We “bring as
few matters as possible, into the assembly,” said Thomas Weld, “rather

253. Ibid., 187.
254. Ibid., 176.
255. Ibid., 177.

laboring to take all things up in private, and then make as short work in
public (when they must needs come there) as may be.”256 Concludes
Miller:
Thus when the internal government of a Congregational church was
perfected in New England, the ostensible result was a peculiar system
of balanced, interlocking, and yet independent authorities.... The
elders administered and the congregations rendered judgments, each
according to a set of rules devised for those particular functions....
This theory of dual authorities cooperating voluntarily in the
advancement {129} of Christ’s kingdom was a triumph of ingenuity. It
preserved the genuine Christian virtues that Puritanism opposed to
the formalism of the Establishment, and projected a church system
which followed the instructions of Christ, admitting members only
upon profession of their faith and allowing them as Christians to exer-
cise the privileges of the elect. At the same tine, the theory provided a
check upon human tendencies to go astray, a sure-fire method for
maintaining law and order.257
But, Miller continues, when the theory was put into practice, it
turned out that the elders still held the crucial power because they were
the interpreters of the Word in a church that was disciplined out of the
Word. “Individual members were no match for those who devoted
their days and nights to exegesis.”258 The answer, of course, is that not
enough slack had been taken up to tighten the basic disorder of the
congregational polity. A wall of brass or stone put in the wrong place,
Cotton had said, is never as effective as a wall of sand in the proper
one.
In the matter of external government, the need for consociations of
the ministers began almost at once. In 1633, Roger Williams objected to
the custom, fearing that it “might grow in time to a presbytery or
superintendency.”259 Henceforth, writes Miller,
There are numerous evidences of the associated ministers being called
upon to deal with a lengthening list of matters, their survey soon
including a goodly part of the internal workings of individual
churches.... Within a decade it had become the established custom of
256. Ibid., 183.

257. Ibid., 180–81.
258. Ibid., 182.
259. Ibid., 188.

the colony to require the presence of neighboring ministers at the cov-

enanting of new organizations, at the election of all officers, or at the
deposition of erring ones, and to refer to outsiders for arbitration of all
parish quarrels.260
All of this was custom, but it was ratified in the Cambridge Platform of
1648, which provided for synods
to determine controversies of faith, and cases of conscience; to clear
from the word holy directions for the holy worship of God, and good
government of the church; to bear witness against maladministration
and corruption in doctrine or manners in any particular church, and
to give directions for the reformation thereof.261
Miller asserts that this was “about as far in the direction of
centralization as Congregationalism could go without abandoning its
basic premises.”262 And that was as close to the Presbyterian system as
they could get without embracing the coercion of Presbyterianism’s
established church. When Presbyterianism finally gave up the idea of
establishing itself, the Congregational opposition to its polity declined,
and in the case of Connecticut, {130} disappeared all together. When
the Connecticut colony adopted its Saybrook Platform of 1708, it insti-
tuted a “semi-presbyterian structure which provided for county conso-
ciations to enforce discipline and doctrine in the churches, ministerial
associations to regularize ordinations and other matters, and a General
Association of Ministers to oversee the commonwealth’s church
affairs.”263 This stand, says Ahlstrom, led to “ever closer ties” between
the Connecticut churches and the Presbyterian churches of the middle
colonies. Thus, in the matter of synods and consociations, “the Puritan
dilemma” caused by a lack of balanced authority was steadily resolved
as the churches developed the proper bounds of their power.
Conclusion: On Mixed Presuppositions

It hath ever been the lot of truth (like the Lord of it) to be crucified
between right-hand and left-hand thieves. Truth’s enemies, on all
260. Ibid., 189–90.

261. Ibid., 192.
262. Ibid., 194.
263. Ahlstrom, Religious History, 163.

hands, are various .... There is as much beyond the truth as this side
thereof; as much in outrunning the flock of Christ and the Lamb that
leads them, as in struggling and loitering behind. Truth hath evermore
observed the golden mean.—Christopher Ness (1621–1705), An Anti-
dote to Arminianism
All men who live in the real world—even philosophers and histori-
ans and other professional analyzers—are men of mixed presupposi-
tions. Theoretically, the analysis of thought forms and systems divides
and classifies philosophies into “schools” or “systems,” but rarely do the
specific individuals being analyzed fit exactly into the analytical pat-
terns as individuals. In the face of this fact, men have often turned in
one of two directions in their analyses. One is toward classification and
the other is away from it. The first tends to make rigid categories and
force men into the one that is most similar. The other is to assume that
classification is falsification and therefore impossible and to argue that
each man stands equal and alone, immune from judgment because of
the individual nature of his thought.
Both errors are to be shunned by the careful thinker. It must be seen
instead, that though men have mixed presuppositions, they do rank
those presuppositions in some kind of order. Thus, when a man’s atten-
tion is called (either in argument or in experience) to a contradiction
in his thinking, he will usually work out, or rationalize, that contradic-
tion on the basis of his “most favored” or basic presupposition—the one
that is closest to his essential being. In this way, most men evolve in
their intellectual lives toward a kind of dialectical consistency between
thought and thought and between thought and action. In Christian
theology, this process is called “sanctification”—the Christian, as he
matures, becomes more and more {131} consistently Christian in both
thought and action. This must have been what the Puritans were look-
ing for when they looked for “visibility” in the saints!
What is important to realize, however, is that this process of
“sanctification” exists in all men, regardless of their presuppositions.
Every man, be he Christian or atheist, Marxist or capitalist, radical or
conservative, nihilist or stand-patter, will become outwardly more con-
sistent to what he is on the inside as he matures in his thought.
Classification, then, becomes possible without destroying the integ-
rity of the individual. While it is difficult or impossible to classify indi-

viduals, it is possible to classify presuppositions, and then to classify

individuals on the basis, not of the mixed presuppositions that they
hold, but on the basis of the direction that they are moving in their
“sanctification.” This involves not only classifying the basic presupposi-
tions but also determining how one individual ranks his mixed presup-
positions, that is, determining what an individual’s basic
presuppositions are.
This can be done in some very practical ways. Most men reveal their
basic values when they are forced to make a decision, especially a deci-
sion of major significance to themselves. If we are asked to decide what
a man believes or holds dearest at an existential point in his life, we
may investigate either his words or his acts. We do well to believe his
acts.
Similarly, Richard Weaver argues in his The Ethics of Rhetoric that a
man’s predominant mode of arguing will likely reveal his predominant
worldview. The man who constantly argues from circumstance, says
Weaver, has a different worldview from the man who constantly argues
from definition: the first will argue “expediency”; the second will argue
“right.”264
What must be guarded against, however, is the tendency to judge too
rigorously or mathematically. In other words, because men have mixed
presuppositions, they will not act consistently on the basis of their
most basic presuppositions either.
The point is this: it is possible to make analyses, judgments, and
classifications of what men believed in history, and of how it affected
their actions—without either destroying their integrity or imposing an
order on them that was not there. It may be done, not by judging by
one existential experience, but by a series of them, by observing the
direction of movement and the choices that were made in the face of
alternatives. By so doing, we can reckon what a man’s basic values were
and thus compare his values with those of other people, arranging
them into groups and schools and movements.
But even as he does this, the historian must be aware of his own pre-
suppositional {132} mix as well. If he is not, he will not only pass off his
own limited viewpoint as objective scholarship, but will also tend to
264. Richard Weaver, The Ethics of Rhetoric (Chicago: Gateway, 1953), chaps. 3, 4.

read too much or too little into the events he is investigating—to see in
the events only “what his eyes bring means of seeing.”
Thus, coming to a study of the Puritan and his philosophy and its
fruits, it is also important to realize that just as individuals have mixed
presuppositions, so too do societies. The Puritan view of authority and
sin embodied the principle of the nonautonomy of human thought and
temporal reality. As such, it became a basic presupposition for him and
infused all his thought in the creation and development of the Holy
Commonwealth. And yet, as we have seen, there were some basic
departures from that principle in several areas of Puritan life, and each
of these departures caused one or more of the problems that have come
to be called “the Puritan dilemma.” In each case, if viewed in the light
of the principle of the nonautonomy of human thought and temporal
reality, it was not the implementation of Puritan orthodoxy that caused
the dilemmas, but rather the departure from it. The Puritan dilemma
was, in short, a result of the mixed presuppositions held by the Puritans.
A study of how they worked out the contradictions in the first genera-
tion, as compared to the second and third generations, should help us
understand more clearly the development of Puritan thought, the grad-
ual changes in the “most favored” presuppositions of the Puritan soci-
ety, and the directions they took as they moved away from the
orthodox “golden mean.”

THE SALEM
WITCH TRIALS
Kirk House
The unhappy outlines of the incidents in Salem are vaguely known to

many Americans. In fact, to many Americans they are examples par
excellence of Puritan government and society. As drama, as literature,
Salem has fired the imaginations of Hawthorne, Whittier, Longfellow,
and Miller. As history, Salem in detail is scarcely known.
The Salem outburst of accusation, trial, and execution lasted less
than a year, and saw nineteen people hanged for acts of witchcraft (the
“burning” of popular imagination is just that—imagination). In addi-
tion, one man was crushed to death for refusing to plead to charges,
and two or three died in prison.
Why did this outburst take place at all? No other witchcraft incident
in Puritan America reached such proportions. Salem is unique. In
order to understand its uniqueness, we must first examine several more
typical cases.
Witchcraft and witch trials, of course, were hardly unique to New
England. For the world picture, see H. R. Trevor-Roper, The European
Witch Craze, and George Lyman Kitteredge, Witchcraft in Old and New
England.
The New England Background

Puritan New England saw a dozen or so witchcraft trials prior to
1692. In 1647 and 1648, a woman was hanged for witchcraft in Hart-
ford and another in Charlestown. Ann Hibbins of Boston, who had
been disciplined by her church for quarreling, was accused after she
accurately reconstructed a conversation of two neighbors concerning
her. Though she was convicted in 1655, the magistrates refused to sen-
tence her, and the case was thrown into the General Court (Assembly),
which found Mrs. Hibbins guilty. She was executed in 1656, despite the

efforts of her pastor, who grumbled that she had been hanged for hav-
ing more wit than her neighbors.
In 1662, Anne Cole of Hartford went into fits, during which several
voices came from her, naming several people as witches responsible for
that condition. One of the accused, Rebecca Greensmith, sent for the
two ministers who had taken down the strange accusation, heard the
transcript, confessed her guilt, and accused the others, meanwhile
claiming to have {134} had sexual relations with the Devil. Greensmith
was hanged. Massachusetts trials in 1662, 1666, and 1673 resulted in
acquittals.
The Knapp case of 1671–72 is very instructive. Elizabeth Knapp of
Groton, Massachusetts, suffered great pains all over her body, followed
by violent fits. She saw specters, spoke with other voices, made animal
noises, and accused a neighbor woman of afflicting her. Knapp, whose
eyes were closed at the confrontation, identified this woman by her
touch. However, after this woman had prayed with Knapp for a while,
the afflicted girl decided that she had been deceived by Satan. A later
accusation was disregarded when two mistakes were found in the accu-
sation itself. Samuel Willard, who as Groton’s minister had supervised
the situation, considered Elizabeth Knapp to be possessed, rather than
bewitched.
Cases in 1675, 1681, and 1683 ended in acquittal. Mrs. Morse of
Newbury was convicted in 1679, but Governor Bradstreet and the
magistrates reprieved her. A specter appearing in the form of the
accused was no proof of guilt in their opinion, and besides, the prose-
cution had not produced two witnesses to the same act.
In 1688, the four Goodwin children of Boston went into fits follow-
ing a quarrel of one with a neighbor whose mother was reputed a
witch. Doctoring did no good, but one child was delivered after a day
of prayer. Goodwin finally swore out a complaint against Goodwife
Glover, who at length confessed herself a witch and demonstrated her
procedure with a number of images found in her dwelling. In her cell
she was often heard arguing with a demon for his refusal to come to
court with her. Suspecting insanity, the court appointed a panel of phy-
sicians to examine Glover. They ruled her sane, and she was executed.
Cotton Mather visited her in jail, discoursing and praying with her
without effect.

The Salem Witch Trials 167
Glover named several accomplices, but Mather was skeptical of a

witch’s word, even when the children’s fits continued. He took the
eldest girl into his house, treating her with prayer and counseling and
ignoring the names of the supposed accomplices. Eventually all the
children were cured. Mather followed this procedure in a number of
similar cases, and it never failed.
(Strangely enough, Mather has a reputation for being “the original
old Puritanical American witch-hunter himself.” The quote is from the
Foreword to Bell Publishing’s reprint of Mather’s Wonders of the Invisi-
ble World. The foreword also implies that only the Mathers refused to
see the light of the 1700s and reject the notion of witchcraft. The back
of the jacket advertises another of Bell’s books, which teaches how to
become a witch.)
We may see, then, a general pattern in these witchcraft cases. Pasto-
ral activity is generally prominent, and generally restraining. Whole-
sale accusations do not occur. Those accusations that are made are
carefully {135} studied and often disregarded. When the matter comes
to trial, about half the accused are acquitted. When convictions do take
place, they are more acceptable to the representatives of the people—
jury and General Court—than to those higher on the social, political,
and educational scale—the ministers, magistrates, and governors.
The facts thus refute another popular superstition. Puritan America
was not obsessed with the notion of witchcraft. Nor was the populace
stirred up to a witch-hunting frenzy by the irresponsible preaching of
superstitious pastors.
The Chronology of Salem Itself

The Salem troubles began with the occult experimentation in the
house of Samuel Parris, minister of the church in Salem Village. Before
his ordination, Parris had failed as a Barbadoes merchant, but still
owned a pair of West Indian slaves, John Indian and Tituba. Tituba fas-
cinated the children of the household (Abigail Williams and Betty Par-
ris—both under twelve) with stories of the islands and such “white”
magic as fortune-telling. Several other village girls, mostly in their
teens, were admitted to these forbidden, though popular, activities.
This was the winter of 1691–92, and by January the girls began to go
into their famous “fits.” These might include convulsions, animal
noises, wild laughter, paralysis, screaming, running into the fireplace,

or mischief and rage. The village physician, Dr. William Griggs, judged
that Abigail and Betty were under an evil hand (a rather general diag-
nosis) and the village concluded that they were bewitched (a more spe-
cific one). Parris was advised by the neighboring elders and worthies to
wait and pray, but some villagers had better ideas. On February 25,
Mary Sibley, aunt of one of the “afflicted girls,” had John and Tituba
prepare a “witch cake” in order to discover the identity of the girls’ tor-
mentor(s). Names were at last forthcoming, and on February 29,
Tituba, Sarah Good, and Sarah Osburne were arrested for harming
people by witchcraft. At a public hearing on the next day, Tituba con-
fessed.
Hers was the first of a number of confessions tallying closely with the
accusations and adding a good deal of consistent corroborative detail.
She described her demonic familiars, accused others, and told of a tall
man from Boston who had urged her to sign a book wherein were
already written nine names. Good and Osburne denied their complic-
ity, but all three were sent to Boston jail on March 7.
These three accused had been pretty much outcaste in Salem life, but
on March 11, at a day of fasting and prayer, Ann Putnam Jr. had fits.
She accused Martha Corey, a respectable if sharp-tongued member of
the Village church. Her hearing on March 21 produced the first case of
sympathetic harm. As Martha bit her own lip, the afflicted cried that
their {136} lips had been bitten. From then on, any unusual motion of a
prisoner could be followed by an effect on the afflicted. At about this
time, Parris finally learned of the witch cake made in his house a
month before, and publicly rebuked Mary Sibley.
Between the 19th and 23rd, two more unusual accusations were
made. One was of Dorcas Good, Sarah’s four-year-old daughter, who
produced a surprisingly detailed and consistent confession, accusing
her own mother. The other was Rebecca Nurse, an elderly member of
the Salem Town church renowned for her piety. Rebecca produced no
confession, but claimed to be “as innocent as the child unborn,” and
wondered “what sin hath God found in me unrepented of ” to give her
such affliction in old age. At her hearing, she declared, “I never hurt no
child, no never in my life.” Pious reputation and unstudied eloquence
aside, she too was jailed.

On April 3, Parris preached on John 6:70, with the title “Christ

Knows How Many Devils There Are in His Church.” On announce-
ment of that text and title, Sara Cloyse, sister of Rebecca Nurse, left the
meetinghouse and slammed its door. She was accused the next day. On
April 11, Deputy Governor Thomas Danforth and three other judges
arrived to join the board hearing the accusations. Several more people
were accused and sent to Boston, but the height of sensation came on
May 8. George Burroughs, second minister of the Salem Village
church, was accused of committing murder and of ringleading the
entire society of witches. He too was jailed (only two or three of those
accused were cleared during the hearing stage).
As yet, however, there had been no trials, for the Massachusetts
government was in a state of confusion. The Massachusetts Charter
had been revoked during the Restoration, and Edmund Andros
appointed Royal Governor. The New Englanders, on receiving word of
the Glorious Revolution, overthrew Andros and thus bereft themselves
of a functioning government. A self-proclaimed provisional govern-
ment limped along, while Increase Mather, pastor of the Old North
Church and president of Harvard, negotiated a new charter in London.
He returned on May 14, after four years of absence, bringing the new
charter and the new Governor, Sir William Phips.
Phips wasted little time. On May 27, he appointed a special commis-
sion of Oyer and Terminer, headed by Lieutenant Governor William
Stoughton. Having placed matters in competent hands, the Governor
then left for the Maine frontier in order to fight the French and Indi-
ans.
The new court likewise wasted little time. On June 2, Bridget Bishop
was tried, convicted, and sentenced to death. She was hanged June 10.
Rebecca Nurse and four others were condemned June 30, and on July 3
Rebecca was taken to Salem Town for her excommunication. Sarah
Good stole the show at their execution, July 19. Called by the Rev.
Nicholas {137} Noyes to repent, she replied, “I am no more a witch
than you are a wizard, and if you take away my life, God will give you
blood to drink.”
The Rev. Burroughs and five others were condemned on August 5.
At their execution on the 19th (minus the pregnant Elizabeth Procter),
Burroughs nearly created a riot by flawlessly reciting the Our Father.

Witches were popularly supposed to be unable to do so, and the audi-

ence was prepared to free Burroughs by force. Cotton Mather, son of
Increase and his father’s assistant at Old North, denounced the super-
stition and enabled the execution to continue.
In the middle of September, despite increasing opposition from min-
isters and public officials, Martha Corey, Mary Easty, and thirteen oth-
ers were condemned. One escaped, one was reprieved due to
pregnancy, and at least one (probably five) was reprieved on confes-
sion. The remaining eight were hanged on September 22, following the
death of Martha Corey’s husband Giles on the nineteenth. He had
refused to plead at his hearing in April, and so could not be legally
tried. English law, in order to obtain a plea, permitted torture—
increasing weight placed upon the prisoner’s chest. Giles Corey, obsti-
nate to the last, was crushed to death.
Phips soon returned from the frontier, extremely unhappy with the
course of events. He had appointed the commission to determine
whether witchcraft or possession was at work, and expected it to end
public excitement and clear the jails. A summer of trials and executions
had brought only more excitement, more accusations, and more pris-
oners. On October 12, he wrote the Privy Council that he had stopped
the trials. Lt. Gov. Stoughton, who headed the investigating commis-
sion, was enraged, and he was not alone. A General Court act calling
for a fast to find the right course in the matter passed by only four
votes.
Trials resumed in January. All were cleared, except three who stuck
to their confessions. They were reprieved by the Governor.
The Legal Aspects of the Situation

Trials and executions for witchcraft had been common for hundreds
of years before 1692. George Lyman Kitteredge (Witchcraft in Old and
New England) has demonstrated that English witch trials were unique
in two ways.
First, the highly developed witch lore of the continent is missing.
English witches tended to remain on the level of village “wise women,”
rather than being priests and priestesses of an elaborate antichurch.
Some of this witch lore is found in the Salem confessions and accusa-
tions, but it is mild compared to that of Europe. Salem witches admit-
tedly signed books, flew through the air, and danced at night, but most
of their meetings were taken up with sermons urging them to win new
converts. {138}
Second, it was unusual for an English subject to be tried for being a
witch. English witches were tried for committing crimes by means of
witchcraft. Witchcraft was a weapon by which murder, or assault, or
theft could be committed. Thus, it was insufficient to prove a person to
be a witch, for that was not the crime under consideration. The war-
rants accused specific criminals of specific crimes on specific victims at
specific places and times, and these acts had to be proven for convic-
tion. This fact forces us to examine two legal aspects—the rules of evi-
dence and the conduct of the trials and hearings.
1) The Rules of Evidence
Criminals in general, and criminals using witchcraft in particular, do
not often commit crimes before witnesses. The first evidence against
the accused was the testimony of the afflicted, who claimed to have
been assaulted by a specter in the form of, say, Rebecca Nurse. Such
evidence could be strengthened. Was the accused a person of scandal-
ous life? Were any preternatural feats (e.g., unusual strength) ascribed
to him? Had he any unusual bodily excresence, supposedly for suckling
a familiar? Had mischief ever befallen his opponent following a quar-
rel? Did he give wrong answers to the Catechism, or fail to recite Scrip-
ture passages correctly? Did a confessed witch name him as a fellow?
Could images or other witch implements be found on his person or
property?
However, an affirmative answer to all of these questions would still
be insufficient to prove the accused guilty as charged. The penultimate
question was, “Could spectral evidence be admitted in a court of law?
Could the afflicted’s testimony of a sight or action sensible only to the
afflicted be accepted?” The ultimate question was, “Will God allow an
innocent person to be impersonated by a demon?”
It will be recalled that in 1679 Mrs. Morse was reprieved when the
Governor and magistrates ruled specter evidence inadmissible. That,
however, was their personal opinion, and the issue was still a live one in
Salem’s trial when Judge Hathorne, supported by Judge Corwin, denied
the Devil’s power to assume an innocent shape. Their decision was
approved by three of the four pastors nearest the spot—Samuel Parris
of Salem Village, Nicholas Noyes of Salem Town, and John Hale of Bev-
erly. The word of the afflicted was now virtually undeniable. Once
admitted, how could it be refuted?
2) The Conduct of the Trials
Such an attitude on the part of the judges almost guaranteed chaos in
the courtroom. Fits on the part of the afflicted were a necessary means
of gathering evidence. There were no lawyers for defense or state, and
the magistrates were themselves untrained in law. The uproar on the
day of {139} Rebecca Nurse’s hearing startled Deodat Lawson as he
walked in the street near the meetinghouse. Mrs. Pope, one of the
afflicted “girls,” threw her muff at Martha Corey, missed, got off her
shoe, and threw it into the old woman’s head, all apparently without
being hindered.
The judges’ questioning also reveals their attitude. Prisoners were
not asked whether they tormented the afflicted, but why and how they
did so. Mrs. Nathaniel Cary was ordered to stand with her arms out-
stretched, to prevent her from inflicting sympathetic harm. When Cary
asked permission to support his wife, he was told that if she had
strength to torment the afflicted, she had strength to stand by herself.
Sadly, records of many trials themselves have been lost, but appar-
ently their conduct was somewhat similar. The jury’s acquittal of
Rebecca Nurse was greeted with an outburst from the afflicted. Stough-
ton directed the jury to one of Rebecca’s remarks during the trial, and
asked the jury to reconsider. This was an accepted practice of English
law, and William Penn was another of its victims. The jury finally
returned a verdict of “guilty.”
Thus we may see that, guilt or innocence notwithstanding, the
accused were not granted fair hearings or trials. Indeed, a legally sworn
complaint (not all the accused were actually charged) almost inevitably
meant indictment, and, in time, imprisonment.
How Did These Troubles Begin?

