7
When one thinks· of the literature influential in the founding of this nation and theW ar of · · Independence, one's mind ( especiall¥ if he or she has been educated m the State-controlled institutions of learning) automatically runs to Thomas Paine's little pamphlet Common . Sense. This, according to · modem historiography, was the spark which ignited the flame of the American Revolution. One gets the impression had Mr. Paine not written his essay, we would still be pausing in the mid- afternoon for tea and singing "God Save ow; Queen." . racing revolutionary locomotive. [And by the way, stirred up no small controversy in the process. No less than four pamphlets · were published to refute the ideas set forth in Common Sense}. John Quincy Adams once remarked; "His [Paine' s] Common Sense, is a pamphlet just as throughout JUSt as remote from sound human sense, as all the others by which, in later times, he has made himself a name... If such a work could have produced the American revolution, it would have been best for reasonable Few things could be further - men to concern themselves no from the truth. In fact, according longer with that event. But it to John Adams, though Paine's . was certainly at all times, by the . work was welcomed in this wiser and better men, country, it had little effect upon considered, endured,· and revolutionary momentum other . perhaps encouraged only as an than to "cheer it on." It's iristrument to gain over weaker influence was rather like the minds to the common cause." fellow standing about midway (The French and American down a bobsled run who blows Revolutions Compared, note pp. as hard as he can to help the 72,73) bobsled pick up speed. Thomas (For a sense of what many Paine "blew" as hard as he could Americans thought of Mr. to' encourage what was already a Paine's theology, one needs to Page 12 July 1990 • The Counsel. of Cholcedon · -read Mercy Otis Warren's comments regarding Pa,ine in the second volume ofherwork,- The History of the Rise, Progress and Termination of the American Revolution -- recently reprinted by Liberty Classics, see note no. VI, pp. 378-380). The real "spark:' according to . John.Ada.ms, was provided by . the well-nigh unknown work (at . lea8t in our day) entitled Vindicia: Contra Tyranll()s, or A Defence OfLibertyAgainstTyrants. . - Now, I hear you saying, "Why in the world haven't I heard of this before n9w?" ·there is a · · · reason, good reader, .and that reason is rooted in the carital . ,. minds of historians. , . Vindicia is thoroughly biblical _ and Calvinistic in its perspective (in fact, the book is largely an exposition of the biblical law- order as set forth in the bible and illustrated in hi'story) . It is not e:x.actly the perspective modern men welcome. Thomas Paine however was a trUe child of European Enlightenment.. flis . discourse fits very well into - the , _ modem scheme of things. As R. J . Rushdoony has observed, ''It · is revelatory of modem· · that the role .of Vmdicue Contra Tyrannos Is rarely '' ' .. - 1:'homas Paine's works always . are, in acqounts of the American Revolution. The reason is obvious: Vindicitl! is thoroughly .. Calvinistic; l'aine is anti-Christian . and a patt of the intellectual milieu of the French RevolutiOn and of the modem university. _ . for of the nudrash o.f history, the formens not acceptable." (This Independent Republic, p. 25). · Thus, Paine the unbeliever is glorified while the Christian Vindicile is ignored -- in hopes that it will eventually be . forgotten. ; ... Ah, but thanks be to God, Vindicia has not been forgotten, at least not yet. Still Waters

1990 Issue 6 - Book Review: Vindiciae Contra Tyrannos - Counsel of Chalcedon

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

When one thinks of the literature influential in the founding of this nation and the War of Independence, one's mind ( especially if he or she has been educated in the State-controlled institutions of learning) automatically runs to Thomas Paine's little pamphlet Common Sense. This, according to modern historiography, was the spark which ignited the flame of the American Revolution. One gets the impression had Mr. Paine not written his essay, we would still be pausing in the mid-afternoon for tea and singing "God Save our Queen."