What caused this outburst, unique in New England history? Wild
mushrooms and mildewed wheat have been cited as hallucinogenic
foods eaten by the victims. Marion Starkey (The Devil in Massachusetts
and The Visionary Girls) has seen at least some of the visions as erotic
dreams. She tends to view the girls’ fits as results of Puritan repressive-
ness and immature misunderstanding of Calvinism. The popular view

(cited above) that ministers whipped the people into a witch-hunting
frenzy will not hold up in face of the facts, as will be seen below. Some
have suggested that social upheaval, governmental confusion, and
chronic war threats forced the people to find scapegoats among the
outcaste and powerless.
This view has been ably refuted by Paul Boyer and Stephen Nissen-
baum. Their books, Salem Possessed: The Social Origins of Witchcraft
and Salem-Village Witchcraft: A Documentary Record of Local Conflict
in Colonial New England, are among the best on the subject. They dem-
onstrate that within the Village, accusers and accused represented two
pretty much distinct groups, which could be found on opposite sides of
almost every issue. Their data need to be subjected to independent ver-
ification, but for the moment they indicate that accusers generally
belonged to the poorer, weaker, less prestigious group of farmers in the
western end of the village, whereas the accused were generally associ-
ated with that group which was {140} wealthier, possessed of political
power, socially prestigious, and sympathetic with the merchant class in
Salem Town.
This is both interesting and important, but still fails to answer our
question. If local conflict produced witch trials, New England would
have been depopulated long ago (I speak from three hundred years of
ancestry and a quarter-century of experience in New England, town
and church).
Cotton Mather, in his book on Salem (The Wonders of the Invisible
World), included a sermon on Revelation 12:12. The Devil, he was sure,
had only a short time, for Mather had calculated that the destruction of
Anti-Christ, identified as the Papacy, would occur about 1697. Clearly
he was wrong on this point, but an atmosphere of apocalyptic specula-
tion, traditionally a breeding-ground for excesses, may have provided a
good matrix for occult activities.
According to Mather, the country was awash in such activity. Spells,
conjurations, fortune-telling, and astrology were widely practiced. For
all the preaching of the Puritans, magic was still very close to the lives
of the people. The supposition that this interest in magic was created
by Puritan emphasis on the supernatural will not bear examination.
Kitteredge and Chadwick Hanson (Witchcraft at Salem) have demon-

strated that occult practices and witchcraft accusations were at least as

common in other religious groups. George Lincoln Burr (Narratives of
the Witchcraft Cases, 1648–1706) has published narratives involving
Quakers and Anglicans, as well as Puritans.
According to Mather, the whole affair was God’s punishment of New
England for its sorceries, its discontent, its unbelief and slighting of the
Savior, its neglect of the churches, and for the Europeans’ barbaric
treatment of the Indians.
Thus we may see that fairly widespread occult activity, set in a time
of religious, political, and social confusion and a place of bitter rivalry,
provided opportunity for the accusations and hearings. However, accu-
sations and hearings had taken place before without reaching such pro-
portions.
How Did These Troubles Continue?

Having begun as a fairly normal case, the Salem situation proceeded
far beyond the norm. The reasons may be found by examining the fits,
the confessions, circumstantial evidence, hard evidence, and church-
state conditions.
1) The Fits
By far the most spectacular aspect of the situation was the fits of the
“afflicted girls.” These first caused discovery of occult activity in the
Parris household, these were the source of accusations, and these dis-
rupted {141} hearings, trials, and church services from February to
October, incidentally drawing crowds to all three.
It is easy to dismiss these fits as deceptive stunts. In fact, there was
some lying on the part of the afflicted. At Sarah Good’s trial, one of the
afflicted went into a fit. On recovery she claimed that Good’s specter
had tried to stab her and produced part of a knife. A young man came
forward and testified that on the day before he had broken his knife in
the presence of the witness, and had thrown away the broken piece. He
produced the haft, which was found to match the witness’s piece. She
was admonished not to lie, but was still allowed to give evidence.
For the most part, however, these fits were not lies. They were real,
and they had a force that was overwhelmingly convincing. The men of
Andover, when their wives were accused, believed the accusations.
Martha Corey claimed that the girls were distracted, but not that they
were lying. Captain John Alden, son of John and Priscilla of Mayflower
fame, referred to his accusers’ “jugling tricks,” but felt that they were
“distracted, or possessed.” Of all the accused, only the Carys are known
to have completely denied the validity of the fits.
Boyer and Nissenbaum imply that one segment of Salem Village was
striking out against the other, pro-Town segment. (Salem Village was
officially part of Salem Town. The western farmers generally favored
independence, while the more prosperous east preferred to remain
with the town. Salem Village is now the Town of Danvers.) However, in
isolating their study to the Village itself, they have missed an important
point. As they note, Salem Town magistrates and constables failed to
compel collection of rates to support Parris and the Village church, a
center of independence activity. They were active, however, in arresting
and conducting hearings of the accused witches, although the accusers
were their village enemies, and the accused their village allies. Obvi-
ously, sectional conflict has played a part in the accusations. Just as
obviously, it has been over-ridden by something more powerful. Once
we move outside the Village, this part of Boyer and Nissenbaum’s thesis
proves inadequate. Larzer Ziff ’s somewhat similar contention, in Puri-
tanism in America: New Culture in a New World, also has serious flaws.
True, the accusations were in part an uprising of the powerless women,
children, and servants, but they were accepted by a relatively wealthy
and powerful magistracy.
To look at a particularly striking case may help elucidate the point.
Captain John Alden was accused after a couple of false starts on the
part of the afflicted. They first pointed out the wrong man, and then
had to adjourn to the better light of the street. He was then accused of
inflicting sympathetic harm, and asked those who knew him if they
had ever suspected his being a witch. In Alden’s own words, “Mr. Gid-
ney [one of the judges] said he had known Aldin [sic] many years, and
had been at Sea with him {142} and always look’d upon him to be an
honest man, but now he did see cause to alter his judgment.” If we may
give Gedney and his fellow-judges credit for being of average intelli-
gence, reasonableness, and prudence, it is a fair assumption that such
alterations in judgment, especially in capital cases, were not based
upon fits of a “normal” nature. Something so unusual as to alter a life-
time of experience had been presented to them.

What was it? Medical science was lacking a good deal in those days,
and Dr. Griggs, who in 1695 signed a legal document with a mark, may
not have been an especially competent practitioner. However, even if
unidentified, it was clearly out of the ordinary. The Rev. Hale specifi-
cally stated that the fits were “beyond the power of any Epileptic Fits, or
natural Disease.”
Was it hysteria? This diagnosis is advanced, to greater or lesser
degrees, by Starkey, Hanson, and Boyer and Nissenbaum. It should be
noted that they, especially Hanson, use the term in its clinical sense,
rather than in the popular sense of general excitement. The fits in fact
often tally quite closely with the progress of a “typical” hysterical fit. In
many cases, hysteria could be the answer. But what do we really know
about hysteria and its causes? Is a diagnosis of hysteria much of an
advance, as far as information is concerned, over that of “an evil hand”?
There is, of course, a possibility which rationalistically inclined
scholars overlook. Demonic activity, up to and including possession,
may have been involved. Such a diagnosis fits the facts as well as one of
hysteria, so long as it is not rejected on presuppositional grounds.
Indeed, some aspects of the case are more easily explained by demon
activity. Such a case is the levitation of Margaret Rule. Taking place in
Boston in 1693, the Rule case is not directly a part of the Salem situa-
tion. Seven men, headed by Cotton Mather, Fellow of the Royal Society
of London and former medical student, testified that they had seen
Margaret Rule lifted from her bed to the ceiling, and that the combined
strength of several men was insufficient to pull her down.
The fits, then, though at times a deception, seem to have been in the
main real, and of such extraordinary force as to cause hundreds of peo-
ple to change opinions of many years’ standing. Their most likely ori-
gin would seem to lie in hysteria, or demon activity, or a combination
of both.
2) The Confessions
A surprising number of the accused, around fifty by some counts,
confessed their guilt. Some of these confessions were probably coerced.
Mrs. Tyler, Mrs. Fry, and Mrs. Osgood of Andover were all badgered
into confessions by husbands and relatives. John Procter wrote that
three men had not confessed until they were tortured by being tied
neck and heels. {143}
Others may have been motivated by self-interest, since confessors

were neither tried nor executed. This fact, however, could not have
become evident until the middle of the summer. It certainly was not
evident to Tituba, whose detailed confession was noted above. Nor was
it evident to Dorcas Good, who described her familiar and showed the
place where she suckled it. The magistrates apparently tried to confuse
her by asking about other places, but she stuck to her original location.
She also insisted that it was her mother, not the Black Man (as the mag-
istrates suggested), who had given her that familiar. Her mother had
three familiars, which hurt the afflicted. Other confessions were simi-
larly detailed, beyond the simple confession which would have sufficed
to save life.
Three women even continued to confess in 1693, when the others
had repudiated their confessions. Two were women with a reputation
for being silly and ignorant, and one was the wife of a man who had
been hanged after repudiating his confession. These facts may explain
their tenacity.
In addition to the reasons advanced above, some of the confessors
may have been hysterical or under demonic influence. Times of occult
propaganda often result in a rash of apparently self-deluded victims
(this was the case during the popularity of The Exorcist). Finally, it
must be remembered that many people at the time were in fact guilty of
magic and other occult practices, both “white” and malefic.
The confessions, though produced by different motivations,
included enough that was sufficiently credible, given the excitement of
the time, to constantly add fuel to the process of accusation and trial.
3) Circumstantial Evidence
This section might well be headed “Unusual Events.” A number of
seemingly inexplicable events which took place in 1692 served only to
drive on the prosecutions. When Martha Corey was accused, Edward
Putnam and Ezekiel Cheever decided to discuss the matter with her in
accordance with their church covenant responsibilities. They first vis-
ited the accuser to ask about the clothes worn by the specter. Ann Put-
nam Jr. had not been able to see any clothes. When Putnam and
Cheever arrived at the Corey house, Martha said she knew they had
come to speak with her about being a witch, and asked whether Ann
had told what clothes she had worn. This seemed almost like preternat-
ural knowledge, and that likeness increased at her hearing. She testified
that she had learned of the question about the clothes from Cheever,
who denied it. She then named her husband, who also denied it, and
finally testified that no one had told her. Giles Corey broadcast his own
feeling that she was indeed a witch. He changed his tune when he was
himself accused, but further weakened his credibility by perjuring
himself a number of times. {144}
There are other incidents. Bridget Bishop denied knowing John
Louder, a deponent against her. In fact, their orchards were adjoining
and they had had quarrels for years. Robert Downer claimed to have
been spectrally assaulted by Susanna Martin, and several people testi-
fied that the Martins had told of the incident before Downer himself
told anyone.
Along with much more of this sort, there are numerous cases of mis-
chief following quarrels, and incidents such as the one involving
Rebecca Nurse. In the hour that her irons were removed in prison, the
afflicted claimed to be assaulted by her specter, which had not
appeared since Rebecca’s imprisonment. Rebecca, however, was in Bos-
ton. The afflicted were in Salem.
Some of the accused were people of eminent piety. The most notable
examples are the Towne sisters—Mary Easty, Sarah Cloyse, and
Rebecca Nurse. However, contrary to the imaginations of anti-Puritan
writers, the accused were not universally sans peur et sans reproche.
Some, like Bridget Bishop, were thoroughly disreputable. Others fell in
between. For instance, Giles Corey and John Procter were frequently in
court against their neighbors, and even against each other. The Rev.
George Burroughs was well known for his harsh treatment of his wives,
had had only his eldest child baptized, and in 1692 couldn’t remember
the last time he had taken communion. Some writers have pictured
Burroughs as calmly and rationally denying the very existence of
witchcraft. In fact, he claimed to believe in it. Later on he submitted as
his own a paper denying some aspects of witchcraft. This was immedi-
ately detected as perjury, for it was copied from Thomas Ady. Bur-
roughs perjured himself further trying to explain this plagiarism.
Thus we may see that some unusual and even inexplicable events
helped to confirm the air of witchcraft. Also (writers such as Starkey
aside), the accused were not a universe of honest truth-seekers and

harmless fun-lovers. They included a good number of the vicious, the

cowardly, and the disturbers of public peace. The one who is appar-
ently Starkey’s favorite, “honest John Procter,” even reached beyond the
grave in causing difficulty. While in prison, he disinherited his wife.
She sued for years in order to get a share of the estate.
4) Hard Evidence
It is popularly little known that there was legitimate evidence against
a number of the accused. Some of them were, in fact, engaged in the
practice of witchcraft. The activity of Tituba has been noted. Another
slave, Candy, produced several images or poppets (similar to the noto-
rious “voodoo dolls”) with which she attempted to afflict others.
Even more striking was the case of Bridget Bishop, who was widely
reputed to be a witch. She and her Quaker neighbor, Samuel Shattuck,
{145} seem to have fought an occult duel over Shattuck’s son. Poppets
with pins stuck into them were found on her property. Witnesses testi-
fied that she had told them of visits to her by the devil in bodily form.
Wilmot Redd also appears to have practiced malefic witchcraft, while a
number of the accused practiced “white” magic. Abigail Hobbes had
long bragged of personal association with “the Old Boy.”
As usual, George Burroughs was a center of attention. He had often
exhibited and bragged of unusual strength, such as lifting a musket
with one finger stuck into the muzzle. He also had reconstructed con-
versations of his wives. On one celebrated occasion, he was picking
strawberries with his wife and her brother, and he vanished for awhile.
Burroughs reappeared while the brother and sister walked home and
then reconstructed their conversation, claiming to know their
thoughts. The reconstruction itself is hard to explain. Hanson (75–76)
suggests that he followed them in the bushes, within hearing but out of
sight. One problem with this possibility is that it is so obvious, it should
have occurred to a couple of adults intimately familiar with Bur-
roughs’s character, even if they did live in an age unblessed by scientific
rationalism. At any rate, Burroughs announced, “My God makes your
thoughts known unto me.” As Hanson shrewdly, and probably cor-
rectly, notes, neither Burroughs nor his relatives understood by this the
Christian God, who “does not deal in the occult, particularly at the
level of family gossip.” He meant the god of the witches—the Devil.
Burroughs may not have practiced witchcraft, but he seems not at all to
have minded a reputation as one well acquainted with the world of evil
spirits.
At any rate, the powerful fits and unusually full confessions provided
a strong impetus for the proceedings. A number of unusual events,
difficult to explain without recourse to the spirit world, strengthened
the confessions and accusations. Defendants produced an inexplicable
rash of perjuries which would not bear a moment’s scrutiny and would
serve little purpose if they did. Finally, there was evidence that a num-
ber of defendants were in fact witches, or at least enjoyed the reputa-
tion of being witches.
5) Church-State Relations
Finally, and very importantly, there is the matter of church and state.
In the past, witchcraft cases had remained manageable because a min-
ister or public official had taken a firm hand. In this case, however, the
minister on the spot, along with two of his three neighboring ministers,
actually encouraged the trials. The other ministers were universally
opposed, but, under the congregational system, had no real authority
in Parris’s church.
Governor Bradstreet was too elderly, and his government perhaps
too tenuous, to take firm action in this matter. When Phips arrived and
took {146} office in May, he was concerned with the military threat on
the Maine frontier, and had little time for domestic problems. Salem got
out of hand because it occurred at the precise time and place in which the
traditional restraints—ministers and governor—were ineffective.
How Did These Troubles End?

It will be recalled that when the Parris children first began to exhibit
unusual behavior, the neighboring elders advised Parris to wait and
pray. Cotton Mather, in 1685, had resolved that at each instance of
occult activity he would spend a day in fasting and prayer. Accordingly,
he set April 29 as a day of humiliation concerning Salem. He consid-
ered spectral evidence to be feeble evidence, denounced it in public
and private, and wrote the judges asking them not to admit any. He rec-
ommended that the problem be dealt with by prayer and fasting, rec-
ommended that the afflicted be separated from each other, and offered
to support six of them himself.

From the very beginning, there was opposition to the actions of the
magistrates. Deodat Lawson, a former minister in Salem Village,
preached the lecture day sermon there on the day of Rebecca Nurse’s
examination. There he urged the magistrates to discover all, but
reminded them that their concern was with civil matters, and told
them to use only regular means. He reminded the Christians that
Christ had conquered Satan, and that they needed to stand in Christ.
Prayer was urged as the proper remedy, and, in the sermon title,
Christ’s fidelity was upheld as the only shield against Satan’s malignity.
Despite Mather and Lawson, people turned increasingly to the
courts. In the past, pastoral or governmental action had served as a
check at this point. Here, however, was no Samuel Willard, carefully
supervising and scrutinizing the situation. Samuel Parris believed the
accusations, and he encouraged the hearings. Two of his neighboring
pastors, who might have provided restraining influence, supported
him. The third, John Higginson of Salem Town, was too elderly to take
a very active role.
As far as government was concerned, it was headed by Simon Brad-
street, who had been so skeptical of spectral evidence in the Knapp
case. Bradstreet, however, had become so decrepit as to be unable even
to attend church, and his government was both self-proclaimed and
provisional. No forthright action would come from that quarter. Oppo-
sition, then, was left to the ministers of the colony, who universally
opposed Parris, Noyes, and Hale. They, of course, held no political
power. Under the congregational system, they held no real ecclesiasti-
cal power outside of their own churches.
At the end of May, Cotton Mather attempted an intervention. Too ill
to accept Judge John Richards’s invitation to attend the trials, he wrote
Richards a letter of advice urging him to refuse admission of spectral
{147} evidence. Mather also denounced torture and semi-occult tests
such as “swimming” and reciting the Our Father. A credible confession
might be accepted, as well as images, witch marks, and evidence gath-
ered by cross and swift questioning. Clemency was recommended for
lesser criminals, and Richards was reminded that this was a spiritual
matter. Only its physical results gave the court any jurisdiction.
Sometime in June, two papers were circulated by a Baptist preacher
and others opposing the use of spectral testimony. The commission of

Oyer and Terminer convicted Bridget Bishop, against whom it had

hard evidence, then adjourned in confusion. Judge Saltonstall resigned,
apparently unhappy with court procedure. The commission asked the
advice of the Boston clergy.
“The Return” was drawn up by Cotton Mather in the name of the
Boston clergy. The clergy warned that evidence sufficient to require
investigation was not necessarily sufficient for conviction. The popular
semi-occult tests were rejected, as was evidence from the demons
themselves. This could include spectral evidence, accusations by con-
fessed witches, and the touch test. The “noise, company, and openness”
of the earlier hearings were criticized. The clergy, in short, set themselves
squarely against the court’s procedure.
The court ignored them. On July 23, however, came a golden oppor-
tunity. John Procter wrote five ministers, including Increase Mather
and Willard, asking their intervention in a petition for change of venue
to Boston. On August 1, eight ministers met at Cambridge to consider
this request—and promptly backed down. The devil, they ruled, might
have permission to impersonate the innocent, but only rarely, espe-
cially when the case came to law. This is astonishing, since they had for
months been loudly protesting that demons could impersonate inno-
cent, and even virtuous, persons.
What caused this reversal? Sorting out the motives of others is
always dangerous, but several observations may be made. First, the
judges were friends, parishioners, and classmates of these men. A pub-
lic break with them would doubtless have been very painful. Though
the ministers rejected the judges’ methods, their motives and charac-
ters were never condemned. In September and October, Cotton
Mather went so far as to write The Wonders of the Invisible World. Part
of it contains essays proving the existence of witchcraft. Part includes
his sermons and essays condemning the procedures being followed.
The last part is summaries of selected trials, designed to show what a
good job the judges were doing. The trials described in the back of the
book often run contrary to Mather’s rules in the front. One can only
conclude that Mather was excessively credulous, especially where his
friends were concerned. {148}
The suggestion of Hanson (136–37) is also reasonable. These minis-
ters may have feared to admit to the bankruptcy of the theocracy built

by their fathers and grandfathers. The new royal government, the rift
between ministers and magistrates, and the fact that Satan could lie to a
Massachusetts court, may have been too much for them to take. What-
ever the reason, they turned down an opportunity to intervene in an
area legally without their province. This is particularly odd in view of
the fact that two of them, Willard and Moody, are now known to have
urged accused people to flee, saying that the innocent were suffering.
The elder Mather did decide to inspect the trials on August 5, but he
chose that of George Burroughs. Evidence existed in this case, and Bur-
roughs persisted in his pathetic and pointless lies. Another trial might
have given a different impression, but this one, with little reliance on
spectral evidence, convinced Mather that all was well.
On August 9, Robert Pike, magistrate of Salisbury, wrote to Corwin
condemning most of the evidence submitted thus far. He advanced a
novel but well-reasoned view. Since the afflicted were under diabolic
torment, evidence taken from them came in fact from Satan. Thus,
those who took such evidence were, in fact, communing with Satan,
and thereby liable to charges of witchcraft themselves.
The next salvo was Cotton Mather’s letter of August 17 to John Fos-
ter. Foster, a member of the Governor’s Council who had asked
Mather’s advice, was told that spectral evidence was insufficient for
conviction and that devils could assume innocent forms. Reprieve
should be granted whenever the judges were uncertain, and bail should
be granted those jailed on spectral evidence only. As far as those actu-
ally convicted, Mather suggested exile rather than death as a punish-
ment. In conclusion, he hinted that “a famous divine or two” might be
seated on the court.
He was ignored, and on October 3, Increase Mather rolled out the
big guns. He read to the Boston clergy the manuscript of his new book,
Cases of Conscience Concerning Evil Spirits Personating Men. Here he
went on record as opposing any evidence taken from devils or confess-
ing witches. On October 8, Thomas Brattle wrote that all the elders
except Hale, Parris, and Noyes were opposed to the proceedings. Also
opposed were Bradstreet, former Deputy Governor Danforth, Major
Saltonstall (who had resigned from the commission), a number of cur-
rent and former magistrates, and most of the principal men in the Bos-
ton area. On October 12, Phips suspended the commission’s

operations, an act narrowly approved by the General Court. Judge

Sewall, on the fifteenth, wrote in his diary of the difficulty caused by
the rift between the ministers and people. The pastors and their allies
in this struggle were a definite minority.
They were supported by other ministers. On October 11, in response
to the request of their Chief Justice, the New York Dutch and French
(Huguenot {149}) Calvinist ministers rendered their opinion denounc-
ing spectral evidence. In Connecticut, the Salem trials had provoked a
number of witchcraft accusations. Responding to their General Court’s
request, the ministers on the seventeenth rejected virtually all the evi-
dence that had been offered. Neither of these documents were available
to Phips on the twelfth, but he considered them while composing new
rules of procedure for the commission.
The Public Repentance

The people were unhappy and Stoughton enraged. The preaching of
the ministers, however, began to have its effect. The narrowly passed
bill calling for a fast and convocation to find the right way in the matter
implied admission that the current way was wrong. Massachusetts was
about to embark on an episode unique not only to itself, but to the
world.
All the members of the commission went on to be elected to the
Governor’s Council. Even so, in 1693 reaction began to set in, and pop-
ular opinion, while still trusting the judges, turned at length against the
trials. This confidence in the integrity and intelligence of the judges
was nowhere more evident than in the families of the victims. Samuel
Parris remained intransigent, and those families which had suffered
wanted him removed from Salem Village. Appealing to a board of arbi-
trators, they summed up their opposition to Parris. He had trafficked
with the Devil (through the afflicted), believed his accusations,
departed from charity, and encouraged the accusations. Only one thing
here is remarkable. Two of these arbitrators had sat on the commission
of Oyer and Terminer, and had done the same things of which Parris
was accused.
This was in 1697, an eventful year for those involved with the trials.
In 1696, the General Court had called a fast, with particular reference
to the Salem trials. Judge Sewall, one of the above-named arbitrators,
had drawn up the bill, toning down an even more pointed version by
Cotton Mather. December 24 found Sewall deeply affected by Matthew
12:7. On January 15, the fast day, Sewall stood before his church as Pas-
tor Willard read Sewall’s confession and repentance. Twelve jurymen
signed a similar paper, confessing and repenting of their sin, though
done “ignorantly and unwittingly,” in shedding innocent blood. John
Hale in that year wrote A Modest Enquiry into the Nature of Witchcraft,
in which he described and refuted his own earlier views on the subject.
A large part of this book was inserted with approbation into Cotton
Mather’s Magnalia Christi Americana.
Martha Corey’s excommunication was revoked in 1703, Giles
Corey’s and Rebecca Nurse’s in 1712. Ann Putnam Jr. publicly repented
when she joined the Salem Village church in 1706. {150}
There was also a sort of institutional repentance. Some attainders
were reversed in 1703, and a good many more in 1711. In that year the
General Court also approved money indemnities, to the total of £ 578
12 s, to be paid to the survivors.
All in all, those who have suffered most from the historical point of
view are probably the Mathers. Though their behavior was not perfect,
they probably deserve less blame than any other. This is partly due,
perhaps, to an anti-supernatural bias on the part of historians. It is also
partly due to their uncritical acceptance of More Wonders of the Invisi-
ble World, by Robert Calef, a contemporary of the Mathers. Hanson has
ferreted out a number of important lies on Calef ’s part.
In moving to the conclusions, it would be well to bear in mind the
conclusion of Kitteredge’s book.
“It is easy to be wise after the fact—especially when the fact is two
hundred years old.”
Conclusions and Applications

Familiarity with and practice of occult activities were fairly common
in late-seventeenth-century Massachusetts. It would be specious to see
this as a result of Puritan preaching, for non-Puritans in New England
are also in view here. Additionally, familiarity and practice were as
great or greater in non-Puritan areas of the world. The ministers as a
whole, along with the highest civil officials, were the least credulous
and superstitious of the population. The relative scarcity of New
England witchcraft trials, and their extremely restricted nature, can be

traced directly to the actions of these two groups. The Salem situation
was not very different in its origins from the earlier cases; it got out of
hand because of ministerial encouragement (Parris, Hale, and Noyes)
and gubernatorial ineffectiveness (Bradstreet’s age and Phips’s preoccu-
pation with the frontier war). A strong governor or a more sensible
minister might well have nipped things in the bud. This case also dem-
onstrated what is perhaps the greatest weakness of congregationalism.
A strong presbytery or episcopacy of course creates problems in other
areas, but they probably would have taken this situation in hand fairly
early.
Neither accusers, accused, judges, opponents, supporters, nor any
other people were actors in a great historiographical drama. Rather,
they were people, brazenly refusing to fit into any literary mold. Many
of the accused were people of eminent piety, while others were scoun-
drels of the worst sort. Some were guilty of witchcraft and other occult
practices, but probably not one received a fair trial. Nearly all the mag-
istrates involved prejudged their guilt early in the hearing stage. Addi-
tionally, there was some perjury on the part of the accusers, and the
commotion so often {151} found in the courtroom made a defense well
nigh impossible. Of course, the spectral evidence was by nature irrefut-
able. The magistrates do not seem to have been particularly wicked
men. They were affected by the powerful fits of the afflicted, which
may have been hysterical or may have involved demon activity. The
confessions helped confirm the opinion of the magistrates, aided by a
fair amount of hard evidence and a number of ridiculous perjuries.
Opposition to the trials was led by the ministers, who questioned the
efficacy of witch trials in general and rejected the conduct of these in
particular. Without any real authority outside their own churches, they
confined their opposition mostly to advising and preaching. When
provided with a real opportunity to intervene, they backed down,
probably unwilling to fight their friends and afraid to destroy the
image of peace in Zion. They may also have been concerned to give
fuel to a growing “rationalism,” as an apparent denial of witchcraft
could lead to a denial of the supernatural altogether. Such a concern is
often shown in writings of this period.

Soon afterwards they reasserted themselves. Increase Mather’s Cases

of Conscience was an attack on the proceedings, and the point of view
of the Boston clergy was basically shared by the Calvinist clergy in
Connecticut and New York.
The matter did not run its course. Phips, advised by the ministers,
brought matters to an early end, much to the discontent of the people,
the magistrates, and almost half of the General Court. A good number
of those involved later publicly repented of their deeds, and the Gen-
eral Court voted a money payment to those who had suffered. Both
actions seem to be without precedence in witchcraft cases.
The fundamental error here seems to have been an insufficient
appreciation of Christ and His word. Those who do not love Him fully
will grasp at other means, including occult ones, to order their lives.
The body of Christ must lead people on into the fulness of Christ. The
negative approach, including warnings against occult activity, is also
necessary. However, it is by itself ineffective and moreover at times self-
defeating.
In 1692, people heeded popular superstition and theological reason-
ing rather than the Bible. Is there any biblical basis to the supposition
that a demon could not assume an innocent form? Indeed, Satan may
array himself as an angel of light. In matters such as these, matters not
surely learned from Scripture cannot surely be known.
It must also be remembered that apologetic “proof ” of the existence
of a supernatural world is virtually irrelevant to Christianity. We do not
wish to descend to the level of fideism, but it must be affirmed that the
gospel is its own best defense, and possessed of great power. To be
more {152} concerned with an apologetic principle than with human
lives shows both sinful callousness and sinful lack of faith.
Finally, the error was deepest when it was decided to treat the prob-
lem with civil means, rather than evangelical means. When Cotton
Mather had his way, he treated the afflicted with fasting, prayer, coun-
seling, and evangelism, and he saw every case cured. It would not do to
divide the world into mutually exclusive “secular” and “religious”
realms. Neither would it do to place our hopes and our faith in a physi-
cal/political problem solver—even if it is a Christian-dominated theoc-
racy.

MEDIEVAL ECONOMICS IN
PURITAN NEW ENGLAND,
1630–1660
Gary North
One of the central difficulties in the reconstruction of the past is the

present-mindedness of the writer. The categories of thought in one era
are superimposed upon the historical data. Great differences, especially
in the realm of attitudes, can be covered up through an appeal to super-
ficial similarities between past and present. This is certainly evident in
modern accounts of the economic thought and policies of New
England Puritans. We are asked to believe that Puritan economic
thought was essentially one of the following: 1) more socialistic than
individualistic;265 2) significantly individualistic;266 3) mercantilis-
tic;267 4) a form of traditional medievalism.268 Such conflicting inter-
pretations indicate, on the one hand, the complexity of the historical
records; a part of this complexity in turn is due to the variations, town
to town and province to province, within any given time period, and to
the changes that took place throughout the seventeenth century. On
the other hand, historians with varying presuppositions have been able
to select from this complex multitude of data certain historical records
that would seem to verify, taken by themselves, the theses of the vari-
ous investigators.
265. Clive Day, “Capitalistic and Socialistic Tendencies in the Puritan Colonies,”
Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the year 1920 (1925), 235.
266. A. Whitney Griswold, “Three Puritans on Property,” New England Quarterly 7
(1934): 276–77.
267. E. A. J. Johnson, “Some Evidence of Mercantilism in the Massachusetts Bay,”
New England Quarterly 1(1928): 371–95.
268. John Dickenson, “Economic Regulations and Restrictions on Personal Liberty in
Early Massachusetts,” Pocumtuck Valley Memorial Association, Proceedings 7 (1929):
493–94. Cf. Carl Bridenbaugh, Cities in the Wilderness ([1938] 1955), 45; Bernard
Bailyn, The New England Merchants in the Seventeenth Century (1964), 21ff.
Medieval Economics in Puritan New England, 1630–1660 189
“Contrary to popular usage,” writes Marshall Harris in his study of

the land tenure system in early America, “property is concerned with
relations among men, not physical objects. Property is rights, not
things.”269 Puritans {154} were never led to think otherwise. Their uni-
verse was an intensely personalistic one, controlled by a sovereign tri-
une God down to the most insignificant (humanly speaking) details.
Nothing could ever happen which was not foreordained in God’s
immutable plan for His creation. There could be no zone of contin-
gency and no zone of impersonal mechanism anywhere in the uni-
verse. Events could, of course, appear to be random or impersonally
controlled, but such an appearance was due to the limited insight of
human observers. As a result, Puritan writers were careful to avoid the
mistake of regarding property as anything but personal. The adminis-
tration of property always involved personal responsibility before a
personal God; physical objects were always subordinated to the ines-
capable issue of responsibility, both communal and private.
Ownership and Stewardship

The concept of ownership that was expressed by Puritans on both
sides of the Atlantic would have been instantly recognizable by Salvian
the Presbyter or Thomas Aquinas. The doctrine of godly stewardship
was the foundation of the traditional Christian analysis of property
rights. God, wrote Thomas Shepard, “is owner of all, and disposer of all
to the least growth of thy stature....”270 John Winthrop’s defense of the
Puritans’ appropriation of American soil included this principle: “The
269. Marshall Harris, Origin of the Land Tenure System in the United States (1953), 2.
Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart, speaking for the majority in the case of Lynch v.
Household Finance, wrote that “the dichotomy between personal liberties and property
rights is a false one. Property does not have rights. People have rights. The right to enjoy
property without unlawful deprivation, no less than the right to speak or the right to
travel, is, in truth, a ‘personal’ right, whether the ‘property’ in question be a welfare
check or a savings account. In fact, a fundamental interdependence exists between the
personal right to liberty and the personal right in property. Neither could have meaning
without the other.” The United States Law Week 40 (March 21, 1972): 4339–40.
270. Thomas Shepard, “The Parable of the Ten Virgins,” (16, 9), in John A. Albro, ed.,
The Works of Thomas Shepard, 3 vols ([1853] 1967), vol. 2, 544. These sermons were
preached originally between 1636 and 1640.
whole earth is the Lord’s garden and he hath given it to the sons of
Adam to be tilled and improved by them....”271 Man therefore has the
duty to manage God’s garden lawfully, judiciously, faithfully, for, Tho-
mas Shepard wrote, “when Adam stood before God, the Lord fully
convinced him; when death comes, then there is an end of man’s stew-
ardship (Luke 16:2), and when an end comes to that, what comes then?
Come, give up thy account....”272
Man is completely accountable to a sovereign and jealous God for
the proper use of all property that is given to man to administer. This
stood as the theological foundation for the Puritan diary as well as the
Puritan account book: man’s gifts—property, family, and especially
time—must be used productively throughout one’s lifetime. The Bos-
ton merchant, Robert Keayne, represents the model of the record-
keeping steward: {155}
All these books and accounts and writings I mention in this my will
the more particularly that my executor especially and my overseers
may call for them, find them all out, take special care for the safe keep-
ing of them, and peruse them diligently. For if any one of them should
be lost or conveyed away you would be at a great loss and much to
seek in my accounts; and it may prove a great loss to my estate. Of the
like use are many other written papers and books in my closet ... by
having recourse to these books and papers I can show them when and
how and in what it was discharged and evened. Therefore, very few of
those papers are to be neglected or cast by as if they were kept for no
use at all.
And when all these books and writings, not only of debts and
accounts and worldly business but also of divinity, sermon books, and
some of military discipline and exercise....—if all of these should be of
no other use, yet they will testify to the world on my behalf that I
would not have lived an idle, lazy, or dronish life, nor spent my time
wantonly, fruitlessly or in company-keeping as some have been to
ready to asperse me.…273
271. John Winthrop, “General Observations on the Plantation of New England”

(1629), in Winthrop Papers, 5 vols. (1929), vol. 2, 118.
272. Shepard, “Ten Virgins,” Works, vol. 2, 576.
The Right to Own Land

One of the important initial applications of this doctrine of owner-
ship-stewardship dealt with the specific rights of the colonists to the
land of New England, in comparison to the rights of the original inhab-
itants, the Indians. Winthrop based his justification of the Puritans’
presence in the land on two ideas: the general requirement that God
placed on Adam, that he subdue the earth (Gen. 1:28), and secondly on
the concept of the “vacuum domicilium”—the supposedly unoccupied
status of the land prior to the coming of the Puritans.274
Obj. 5. But what warrant have we to take that land, which is and hath
been of long time possessed of others [of] the sons of Adam?
Ans. That which is common to all is proper to none. This savage peo-
ple ruleth over many lands without title or property; for they inclose
no ground, neither have they cattle to maintain it, but remove their
dwellings as they have occasion, or as they can prevail against their
neighbors. And why may not Christians have liberty to go and dwell
amongst them in their waste lands and woods (leaving them such
places as they have manured for their corn) as lawfully as Abraham
did among the Sodomites? For God hath given to the sons of men a
twofold right to the earth; there is a natural right and a civil right. The
{156} first right was natural when men held the earth in common,
every man sowing and feeding where he pleased: Then, as men and
cattle increased, they appropriated some parcels of ground by enclos-
ing and peculiar manurance, and this in time got them a civil right.275
It should be obvious what Winthrop had in mind. The essence of
ownership is the systematic management of the land; in order to claim
title—at least original title—men must enclose their ground, manure it,
make it fruitful before the Lord. This is a recurring theme in Puritan
273. Robert Keayne, The Apologia of Robert Keayne, ed. Bernard Bailyn ([1653]
1964), 73. Weber emphasized the importance of rational bookkeeping in the Protestant
contribution to the process of rationalization: The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of
Capitalism, 21–22, 170. Rather than subordinating himself under God’s sovereignty, the
capitalist subordinates himself to possessions as if he were “an acquisitive machine.”
The capitalist is therefore a secularized version of the systematic Puritan: Protestant
Ethic, 170.
274. Winthrop, “General Observations,” Winthrop Papers, vol. 2, 123; Winthrop to
[John Wheelwright] (1639), ibid., vol. 4, 101.
275. Winthrop, “General Observations,” ibid., vol. 2, 120.
and continental Calvinistic literature: the “cultural mandate” from God

requires all men to fulfill the terms of Genesis 1:28. Locke adopted a
secularized version of this theme in his defense of private property and
its ultimate origin. Ownership, in the Puritan view, is a form of steward-
ship—simultaneously a social and a religious function.276 It requires
personal supervision and ultimate responsibility.
The idea that the land was open in America, and therefore a legiti-
mate area for conquest, was incorporated into the original patent
granted by James I to the New England Company. The king referred to
the known depopulation of the region by plague shortly before the
arrival of the Mayflower. The king offered “reverent thanks to his
Divine Majesty, for laying open and revealing the same unto us, before
any other Christian prince or state,” and furthermore, thanks for the
fact that “within these late years, there hath, by God’s visitation,
reigned a wonderful plague” on the Indians, “so as there is not left any
other superior lord or sovereign, to make claim thereunto, whereby we,
in our judgment, are persuaded and satisfied, that the appointed time is
come.…277 Unfortunately for the consistency of the two justifications,
they remain mutually contradictory. If the right of private property is
established by adding labor to the land, then the king had no right to
grant the immense tracts of land to his subjects, since there was far
more land involved in the patents than could possibly be subdued by
immigrants for centuries. There is no indication in the records, how-
ever, that the contradiction ever troubled the founders of New
England.
John Cotton held views quite similar to Winthrop’s. God makes a
way for His people in a new land in the following ways: 1) by drawing
them out of their homeland through a specially commissioned com-
mandment to {157} defeat the original inhabitants in battle; 2) by
276. Cf. Gary North, “Ownership: Free but not Cheap,” The Freeman (July 1972). An
expanded version of this essay appears in North, An Introduction to Christian Economics
(1973). On Locke’s secularization of the Puritan view of original ownership, see Of Civil
Government ([1689] 1936), bk. 2, chap. 5. Locke argued that the addition of a man’s
labor to the soil gives him original title. Civil government was created to preserve and
defend these original claims of ownership.
277. “The Great Patent of New England” (1620), in William Brigham, ed., The
Compact with the Charters and Laws of the Colony of New Plymouth (1836), 3.
allowing them to purchase the land; and 3) by providing a void area of

land for colonization.278 His comment on Genesis 1:28 is certainly rep-
resentative of the Puritan viewpoint: “... in a vacant soil, he that taketh
possession of it, and bestoweth culture and husbandry upon it, his
Right it is.”279 God is the sovereign owner of the land: “The placing of
people in this or that country is from God’s sovereignty over all the
Earth, and the inhabitants thereof: as in Psal. 24.1: The Earth is the
Lord’s and all the fullness thereof.” Vacant land, coupled with God’s cul-
tural mandate, secured for a Christian commonwealth its landed prop-
erty.280
The Concept of Time

The second important area of application for the Puritan steward-
ship principle was the realm of time. The Puritan concept of time was
something radically new in European life during the seventeenth cen-
tury, and its impact on New England should not be ignored. From
Augustine to Luther, the Christian idea of time had been linear—from
creation to judgment—but not progressive. Calvin’s perspective was
ambivalent: elements of progress and social pessimism were present in
his outlook. The seventeenth century saw the advent of new views of
time. The optimistic hints of earthly triumph in several of Calvin’s trea-
tises became a conscious theology of victory in the writings of many
Puritan thinkers, and this postmillennial strain was basic to the out-
look of the founders of New England. An earthly kingdom would be
established by the preaching of the gospel, the establishment of godly
institutions through the application of biblical law, and (in the opinion
of some expositors) the national conversion of the Jews.281 Then, and
only then, would Christ return visibly to judge the world and turn His
kingdom over to the Father for all eternity.282
278. Cotton, God’s Promise to His Plantations ([1634] 1686), 4.

279. Ibid., 5.
280. Charles S. Eisenger, “The Puritans’ Justification for Taking the Land,” Essex
Institute, Historical Collections 84 (1948): 131–43, esp. 135–38.
281. Shepard, “The Sincere Convert” (1641), Works, vol. 1, 40. Cf. Cotton, “The Way
of Congregational Churches Cleared” (1648), in Larzer Ziff, ed., John Cotton on the
Churches of New England (1968), 274.
Edward Johnson’s Wonder-Working Providence of Sion’s Saviour in

New England (1653) was a testament of this victorious theology; he
hoped for a progressive regeneration of the world. He regarded New
England as the beginning. “Further know these are but the beginnings
of Christ’s glorious Restoration of his Churches to a more glorious
splendor than {158} ever.”283 His language borders on the apocalyptic:
“I am now pressed for the service of our God Christ, to rebuild the
most glorious Edifice of Mount Zion in a Wilderness.... Then my dear
friend unfold thy hands, for thou and I have much work to do, aye, and
all Christian Soldiers in the world throughout.”284 Aletha Gilsdorf ’s
study of colonial Puritan eschatology emphasizes the nature of this
radical break with the received exegesis of the Middle Ages:
Johnson’s insistence that the raison d’etre of New England was a special
part in God’s plan for bringing down Antichrist suggests that, within
two decades of its founding, apocalyptic thinking had become, for a
great many of the colonists, an essential part of the rationale for their
new departure in Puritanism.... In the New England mind, the
establishment of this particular kind of holy commonwealth had
somehow become indissolubly associated with the realization of
Christ’s kingdom in history. Indeed, the very creation of a New
England way was grounded on the assumption that not only was the
Kingdom capable of being realized in history, but that it was the ines-
capable obligation of the saints as God’s instruments to work actively
towards its establishment.... Thus from the very beginning, the bent of
the colonists in Massachusetts Bay—unlike their brethren at Ply-
mouth—was not to withdraw from the world but to reform it, to work
within the institutional communities of history rather than to deny
them.285
282. On the varieties of Puritan eschatology in the seventeenth century, see Peter
Toon, ed., Puritans, the Millennium and the Future of Israel: Puritan Eschatology, 1600–
1660 (1970); cf. my review of Toon in The Banner of Truth (January 1971). They were
generally postmillennial optimists: Iain Murray, The Puritan Hope (1971), chaps. 3, 5.
283. J. Franklin Jameson, ed., Johnson’s Wonder-Working Providence, 1628–1651
([1910] 1952), 49.
284. Ibid., 52.
285. Aletha Joy Gilsdorf, “The Puritan Apocalypse: New England Eschatology in the
Seventeenth Century” (Ph.D. dissertation, Yale, 1965), 119–20.
Given this viewpoint, the sin of idleness, which had been regarded as
a terrible sin by Luther, Calvin, and English Puritans, became doubly
cursed in New England. The necessity of personal labor went beyond
individual self-discipline and natural necessity; it became the holy task
of a Christian soldier, a soldier whose army’s battle plan was guaran-
teed to succeed in the long run. Far from acting as a retarding and
fatalistic factor on Christians’ efforts, the New England clergy (like
orthodox Marxists in the nineteenth century) used the doctrine of
inevitable triumph as a rallying cry for even greater personal sacrifice.
Idleness was therefore an intolerable deviation in the holy common-
wealth. Prohibitions against it, as well as mechanisms of enforcement,
were inserted into the public law codes.286 Each town in New England
throughout the century enacted and enforced laws against gaming,
especially games of chance, whether in public inns or in private homes,
because such activities contributed toward the idleness of those partic-
ipating, especially youths and servants. The waste {159} of one’s scarc-
est resource, time, was a violation of the laws of God, and strictly
prohibited.
Puritan sermons brought home the people’s responsibility to allocate
their time judiciously. Unquestionably, Puritan divines relied heavily
on their conception of time to justify their challenge concerning a
man’s vocation. Thomas Hooker’s words are forceful in this regard:
Lastly we should learn to cut off all unnecessary expense of time; if it
be sinful to spend that time which should be for spiritual employment,
in worldly business, which in themselves are lawful, if seasonably dis-
charged, how much more sinful is it to spend it in sinful sports, and
pleasures; we should therefore learn how to redeem the time out of the
hands of our lusts and corruptions, which have too long employed
many precious hours.…287
In short, we are required to “learn so to order and overlook [i.e.,
oversee] all of our businesses, that we may be able to allot to every
employment a proportionable time....”288 Thomas Shepard stressed the
286. Nathaniel B. Shurtleff, ed., Records of the Governor and Company of the
Massachusetts Bay in New England, 5 vols. (1853–54), vol. 1 (1633), 109. [Cited
hereinafter as MGR.] Cf. Joseph Dorfman, The Economic Mind in American Civilization,
5 vols. ([1949] 1966), vol. 1, 43.
287. Thomas Hooker, The Saints Guide (1645), conclusion.
evils of sloth in similar terms.289 Time is too precious to waste. The

things of the earth are in constant flux, John Cotton commented on the
book of Ecclesiastes, and the earth constantly brings forth fruit. The
lazy man stands or sits still; he is an anomaly. Thus, Cotton declared,
“diligence in our own calling hindereth not the happiness or the resting
of our hearts in God.”290 Emil Oberholzer concludes from the absence
of church censures against sloth that the listeners must have taken
these sermons seriously.291
The conditions of a frontier community, of course, were an external
incentive to labor. But in and of itself, the mere threat of starvation or
serious shortages is not enough to stimulate men to labor, as the plight
of Jamestown in the early years indicates: they bowled in the streets in
preference to ploughing in the fields, and in one year nine out of ten
died during the food shortage which resulted.292 The average English-
man of these pre-Industrial Revolution centuries required an ideology
of work to act as an internal incentive, and in New England, the Puritan
concept of stewardship provided just such an ideology.
The Puritan stewardship doctrine included several facets—personal
responsibility for the utilization of scarce resources, including time, as
well as the concept of a final accounting at the end of time—and these
fused with the Puritan hope in the progressive restoration of the earth.
{160} Weber may not have made a careful study of New England Puri-
tanism, but it would not have been difficult for him to have used these
materials in his explanation of the tendency in Calvinist thought
toward the progressive rationalization of every sphere of life, especially
business activity. The words of Hooker are striking in this regard: “... we
should learn so to forecast the businesses of our outward calling, that
we might lose no opportunities for our souls’ advantage; ... we must not
take up so much time in our own businesses, as to deprive ourselves of
288. Ibid., 169.