Citation preview

Page 1: 1990 Issue 6 - Book Review: Vindiciae Contra Tyrannos - Counsel of Chalcedon

When one thinks· of the literature influential in the founding of this nation and theW ar of · · Independence, one's mind ( especiall¥ if he or she has been educated m the State-controlled institutions of learning) automatically runs to Thomas Paine's little pamphlet Common . Sense. This, according to · modem historiography, was the spark which ignited the flame of the American Revolution. One gets the impression had Mr. Paine not written his essay, we would still be pausing in the mid­afternoon for tea and singing "God Save ow; Queen." .

racing revolutionary locomotive. [And by the way, stirred up no small controversy in the process. No less than four pamphlets · were published to refute the ideas set forth in Common Sense}. John Quincy Adams once remarked;

"His [Paine's] Common Sense, is a pamphlet just as ~ontemptible, alm~t throughout JUSt as remote from sound human sense, as all the others by which, in later times, he has made himself a name ... If such a work could have produced the American revolution, it would have been best for reasonable

Few things could be further - men to concern themselves no from the truth. In fact, according longer with that event. But it to John Adams, though Paine's . was certainly at all times, by the . work was welcomed in this wiser and better men, country, it had little effect upon considered, endured,· and revolutionary momentum other . perhaps encouraged only as an than to "cheer it on." It's iristrument to gain over weaker influence was rather like the minds to the common cause." fellow standing about midway (The French and American down a bobsled run who blows Revolutions Compared, note pp. as hard as he can to help the 72,73) bobsled pick up speed. Thomas (For a sense of what many Paine "blew" as hard as he could Americans thought of Mr. to' encourage what was already a Paine's theology, one needs to Page 12 • July 1990 • The Counsel. of Cholcedon

· -read Mercy Otis Warren's comments regarding Pa,ine in the second volume ofherwork,-The History of the Rise, Progress and Termination of the American Revolution -- recently reprinted by Liberty Classics, see note no. VI, pp. 378-380).

The real "spark:' according to .John.Ada.ms, was provided by . the well-nigh unknown work (at . lea8t in our day) entitled Vindicia: Contra Tyranll()s, or A Defence OfLibertyAgainstTyrants. . -Now, I hear you saying, "Why in the world haven't I heard of this before n9w?" ·there is a · · · reason, good reader, .and that reason is rooted in the carital

. ,. minds of un~lieving historians. , . Vindicia is thoroughly biblical _and Calvinistic in its perspective (in fact, the book is largely an exposition of the biblical law­order as set forth in the bible and illustrated in hi'story). It is not e:x.actly the perspective modern men welcome. Thomas Paine however was a trUe child of European Enlightenment .. flis . discourse fits very well into -the, _ modem scheme of things. As R. J . Rushdoony has observed, ''It · is revelatory of modem· · hi~to??graphy that the role .of Vmdicue Contra Tyrannos Is rarely mentioned~. wh~reas ' '' ' ..

- 1:'homas Paine's works always . are, in acqounts of the American Revolution. The reason is obvious: Vindicitl! is thoroughly

.. Calvinistic; l'aine is anti-Christian . and a patt of the intellectual milieu of the French RevolutiOn and of the modem university. _. ~d,, for p~ses of the liber~ nudrash o.f history, the formens not acceptable." (This Independent Republic, p. 25). · Thus, Paine the unbeliever is glorified while the Christian Vindicile is ignored -- in hopes that it will eventually be . forgotten. ; ...

Ah, but thanks be to God, Vindicia has not been forgotten, at least not yet. Still Waters

Page 2: 1990 Issue 6 - Book Review: Vindiciae Contra Tyrannos - Counsel of Chalcedon

Revival Books has become the most recent in a distinguished lin of publishers to keep its memozy alive~ with its attractive paperback edition. The book was originally published in 1579 and was reprinted no less than eight times in the one hundred years after its first appearance. Its influence is seen in the far more famous works·of Samuel Rutherford (Lex Rex, 1644) and John Locke (Second Treatise of Government, 1688). Harold J. Laski, in his "Historical Introduction" to this work (which first appeared in the 1924 edition) states that Vindica "determined the character of political speculation from the end of the sixteenth century until the advent of Rousseau." It is without question one of the most important works on political theozy since the Reformation and its reappearance is a truly . important event.

The new edition lacks the helpful introduction by Laski but includes a new one by David Goodrum from The Counsel of Chalcedon, as well as noble appendices by the Reverends R. J. Rushdoony and T. Mark Duncan. There is also included a most useful list of organizations where one might fmd related resources.

The authorship of Vindicia remains a mystery to this day. It appears under the pseudonym of "Junius Brutus". Theories of the author's identity have ranged from the Frenchman Hubert Languet to the Reformer Theodore Beza. Harold Laski concludes that the author was most likely Philippe de Mornay, known as Duplessis-Momay. Duplessis-Momay lived from 1549 to 1623 and was the right­hand man of Henzy N (Henzy of Navarre). He was so

influential in his day that he was called "the Huguenot Pope"! If Laski is correct, (and for our purposes we will assume he is) Duplessis-Momay produced this

remarkable work at the tender age of thirty.

Re~ardless of the author's identity, he has left us a masterful exposition of the relationship between rulers and citizens and the relationship of both to the · sovereign God. A message that is, if anything, as important today as it was in the sixteenth centuzy.

The author deals with his topic by answering four questions:

1. Whether subjects are bound and ought to obey princes, it they command that which is against the law of God.

2. Whether it be lawful to resist a prince who doth infringe the law of God, or ruin His Church: by whom, how and how far it is lawful.

3. Whether it be lawful to resist a prince who doth oppress or ruin a public state, and how fa such resistance may be extended: by whom, how, and by what right or law it is permitted.

4. Whether neighbour . princes may, or are bound by law ·

to aid the subjects of other princes, persecuted for true religion, or oppresset;l by manifest tyranny.

In order that your appetite might be whetted to study Vindicae on your own, I will briefly summarize some of the basic teachings found in this great treatise.

Vindicia begins with God, particularly focusing upon His absolute sovereignty. God alone has absolute authonty. All men, including kings, are under God's sovereign rule. Kings ar~ . established by God to be His ministers and are accountable to Him for the exercise of the authority they have been granted by Him. They have no authority to command anything contrary to God's law and if they do, they forfeit the right to the obedience of their subjects. The king who ignores God's word and usurps authority God has not given him is seeking to take God's place as

the sovereign over men and thus is a tyrant and no legitimate ruler. As such, he may be lawfully resisted and removed from office by the people.

THE COVENANT STRUCfURE OF CIVIL GOVERNMENT

The organizing principal of social order is the biblical idea of "covenant." Biblical order is based upon a covenantal relationship between the ruler and the ruled and between the ruler and the people and God In surveying the Biblical evidence concerning the government of Old Testament Israel Duplessis­Momay concludes:

"Now we read of two sorts of covenants at the inaugurating of kings, the first between God, the king, and the people, that the people might be the people of God. The second, between the king and the people, that the people shall obey faithfully, and the king command justly .. .It appears by this that the king and the people are jointly bound by promise, and did oblige themselves by solemn oath to serve God before all things." (p. 8)

What was true under the Old Covenant remains under the New, "although the form, both of the church and the Jewish kingdom be changed ... notwithstanding the same things may be said of Christian kings, the gospel having succeeded the law, and Christian princes being in the place of those of Jewzy. There is the same covenant, the same conditions, the same punishments, and if they fail in the accomplishing, the same God Almighty, revenger of all perfidious disloyalty ... " (p. 11)

Thus the king is obligated to be faithful to fulfill His God­ordained duties and keep himself within his God-given authority.

The Counsel of Chalcedon • July 1990 • Page 13

Page 3: 1990 Issue 6 - Book Review: Vindiciae Contra Tyrannos - Counsel of Chalcedon

He must therefore conf'me himself to the duties of defense and the administration of justice, · "Let us then Coilcludet that they [i.e., kings] are established in ~ this place to maintain by justice) and to defend by force of anns both the public state and particular per8ons from all damages and outrages ... " (p. 75)

The king is ·not to be the source of law. He is a "minister and executor of the law" and not above the law but answerable to i himself. He is not the owner of the kingdom but its caretaker under GoQ.. The ·true king was a servant of both God and his · . subjects.