289. Shepard, “Ten Virgins,” Works, vol. 2, 254, 294–402.
290. Cotton, A Brief Exposition with Practical Observations upon the Whole Book of
Ecclesiastes (1654), 18; cf. 80.
291. Emil Oberholzer, Delinquent Saints (1956), 228.
292. Edmund S. Morgan, “The Labor Problem at Jamestown, 1607–18,” American
Historical Review 76 (1971): 595–611.

time, and strength, for the duties of God’s worship.” 293 The goal, as
stated, is spiritual: we are to rationalize our external callings in order to
gain time for the spirit. But the effect of such advice is to create a neces-
sary interest in rational activities like cost accounting and forecasting.
Forecasting is crucial to the economic task of the capitalist entrepre-
neur. It is accurate forecasting, and planning in terms of accurate fore-
casting, that produce that economic residual known in modern
economics as “pure profit” or “entrepreneurial profit.”294 Given
Hooker’s concern for the proper forecasting of one’s external calling,
the incipient capitalist would be likely to find that the recommended
activity was producing economic returns. From this position to Frank-
lin’s “time is money” philosophy, only a modest shift of emphasis is
required.
An eschatology of victory guaranteed the early Puritans’ ultimate
hope in establishing their city on a hill. The wilderness would be sub-
dued through the application of diligent human labor, which in turn
would be governed by a careful use of time. The focus of this concern
was in the allocation and conservation of one’s gifts of property. If the
whole community could be convinced, or if necessary, coerced, to fol-
low the rules of the calling, then civilization could be expected to
flower.295 The economy, like other godly Christian aspects of the king-
dom, could legitimately be expected to expand, bringing outward
blessings to God’s people. Here, buried very deep in the prolix sermons
of seventeenth-century New England Puritanism, was the foundation
of a wholly new attitude toward the possibility of linear economic
growth, an idea utterly foreign to both medieval Christianity and conti-
nental Protestantism in the sixteenth century.
293. Hooker, Saints Guide, 156.

294. Frank H. Knight, Risk, Uncertainty and Profit ([1921] 1965), chap. 9; Ludwig von
Mises, Human Action (1949), 286ff.
295. Peter Carroll, Puritanism and the Wilderness (1969), 119–20. Sacvan Bercovich
has argued that the early New England Puritans held to an optimism closer to Eusebius’s
position than to Augustine’s eschatological pessimism: “Typology in Puritan New
England: The Williams-Cotton Controversy Reassessed,” American Quarterly 19 (1967):
165–91, esp. 176–83.
The Calling and the Paradox of Deuteronomy 8

Weber’s focus on the doctrine of the calling brought to it a centrality
in the role of social change which Puritans would have appreciated. Yet
to {161} understand its function in a Puritan community, it is manda-
tory to examine it from the point of view of rural farmers as well as
Boston merchants. Sermons were not aimed at any single group within
the community; they were published in the hope that the entire popu-
lation would read them and gain spiritual insight from them. Did the
doctrine of the calling constitute the touchstone of that portion of
Puritan theology generally referred to as “practical divinity”? Was the
acceptance of this doctrine by the majority of New England’s popula-
tion a necessary and sufficient cause in promoting social change from
the Holy Commonwealth to a new, secularized culture which rested
upon the idea of men’s autonomy in economic affairs? Were other Puri-
tan doctrines at least equally crucial, such as the concept of responsible
ownership, the concept of time, changing eschatological hopes, the
idea of conscience or intent? Or was the advent of a relatively autono-
mous market economy merely the result of the failure of Puritan lead-
ers to devise and enforce a structure of legal control that reflected the
ethical considerations of a Puritan casuistry? In short, did Weber over-
emphasize the doctrine of the calling?
The doctrine of the calling was really two separate teachings: first,
the general calling, which referred to a man’s conversion, and second,
the particular calling, which referred to his worldly employment. All
men were expected to labor, and the sermons stressed the importance
of all honest forms of labor.296
John Cotton’s exposition of Ecclesiastes contains one of the most
comprehensive examinations of the particular calling. He affirmed, as
had the writer of Ecclesiastes, that all human labor, in and of itself, is
vanity and “altogether unprofitable towards the attainment of true hap-
piness....”297 Nevertheless, God gives a particular calling to each man,
including the gentleman. As Cotton wrote in his Way of Life (1641),
296. Robert S. Michaelson, “Changes in the Puritan Concept of Calling or Vocation,”

New England Quarterly 26 (1953): 319–21. Cf. Stephen Foster, Their Solitary Way
(1971), chap. 4.
297. Cotton, Ecclesiastes, 10.
if thou beest a man that lives without a calling, though thou hast two
thousands to spend, yet if thou hast no calling, tending to public good,
thou art an unclean beast.... and hast thou a calling, and art never so
diligent in it, it is but dead work, if thou want faith.298
Wise men should indeed seek wealth, while wealthy men should seek
wisdom: both together are a blessing.299 The popish myth of the
preferability of a voluntary state of poverty is utter foolishness.300
There is nothing wrong with the economic blessings that result from
honest labor, and we should not “defraud ourselves of such lawful
delights, as the Lord alloweth {162} us, in the good things we enjoy: we
shall do him and ourselves also injury in so doing.”301 In other words,
we labor “for riches so as we may have them with God’s blessing, which
addeth no sorrow: Prov. 10:22”302 The quest for wealth is legitimate, so
long as one’s heart is right with God. The key is moderation.303
Cotton, like his other clerical colleagues, had no faith at all in exter-
nal success as a sign of inward holiness. He saw only internal self-exam-
ination as a foolproof means of ascertaining one’s position in the sight
of God. The inward testimony of God’s Spirit to one’s own spirit is
alone a reliable test of salvation for any exercise of self-examination.304
Do you feel guilty, he asked, because of the harm you have caused
Christ? Then your guilt is a testimony of your salvation. Are you
ashamed only for yourself? Then such shame affords you nothing.305
While it is quite true that God promises prosperity to the faithful,
external rewards prove nothing.306 In an important passage, Cotton
pointed out that the following can often be the external, visible posses-
sions of both evil men and the righteous: success, a good name, wealth,
pleasure, health and strength, beauty, long life, learning and wisdom.
298. Cotton, The Way of Life, or, Gods Way (1641), 449.
299. Ecclesiastes, 134.
300. Ibid.
301. Ibid., 37.
302. Ibid., 49.
303. Ibid., 48; cf. Way of Life, 446, 456.
304. Ibid., 198.
305. Way of Life, 40–41.
306. Ibid., 452–53.

Similarly, poverty, sudden death, and violent death can come upon the
good and the bad.307 Ultimately, “outward prosperity is no certain sign
of the Church,” and Christians must be sure to warn wicked men not
“to bless themselves in their prosperity, as if it were a sign of God’s
favor....”308 Adversity in this life is equally no sign that God has pre-
pared future blessings for a man; He may only be giving a man a pre-
liminary taste of even more awful things to come. Thomas Hooker was
as convinced of these points as Cotton was:
... thou take that for an argument of God’s love and mercy which
rather may be an argument of God’s hatred and indignation: Psal.
92.12, The wicked flourish, saith the text, then a man may say ... they
will all be saved if they prosper here; no, saith the text, they flourish
that they may be destroyed, and perish forever: the oxe is fatted for the
slaughter.309
There is an overwhelming danger to the soul in private property in
abundance: “Property destroyeth the soul; it is like a poison, like
ratsbane.…”310 {163} As for personal trials and defeats in this world,
“all the grievances, trouble, sorrow, sickness, be they what they will be,
unless thy heart be humbled by them, unless thou be brought unto the
Lord Jesus Christ by them, they are so far from being an argument of
grace and salvation unto thee, that they are harbingers of those
everlasting torments you shall endure in hell.…”311 Like citizens of
Sodom and Gomorrah, Hooker warned, it is possible to burn on earth
and subsequently burn in hell. The only thing a man can rest his hope
on is his trust in Christ’s atoning work at Calvary. It is the only hope
that survives all afflictions, overshadowing all other hopes.312
The task for the Christian, wrote Cotton, is to produce in one’s life a
mixture of virtues: “Diligence in worldly business, and yet deadness to
307. Ecclesiastes, 196.

308. Ibid., 197. Shepard held the same view: “O, consider this, you that are
prosperous; and because the Lord is good to you, therefore you think the Lord likes your
ways. No greater plague than for the Lord to give a man peace in his sin....” “Subjection
to Christ in all His Ordinances” (1652), Works, vol. 3, 299–300.
309. Hooker, The Soules Vocation or Effectual Calling to Christ (1638), 126.
310. Ibid.
311. Ibid., 127.
312. Ibid., 137ff.

the world....”313 Cotton, in fact, went beyond Poor Richard’s “early to

bed, early to rise” motto. Franklin, in the name of reasonableness,
toned down Cotton’s full Puritan rigor; early to bed and early to rise are
not sufficient, wrote Cotton:
For a man to rise early, and go to bed late, and eat the bread of care-
fulness, not a sinful, but a provident care, and to avoid idleness, cannot
endure to spend any idle time, takes all opportunities to be doing
something, early and late, and loseth no opportunity, go any way and
bestir himself for profit, this will he do most diligently in his calling:
And yet be dead-hearted to the world: the diligent hand maketh rich,
Prov. 10:4....314
Profit is legitimate, but only as a reward for full exertion in one’s
kingdom tasks. A Christian should “bestir himself for profit,” but only
because it is a sign of diligence.
But if diligence produces wealth, then an immediate problem
appears. Wealth is dangerous—a poison, ratsbane—and a threat to a
man’s religious integrity. One is to pursue profits, and yet not too vigor-
ously. Shepard also relied on the idea of moderation; it was not moder-
ation in personal diligence, but moderation in the goals pursued: “Thus
you are to moderate your desires after these things [lusts].... Because it
is the sin of prosperity and peace which God hath given us, which will
grow up and choke the word, that all ordinances and truths will in time
be sapless, favorless things to us.”315 In contrast to the jeremiad of crisis
which Perry Miller examines in such detail, this is a jeremiad of abun-
dance. It follows the outline of Deuteronomy 8: obedience-prosperity-
forgetfulness-curse. God’s blessings to humanity, even to those in an
external covenant with Him, {164} are not unmixed. “If thou hast
them, and dost desire them, and God gives them, and thou lettest
Christ go, thou hadst better a thousand times be without them. Ps.
78:31, ‘The meat was in their mouths, and the wrath of God came upon
them.’ ”316 Shepard viewed the outward signs of prosperity in his era
with the same foreboding that Puritans in later years would view disas-
313. Cotton, Christ the Fountain of Life (1641), 119.

314. Ibid.
315. Shepard, “Ten Virgins,” Works, vol. 2, 166.
316. Ibid., 167.

ters: “Did we ever live in a more impenitent, secure age? We shall sel-
dom meet one broken with sin; but how few are broken from sin
also?”317 “O, the wrath of God upon this God-glutted, Christ-glutted,
gospel-glutted age....”318
The jeremiad of abundance was not to be regarded by the audience
as a prohibition on all worldly enjoyments, however. In an ordered, sys-
tematic world, Christians have the responsibility of putting all things in
their lawful, respective places. This includes a judicious use of God’s
gifts, since these enable men to work more efficiently when they return
to their labor. This was one of the primary arguments behind the Sab-
bath legislation. God’s gift of rest must be taken; it is not optional at the
discretion of the individual believer. While this is not an exclusively
Puritan view, the all-encompassing nature of the Sabbath laws indicates
the extent of the commitment to what was regarded as an inescapable
orderliness in the affairs of a godly commonwealth. All things must be
done in due season:
... worldly employments are our strangers, yet they must be spoken
with. Religious thoughts and practices are our friends; these come
unto us while God calls us to parley with the other; you cannot speak
with both at one time, in one place, without much perplexity: take,
therefore, this course; make much of the good thoughts, but parley not
with them till your business is done with strangers; and toward the
evening, which is your season, set some time apart for meditation, and
make them most welcome.... So, when God calls you to worldly
employments, do them with all your mind and might; and when the
season of meditation comes, take it.…319
Not only did Puritan preaching point to the necessity of the calling
in the life of the Christian, it also reminded men of the necessity of all
lawful callings. In an organic commonwealth bound together by faith,
no one was to regard his lawful calling as morally inferior to any other.
317. Shepard, “The Sound Believer” (1645), Works, vol. 1, 172.

318. Ibid., 236. Cf. his introduction to “The Clear Sunshine Breaking Forth Upon the
Indians in New England” (1648), Works, vol. 3, 452: “Generally we are sick of plenty; we
surfeit of our abundance, the worst of surfeits....” He warns New Englanders that God
could just as easily transfer His kingdom to the Indians, if the complacency of New
England continues.
319. Shepard, “Certain Select Cases Resolved” (1648), Works, vol. 1, 307-8.
There would always be a hierarchy of status in any godly common-

wealth, of course; yet at the same time, the “meaner sort” were not to
regard their menial labor as inferior. In other words, the Puritans
accepted the philosophical {165} foundation of the medieval social
hierarchy: functional subordination does not imply ethical inferiority.320
Thus, Shepard could write:
Seeing yourself thus working in worldly employments for him you
may easily apprehend that for that time God calls you to them, and
you attend upon the work of Jesus Christ in them, and you honor God
as much, nay, more, by the meanest servile worldly act, than if you
should have spent all that time in meditation, prayer, or any other
spiritual employment, to which you had no call at that time.321
This was Luther’s view. It reflects the reaction against the orders in the
Roman church like the friars or praying monks, all of whom were
viewed by Protestants as drones of a distinctly unproductive kind. But
apart from this emphasis, it is a medieval outlook. It accepts as valid all
labor that is necessary to the community.
Edward Johnson, writing of the deaths of the founders of New
England, drew his inspiration from the jeremiad of abundance. The
crisis of God’s judgment on the community was being delayed only
because of the saving remnant.
And now New England that had such heaps upon heaps of the riches
of Christ’s tender compassionate mercies, being turned off from his
dandling [bouncing] knees, began to read their approaching rod in
the bend of his brows and frowns of his former favorable countenance
320. President Nixon’s comment in the spring of 1971 that those who carry bedpans
should take as much pride in their work as executives take in theirs was in line with this
ancient perspective. The ridicule aimed at the statement by editorial writers and
political cartoonists reflects their commitment to a more recent form of egalitarianism
which assumes that status groupings necessarily imply ethical judgments regarding
people’s innate superiority or inferiority.
321. Shepard, Works, vol. 1, 308. Cf. Winthrop’s statement in “General Observations”:
“If any such as are known to be godly and live in wealth and prosperity here [i.e.,
England], shall forsake all this to join themselves with this church, and run in hazard
with them of hard and mean condition, it will be an example of great use both for the
removing of scandal and sinister and worldly respects, to give more life to the faith of
God’s people in their prayers for the plantation and also to encourage others to join the
more willingly in it.” Winthrop Papers, vol. 2, 118.
toward them; their plenty of all things, which should have cheered
their hearts, and quickened their spirits in elevating both soul and
body to a thankful frame, through the work of his blessed Spirit; on
the contrary, it brought a fulness on many, even to loath the very
honeycomb, insomuch that good wholesome truths would not down,
yet had the Lord those that were precious unto him....322
Cotton had affirmed this same principle: the prayers and healing acts
of Christians within a corrupt society “will be accepted as if the whole
Nation did universally turn to God.”323 But how long His wrath could
be stayed was problematical. Only true reformation could guarantee
the survival of the covenant community. {166}
The paradox of Deuteronomy 8 was not to be taken lightly. Cotton’s
commentary on the passage served to remind men of their propensity
to accept the gifts but to forget the heavenly giver.
Yes, fear your own false, proud, and luxurious hearts, lest you should
then forget God, and was wanton against God, lest there be intemper-
ancy, and excess, unthankfulness, and unfruitfulness; which shows
you that a Christian man, though he trust upon God, yet he distrusts
himself, and he prays if riches increase, that grace may increase, and
so receives and enjoys all these blessings with a reverent fear.324
An enlarged estate, he said, should produce enlarged service to others.
If it did not, then the increased estate is a curse to the owner.
The theological leaders in New England—Cotton, Shepard, and
Hooker—made a serious attempt to convince their followers that no
external signs of blessing could be taken as signs of a man’s election
unto salvation. Yet Christ’s words concerning the testing of a man’s
faith through the fruits of his spirit must have stood out in the minds of
at least some of the New England merchants. “Ye shall know them by
their fruits” (Matt. 7:16) seemed clear enough to Robert Keayne:
And though I believe that all my ways of holiness are of no use to me
in point of justification, yet I believe they may not be neglected by me
without great sin, but are ordained of God for me to walk in them
carefully, in love to Him, in obedience to His commandments, as well
322. Johnson’s Wonder-Working Providence, 252–53.

323. Cotton, Way of Life, 81.
324. Ibid., 457.

as for many other good ends. They are good fruits and evidences of
justification.325
The early pages of his testament list some of these fruits: payment of
debts, readiness to make restitution for any economic faults, his gift of
£300 to Boston for the construction of a canal and a building in the
market place, his gift to the free school, and his profitable management
of the funds he had laid up for the poor. Furthermore, he took care of
his family: “I have endeavored to honor God with my substance and
with the first fruits of all my increase, and have endeavored to do good
with what God hath bestowed upon me so far as I might likewise
provide for the necessities of my own family, the care of carrying on my
calling, and other dealings in the world justly.”326 Keayne took the
externals of his life quite seriously, just as the church and the
magistrates took seriously his economic dealings that they regarded as
unjustified. The various institutions of social control looked carefully
at a man’s external affairs.
Any society officially founded on the basis of a received body of
infallible teachings, whether explicitly revelational (the Bible, the
Koran) or merely rational (orthodox Marxism, or a constitution), must
see to it that unofficial {167} misapplications of certain features of the
hypothetically consistent received opinion are not quoted out of con-
text. It is very easy to select one aspect of the tradition for emphasis,
such as Anne Hutchinson and her followers chose to emphasize in the
doctrine of free grace. In such cases, the protests of the official inter-
preters of tradition may be unsuccessful in convincing the “deviants” of
their error. (John Cotton, in the antinomian controversy, even seemed
unable at first to decide exactly where Mrs. Hutchinson had gone
wrong.327) If a particular interpretation of the received teachings is
overly subtle, it is likely to be misunderstood, especially when the mis-
understanding seems to be favorable to the interests of those involved.
In the case of the question of external evidences of inward salvation,
325. Keayne, Apologia, 2.

326. Ibid., 26.
327. Larzer Ziff, The Career of John Cotton (1962), 118ff.; Perry Miller, The New
England Mind: From Colony to Province (1953), 59ff.; Miller, “ ‘Preparation for Salvation’
in Seventeenth-Century New England” (1943), in Nature’s Nation (1967), 60ff.
the theologians tried to be clear, but merchants and farmers alike no

doubt were tempted to ignore their teaching and therefore conclude
that God’s external blessings to particular individuals signified an indi-
cation of His favor. But Emil Oberholzer oversimplifies the situation
when he writes: “Since prosperity was a sign of election, he [the Puri-
tan] was thrifty.”328 The Puritan who reached such a conclusion did so
in the face of explicit sermons to the contrary. Grace is to be measured
by inward searching and rigorous self-criticism: this was the message
of Puritan sermons in New England. God has the option of using pros-
perity as a curse on the wicked and adversity as a gracious chastisement
of those whom He loves, just as easily as the reverse. Externals as such
prove nothing.
The Structure of Economic Control

The magnitude of the task of founding a new society is so great that
it boggles the imagination of most citizens of a modern industrialized
state. This kind of endeavor is simply foreign to the lives of most
moderns. To attempt such a task as colonization in terms of the tools
and expertise of the seventeenth century seems incredible in retro-
spect. A tiny band of self-defined religious outcasts, with little experi-
ence in the matters of operating a semi-autonomous community, but
with a vision of creating something wholly new among men—a truly
Holy Commonwealth—began a project which was to result ultimately
in the creation of a new nation.
To accomplish their aims, the first generation brought with them
certain guiding presuppositions about the nature of the good society.
The familiar social landmarks of Elizabethan economic legislation
were a part of this heritage. So was a highly developed Christian casu-
istry, one which in its major outlines went back four centuries.
Assumptions about the whole {168} fabric of society undergirded this
medieval inheritance, and the difficulty of applying these assumptions
in practice in a seventeenth-century frontier community had not yet
been experienced by the founders in 1630. They had not yet thought
through any alternative to the form of economic relationships which
had been received as officially Christian. Certain familiar strands of
328. Oberholzer, Delinquent Saints, 6; cf. 187.

economic legislation were thought to be inescapable in any community

professing itself to be Christian. They were believed to be as basic to a
Christian society as, say, the doctrine of the Trinity, or the necessity of
heresy trials with punishment for theological deviation imposed by the
civil government.
Some of the intellectual baggage imported by Puritan leaders
included Aquinas’s view of the just price, the labor legislation of Henry
VIII and Elizabeth, a highly personalistic view of economic relation-
ships, the concept of an organic, status-oriented society, and an over-
whelming suspicion of the unrestrained, unregulated human heart.
The leaders naturally supposed that the taming of a wilderness would
require the concentrated efforts of the entire community. Yet as men
building a civilization in unfamiliar surroundings, they were to find
themselves confronted by a new environment and, historically, a
unique geographical isolation which permitted considerable social
experimentation. Experimentation for the sake of collective survival
was to mark the first generation’s encounter with the wilderness.
Terms like “modern,” or “traditional,” or “medieval” are exceedingly
difficult to pin down, and in economic thought the task is no easier
than in any other discipline. The essence of New England’s medieval-
ism is not simply a desire on the part of the magistrates to regulate the
overall economy according to certain ethical goals. That kind of ethical
motivation is found in all substantively rational systems, most notably
in any modern socialist commonwealth. This desire to regulate supply
and demand in order to meet the requirements of an ethical system is
always in tension with the formal rationalism of the market, i.e., those
external legal supports that provide a measure of predictability to par-
ticipants in the market, guaranteeing them any and all economic
returns that are generated by open competition. Formal “rules of the
game” are therefore established to foster market efficiency; those who
possess the greatest purchasing power are guaranteed the right to exer-
cise that power according to their own tastes and preferences, irrespec-
tive of communal standards of legitimate, proper income. The
economic standard of a formally rational market is simply efficiency. To
the extent that socialist countries desire efficiency, some of the ethical
goals of redistribution must be sacrificed. Similarly, to the extent that
free markets require minimum standards of security for all participants

(irrespective of their productivity), formal goals of efficiency must be

sacrificed. The two forms of rationalism are in continual tension in
{169} any functioning economic system.329 Both forms are common to
modern economic thought. But in modern economics, the overall
structure of political economy is presumed to be autonomous, self-gen-
erating, and self-sustaining. Standards of efficiency and ethical impera-
tives are considered to be rational, not revelational.
Frank H. Knight’s statement of the way in which a free market func-
tions provides an excellent example of a defense of the autonomous
mechanism of a self-correcting system. Knight establishes the terms of
the debate, and
the contrast with the outlook of the medieval or Puritan worlds is
striking. One of the most conspicuous features of organization
through exchange and free enterprise, and one most often commented
upon, is the absence of conscious design or control. It is a social order,
and one of unfathomable complexity, yet constructed and operated
without social planning or direction, through selfish individual
thought and motivation alone. No one ever worked out a plan for such
a system, or willed its existence; there is no plan of it anywhere, either
on paper or in anybody’s mind, and no one directs its operations.... To
explain the mechanism of this cooperation, unconscious and unin-
tended, between persons whose feelings are often actually hostile to
each other, is the problem of economic science.330
How can such a mechanism operate? Knight’s explanation is succinct:
“The economic organization is built up and controlled, in a way
familiar in its broad outlines to everyone, through the impersonal
forces of price.” It is this flexible price mechanism, utterly impersonal
(except when influenced by monopolies or the political authority),
which permits the creation of the typical modern business enterprise,
“the corporation, an impersonal organization....”331
The bedrock assumption of all modern economic thought, whether
Marxist, Fabian Socialist, Keynesian, or free-market oriented, is the
329. Max Weber, The Theory of Social and Economic Organization, 184ff., 211ff.
[Economy and Society, vol. 1, 86ff., 107ff.] Cf. Weber, On Law in Economy and Society,
chap. 8. [Economy and Society, vol. 2, 809–38.]
330. Knight, The Economic Organization ([1951] 1965), 31–32.
331. Ibid., 33.
assertion of cosmic impersonalism. Mercantilistic thought served as the

transitional philosophy, since it broke with Christian personalism, sub-
stituting instead the nation-state as the new organic force which had
the responsibility for organizing market exchanges according to the
needs of state. The state, however, was no longer thought to be an
engine for the imposition of heavenly economic laws and restraints; its
connection to God was only through the theoretical responsibility of
the prince before God, a responsibility which was no longer to be
determined in terms of biblical revelation or any church’s interpreta-
tion thereof.
The heart of Puritan economic thought in the seventeenth century
was its commitment to a philosophy of cosmic personalism. Herein lies
its {170} medievalism. No one provided a finer statement of the impli-
cations of this economic philosophy than John Winthrop, whose expla-
nation of the scarcity of corn in 1643 stands as the antithesis of modern
economic thought:
Corn was very scarce all over the country, so as by the end of the 2d
month, many families in most towns had none to eat, but were forced
to live off clams, muscles, cataos, dry fish, etc., and sure this came by
the just hand of the Lord, to punish our ingratitude and covetousness.
For corn being plenty divers years before, it was so undervalued, as it
would not pass for any commodity: if one offered a shop keeper corn
for anything, his answer would be, he knew not what to do with it. So
for laborers and artificers; but now they would have done any work, or
parted with any commodity, for corn.... The immediate causes of this
scarcity were the cold and wet summer ... much corn spent in setting
out ships, ketches, etc.; lastly, there were such abundance of mice in
the barns, that devoured much there.... So many enemies doth the
Lord arm against our daily bread, that we might know we are to eat it
in the sweat of our brow.”332
God might use cold and wet summers, mice, or any other means at His
disposal to bring New England’s inhabitants to prayer, but it was
obvious to Winthrop that the glut of corn before was not the primary
cause of the falling price of corn, and it was equally obvious that the
scarcity of corn in 1643 was a personal judgment of God. Evil men had
previously forced prices down; now men without “a public spirit” were
forcing prices up. “And indeed it was a very sad thing to see how little
of a public spirit appeared in the country, but of self-love too much.”

There was no self-correcting mechanism to fuse all the competing self-

loves together into one unified whole. What was needed was not a
flexible price mechanism to clear the market during times of glut or to
stimulate future production in times of dearth; what was needed was a
greater number of “men of another spirit ... willing to abridge
themselves, that others might be {171} supplied.”333 Personal sacrifice,
not an impersonal mechanism, was Winthrop’s answer to the economic
crisis.
Thomas Hooker, in a letter to Thomas Shepard in 1640, penned a
miniature jeremiad to account for the depression that had just begun.
He made no reference to the outbreak of civil war in the home country,
no analysis of the falling number of immigrants, which had cut off the
inflow of English coin into the colony. The cause was in the hearts of
the people:
The churches of the commonwealth, by joint consent and serious con-
sideration, must make a privy search what have been the courses and
sinful carriages which have brought in and increased this epidemical
evil; pride and idleness, excess in apparel, building, diet, unsuitable to
our beginnings or abilities; what toleration and connivance at extor-
tion and oppression; the tradesman willing the workman may take
what he will for his work, that he may ask what he will for his com-
modities.334
332. James K. Hosmer, ed., Winthrop’s Journal: “History of New England,” 1630–1649,
2 vols. ([1908] 1966), vol. 2, 91–92. Weber made the impersonal-personal dichotomy a
basic foundation of his social analysis: “The tension between brotherly religion and the
world has been most obvious in the economic sphere.... A rational economy is a
functional organization oriented to money-prices which originate in the interest-
struggles of men in the market. Calculation is not possible without calculation in money
prices and hence without market struggles. Money is the most abstract and ‘impersonal’
element that exists in human life. The more the world of the modern capitalist economy
follows its own immanent laws, the less accessible it is to any imaginable relationship
with a religious ethic of brotherliness. The more rational, and thus impersonal,
capitalism becomes, the more this is the case. In the past it was possible to regulate
ethically the personal relations between master and slave precisely because they were
personal relations. But it is not possible to regulate—at least not in the same sense or
with the same success—the relations between the shifting holders of mortgages: for in
this case, no personal bonds exist.” Weber, “Religious Rejections of the World and Their
Directions” (1915), in Gerth and Mills, eds., From Max Weber (1946), 331.
333. Hosmer, Winthrop’s Journal, vol. 2, 92.
Public reformation was recommended as the only means to escape the

economic evils; normal times will return when men “have humbled
themselves unfeignedly before the Lord....”
Puritan leaders therefore had no doubts that God required them to
supervise the affairs of the marketplace very carefully. The market is
not capable, as Bernard Mandeville argued in The Fable of the Bees at
the beginning of the eighteenth century, of converting private vices
into public benefits. Prices, the very heart of modern economic analy-
sis, are to be fixed by the civil government in terms of justice. There is a
just price for every commodity which can eliminate all oppression, by
either the buyer or the seller. Men are to be allowed to act as stewards
of their private possessions, but not in an unjust manner. They may
exercise discretion only within the framework of a just price system. In
the early years of the commonwealth, it was obvious to the magistrates
who the violators were likely to be: artisans (who were in short supply
and heavy demand at the enforced “just price” of labor) and the mer-
chants. It was these two groups that dealt in terms of permanent markets
and cash payments, unlike farmers who were not used to producing a
cash crop for a market.
Almost from the beginning, the colony of Massachusetts placed con-
trols on the wages of artisans. The law of 1630 provided wage ceilings
for carpenters, joiners, bricklayers, sawyers, and thatchers.335 Common
laborers were limited to 12s/day, or 6s with meat and drink (with a 10s
fine for artisan violators).336 The effect of price ceilings must have
made itself felt almost immediately: an excess of demand over supply
of laborers at the fixed prices, as artisans refused to work for what they
regarded as substandard {172} pay. Under such conditions, it becomes
difficult to recruit labor. Within six months, these statutes were
repealed, leaving wages “free and at liberty as men shall reasonably
agree.”337 The implication was clear enough: if men should again grow
unreasonable, the controls would reappear.
334. Hooker to Shepard, November 2, 1640, in Albro, “Introduction,” Shepard, Works,

vol. 1, cxliv.
335. MCR, vol. 1, 74.
336. Ibid., 77.
337. Ibid., 84.

The history of price controls in New England is a patchwork of “on

again, off again.” The year 1633 brought a new set of regulations, which
in 1635 the magistrates saw fit to repeal.338 The repeal was of a special
nature, however. The government imposed a general profit margin of
4d/s over the London price of any good in question, i.e., a 33 percent
profit ceiling. The magistrates then inserted a clause which was almost
calculated to drive merchants and laborers to distraction. If formal,
precise, predictable laws are, as Weber argues, the foundation for an
orderly market system, then the magistrates’ warning stands as the
essence of anti-formal legislation:
Whereas two former laws, the one concerning the wages of workmen,
the other concerning the prices of commodities, were for diverse good
considerations repealed, this present Court, now, for avoiding such
mischiefs as may follow thereupon by such ill-disposed persons as
may take liberty to oppress and wrong their neighbors, by taking
excessive wages for work, or unreasonable prices for such necessary
merchandise or other commodities as shall pass from man to man, it
is therefore now ordered, that if any man shall offend in any of the said
cases against the true intent of this law, he shall be punished by fine or
imprisonment, according to the quality of the offence, as the Court
upon lawful trial and conviction shall adjudge.339
The magistrates were confronted by the inevitable challenge to those
who advocate pricing in terms of ethical imperatives: how to find
concrete standards of calculating a just price in comparison to an
unjust price. What are the limits of oppression? How is the individual
bargainer to estimate whether or not he is making an infraction against
the “true intent of this law”? Prediction becomes very difficult, for the
trading parties cannot be certain of how the magistrates will estimate
“the quality of the offence.”
Piecemeal legislation and judicial arbitrariness, the magistrates
believed, enabled the leadership of the commonwealth to remain flexi-
ble in the face of new, unknown conditions. They viewed this flexibility
338. Ibid., 104, 159–60. On the attempt of the magistrates to reduce competitive
bidding for goods at the dock by establishing a buying monopoly of nine men
representing nine towns around the bay, see Bailyn, Merchants, 34. This 1635 law was
repealed within four months.
339. MCR, vol. 1, 160. All of the preceding legislation came in 1635 or earlier.
as being necessary for creative experimentation. But the more demo-

cratic deputies pressed for more explicit laws as a means of reducing
the zone of sovereignty of the magistrates. It was this pressure in the
direction of formal, {173} general law which culminated in the Body of
Liberties of 1641.340 Such changes in the legal structure were crucial to
the establishment of markets.
In October 1636, the General Court delegated the authority to regu-
late prices and wages to the various towns.341 Nevertheless, the central
government could not resist the cry of “oppression,” and in March
1638, a committee was set up to investigate complaints against high
wages and prices. Such ruthless pricing, the authorities stated, is “to the
great dishonor of God, the scandal of the gospel, and the grief of
diverse of God’s people, both here in this land and in the land of our
maturity.…”342 The city on a hill, Massachusetts’ Holy Commonwealth,
was not setting the proper ethical example. The central government
continued to maintain its right to step in and regulate prices when it
seemed to be warranted by the situation, but in general the towns did
most of the specific work in this area after 1636. Richard B. Morris
summarizes the history of the legislation: “The codes of 1648 and 1660,
and the supplement of 1672, continued substantially the basic law of
1636 against oppression in wages and prices, leaving to the freemen of
each town the authority to settle the rates of pay.”343
The General Court of Connecticut was no less enthusiastic about
imposing price controls than the Massachusetts Court was. The Court
stated that men had not been reliable when left as “a law unto them-
selves,” and therefore it chose to pass a detailed wage code. The officials
apparently had no idea of the kind of regulatory nightmare this kind of
340. Edmund S. Morgan, The Puritan Dilemma (1958), 166ff. Cf. George Lee
Haskins, Law and Authority in Early Massachusetts (1960), 119ff. For the most thorough
discussion of the principles separating the magistrates’ concept of discretionary
authority and the deputies’ concept of specific delegated authority, see T. H. Breen, The
Character of the Good Ruler: A Study of Puritan Political Ideas in New England, 1630–
1730 (1970), 59ff., 81ff. Winthrop stated his position clearly in his “Discourse on
Arbitrary Government” (1644), Winthrop Papers, vol. 4, 468ff., a portion of which is
reproduced in Edmund S. Morgan, ed., Puritan Political Ideas (1965), 149ff.
341. MCR, vol. 1, 183.
342. Ibid., 223.
detailed legislation {174} imposed on them. Skilled craftsmen were not

to accept more than 20d/day from March 10 through October 11, nor
above 18d for work on any day throughout the rest of the year. Those
under the controls were carpenters, joiners, masons, coopers, smiths,
and wheelwrights. “It is ordered, also, that all other artificers, or handi-
craftsmen and chief laborers shall not take above 18d a day for the first
half year as aforesaid, and not above 14d per day for the other part of
the year….” Workers were obligated to work eleven hours a day in the
summer, in addition to eating and sleeping, and nine hours in the win-
ter. Controls were placed on sawyers: 4s 2d “for slit work or three inch
plank, nor above 3s 6d for boards, by the hundred.”344 These laws were
repealed within a decade.345 The exception was the control left over the
price of liquor, but this was a part of Connecticut’s sumptuary legisla-
tion, rather than price control as such.
New Haven Colony imposed controls in 1640.346 As in the compara-
ble medieval laws, a group of disinterested men was to serve as a com-
mittee to judge individual situations in cases of disputed claims.347
343. Richard B. Morris, Government and Labor in Early America (1941), 62. Cf.
Morris and Jonathan Grossman, “The Regulation of Wages in Early Massachusetts,” New
England Quarterly 11 (1938): 479. Winthrop’s explanation of why the Court turned wage
regulation over to the towns is worth considering: “The court having found by
experience, that it would not avail by any law to redress the excessive rates of laborers’
and workmen’s wages, etc. (for being restrained, they would either remove to other
places where they might have more, or else being able to live by planting and other
employments of their own, they would not be hired at all), it was therefore referred to
the several towns to set down rates among themselves. This took better effect, so that in
a voluntary way, but the counsel and persuasion of the elders, and example of some who
led the way, they were brought to more moderation than they would by compulsion. But
it held not long.” Winthrop’s Journal, vol. 2, 24. The legislation provided for appeals from
one town against a rival town which was permitting far higher wage rates and thus
competing for the labor supply of its neighbors: MCR, vol., 183.
344. J. Hammond Trumball and Charles Hoadly, eds., The Public Records of the
Colony of Connecticut, 15 vols. ([1850–90] 1968), vol. 1 (1641), 65. [Cited hereinafter as
CCR.]
345. CCR, I (1650), 205.
346. Charles Hoadly, ed., Records of the Colony and Plantation of New Haven, from
1636 to 1649 (1857), 35–36, 52, 55. [Cited hereinafter as NHCP.]
347. Ibid., 55.
These controls do not appear in the 1656 law code of the colony, indi-
cating that they abandoned price controls during the decade and a half
following their imposition.
Plymouth Colony was the exception. Its economic legislation focused
almost entirely on land tenure issues and foreign trade. Wage controls
on laborers were imposed briefly in December 1638; they were
repealed the following September.348 There was a price ceiling on beer
as late as 1685, but this probably should be classified under the cate-
gory of sumptuary legislation.349 Millers’ fees were regulated, but this
was (and is still) common for economic endeavors regarded as public
utilities.350
As to the effects of these laws, historians cannot seem to agree. Rich-
ard Morris says that for several generations, “the Puritans were in dead
earnest about their wage codes,” and the courts enforced them.351 Mar-
ion Gottfried, on the other hand, says that they had little effect on the
aggregate during the time of economic crisis in which they were
regarded by the magistrates {175} as being vital, i.e., in the depression
of the early 1640s.352 Between 1630 and 1644, the years of the most rig-
orous legislation in Massachusetts, less than twenty people were actu-
ally convicted for wage or price violations. Twice as many were
convicted for speaking out against public authority.353 The most
famous case of all, the trial of Robert Keayne, was unique, so historians
should be wary of viewing it as a representative situation.
348. Nathaniel B. Shurtleff and David Pulsifer, eds., Records of the Colony of New
Plymouth, 12 vols. ([1855–61] 1968), vol. 11, 30. [Cited hereinafter as PCR.]
349. The Book of the General Laws of the Inhabitants of the Jurisdiction of New-
Plymouth (1685), 33.
350. PCR, vol. 11 (1638), 30.
351. Morris, Government and Labor, 72.
352. Marion H. Gottfried, “The First Depression in Massachusetts,” New England
Quarterly 11 (1936): 640.
353. John Dickenson, “Economic Regulations,” 524. He relies on the Records of the
Court of Assistants (1904) for his data. Morris can cite only a handful of cases, and fewer
convictions, after 1650: 75–76.
The Keayne Affair

Captain Robert Keayne of the Artillery Company, as he liked to
think of himself, was a Puritan merchant of Boston, a public leader,
and the subject of a trial in 1642 (involving a dispute over the owner-
ship of a sow) and another in 1639. Convicted in the 1639 trial of
oppression and usury, he was fined £200 (which was reduced to £80 by
the magistrates, to the dismay of the deputies) and was forced to con-
fess his sins before the First Church in Boston—the only case so
recorded in the archives of the Massachusetts ecclesiastical records.354
Thus, far from being typical, Keayne’s case was more of a symbol, a
means of the community to affirm its economic standards through a
public display of civil and ecclesiastical power. If Keayne’s trial is typi-
cal of anything, it is typical of what Kai Erikson has called the role of
the deviant in society. “The deviant is a person whose activities have
moved outside the margins of the group, and when the community
calls him to account for that vagrancy it is making a statement about
the nature and placement of its boundaries.”355
Keayne’s last will and testament records his disapproval of the whole
affair. He desperately wanted to clear his name, even to the point of
asking the estate’s overseers to petition the General Court to repeal the
sentence “and to return my fine again after all this time of enjoying it ...
which I believe is properly due to my estate and will not be comfortable
for the country to enjoy.”356 His economic practices had been fair, he
claimed, and well within the standards of merchants’ ethics. Those who
had accused him on specific acts of oppression were all liars, and he
spends several pages in their refutation, receipt by receipt. Further-
more, other men in the community have committed really serious
crimes, yet they have barely been fined. Keayne’s most incisive observa-
tion related to the changed status of some of his former detractors; it
lends considerable insight into the fading {176} into oblivion of the
extensive price controls that had once been imposed, but were not
much enforced after 1650.
354. Oberholzer, Delinquent Saints, 189.

355. Kai T. Erikson, Wayward Puritans (1966), 11.
356. Keayne, Apologia, 51.

[My own offence] was so greatly aggravated and with such indigna-
tion pursued by some, as if no censure could be too great or too
severe, as if I had not been worthy to have lived upon the earth. [Such
offences] are not only now common almost in every shop and ware-
house but even then and ever since with a higher measure of excess,
yea even by some of them that were most zealous and had their hands
and tongues deepest in my censure. [At that time] they were buyers,
[but since then] they are turned sellers and peddling merchants them-
selves, so that they are become no offences now nor worthy question-
ing nor taking notice of in others.357
As more and more people began to work on the other side of the sales
counter, the former sins of the seller began to fade into obscurity. With
the expansion of the size of the market, crimes once horrible were
regarded with far less suspicion.
John Winthrop informs us of the outline of pricing principles sub-
mitted by John Cotton to the magistrates during the trial, and all of
them can be found in the writings of Aquinas. A man may not buy as
cheaply as he can, nor sell as dearly as the market might permit. He
may not take advantage of the buyer’s ignorance (in a special case—the
seller’s knowledge that fresh supplies are on the way to a besieged com-
munity—Aquinas had even allowed the seller to remain silent and take
a higher price for his goods). He may not sell above the current price,
even to make up losses on other items, a restriction which was basic to
medieval casuistry.358 Winthrop explained the magistrates’ leniency in
the case: 1) “there was no law in force to limit or direct men in point of
profit in their trade”; 2) because in all countries men “make use of
advantages for raising the prices of their commodities”; 3) “because
(though he were chiefly aimed at, yet) he was not alone in this fault”; 4)
because all men—cattle sellers, corn sellers, laborers—in the colony
practiced such gouging. But the fifth and final point is the crucial one,
for it had baffled commentators from the twelfth century onward:
“Because a certain rule could not be found out for an equal rate
between buyer and seller, though much labor had been bestowed in it,
and diverse laws had been made, which, upon experience, were
repealed, as being neither safe nor equal.”359 Aquinas had warned them
357. Ibid., 48.

358. Winthrop’s Journal, vol. 1, 317.

that “the just price of things is not fixed with mathematical precision,
but depends on a kind of estimate, so that a slight addition or subtrac-
tion would not seem to destroy the equality of justice.”360 Finding that
elusive “equal rate” {177} proved to be more of a task than successive
pieces of legislation could achieve.
Was Keayne a covetous person? The authorities had to prove this if
they were legitimately to impose serious sanctions. The standard to be
used in discovering true covetousnes was conscience. Just as Calvin had
opened the door to legitimate usury by his reliance on the role of con-
science in determining the limits of fair dealing, so the Massachusetts
magistrates also were forced to rely on this concept, given the over-
whelming difficulty of fixing specific prices as “just” in a formal law
code. John Cotton himself “showed that it is neither the habit of covet-
ousness (which is in every man in some degree), nor simply the act,
that declares a man to be such, but when it appears that a man sins
against his conscience, or the very light of nature, and when it appears
in a man’s whole conversation.” Keayne was not guilty of covetousness,
Cotton affirmed, because he was liberal in hospitality and in other
aspects of his life (church communion), and his crime was based on
“an error in judgment.”361 The magistrates therefore decided to reduce
the fine.
Erikson writes that the deviant is ushered into his role “by a decisive
and often dramatic ceremony, yet is retired from it with scarcely a word
of public notice.”362 This certainly was the case with Robert Keayne. He
later was elected as a magistrate, and his occasional lapses into drunk-
enness are noted in the records only by the imposition of a fine. The
humiliation of the trial disturbed him for the remainder of his life, but
the community apparently was perfectly content to let bygones be
bygones. It had asserted its standards, and it promptly went about
undermining them, a fact which Keayne saw clearly but which seemed
to bother few of his more energetic contemporaries. So long as a man’s
conscience was sound, he was free to go about his business. To prove a
359. Ibid., 316.

360. Aquinas, Summa Theologica, 2:2, Q. 77.
361. Winthrop’s Journal, vol. 1, 318.
362. Erikson, Wayward Puritans, 16.

man’s conscience unsound would be no easy task, especially if the sus-

pect happened to be a leader in Massachusetts or Connecticut politics,
industry, or shipping. This difficulty would be far more obvious to
magistrates in 1650, however, than it had been in 1639.
The last major attempt by the central government of Massachusetts
to control wages in this period came in 1641. The scarcity of money
had brought depression to all of New England. Merchants were closing
their doors, manufacturers were refusing to hire laborers. The General
Court declared that laborers must accept a mandatory reduction of
wages proportional to the reduced price of the particular commodity
they labored to make. Laborers “are to be content to partake now in the
present scarcity, as well as they had their advantage in the plenty of
former times....”363 {178}
Crisis and Response

The depression of 1640–45 shocked the leadership of New England.
It seemed to Winthrop and Hooker, as already noted, that God was vis-
iting the community of saints with judgment. Leaders were under pres-
sure to devise some means of remedying the depressed economic
conditions, but it was not clear what ought to be done. As trial and
error seemed the only way open to them, they were forced to experi-
ment.
The authorities of the General Court passed a law in October 1641,
that no wheat bread was to be baked or sold in the colony, nor was any
malt to be brewed. They said that wheat, as a staple commodity in
demand outside of New England, should be used only for export, in
order to gain needed foreign commodities. By legally reducing demand
in the colony, the leaders expected to be able to force this staple crop
into export channels.364 The magistrates had determined that the dem-
onstrated preference of the citizenry for the consumption of wheat
products was in error, and that much-needed foreign imports were
clearly of greater importance to the colony than the citizens were will-
ing by their voluntary economic actions to admit.
363. MCR, vol. 1, 326.

364. Ibid., 337.

A series of laws placing a moratorium on the collection of debts owed

in specie metals was passed in the first years of the crisis. Payment was
now to be made in kind rather than in coins. The October 1640 law
stated that rates on the value of goods would be set “from time to time”
by the central authority, or else by the appraisal of “indifferent men”
within the local community.365 One man was to be chosen by the cred-
itor, one by the debtor, and one by the marshal (in case of dispute). A
man’s house and land could be confiscated by the creditor only if the
estimation of the value of the debtor’s goods was less than the debt.366
A similar law was passed by the General Court of Connecticut the fol-
lowing year.367 Since men were no longer able to sell their products or
their labor at specie rates prevailing before 1640, it was assumed that it
would be unjust to hold them to payment of their debts in specie after
the shortage of coin had appeared.
Trade controls after 1640 were quite common. Connecticut imposed
a law as late as 1650 which prohibited all foreigners from retailing
goods locally; local citizens were also prohibited from retailing the
goods belonging to foreigners. A rigorous penalty amounting to 50
percent of the value of the goods so retailed was imposed.368 This was
passed in the midst of an apparent liberalization of restrictions, since
price controls were being {179} abandoned at the same time.369 The
repeal was justified in terms of voluntary contractualization, “whereby
all persons are left at liberty to make their bargains for corn....” Free
trade internally, but with controls on external trade: these are the
marks of a mercantile system. It is this kind of legislation that has led
historians to regard the Puritan commonwealths as basically mercantil-
istic after 1650.
In 1643, John Winthrop had complained of the great scarcity of corn.
The following year New England was experiencing a glut of all English
grain, an effect quite in line with the high prices of the preceding year:
the hope of profits had stimulated the production of the scarce item.
365. Ibid., 304.