This idea of the King as servant was revolutionary but by no means new; It is rooted in the Bible and was of course, the pattern of the King of kings (who came "not to be ntinistered unto but to ntinister"). In ancient pagan societies) the king was the manifestation of God or God "walking upon the earth." He claimed God-like powers and viewed himself as owner of all within his kingdom. The Bible · sets forth God as the King,. who owns all (Ps. 24:1) and all kings as His servants, ordained and chosen by Him to serve (or shepherd) the people.

For this reason, the kings of Israel were not given absolute authority and could not legitimately claim "divine rights." One of the most interesting sections of the book expounds the true nature of the kings of Israel and of the Christian West. Duplessis-Momay shows that the kings of Israel were not absolute monarchs in the tradition of pagan societies, but rather were established by God through the. free consent of the people (thus, Israel's governmental structure could be·moreproperly called:a constitutional or covenantal monarchy). This was confmned by the commands given to kings by God (Deut. 17:14-20) and

symbolized by the coronation ceremony followed in ancient Israel. The High Priest (the representative of God and the · people) was requiredto anoint and, in effect, install the King, thus signifying that he was both ordained by God and chosen by the people and did not hold his office apart from either. Modem (Christian) nations have followed the same pattern:

"[l]n all well-ordered kingdoms, this ·custom is yet remaining. The sons do not succeed the fath¢rs, before the people have first, as it were anew established them by their new approbation: neither were they acknowledged in quality, as inheriting it from the dead; but approved and a~counted kings then only, when they were invested with the kingdom, by receiving the sceptre and diadem from the hands of those who represent the majesty of the people." (p. 57)

This "Covenantal" view of civil structure had a powerful influence upon post­Refonilational political theory. It was dominant in the political ideas of the Puritan Fathers of this country: ·

"The rulers of New England saw themselves as the keepers of the Lord's covenant, citing Moses as their political ideal. They claimed that God had armed them with a sword to defend the First and Second Tables and to preserve the New Israel from moral decay. [John] Cotton called the magistrates 'The Ministers of God,' since their principal task was the administration of 'things wherein God is. most directly and immediately honored, which is promotin~ mail's Spiritual good."' (T. H. Breen, The Character of the Good Ruler, pp. 37,38)

Rulers were to be God's ministers, protecting the people from evil and injustice and so

Page 14 • July 1990 • The Counsel of Chnlcedon

providing an environment for . righteousness to flourish (I Tim. . 2: 1,2)- C. Gregg Singer notes how this view expressed itself: · "It was the sovereign God who

created the state and gave to it its · · powers and functions. The earthly magistrate held his position and exercised his power·· by a divine decree. He was a minister .of God under common grace for the execution of the laws of God among the people at large, for the maintenance of law and order, and for so ruling the state that it wo~ld provide an attnosphere favorable for the · preaching of the Gospel. He was to so rule that the people of God, the elect, could live individually -and collectively a life that was truly Christian." (A Theological Interpretation of American History, pp. 13,14)

This view underlies the civil structureofournation. VVestill acknowledge such at every inauguration of a public official. The President, for example, is · required to take a public oath upon entering the duties of his office. The oath is taken with · one hand lifted to heaven and the other placed upon the Bible (in times past, the Bible was opened to the Deuteronomy 28 passage· · which cites the· blessings and cursings of the covenant) and he solemnly swears to uphold the national covenant (the Constitution) in the name of God and in the presence of the people~ This constitutes, in effect, a covenant .ceremony. The ·official pledges, to uphold the covenant agreement with the people, acknowledging God's' rule over him and his responsibility to serve faithfully in the capacity of God's minister to the people, at _ the same time he acknowledges God's judgment upon him should he fail to keep his word.