366. Ibid., 307.
367. CCR, vol. 1, 69.
368. Ibid., 207.
369. Ibid., 205.

The glut grew so bad, as Connecticut officials viewed it, that a prohibi-
tion was placed on all export of grain from Connecticut. The reason
was the hostility of Massachusetts and Plymouth against “our overfill-
ing their markets.…”370 The General Court awarded a monopoly of
exporting to the Governor, Edward Hopkins, and his associates; they
were to be responsible for the “transportation thereof into some parts
beyond the seas....” Price supports were guaranteed to all growers, but
only upon the safe return of the vessel. The magistrates hoped that
through the establishment of an export monopoly the effects of the glut
might somehow be alleviated. The impersonal free market and its sys-
tem of flexible prices simply could not be trusted; it was producing
temporarily undesirable effects. A monopoly was needed, they
explained, since “the advantages that have been taken from the multi-
tude of sellers and their pinching necessities” have produced condi-
tions in which “the rate and prices of corn is so little ... that much
discouragement falls upon the spirits of men in such employments....”
A way out of this must be found, the magistrates announced. Unfortu-
nately, export controls of this kind would only have reduced the market
further. By limiting the number of outlets for the produce, the glut
could be cleared on the home market only by a further reduction of
prices. The promise of price supports was only a promise; to fulfill it,
the ship had to get through safely, sell at the hoped-for high prices, and
then return safely to Connecticut. With Plymouth and Massachusetts
no doubt seeking external markets for their overflow, such a hope in a
guaranteed export market was not likely to become a reality.
Plymouth Colony had always imposed export and trade controls.
Winthrop wrote that in 1631 a ship from Massachusetts accidentally
sailed into the harbor at Plymouth, “where the governor, etc., fell out
with them, not only forbidding them to trade, but also telling them
they would oppose them by force, even to the spending of their lives,
etc., whereupon they returned....”371 Prohibitions were placed on the
370. Ibid., 116.

371. Winthrop’s Journal, vol. 1, 67. Cf. export controls on timber: PCR, vol. 11 (1626),
3.
export of sheep in {180} 1633.372 It seems safe to say that the doctrines
of free trade had not yet occurred to the Plymouth magistrates.373
Massachusetts passed a series of trade control laws in the latter part
of the 1640s. This seems odd in retrospect, since the revival of the
economy after mid-decade was fostered by increasing trade abroad.
Because of a temporary shortage of grain in the summer of 1648, the
General Court placed a three months export embargo, since “it appears
that there is not sufficient for the necessary sustentation of the inhabit-
ants for two months.…”374 A prohibition on the export of mares was
imposed in 1649.375 The year 1654 saw the import of foreign malt pro-
hibited and the export of sheep prohibited.376
Trade controls on the whole were sporadic responses to temporary cri-
ses, or such was the case outside of Plymouth. In Plymouth we find
fewer domestic controls over the economy and a greater proportion of
export and import restrictions. But in the other colonies, foreign trade
was acceptable in most goods most of the time. When a crisis seemed
to threaten the community’s supplies of goods, or else added to the
supply of a particular good far beyond expectations, the magistrates
moved to counter the new conditions through legislation. As long as
prices and supplies stayed within familiar boundaries, the central gov-
ernments were content to allow the market its free course, provided
only that the citizens remember that the general limitations on oppres-
sion were officially in force and available for implementation if neces-
sary.
372. PCR, vol. 1, 13.

373. In March 1645, the authorities in Plymouth rejected a proposal to establish a
“general trade” with the other colonies because “we conceive such a disproportion in
our estates to theirs, and so many thousands required therein, the which we are not able
to reach unto, and withall are very doubtful whether it may conduce to such a general
good and answer the ends which are expected ....” (PCR, vol. 2, 82).
374. MCR, vol. 2, 240; cf. CCR, vol. 1 (1653), 236–37; (1654), 258.
375. MCR, vol. 2, 280.
376. MCR, vol. 4, pt. 1, 198–99.
Quality Controls and the Guilds

The caricature of Max Weber as a monocausational theorist is an
unfortunate side effect of his investigations into the religious roots of
social change. Yet in his discussion of the advent of capitalism, he dis-
cussed the transition from medieval production to capitalism in very
different terms, focusing his attention on the effects of pricing rather
than the effects of religion:
The decisive impetus toward capitalism could come only from one
source, namely a mass market demand, which could arise only in a
small proportion of the luxury industries through the democratiza-
tion of demand, especially along the line of production of substitutes
for luxury goods of the upper classes. This phenomenon is character-
ized {181} by price competition, while the luxury industries working
for the court follow the handicraft principle of competition in qual-
ity.... The tendency toward rationalizing technology and economic
relations with a view to reduce prices in relation to costs, generated in
the 17th century a feverish pursuit of invention. All the inventors of
the period are dominated by the object of cheapening produc-
tion.…377
Given this perspective, the establishment of quality controls within a
framework of price controls and self-policing by a guild structure
would indicate a resistance against capitalistic methods of production.
The first generation in New England attempted to create just such a
system in a number of industries. Quality controls were passed by cen-
tral authorities and, less frequently, by the towns. In many cases, these
standards were evaluated and enforced through a guild mechanism,
access to which was limited by lengthy apprenticeship requirements
that were enforced by civil law.
Outright monopolies were often granted to “public utilities” like mill-
ers and ferry operators.378 These were special cases, and cannot really
be described as guilds. The guild monopolies were common in fields
377. Weber, General Economic History ([1920] 1961), 230–31. Cf. Christopher Hill,
Reformation to Industrial Revolution (1969), 74.
378. MCR, vol. 1 (1631), 82; NHCP (1645), 165; Samuel A. Bates, ed., Records of the
Town of Braintree, 1640–1793 (1886), (1641), 1. The town reaffirmed the monopoly
with new owners, after the original owners had sold the mill: 1662 and 1674; ibid., 15–
17.
that did not require such a heavy outlay in capital as would have been
normal with a mill or a ferry. The general features of the guild system
were the right of a group of men within a trade to enter into covenant
with each other, elect officers, control all further entry into the group,
and police the quality of the goods produced. In the case of the Massa-
chusetts tanners, they and they alone were permitted to tan leather, and
they were not permitted to work at any other trade.379 Public officers
were appointed to inspect the products of the various guilds.380 Guilds
were not to use their position to charge prices as high as they would
otherwise have been able to obtain on the legally restricted markets.
The trades involved were tanners, coopers, shoemakers, butchers, bak-
ers, porters, and brewers.381 A classic guild charter is the Massachusetts
grant to shoemakers in 1648; the public received, in return for the
monopolistic grant, the following guarantees: “... that no unlawful
combination be made at any time, by the said company of shoemakers,
for enhancing the prices of shoes, boots, or wages, whereby either their
own people or strangers may suffer ... no shoemaker {182} shall refuse
to make shoes for any inhabitant, at reasonable rates, of their own
leather, for the use themselves and families only, if they be required
thereunto.”382 In cases of disputes over fair pricing, “the said officers
and associates do not proceed to determine the cause, but with the
advice of the judges of the country....”
Monopolies in the seventeenth century were under attack by Parlia-
ment in England. They were used as fiscal devices by the king. They
permitted a thriving hierarchy of informers, and their real purpose was
to create saleable revenue items for the king. The Puritan Revolution
put a stop to all this. “The Middle Ages in industry and internal trade,”
writes Christopher Hill, “also ended in 1641, when the central govern-
ment lost its power to grant monopolies and control the administration
of poor relief.... Guild regulations and the privileges of town oligar-
379. MCR, vol. 2 (1642), 18–20.

380. Ibid., 29.
381. Ibid., (1646), 168: CCR, vol. 1 (1656), 285–87; (1657), 298; Hoadly, ed., Records
of the Colony or Jurisdiction of New Haven, from May 1653 to the Union (1858), (1653),
24; (1654), 96–97. [Cited hereinafter as NHCJ.]
382. MCR, vol. 2 (1648), 250.

chies, long opposed by the common lawyers, became far more difficult
to enforce.”383 Across the Atlantic, Puritans were erecting monopolies
at the same time. The guilds were not fiscal devices in New England,
however; they were generally regarded as a means of protecting con-
sumers. Furthermore, as Richard Morris has pointed out, these guilds
“did not last long enough in Massachusetts for the rank and file mem-
bership to resent the power of the governing body.”384 The one indus-
try which was regulated throughout the century was the bakers guild;
similarly, the assize on bread was the only price control to remain in
effect (apart from liquor, which was under the sumptuary statutes).385
Antimonopoly laws that were directed against unauthorized forestall-
ing—cornering the market—remained in effect into the late eighteenth
century, indicating that early New England Puritans created their
monopolies only to retain a measure of control over production in
those areas of the economy.386 With the expansion of the market, these
controls began to disappear.
Covenant and Status

Darrett Rutman, in his study of early New England, lays considerable
stress on the utopian passages of John Winthrop’s speech on board the
Arabella (1630) in order to demonstrate the rapid breakdown of Win-
throp’s communal ethic. While it is unlikely that Winthrop seriously
entertained the idea that men would cooperate without the induce-
ment of civil law, but simply through their obedience to God (as Rut-
man argues387), it {183} is true that much of the social disruption of the
first two decades had not been expected by the leaders. The erratic
response of the magistrates to economic fluctuations, as they passed,
rescinded, and passed again certain economic controls, indicates their
own uncertainty and confusion. Rutman asserts that by 1650 the fol-
lowing developments were visible: individualism was springing forth
from the communal origins of Boston; the broader vision of the Holy
383. Hill, Reformation, 169.

384. Morris, Government and Labor, 141. On the merchants’ advocacy of freer trade,
see Bailyn, Merchants, 92.
385. Morris, ibid., 60, 161.
386. On the antimonopoly laws, see ibid., 21.

Commonwealth had begun to fail in the eyes of “the Atlantic-oriented

merchants”; the process of class division had begun; the legal sphere of
the civil government was being secularized, as the disunity of the
churches compromised the older ideal of a theocratic society.388 In
short, “Fragmentation disturbed the roots of society.”389 Rutman con-
trasts this supposed fragmentation with the supposed utopianism of
Winthrop’s 1630 utopian ideal; the overall effect is startling, if not con-
vincing.
Much of this characterization is no doubt valid. A tiny, isolated col-
ony had become a thriving community, one which had demonstrated
considerable strength by weathering a severe economic depression in
the early 1640s. It had also survived such external political events as a
regicide in England, and it had even had to face the threat of a totally
new, and from the Puritan’s perspective, a horrifying social ideal, toler-
ation of the more radical Protestant sects, imposed by law in England.
Had every rule established for the smooth operation of the tiny towns
of 1630 survived intact and untouched by subsequent modification, it
would have been evidence of the prophetic illumination of the
founders—a distinctly unpuritan view of revelation. A two-decade
period of Indian wars, unparalleled economic change, internal reli-
gious conflict, and, in the 1650s, the threat of war with the Dutch—all
this obviously induced the residents of New England’s little colonies to
adjust many of their imported attitudes concerning economics, law,
and political authority. The founders had not been prophets; they were
the inexperienced sons of England’s lesser gentry, at best, and simple
farmers generally. It is therefore surprising how long some of their
387. Darret Rutman, Winthrop’s Boston (1965), 7ff. “The elaboration of the law, its
intrusion into every cranny of private life, the very pervasiveness of government—none
of these was part of Winthrop’s ideal.... A perfect society in which men would do their
duty to each other out of their godliness would have no need for law ...” (239). One might
imagine that Winthrop, at least “idealistically” (as distinguished from Winthrop the
former law student and future magistrate), was a forerunner of Lysander Spooner, the
nonrevolutionary anarchist of late nineteenth-century America. One wonders where
Winthrop received his training in Christian perfectionism; this doctrine certainly was
regarded as heretical by English Puritan theologians.
388. Ibid., chap. 9.
389. Ibid., 256.
original economic legislation survived—in some cases, well into the

eighth decade of the century. Their commitment to a medieval concep-
tion of economic legislation was strengthened by their attachment to
medieval ideas of political localism.
The intense localism of the New England town led, in the first fifty
years of New England’s history, to the creation of a whole series of
small, organic {184} communities. This was the heritage of English vil-
lage life.390 Each town was founded on a civil covenant which was care-
ful to exclude those not sharing similar views. Towns enacted
legislation against the unauthorized sale or lease of land and homes to
strangers. In some cases even hired servants had to be approved by the
town authorities beforehand. Ownership was therefore limited, since
without the power to disown a piece of property at will, one can hardly
be said to exercise complete ownership of it.391
The civil covenant affirmed by the residents of Dedham in 1636
stands as the archetype of the era. First, they pledged themselves to
order their lives in terms of God’s “one truth.” The second proposition
stated the restrictions involved in such a covenant:
That we shall by all means labor to keep off from us all such as are
contrary minded, and receive only such unto us as may be probably of
one heart with us, [and such] as that we either know or may well and
truly be informed to walk in a peaceful conversation with all meek-
ness of spirit, [this] for the edification of each other in the knowledge
and faith of the Lord Jesus, and the mutual encouragement unto all
temporal comforts in all things, seeking the good of each other, out of
which may be derived true peace.392
390. Haskins, Law and Authority, 60, 72. Cf. Sumner Chilton Powell, Puritan Village
(1965).
391. F. A. Harper, Liberty: A Path to Its Recovery (1949), 106.
392. Don Gleason Hill and Jules H. Tuttle, eds., The Early Records of the Town of
Dedham, Massachusetts, 1636–1659, 6 vols. (1886–1936), vol. 3, 2. I am using the
modernized version of the town’s covenant provided by Kenneth A. Lockridge, A New
England Town, The First Hundred Years (1970), 5. New Haven’s 1643 covenant, Articles
of Confederation among Plantations, similarly establishes the community’s working
presuppositions: “Whereas we all came unto these parts of America with one and the
same end and aim, namely to advance the kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to
enjoy the liberties of the Gospel in purity and peace ...” (NHCP), 98.
The remaining three sections established the right of the civil

government to act as a settler of disputes. “The founders were striving
for social perfection,” Kenneth Lockridge writes, “but they were
realistic about the means leading to its achievement.” Men, even in the
best of communities, quarrel with each other. “So the founders wrote
into the Covenant a secular policy designed to achieve from without
what Christian love would in most cases guarantee from within.”393
The possession of land within a town gave the owner access to the
common fields and to the town meeting. The town therefore guarded
the right of purchase with considerable care. Servants under anyone’s
jurisdiction were not permitted to own land in Dedham until after
their release, and only with good references provided to the town’s offi-
cials.394 Outsiders {185} had to be approved, and this provision was
reenacted in 1649.395 Where the sale or lease of land was involved,
community rights prevailed over individual contract. Watertown had a
similar provision in 1638,396 as did Boston in 1635: “It is agreed that no
further allotments shall be granted unto any newcomers, but such as
may be likely to be received members of the Congregation.”397 Select-
men had to approve all leasing arrangements to outsiders as late as
1647.398
These statutes were not confined to the towns of Massachusetts. The
colony of Connecticut passed the following ordinance in 1660: “This
Court orders that none shall be received as inhabitant into any town in
the colony but such as are known to be of an honest conversation and
accepted by a major part of the town.”399 Plymouth announced the
error of the town of Sandwich, in 1639, of distributing almost all of the
land of the community to those who were sometimes unchurched, “so
393. Lockridge, Town, 7. This is the hard realism of the Puritan “utopia,” rather than
the abstracted version derived by Rutman from Winthrop’s Model of Christian Charity.
394. Dedham, vol. 3, 20.
395. Ibid., 24, 162.
396. Watertown Records, 4 vols. (1894), vol. 1, 4.
397. Second Report of the Record Commissioners of the City of Boston; Containing the
Boston Records, 1634–1660, 3rd ed. (1902), 5.
398. Ibid., 90.
399. CCR, vol. 1, 351.

that without speedy remedy our chiefest end will be utterly frus-
trated.…”400
The Massachusetts town of Braintree, which lagged half a century
behind the other towns in disposing of its common fields, was equally
slow in abolishing the control on land sales. As late as 1700 a statute
was passed against selling land to outsiders.401 There is strong reason
to suspect that the retention of such control was related to the presence
of an undistributed commons, since the purchase of town land pro-
vided access to commons privileges and a right to any possible future
land distributions. Cambridge required a man to offer his home for
sale first to a member of the local congregation at his minimum rate;
only after a month had passed without a buyer could a man offer it to
outsiders, and then only to those approved by the townsmen.402
Originally, these prohibitions on sales to outsiders were paralleled by
restraints on the entertaining of visitors. Such restraints were imposed
for two reasons: to preserve the town from subversive influences and to
make certain that the town’s welfare rolls were not overburdened by an
influx of the handicapped. Charity was on the old English parish sys-
tem, supported by a mandatory tithe; it was not, however, a 10 percent
payment, just as it had not been in England. Examples of immigration
restrictions were numerous in the seventeenth century, especially with
regard to those who were, as a Plymouth {186} law of 1642 put it,
“apparently likely to be chargeable to the township (against whom just
exception is made at the time of his coming or within a month
after)….”403 Boston’s limit for entertaining strangers was two weeks.404
Braintree, the most conservative of all, set a three-day visiting limit,
and imposed a fine of 19s for each three-day extension thereafter.405 By
the end of the century, however, the prohibition no longer seems to
400. PCR, vol. 1, 131.

401. Braintree, 44.
402. The Records of the Town of Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1630–1703 (1901),
(1636), 24. Cf. Dickenson, “Economic Regulations,” 488ff.; New-Haven’s Settling in New-
England, And some Lawes for Government (1656), in NHCJ, 610–11.
403. PCR, vol. 11, 40.
404. Boston (1636), 10.
405. Braintree (1654), 6.

have been imposed because of religious interests, but simply to keep

out possible welfare recipients. Restrictions on the sale of land began to
disappear as the common lands were divided, but not the restrictions
on the entry of potential paupers.
If the early New England communities were organic, tightly knit
structures, their commitment to the idea of the hierarchy of status fur-
ther demonstrates the medieval nature of village life. Sir Henry Maine’s
paradigm of “status to contract” is an important one for the under-
standing of seventeenth-century New England.406 The essence of the
Puritan concept of status is found in the Larger Catechism of the West-
minster Confession of Faith: the exposition relating to the fifth com-
mandment, “Honor thy father and thy mother,” sets forth the doctrine
of status.
By father and mother, in the fifth commandment, are meant not only
natural parents, but all superiors in age and gifts; and especially such
as, by God’s ordinance, are over us in place of authority, whether in
family, church, or commonwealth.... The general scope of the fifth
commandment is, the performance of those duties which we mutually
owe in our several relations, as inferiors, superiors, or equals.407
Both superiors and inferiors have specific duties, and therefore each
group has its own respective sins.
The honour which inferiors owe to their superiors is, all due reverence
in heart, word, and behavior; prayer and thanksgiving for them; imi-
tation of their virtues and graces; willing obedience to their lawful
commands and counsels; due submission to their corrections; fidelity
to, defence, and maintenance of their persons and authority, according
to their several ranks, and the nature of their places; bearing with their
infirmities, and covering them in love, so that they may be an honour
to them and to their government.408 {187}
The sins of superiors are, besides the neglect of the duties required of
them, an inordinate seeking of themselves, their own glory, ease,
406. Sir Henry Maine, Ancient Law (1861); cf. George Feaver’s biography of Maine,
From Status to Contract (1969), chap. 5, for a survey of the literature on Maine’s
hypothesis. Feaver cites Sir Frederick Pollock’s statement that whatever the thesis’
limitations historically, it still holds true for the history of property; 279, note no. 40.
407. Larger Catechism (1647), answers 124, 126. I am using the standard edition
published by the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland (1967).
408. Ibid., ans. 127.
profit, or pleasure; commanding things unlawful, or not in the power

of inferiors to perform; counselling, encouraging, or favouring them
in that which is evil; dissuading, discouraging, or discountenancing
them in that which is good; correcting them unduly; careless expos-
ing, or leaving them to wrong, temptation, or danger; provoking them
to wrath; or any way dishonouring themselves, or lessening their
authority, by an unjust, indiscreet, rigorous, or remiss behaviour.409
The intense personalism of the duties to superiors and the responsi-
bilities of inferiors should indicate the medieval outlook of the framers
of the Westminster Confession. This same outlook was shared by the
religious and civil leaders of New England until the late 1670s, and it
seems that the social inferiors, at least in the first generation, were con-
tent to accept this view of a proper society. Even in a society in which
the “middling sort” made up the bulk of the population—sons of the
lesser gentry and those members of the lower classes who had suffi-
cient capital to make the journey—the hierarchical structure was
imposed by the leadership. Those subordinate in the hierarchy were to
acknowledge their superiors “according to their several ranks, and the
nature of their places.” To facilitate such recognition, the magistrates
passed a series of sumptuary laws that fixed certain aspects of dress and
manners as being appropriate strictly to the upper classes. The imita-
tion of the upper stratum by the lower was to be in the realm of their
“virtues and graces,” but not their fashions. There is no statute in
American history, one suspects, that can rival the 1651 Massachusetts
sumptuary law for its sheer medievalism—comprehensive, authoritar-
ian, and thoroughly hierarchical:
Although several declarations and orders have been made by this
Court against excess in apparel, both of men and of women, which
have not yet taken that effect which were to be desired, but on the con-
trary we cannot but to our grief take notice that intollerable excess and
bravery have crept in upon us, and especially amongst people of mean
condition, to the dishonor of God, the scandal of our profession, the
consumption of estates, and altogether we acknowledge it to be a mat-
ter of great difficulty, in regard to the blindness of men’s minds and
the stubbornness of their wills, to set down exact rules to confine all
sorts of persons, yet we cannot but account it our duty to commend
unto all sorts of persons a sober and moderate use of those blessings
409. Ibid., ans. 130.

which, beyond our expectation, the Lord hath been pleased to afford
unto us in this wilderness, and also declare our utter detestation and
dislike that men or women of mean condition, educations, and call-
ings should take upon them the garb of gentlemen, by the wearing of
gold or silver lace, or buttons, or points at their knees, to walk in great
boots; or women of the same rank to wear tiffany hoods or scarves,
which though allowable to persons of greater estates, or more liberal
{188} education, yet we cannot but judge it intollerable in persons of
such like condition....410
Unless the individual were of a good education, a military officer, or
a civil officer, he could not wear such items unless his estate could be
valued at £200 or more, according to a “true and indifferent value.” A
l0s fine was imposed, “and every such delinquent to be presented by
the grand jury.”
A similar, though shorter, statute was passed by the magistrates of
Connecticut in 1641.411 Lace was the focus of several Massachusetts
statutes: it was to be used as a small edging (presumably only by the
upper classes), but lace in general was prohibited from being worn
extensively on any garment.412 Import taxes were placed on luxury
items, “for preventing the immoderate expense of provisions brought
from beyond the seas.” Such goods as sugar, spice, wine, and tobacco
were included. The tariff was sixteen percent for direct buyers, and
thirty-three percent of import price for retailers (making it more diffi-
cult for retailers to compete in sales with London sellers).413
Tobacco consumption, which was regarded by Puritan leaders as
another unnecessary excess, had been under fire from some of the
directors of the Massachusetts Bay Company right from the beginning
of the colony.414 All four of the Puritan colonies—Massachusetts, Con-
necticut, New Haven, and Plymouth—passed numerous provisions
410. MCR, vol. 3 (1651), 243. This is the law as passed by the deputies. The version of
the full General Court is almost identical: MCR, vol. 4, pt. 1, 61–62. For a summary of
this status-oriented legislation, see William B. Weeden, Economic and Social History of
New England, 1620–1789, 2 vols. ([1890] 1963), vol. 1, 226ff. Weeden notes that Rhode
Island passed no such sumptuary legislation: vol. 1, 290.
411. CCR, vol. 1, 64.
412. MCR, vol. 1 (1635), 183; (1639), 274–75.
413. Ibid., (1636), 186.
414. Ibid., 387–89, 403.
placing restrictions on the sale and consumption of the “noxious

weed.” Generally, taking it in a public place was forbidden, or near a
flammable building.415 At one stage, Massachusetts prohibited the buy-
ing and selling of it altogether, although it was legal to import it for
reexport later.416 Plymouth banned its importation for a period, and
then repealed the law six months later.417 The Connecticut legislation
was tied to the health issue, but in exactly the reverse sense from
today’s viewpoint: no one under the age of twenty who had not already
addicted himself to tobacco was allowed to buy it, unless {189} he had a
doctor’s certificate “that it is useful for him,” and even then he had to
present the certificate to the Court in order to obtain a license.418
Taverns, brewers, and liquor retailers were under restrictions
throughout the century. Men were not to waste their time in taverns,
the magistrates believed, so they went to considerable lengths to pro-
tect men from their own weaknesses. The price of liquor and the price
of bread were the two controls to survive intact in the late seventeenth
century. Licensing was the primary means of control, as it is today, and
it was also a source of tax revenue, as it is today. The annual licensing of
taverns, said the Massachusetts magistrates, is inescapable, “seeing it is
difficult to order and keep the houses of public entertainment in such
conformity to the wholesome laws established by this Court as is nec-
essary for the prevention of drunkenness, excessive drinking, vain
expense of money, time, and the abuse of the creatures of God.…”419
Liquor legislation fills many pages in the records of all the colonies.420
Games of chance, shuffleboard, and other means of wasting time in
useless competition were under suspicion, especially in taverns and
when practiced by servants or youths. Such games were a sign of idling,
and magistrates were willing to go to real extremes in order to stamp
415. MCR, vol. 1 (1632), 101; (1640), 241; vol. 2 (1646), 151; NHCJ (1655), 148; PCR,
vol. 11 (1638), 27. Carl Bridenbaugh points out that this aspect of the tobacco legislation
was part of a larger body of laws in every colony enforcing fire standards: Cities in the
Wilderness, 55ff.
416. MCR, vol. 1 (1635), 136; (1635), 180.
417. PCR, vol. 11 (1641), 38.
418. CCR, vol. 1 (1647), 153.
419. MCR, vol. 4, pt. 1 (1654), 287.

them out.421 In some cases, such activities were not even permitted in
private homes.422
Certain forms of property control were so ubiquitous that they need
only to be mentioned. In every colony and village, law after law was
passed against cattle and especially swine running through the streets
without rings through their noses (making it easier to lead them to the
public pound). The constant repetition of these laws indicates the
extent of their failure. Sales of almost anything to the Indians were for-
bidden at one time or another; weapons and liquor were always under
such restraints. Laws fixing weights and measures were common in
each colony; Plymouth complained of confusion in its system as late as
1652.423 Sabbath violators were punished for laboring on Sundays in
every Puritan town. {190}
Conclusion
What, then, can we say about the attitude toward property which
was held by the first generation of Puritans in New England? Above all,
Puritans regarded property as a means of service to God, family, com-
munity, and themselves. Property involved personal stewardship in a
personalistic universe, and these responsibilities of stewardship had to
be exercised throughout a man’s life. To aid men in their tasks of
stewardship, God had created a pluralistic structure of institutions to
provide guidance, sometimes by persuasion and often through coer-
cion, but always in terms of a holy covenant among contracting parties
and God. Governments, warned John Cotton, are never to be granted
420. MCR, vol. 1, 199, 213; vol. 2, 100, 175, 253; vol. 3, 30, 142, 148, 289; vol. 4, pt. 1,
151; CCR, vol. 1, 332–33; NHCJ, 146, 214; PCR, vol. 11, 17, 50, 52, 66. Boston placed beer
under price controls: Boston, 90. Cf. Bridenbaugh, 113ff. He writes: “The tavern was
probably the most important social institution in the little seaports” (107). It is not
surprising, therefore, that the civil government took special pains to regulate its
activities.
421. MCR, vol. 2, 180, 195; vol. 3, 102; vol. 4, pt. 1, 20; CCR, vol. 1, 289; PCR, vol. 11,
66. Since the regulations concerning both taverns and gaming extend throughout the
period, and well beyond it, I have not bothered to cite the year in which each piece of
legislation was passed.
422. MCR, vol. 1(1631), 84.
423. PCR, vol. 3, 10.
full sovereignty (as in the papist church-state abomination); they are

under godly restraints.424 Yet the individual is not sovereign, either.
“Private Christians must not live in a private state, for that darkens a
man’s estate....”425 Grant to all the liberty God has granted, no more and
no less, for “there is never peace where full liberty is not given, nor
never stable peace where more than full liberty is granted....”426 Cotton
saw the problem quite clearly. “That certainly here is the distemper in
our natures, that we cannot tell how to use liberty, but we shall very
readily corrupt ourselves....” Covenants are to restrain men and institu-
tions from stepping beyond their proper bounds.
The covenantal principle of sphere sovereignty guaranteed the right
of private property. The limited sphere of private property in 1630 was
to expand throughout the first generation’s leadership in New England.
For a capitalist system to prosper, the limits would have to be expanded
even further, but the legitimacy of free exercise of property within a
limited sphere did establish a starting point. The responsibilities of
stewardship ultimately guaranteed the right of private ownership. A
man had a right to his titled property, and care was taken to preserve
those titles. Men took the effort to fix the zones of legitimate owner-
ship.
Puritan institutions were designed to absorb social change. The
Puritan outlook was future-oriented in the first generation. Puritans
hoped to stand as an example to the heathen of all lands; they looked
for the creation {191} of an earthly kingdom of saints to subdue the
earth to God’s glory; they expected God’s covenantal blessings. Their
424. Cotton, An Exposition Upon the Thirteenth Chapter of the Revelation (1655), 72.
Cf. Shepard, “Subjection to Christ,” Works, vol. 3, 343. This concept of limited
sovereignty was basic to New England town life in the era of Puritan leadership, as
Bridenbaugh indicates: “The town governments were further hampered in this period
by the fact that the powers and functions of municipal corporations were but
imperfectly conceived and hazily defined. They were limited by the medieval conception
of a charter which conveyed only the barest powers and privileges necessary for the
management of corporate property…. Moreover, the civic power being as yet feeble, it
was frequently forced to call on private aid to supplement it in many cases where today it
is all-sufficient” (136).
425. Cotton, ibid., 21.
426. Ibid., 73.
emphasis on the necessity of education indicates their commitment to

the future as much as their commitment to the past.427 Robert Keayne’s
legacies show his concern for the future: money for a free school,
money to finance poor scholars at college, a permanent fund for poor
relief, matching funds and competition between groups for his
library.428 His view was theocentric, even to the exclusion, in part, of
the claims of blood:
... God and country should come in for a child’s part in our estates,
also in some reasonable proportion suitable to the extent thereof, lest
the Lord blast and take away all from those to whom it is given. And as
I think dutiful and loving wives and children should be taken care of
in the first place before others and be comfortably cared for, so I think
all is too much that is given to vexatious, prodigal, imperious wives or
rebellious, undutiful, and spendthrift children.429
Character, in short, counted for more than mere blood ties. It was
character that honored God and promised victory over a perverse
world.
The progress of God’s kingdom was a goal to command the sacrifices
of godly men, both individually and in communal efforts. The ideology
of expansion was basic to Puritan preaching in the first decades of New
England; the colonists must have expected to see social change. Theirs
was not a utopia of static blessings; there was too much to accomplish,
too much sin to be struggled with, to permit complacency with the
present. But the Puritan ambivalence toward wealth, i.e., the paradox of
Deuteronomy 8, made their original leaders suspicious of all signs of
427. The most comprehensive study of education in the Puritan period is Lawrence
Cremin, American Education: The Colonial Experience, 1607–1783 (1970).
428. Keayne, Apologia, 18–24. Keayne’s legacy was not typical of colonial Puritanism,
however. New England Puritans were far more likely to give money away during their
lifetimes, but they left relatively little in their wills. This was in marked contrast to
Puritan charity in England, which was very often in the form of long-term bequests to
charitable trusts. On this point, see Foster, Their Solitary Way, 137ff. On the widespread
private charities established primarily by English Puritans, especially the London
merchants, see W. K. Jordan, Philanthropy in England, 1480–1660 (1959), 42ff., 241,
335ff., 348. These laymen were almost fanatically devoted to the establishment of
educational institutions, especially grammar schools (279ff.). In two generations, such
giving dwarfed the charitable accumulation of England’s medieval past (230).
429. Ibid., 76.
external achievement. Changes were expected, blessings were prayed

for, yet Puritans who bothered to write showed an unwillingness to see
anything but unmixed blessings coming to New England. They main-
tained a basic fear of change, since change upset institutional arrange-
ments like status patterns; change also made it difficult to determine
the proper relationship of one institution to another. It challenged the
received definitions of sphere sovereignty and legitimate power. Their
ambivalence can be seen in the {192} fact that Puritans were able to
preach and apparently accept jeremiads of abundance as well as jeremi-
ads of crisis; no man could be certain in his estimate of the meaning of
God’s sovereign manifestations of blessing and judgment.
What of the Protestant ethic? Did Puritans actually view life in the
expectation that earthly prosperity would come to righteous, disci-
plined men? When Puritan preachers chose to be subtle on this point,
they could produce considerable ambivalence. But (in a distinctly
unpuritan phrase) when the chips were down, they held to the stereo-
typed outline. John Eliot, the minister to the Indians, wrote a letter to
Thomas Shepard in 1647 which told of his encounter with a group of
converted Indians who were being challenged by local pagan tribes-
men. Pragmatists to the core, the skeptics chided: “ ‘What get you,’ they
say, ‘by praying to God and believing in Jesus Christ?’ You go naked
still, and you are as poor as we, and our corn is as good as yours, and
we take more pleasure than you.” Penetrating questions indeed; skep-
tics have asked the same basic set of questions to religious converts for
eons. Eliot’s answer to them stands as perhaps the finest statement of
the Protestant ethic that came out of the literature of seventeenth-cen-
tury Puritanism:
God giveth unto us two sorts of good things: one sort are little ones,
which I showed by my little finger; the other sort are great ones, which
I showed by my, thumb (for you know they use and delight in demon-
strations): the little mercies are riches, as clothes, food, sack, houses,
cattle, and pleasures; these are little things which serve but for our
bodies a little while in this life: the great mercies are wisdom, the
knowledge of God, Christ’s eternal life, repentance, faith—these are
mercies for the soul, and for eternal life.... You have some more clothes
than they and the reason you have no more is because you have little
wisdom; if you were more wise to know God, and obey his com-
mands, you would work more than you do; for so God commandeth,

Six days thou shalt work, etc., and thus the English do. And if you
would be so wise as to work as they do, you would have clothes,
houses, cattle, riches, as they have; God would give you them.430
In the last analysis, when a Puritan minister had to put the theology
of covenantal blessing before simple people who could not appreciate
the subtleties of biblical paradoxes, he expressed his faith in the bless-
ings God gives to the faithful. God would reward the citizens of His
Holy Commonwealth, so long as it remained truly holy.
The tiny communities of 1630 had inherited a paternalistic tradition
of status, hierarchy, and restraint on private actions in the market place.
But Puritan attitudes concerning charity, the need for education, and
the inescapability of personal as well as communal self-improvement
worked in {193} the direction of an expansion of personal liberty.
Mature men were expected to rule themselves and the earth; con-
science was awarded a large role in earthly affairs. The imposition of
economic controls, especially price and quality controls, seemed neces-
sary to Puritan leaders in the first two decades. Once the country had
survived the depression of the 1640s, thus proving the resiliency of the
economic structure, it seemed less important to monitor the day-to-
day affairs of the market.
The economic revival of the late 1640s was in part stimulated by the
somewhat suspect trading community in Boston. The attempts of the
government to create self-sufficiency by underwriting mining, requir-
ing families to spin flax or plant quotas of grain, and financing iron
works had failed.431 Men committed to experiment could learn from
such failures. Furthermore, with the expansion of trade, the growth of
the market, and the spread of a money economy, no single individual
or institution could command the power that it could have com-
manded in 1630 in an isolated frontier town. The need for full regula-
tion of the economy declined as a direct result of its increasing market
complexity and efficiency. Those things which were close to impossible
for the civil government to achieve—finding a just price for commodi-
430. John Eliot to Shepard, in Shepard, “Clear Sunshine of the Gospel,” Works, vol. 3,
479.
431. Bailyn, Merchants, chap. 3, provides a summary of several of these short-lived
experiments in economic self-sufficiency.
ties in times of economic turbulence, examining men’s hearts and con-

sciences to find signs of economic deviation, creating religious unity in
a diverse population—were steadily abandoned in the 1650s. Boston’s
pluralism and cosmopolitanism were unique in 1650, but Boston
pointed the direction in which New England was moving.

2.
DEFENDERS OF
THE FAITH

JOHN KNOX
David H. Chilton
Of all the sixteenth-century Reformers, John Knox remains the most

ardently loved and fiercely hated. No other leader of his day saw so
clearly the political issues in the light of Scripture. Nor has any of his
contemporaries had so much direct influence upon the subsequent his-
tory of the world. He transformed a land of barbarians into one of the
most hardheadedly Calvinistic cultures ever to exist, and his doctrines
lie at the core of all Protestant revolutionary activity. While he is often
considered merely one of Calvin’s lieutenants, he was actually a
Reformer in his own right. In some respects he was the greatest of
them all.
We know very little of Knox’s life from his birth in 1514 until his
ordination to the priesthood in 1536 after studying at St. Andrews Uni-
versity. Twenty-two was an unusual age at which to be ordained, and it
is likely that a special dispensation was granted him due to his extra-
ordinary ability in his studies. He was unable to acquire a living as a
priest, however (Scotland was flooded with them), and soon turned his
talents in other directions. By 1540 he was a lawyer. Three years later
he changed jobs again, this time making a significant move into Protes-
tant territory as tutor to the sons of Douglas of Longniddry and Cock-
burn of Ormiston, both active in the Reform movement. Thus it
appears that by this time Knox had been converted to the Protestant
faith, but nothing about his conversion is known except that it took
place through a study of John 17, which records the prayer Christ made
for His disciples:
I have given them thy word; and the world has hated them, because
they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. I pray not that
thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest
keep them from the evil. They are not of the world, even as I am not of
the world. Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth. As thou
hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the
world.

Knox settled down as a member of Longniddry’s household and

attended his duties faithfully until the arrival, late in 1545, of the fiery
evangelist George Wishart, the new spokesman for the Protestant
cause.
Sent by his employer to meet Wishart at Leith, Knox joined him as a
bodyguard, and for more than a month he traveled about the country-
side brandishing a two-handed sword and listening with increasing
admiration {195} to sermons denouncing the sins of church and soci-
ety and warning of judgment.
The importance of this step must not be overlooked. It was illegal for
Knox to carry that sword; yet, as one biographer notes, it was the least
of his crimes. Wishart was a marked man. His reforming activities had
gotten him into trouble both in England and in Scotland, and in recent
days the heretic-hunter Cardinal Beaton, having failed to arrest him,
had tried to have him murdered twice. Knox was well aware that in
thus aligning himself so openly and dramatically with Wishart, he was
entering the center of the struggle, from which there would be no
retreat.
On January 12, 1546, Wishart, realizing that he would soon be cap-
tured, took Knox’s sword from him and sent him home, saying, “One is
sufficient for a sacrifice.” After staying at Wishart’s side for five weeks,
Knox sadly took his leave; if he had remained just a few hours more, he
would have been arrested with the Reformer. Just before midnight the
earl of Bothwell surrounded the house with soldiers and took Wishart
captive, delivering him to Cardinal Beaton, who was waiting with his
troops less than a mile away. Wishart was taken to St. Andrews, where
on March 1 he was condemned, strangled, and burned. But Beaton’s
success was short-lived: on May 29 a band of sixteen angry young gen-
tlemen seized St. Andrews Castle and broke into the cardinal’s cham-
bers, where they found him cowering in a chair and begging for his life,
crying, “I am a priest; I am a priest: ye will not slay me.” The zealots
confronted him with his wickedness in putting Wishart to death, pro-
claimed the vengeance of God, and stabbed him repeatedly. “And so he
fell,” Knox records, “with never a word heard out of his mouth, but ‘I
am a priest, I am a priest: fie, fie: all is gone.’ ”432 His dead body was
432. John Knox, Works (New York: AMS Press, 1968), vol. 1, 177.

John Knox 243
urinated on and hung over the wall for all to see, and his killers
announced their intention of holding the castle against government
forces.
Over the next year a steady stream of Protestants joined the rebels,
and for his own protection Knox was sent there by his employers in
April of 1547, taking his three young students with him. It was not long
before Knox’s gifts in both theological insight and preaching ability
were recognized, and before he had been at St. Andrews one month he
was asked publicly to accept the church’s call to the ministry. And what
was the response of this man who would one day shake kingdoms? He
burst into tears and fled from the room. Knox, whose orientation was
largely in the academic world, realized only too well his own lack of
training and unpreparedness. He had been content in his role as an
instructor of children; and yet the hand of God was continuing to move
him into the gap {196} left by Wishart. Edwin Muir, who was no
admirer of Knox, comments in a rare burst of insight:
What was it that transformed a man so timid and apprehensive into a
heroic figure? So far as one can tell it was a theory now completely
outworn; a belief that before the beginning of the world God had
ordained that mankind should be separated into two hosts, the repro-
bate and the elect: that the elect should prevail, and that after death
they should enjoy everlasting bliss; and finally, that it was alike fated
that they should fight and that they should win. To embrace this creed
was to enroll in an invincible army; to remain outside was destruc-
tion.433
Knox thus could not resist God’s call, and having determined his
course, he pushed forward with all his might. Within a few days, he was
embroiled in the midst of a debate over the Church of Rome, Knox
boldly claiming he could prove the Church was more degenerate than
the apostate Jews were when they crucified Christ. This assertion,
made before a crowd of Roman Catholics (including members of the
St. Andrews faculty), was challenged immediately, and Knox set out to
demonstrate it in his first sermon. Taking his text from Daniel 7:24–25,
his thesis was that the Church of Rome was Antichrist. He examined in
some detail the doctrine and morals of various popes, and showed how
433. Edwin Muir, John Knox (Port Washington, NY: Kennikat Press, 1972), 300–301.

they were contrary to the clear mandates of Scripture, which he

declared was fully authoritative.
The reaction to this first effort was one which confirmed Knox in his
realization that God had indeed called him. The congregation mur-
mured, “Others hewed the branches of the Papacy, but he strikes at the
root”; and many, seeing Knox’s opposition speechless, came over to
Protestantism. After this sermon it was also a common saying that
“Master George Wishart spake never so plainly, and yet he was burned:
even so will Knox be.” The Romanist clergy too understood the force of
the argument that true religion must be derived solely from Scripture,
and Knox was thereafter kept from preaching in the kirk on Sundays,
they having made sure that all the dates were filled by other priests.
Knox fought back. He held services on weekdays, during which he
refuted everything said on Sundays. So successful were his efforts that
all those in the castle and a majority of those in the town made an open
profession of the Protestant faith by participating in the Lord’s Supper
as administered by Knox.
The significance of what was taking place at St. Andrews was not lost
on the French government, which had a stake in the future of Scotland.
(The young Scottish Queen Mary was currently in France receiving her
training in Romanist religion, Parisian morals, and statist absolutism.)
Early in July twenty French galleys appeared off the coast and began
bombarding {197} the Castle. Those holding the fortress were confi-
dent, however, and boasted that English forces would come to the res-
cue. “Ye shall not see them,” Knox prophesied: “But ye shall be
delivered in your enemy’s hands, and shall be carried to a strange coun-
try.”434 On July 30, 1547, the Castle surrendered to the French, and 120
prisoners, including Knox, were put aboard the galleys as slaves. Terri-
ble as this was, it was better than what would have happened if the
Scottish government had gotten hold of Knox; as the people had said,
he would surely have been burned.
Knox spent nineteen months as a galley slave, chained to a bench
with 150 others and subsisting on water and a bit of biscuit, with an
occasional treat of vegetable soup. Disease was rampant, and Knox’s
health broke down. In July of 1548 he was near death, and as the ship
434. Knox, Works, vol. 1, 203.

John Knox 245
passed by St. Andrews again, a fellow slave asked him if he recognized

it. Knox answered feebly, but with strong assurance: “Yes, I know it
well; for I see the steeple of that place where God first in public opened
my mouth to his glory; and I am fully persuaded, however weak I now
appear, that I shall not depart this life till my tongue shall glorify his
name in the same place.”435 Knox survived, and eventually gained his
liberty (March 1549); but eleven years passed before his prophecy was
fulfilled.
One striking aspect of Knox’s History of the Reformation in Scotland
(which of necessity is largely autobiographical) is that not once does he
mention any mistreatment at the hands of his captors. Protestants of
his day were often given to relating moving and detailed accounts of
their sufferings: the propaganda value is obvious. Knox, however, was
different. As Jasper Ridley remarks: “Knox makes no attempt to arouse
the reader’s pity for himself.... Many Protestants glorified in their
sufferings, and seemed almost to be seeking martyrdom. Knox did not
want martyrdom; he wanted victory.”436
Knox landed in England as a refugee in March of 1549, and the gov-
ernment appointed him minister of Berwick, a rough border town less
than three miles from his homeland. He spent three happy years here,
preaching the pure gospel and denouncing idolatry, and extending his
ministry to the town of Newcastle, some sixty miles away. He was so
effective that Protestant families in Scotland, hearing of his ministry,
crossed the border illegally and resettled in Berwick so as to be near
him. Knox also learned some important political lessons from his
experiences in the North, and profited from them greatly. His preach-
ing was pointed and powerful, yet the Romanists who still held office
were unable to pin anything on him. Knox is rightly thought of as a
radical, a “root and branch” reformer. Yet there is an important distinc-
tion to be observed here. {198} From this time and throughout his
ministry Knox displayed amazing patience, appealing for moderation
and compromise whenever truly fundamental issues were not at stake.
This was not hypocrisy, but strategy: rather than concentrate his efforts
on temporary, minor battles, Knox was intent upon winning the war.
435. Works, vol. 1, 228.

436. Jasper Ridley, John Knox (New York: Oxford University Press, 1968), 83.

Knox’s powers as a preacher vividly came to light when at the request

of the duke of Northumberland he came to London in 1552 to preach
before the boy king, Edward VI. The Second Book of Common Prayer
was to come into force within a few weeks, and, from the Protestant
perspective, was greatly superior to the First—except for one passage
which commanded communicants to receive the sacrament on their
knees. To Knox this smacked of idolatry, and he said so in his sermon
before the king at Windsor. Soon it was an international topic of con-
versation, and less than a week before the due date Archbishop Cran-
mer felt it necessary to insert a nasty disclaimer into the Book to the
effect that kneeling did not imply worship of the elements. While this
fell far short of what Knox would have said, the significance of the
“Black Rubric” (as the insert came to be called by Romanists) lies in the
fact that it implicitly denies the doctrine of the Real Presence of Christ’s
body in the sacrament. John Knox thus changed English history with
one sermon.
With the insertion of the Black Rubric, Knox counseled his former
congregation in Berwick to submit, for the sake of peace, to the Prayer
Book’s rule regarding kneeling. He considered the rule a temporary
setback, and one which he could afford at present to obey.
During his sojourn in London Knox also was influential in the
formation of the Articles of Religion (later revised and brought out
under Elizabeth as the Thirty-nine Articles), and again he found he was
able to cooperate with others without abandoning his commitment to
scriptural reformation. Knox was offered the important bishopric of
Rochester, but refused it in order not to sever his ties with either Ber-
wick or the hoped-for reformation of Scotland. He rightly saw that
such a position would involve him in ecclesiastical politicking and thus
silence his voice. He saw also that King Edward’s health was failing, and
the greedy Northumberland was attempting to increase his own power.
The wind in England was shifting, and Knox wanted no part in what
was coming. More than anything else, he wanted to preach freely, and
this he continued to do with little regard for what the church hierarchy
thought.
All of Knox’s actions during his four years in England fit into a pat-
tern. This has been ably described by Jasper Ridley in his contrast
between Knox and another English Reformer, John Hooper:

John Knox 247
In every situation, Hooper and Knox reacted differently. Hooper

admired Northumberland, and was completely deceived by him; Knox
never trusted Northumberland, but made use of him for his own ends.
{199} Hooper proclaimed his beliefs, without considering the political
consequences; Knox never compromised his principles, but never
went further than appeared tactically advisable. Hooper defied the
law, and suffered imprisonment for his doctrines; Knox stayed just
within the law, and avoided imprisonment. Hooper submitted,
accepted a bishopric, and as a result ceased to be a cause of trouble to
the authorities; Knox refused a bishopric, and remained a serious
cause of trouble, but one with which it was very difficult to deal. Most
important of all, Hooper resisted throughout as an individual; Knox
was the spokesman for his congregation of Scots in the north, and
resisted in England, as he had done in the French galleys, with the
group. In the end, when Popery returned, Hooper refused to flee, and
offered himself for martyrdom. Knox fled, and afterwards led a suc-
cessful revolution. Hooper died at the stake; Knox lived to send his
enemies to the gallows.437
The young King Edward VI died on July 6, 1553. The attempt to
keep the crown in Protestant hands failed, and on August 2 Mary
Tudor triumphantly entered London. Night was falling upon England,
and Knox used what little time remained to travel around the country-
side preaching and writing. He was wise in making himself a moving
target. All the outspoken Protestants—Bradford, Rogers, Becon, Fisher,
Hooper, Coverdale, Latimer, and Cranmer—were being rounded up
and cast into prison. Eventually there began an active hunt for Knox,
and he was able to escape from the country about the end of January
1554. The executions under “Bloody Mary” began two weeks later.
The immediate future looked bleak, but Knox was a firm believer in
the promises of the gospel’s ultimate triumph, when all nations would
be discipled to the law of Christ, and the earth would be filled with the
knowledge of God. Before he left England, he penned these lines to
those who were staying behind:
And therefore dare I be bold, in the verity of God’s word, to promise
that not withstanding the vehemency of trouble, the long continuance
thereof, the desperation of all men, the fearfulness, danger, dolour and
anguish of our own hearts, yet if we call constantly to God, that
beyond expectation of all men He shall deliver.438
437. Ridley, John Knox, 128–29.

And again:
For the Lord Himself shall come in our defense with His mighty
power; He shall give us the victory when the battle is most strong; and
He shall turn our tears into everlasting joy.439
Knox landed at Dieppe and made his way to Geneva, where he met
with Calvin, and from there he went to see Bullinger, Viret, Farel, and
the other Reformers in Switzerland. Knox was developing a theology of
{200} resistance to tyranny, and wished to discuss the matter with his
brethren. He then returned to Dieppe and began smuggling pamphlets
into England. The most important of these was the Admonition to
England, published in July of 1554. In it Knox suggested that England
would not now be suffering if Mary had been “sent to Hell” (i.e., exe-
cuted) during Edward’s reign.440 He went on to ask God to “stir up
some Phineas, Elijah or Jehu” to punish the idolaters.441 (If you’re not
sure what Knox had in mind, see Num. 25:7–8; 1 Kings 18:40; 2 Kings
9:30–37.) He closed with a prayer:
Repress the pride of these bloodthirsty tyrants; consume them in thine
anger according to the reproach which they have laid against thy holy
name. Pour forth thy vengeance upon them, and let our eyes behold
the blood of thy saints required of their hands. Delay not thy ven-
geance, O Lord! but let death devour them in haste; let the earth swal-
low them up; and let them go down alive to Hell.442
In other words, while Knox did not exactly call for Mary’s
assassination, he came fairly close. With this move, he had stepped into
new territory, going much further than any Reformer had dared go.
Calvin eventually felt forced to take a similar position (though he did
not state it quite so baldly), and the theme was ultimately picked up by
the Reformed movement as a whole, particularly in France and the
Netherlands. Within a few years, tens of thousands of Huguenots were
offering armed resistance to the French government; and the year
Knox died saw the beginning of the successful Calvinist revolt and
438. Works, vol. 3, 91.

439. Ibid., 215.
440. Ibid., 294.
441. Ibid., 309.
442. Ibid., 328.

John Knox 249
takeover of Holland and Zeeland. Knox had shocked the world with his
Admonition to England, but he had also convinced it. As Ridley states
it, “The theory of the justification of revolution is Knox’s special
contribution to theological and political thought.”443
In November 1554, Knox took on the responsibilities of pastoring a
congregation of English refugees in Frankfort. The church was split
over the form of service, with a minority preferring the use of the
English Book of Common Prayer. The majority sided with Knox, who
was naturally opposed to it, and desired a more directly scripturally
oriented service. Knox desired unity, however, and was attempting to
work out a compromise when, in March of 1555, Richard Cox arrived.
Cox, an exiled ex-official who had risen to prominence under Henry
VIII, combined an aggressive personality with extreme traditionalism.
He hated passionately anything which smelled to him of independence,
and immediately on his arrival began to make trouble. He was able to
gain control of the church, and less than two weeks later Knox was
removed from office and forbidden {201} to preach. Cox’s faction was
able to prevail with the city authorities, and Knox was banished from
Frankfort.
Knox returned to Geneva, where many in the Frankfort congrega-
tion followed him. Contrary to appearances at the time, this was not a
defeat but an advance, and marks one of the most significant events in
English history. For the issues surrounding the split of English Protes-
tantism at this time were the issues which would dominate the course
of the next century and more: the dispute between Anglican and Puri-
tan. The new Genevan congregation became the first Puritan congre-
gation, and Knox became known as the founder of Puritanism.444
Knox’s congregation restructured their life and worship along the lines
of the Calvinist Reformation, based upon the principle that everything
in worship must be ruled by the Word of God alone. Congregational
singing was limited to psalm-singing, the service was centered around
443. Ridley, John Knox, 171.

444. The best exposition of the differences between the two positions is John F. H.
New’s Anglican and Puritan: The Basis of Their Opposition, 1558–1640 (Palo Alto, CA:
Stanford University Press, 1964).
the exposition of Scripture, and the Lord’s Supper was celebrated

according to the New Testament pattern, seated at a table.
In September of 1555, Knox left for a visit to Scotland, where he
traveled around encouraging his brethren. His homeland was not yet
ripe for a full reformation, however, and so after one year he returned
to Geneva with his new bride, Marjory, and her mother. He stayed as
pastor of the English Puritan congregation for over a year, fulfilling his
duties faithfully. But in the fall of 1557, he made preparations to go to
Scotland again, this time in answer to an urgent request by the Scottish
lords, who stated that a reformation was now possible. Knox journeyed
the 400 miles to Dieppe only to find another letter waiting for him. The
lords had changed their minds, and asked him to remain in Dieppe.
Knox replied with a long letter in which he asserted that nobles have a
duty to force rulers to aid the reform. More than ever, Knox was aware
of the indecision and unreliability of the Scottish nobility, and he
denounced compromise with man as treason to God.
Knox waited in Dieppe for two months and then returned to Geneva
early in 1558, where he published his most famous—and most radi-
cal—tract: The First Blast of the Trumpet against the Monstrous Regi-
ment of Women. Knox had come to believe that many of the church’s
problems stemmed from the fact that both England and Scotland were
being ruled by women, a situation which he held was unscriptural and
unnatural: “To promote a woman to bear rule, superiority, dominion
or empire above any Realm, Nation, or City, is repugnant to Nature.”445
Previously he had been able to condemn Mary Tudor on the ground
that she had actively led England back into idolatry; now he was attack-
ing both Marys on the {202} ground that they were women. Knox did
not descend to rationalism on this point, however, for he identified
natural law with the law of God. And this made rebellion not merely a
right, but an absolute duty. Knox had two basic steps in his plan of
action: first, remove the women from authority; second, execute any-
one who gets in the way. Failure to carry this out would be “nothing but
plain rebellion against God.”446
445. Works, vol. 4, 373.

446. Ibid., 416.

John Knox 251
Several of Knox’s biographers have been troubled by this document,

in view of Knox’s close relationships with women who wrote to him for
spiritual counsel. Knox’s warmth and obvious pastoral affection do not
cohere, it is said, with the vehement outburst in the First Blast. Some
have therefore suggested that Knox was not being entirely sincere in
this work and was merely appealing to popular prejudices. But in real-
ity there is no problem here at all. In the first place, there were many
who would disagree, and Knox knew it. More importantly, however,
this was an issue which had no bearing on his pastoral affection. The
fact that Knox enjoyed his relationships with godly women (as well as
with godly men) was irrelevant to the question of one, male or female,
who rebelled against the order of creation as revealed in God’s word.
Knox saw no discrepancy between his rebuke of the ungodly and his
care for the godly. To him both were necessary aspects of his calling as
a prophet of God.
During this time, Knox also wrote specifically to the Scots, address-
ing the nobility and the commoners in separate treatises. This too was
an important step, for whereas Calvin had reserved the right of rebel-
lion to magistrates alone, Knox went further, and maintained that as
the commoner was equally a member of the church, he had the right
and duty to order it properly if God’s appointed officers had broken the
covenant.
Ye, although ye be but subjects, may lawfully require of your superiors
... that they provide for you the Preachers, and that they expel such as,
under the name of Pastors, devour and destroy the flock.... And if in
this point your superiors be negligent, or yet pretend to maintain
tyrants in their tyranny, most justly ye may provide true teachers for
yourselves, be it in your cities, towns, or villages: them ye may main-
tain and defend against all that shall persecute them.447
“Few nobler statements of Christian democracy have ever been
penned,” says Percy;448 but this is to defend Knox in a way which
would surely be offensive to him. Knox was no democrat. He always
remembered that Mary Tudor had ascended the throne amid the
cheers of the people, and that vox populi, vox dei had been the slogan of
447. Ibid., 533.

448. Lord Eustace Percy, John Knox (Richmond, VA: John Knox Press, 1966), 219.

the day. Knox stood not for democracy but for the law of God. And it
was just because of this stand that he upheld the right of the godly com-
moner to rebel against an ungodly {203} ruler. Knox was no “man of
the people,” nor did he wish to be. His desire was to be a man of God.
Thus, for God’s sake, he opposed all who would play God in any area.
He was not against civil government as such, for it was ordained of
God, but kings had the duty of knowing God’s laws and obeying them
fully. “Kings then have not an absolute power in their regiment what
pleases them; but their power is limited by God’s word.” A ruler must
consider that he is “Lieutenant to One whose eyes continually watch
upon him.”449 If by this doctrine the common man was exalted, it was
not because that was Knox’s aim. He was concerned that God alone be
supreme Lord. It is primarily this characteristic which merits Ridley’s
summary:
Knox is one of the most ruthless and successful revolutionary leaders
in history. He was more ruthless, at least in theory, than any other rev-
olutionary of more recent times. Dictators ancient and modern have
killed their opponents whenever they considered that this was expedi-
ent. Revolutionary mobs have killed oppressors out of a desire for ven-
geance and justice. But Knox and his Puritans are the only modern
revolutionaries who proclaimed that it was sinful not to kill their ene-
mies.450
In November of 1558, Knox received a letter from the Protestant
“Lords of the Congregation” in Scotland, again requesting him to
come. Knox delayed to respond, probably distrusting the lords, but this
time there was good reason for his presence. Archbishop Hamilton had
condemned and burned old Walter Myln, a priest in his eighties, for
teaching Reformed doctrine to a small group of children. The public
was outraged by the execution: there were large open-air meetings and
riots, and a large group of lords and commoners had signed an agree-
ment to defend the preaching of the gospel. The Revolution had begun.
Knox arrived in Scotland on May 2, 1559, and nine days later was
preaching in Perth against idolatry. At the close of his sermon, the con-
gregation destroyed the Church of St. John and all the idols within.
They then sacked the nearby monasteries, using the spoils for the relief
449. Works, vol. 6, 236–38.

450. Ridley, John Knox, 527.

John Knox 253
of the poor. This scene was repeated in town after town, but the real
showdown occurred in St. Andrews. Knox had prophesied years before
that he would again preach in the church there, and Archbishop
Hamilton got there first with 100 armed men in order to stop him. The
next morning, Knox ascended into the pulpit and preached on the
expulsion of the moneychangers from the temple. Hamilton hurriedly
left town, and the townspeople removed all remnants of idolatry from
the area. When Mary heard of it, she sent 800 French soldiers to attack
and crush the rebellion, and two days later the French force met the
Congregation. A thick mist surrounded {204} them, and under this
providential cover the Congregation’s forces swelled from less than 100
to over 3,000 men armed to the teeth and in possession of a cannon.
Needless to say, when the fog lifted and the French realized their posi-
tion, they made a hasty truce. The Congregation’s victory was not only
valuable for its own sake; it was also tactically impressive. The cause of
reform was on the upswing, and town after town surrendered to the
Congregation wherever they went.
After a great deal of letter-writing back and forth, a treaty was signed
in February of 1560 in which England promised to protect Scotland
against the French. Queen Elizabeth had ascended her throne in 1558,
just in time to be offended by Knox’s First Blast against the rule of
women, so there was no love lost on her part for Knox. All the same,
she realized that for the safety of England, Knox and his reform were
needed. Thus, an English army joined with the Congregation against
the French, and on July 15, 1560, the French were forced to leave Scot-
tish soil.
The real work of reformation now began. Catholicism was abolished.
A Confession of Faith was accepted by Parliament, and Scotland
became officially Presbyterian. The Book of Discipline was adopted,
laying down the standards for the life of the church. Ministers were
made responsible for their congregations; provision was made for the
education of children. The effectiveness of the new presbyterian system
was so great that the savage persecutions of the following century were
unable to root it out. The Reformation had come to stay.
Scotland was without a ruler, however, and so on August 19, 1561,
Mary Stuart returned from France. With the arrival of this crafty young
girl who was so adept at deceit and flattery, the last great contest of

Knox’s life began. Five days after her arrival, the new Queen of Scots
celebrated mass in her private chapel. Knox denounced her publicly in
his sermon that day and followed up with an even more impassioned
address the following week, declaring that he feared one mass more
than an army of 10,000 foreign troops. With the death penalty for
attending mass in force, the law’s effectiveness would be considerably
weakened if the queen herself were able to attend. The effect of these
sermons was tremendous, as the English ambassador, Thomas Ran-
dolph, observed: “The voice of one man is able, in one hour, to put
more life into us than 500 trumpets continually blustering in our ears.”
Mary, seeing this, called Knox to a private meeting with her and
accused him of spreading anarchy. Knox replied, “God forbid that ever
I take upon me to command any to obey me, or yet to set subjects at
liberty to do what pleaseth them. But my concern is that both princes
and subjects obey God.”
The state of the Reformation began to degenerate, with Mary con-
tinuing to observe mass and Knox continuing to denounce her. Over
the next several years Knox often had to stand alone against the queen,
because {205} the other leaders of the Congregation were at various
times deceived by her. Mary’s combination of flattery and crying fits
seemed to work on everyone but John Knox. But eventually, as always,
Knox’s preaching and writing won out. Mary was forced to abdicate her
throne in 1567, and her infant son James was crowned in her place.
Knox spent the last few years of life preaching and working on his
excellent History of the Reformation in Scotland, a work for which alone
he would be justly famous. It does not, of course, follow today’s stan-
dards of “objective” historiography; but then his philosophy of history
was vastly different from that of modern secular historians.
We affirm and maintain that God is Lord, Moderator and Governor of
all things; whom we affirm to have determined from the beginning,
according to His wisdom, what He would do; and now we say, that He
doth execute according to His power whatsoever He hath determined.
Whereof we conclude, that not only the heaven and earth and things
insensible, but also the counsels and the wills of men are governed by
His providence, so that they tend and are led to the scope and the end
which He has purposed.451
451. Works, vol. 6, 12.

John Knox 255
History therefore is not an impersonal outworking of merely “natu-

ral” forces but an intensely personal struggle between the armies of
Christ and Satan, in a deadly warfare which will be gloriously won by
Christ and His elect. Every page of Knox’s History reflects this basic
and all-encompassing perspective. It was from this biblical way of
looking at life that he used his prophetic powers, which are so abun-
dantly attested that it seems pointless to deny them. We have seen some
examples in this article, and there are many more. One striking
instance is his public prediction, years before it took place, that William
Kirkcaldy of Grange would be hanged facing the sun. Grange was exe-
cuted about a year after Knox’s death. It was a sunny afternoon, and he
was hanged facing east, with his back to the sun. But as the shocked
spectators watched, the body slowly began to spin around toward the
west, and there it stayed. Grange died facing the sun. In this, as in many
other incidents, the sovereign Lord of the earth testified to the truth of
His message.
Knox continued to preach until the end, although his health was rap-
idly deteriorating. He grew so weak that he had to be assisted into the
pulpit by several men. Once he began to preach, however, his strength
would return, and he would speak with such power and vehemence
that young James Melville, trying to take notes, would drop his pen in
sheer fright. At times it seemed as if Knox would break the pulpit in
pieces and go flying out of it. Knox preached his last sermon on
November 9, 1572, and afterward was escorted home by his entire
church. He stayed in bed for the next two weeks, and on November 24
he asked his wife to read aloud {206} the seventeenth chapter of John’s
Gospel, where, he said, “I cast my first anchor.” Six hours later he died.
Knox’s continuing contribution is not just that of the Kirk of Scot-
land, which after four centuries still uses his Order of Geneva in wor-
ship; nor is it just that of a nation freed from bondage to sin, ignorance,
and statist tyranny. It is rather his firm insistence and lifelong demon-
stration that all men are religious in every aspect of life, and that no
institution, high or low, can be separated from its responsibility to God;
that the greatest liberty is found in the greatest subservience to God’s
law; that there is one supreme King, before whom all others must bow.

THE MINISTRY
OF CHALCEDON
[Pr. 29:18]
Chalcedon [kalSEEdon] is a Christian educational organization devoted exclu-

sively to research, publishing, and cogent communication of a distinctly Chris-
tian scholarship to the world at large. It makes available a variety of services and
programs, all geared to the needs of interested laymen who understand the
propositions that Jesus Christ speaks to the mind as well as the heart, and that
His claims extend beyond the narrow confines of the various institutional
churches. We exist in order to support the efforts of all orthodox denominations
and churches.
Chalcedon derives its name from the great ecclesiastical Council of Chalcedon
(AD 451), which produced the crucial christological definition: “Therefore, fol-
lowing the holy Fathers, we all with one accord teach men to acknowledge one
and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, at once complete in Godhead and com-
plete in manhood, truly God and truly man....” This formula challenges directly
every false claim of divinity by any human institution: state, church, cult, school,
or human assembly. Christ alone is both God and man, the unique link between
heaven and earth. All human power is therefore derivative; Christ alone can
announce that “All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth” (Matthew
28:18). Historically, the Chalcedonian creed is therefore the foundation of West-
ern liberty, for it sets limits on all authoritarian human institutions by acknowl-
edging the validity of the claims of the one who is the source of true human
freedom (Galatians 5:1).
Christians have generally given up two crucial features of theology that in the
past led to the creation of what we know as Western civilization. They no longer
have any real optimism concerning the possibility of an earthly victory of Chris-
tian principles and Christian institutions, and they have also abandoned the
means of such a victory in external human affairs: a distinctly biblical concept of
law. The testimony of the Bible and Western history should be clear: when God’s
people have been confident about the ultimate earthly success of their religion
and committed socially to God’s revealed system of external law, they have been
victorious. When either aspect of their faith has declined, they have lost ground.
Without optimism, they lose their zeal to exercise dominion over God’s creation
The Ministry of Chalcedon 257
(Genesis 1:28); without revealed law, they are left without guidance and drift
along with the standards of their day.
Once Christians invented the university; now they retreat into little Bible colleges
or sports factories. Once they built hospitals throughout Europe and America;
now the civil governments have taken them over. Once Christians were inspired
by “Onward, Christian Soldiers”; now they see themselves as “poor wayfaring
strangers” with “joy, joy, joy, joy down in their hearts” only on Sundays and per-
haps Wednesday evenings. They are, in a word, pathetic. Unquestionably, they
have become culturally impotent.
Chalcedon is committed to the idea of Christian reconstruction. It is premised
on the belief that ideas have consequences. It takes seriously the words of Profes-
sor F. A. Hayek: “It may well be true that we as scholars tend to overestimate the
influence which we can exercise on contemporary affairs. But I doubt whether it
is possible to overestimate the influence which ideas have in the long run.” If
Christians are to reconquer lost ground in preparation for ultimate victory (Isa-
iah 2, 65, 66), they must rediscover their intellectual heritage. They must come
to grips with the Bible’s warning and its promise: “Where there is no vision, the
people perish: but he that keepeth the law, happy is he” (Proverbs 29:18). Chalce-
don’s resources are being used to remind Christians of this basic truth: what
men believe makes a difference. Therefore, men should not believe lies, for it is
the truth that sets them free (John 8:32).
Finis

JCR Vol. 05 No. 02: Symposium On Puritanism and Law

Uploaded by

Copyright:

JCR Vol. 05 No. 02: Symposium On Puritanism and Law

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

JCR Vol. 05 No. 02: Symposium On Puritanism and Law

Uploaded by

Copyright:

What is the purpose of the Journal of Christian Reconstruction?

What is the purpose of the Journal of Christian Reconstruction?

What is Chalcedon's perspective on Christianity?

What is Chalcedon's perspective on Christianity?

1

7PMVNF 8JOUFSm /VNCFS

The Journal of Christian Reconstruction

A Chalcedon Publication [www.chalcedon.edu] 3/30/07

A Chalcedon Publication [www.chalcedon.edu] 3/30/07

1. SYMPOSIUM ON PURITANISM AND LAW

2. DEFENDERS OF THE FAITH

A Chalcedon Publication [www.chalcedon.edu] 3/30/07

A Chalcedon Publication [www.chalcedon.edu] 3/30/07

A Chalcedon Publication [www.chalcedon.edu] 3/30/07

A Chalcedon Publication [www.chalcedon.edu] 3/30/07

A Chalcedon Publication [www.chalcedon.edu] 3/30/07

experiment in setting forth the Puritan vision of God’s Holy Common-

A Chalcedon Publication [www.chalcedon.edu] 3/30/07

been introduced to the Puritans through the recently published litera-

2. William Perkins, Workes, vol. 2, 441; reprinted in Edmund S. Morgan, ed.,

A Chalcedon Publication [www.chalcedon.edu] 3/30/07

A Chalcedon Publication [www.chalcedon.edu] 3/30/07

A Chalcedon Publication [www.chalcedon.edu] 3/30/07

regarded the Reformation as a movement through which the Chris-

A Chalcedon Publication [www.chalcedon.edu] 3/30/07

reading of Bucer will readily reveal that theonomy is not something

A Chalcedon Publication [www.chalcedon.edu] 3/30/07

THE FOURTEENTH LAW:

adultery (Lev. 20:10), rape (Deut. 22:20–25), kidnapping (Deut. 24:7);

A Chalcedon Publication [www.chalcedon.edu] 3/30/07

A Chalcedon Publication [www.chalcedon.edu] 3/30/07

penalty be inflicted on adulterers. May the Lord grant the shepherds of

A Chalcedon Publication [www.chalcedon.edu] 3/30/07

A Chalcedon Publication [www.chalcedon.edu] 3/30/07

Criticisms of Theonomic Ethics

15. In the Presbyterian Journal, August 31, 1977, 18.

A Chalcedon Publication [www.chalcedon.edu] 3/30/07

17. Cf. note 14 above.

A Chalcedon Publication [www.chalcedon.edu] 3/30/07

A Chalcedon Publication [www.chalcedon.edu] 3/30/07

John Calvin and Martin Bucer

Bucer placed a tremendous emphasis on the love of the brethren and

A Chalcedon Publication [www.chalcedon.edu] 3/30/07

Bucer’s {25} position “perilous, seditious, false, and foolish”? Moreover,

The Sixteenth Century

38. Schaff, vol. 3, 855.

A Chalcedon Publication [www.chalcedon.edu] 3/30/07

41. Ibid., 282.

A Chalcedon Publication [www.chalcedon.edu] 3/30/07

term “equity” to denote this phenomenon of basic principles and com-

44. John Hooper, “A Declaration of the Ten Commandments,” in Early Writings of

reign of Edward the Sixth, during the period of Bucer’s influence in

The Rise of Puritanism

47. Thomas Becon, Catechism, Parker Society ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge

A Chalcedon Publication [www.chalcedon.edu] 3/30/07

William Swynderby condemned the imprisonment of debtors. Walter

51. Capp, Fifth Monarchy Men, 168–69.

Archbishop Whitgift complained in 1574 that “it is now disputed at

54. Cited in Capp, 169.

The Era of the Westminster Assembly

A Chalcedon Publication [www.chalcedon.edu] 3/30/07

To them [Israel] also, as a body politic, He gave sundry judicial laws,

Notice that according to Wollebius all of the judicial law is perma-

7PMVNF 8JOUFSm /VNCFS