Duplessis-Momay.notes how thiscovenantalstructurenotonly limited and clarified the role of the king but also defined the

Page 4: 1990 Issue 6 - Book Review: Vindiciae Contra Tyrannos - Counsel of Chalcedon

responsibility of the people to submit to the king's lawful authority, "[The people] pay willingly the taxes, customs, imposts, and ordinary payments, provided that with these they [kings] seek not to abolish the tribute which they [the people] owe unto God. They obey Caesar while he commands in the quality of Caesar; but when Caesar passes his bounds, when he usurps that dominion which is none of his own, when he endeavours to assail the Throne of God, when he wars against the Sovereign Lord, both of himself and the people, they then esteem it reasonable not to obey Caesar;" (pp. 40,41, emphasis added)

This position of Duplessis­Momay echoes that set forth by Calvin, "The Lord therefore, is the King of kings, who, when he has opened his sacred mouth, must alone be heard, before all and above all men; next to him we are subject to those men who are in authority over us, but only in him. If they command anything against him, let it go unesteemed." (Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book N, sec. 32) This view of civil authority effectively destroys the doctrine of the absolute sovereignty of the State and spells the death of the so-called "divine right of kings." This covenantal view of the State has been the chief safeguard of liberty in the nations influenced by the Reformation:

"Calvinism protests against State-omnipotence; against the horrible conception that no right exists above and beyond existing laws; and against the pride of absolutism, which recognizes not constitutional rights, except as the result of princely favor ... Calvinism is to be praised for having built a dam across this absolutistic stream, not by appealing to popular force, nor to the hallucination of human greatness, but by deducing those rights and liberties of social life

from the same source from which the high authority of government flows -- even the absolute sovereignty of God.'' (Abraham Kuyper, Lectures On Calvinism, p. 98)

The covenantal nature of the civil authority also lays the groundwork for resistance and the removal of tyrants. Duplessis Momay addresses the issue of resistance in the second and third questions. "If a prince infringes the law of God and by so doing imperils the Church or the commonwealth, may he be resisted? If so, how far and by whom?"

Kingship in the Christian West (as in Biblical Israel) was not merely hereditary. It was acknowledged that the qualities necessary to exercise godly rule were not passed on through the blood but were the consequence of the grace of God. Allowing the son of the king to succeed to the throne was allowed for convenience's sake, but never negated the people's right to choose their rulers. The succession of a son to the father's throne was "tolerated to avoid practices, close and underhand canvassing, discontents of persons refused, contentions, interreigns, and other discommodities of elections." (p. 68) The people still however, retained their right of establishing the king. If a tyrant happened to succeed to the throne, they retained the right to remove him:

"[W]hen tyranny trampled on the kingdom, and when a tyrant possessed himself of the royal throne ... then the estates of the kingdom lawfully assembled in the name of all the people, have ever maintained their authority, whether it were to drive out a tyrant, or other unworthy king, or to establish a good one in his place." (pp. 68,69)

This right of removing a tyrant is rooted in the covenant structure of civil government and cannot be

diminished or removed apart from the overthrow of all godly society. "There is ever and in all places, a mutual and reciprocal obligation between the people and the prince; the one promises to be a good and wise prince, the other to obey faithfully, provided he govern justly ... Therefore, if the prince fail in his promise, the people are exempt from obedience, the contract is made void, the right of obligation of no force." (p. 134)

The covenant structure of civil authority is central to understanding our duties and privileges. Having been joined in covenant with the king to honor God and Ifis word, the people are thus bound to resist the king who breaks this covenant If the people refuse, they become guilty . of the same crime, and shall "bear the like punishment with their king.'' (p. 31)

THE NATURE OF RESISTANCE

This resistance on the part of the people must be both lawful and reasonable. Duplessis­Momay points out two things in regard to this resistance:

1. It should be proportionate to the unfaithful action of the king: "If their [the kings] assaults be verbal, their [the people's] defence must be likewise verbal; if the sword be drawn against them, they may also take arms and fight either with tongue or hand, as occasion is ... " (ibid.)

2. This resistance should be led by the representatives of the people: "When we speak of all the people, we understand by that, only those who hold their authority from the people, to wit, the magistrates, who are inferior to the king, and whom the people have substituted, or established, as it were, consorts in the empire, and with a kind of tribunitial authority, to restrain the encroachments of sovereignty,

The Counsel of Chaltedon • July 1990 • Page 15

Page 5: 1990 Issue 6 - Book Review: Vindiciae Contra Tyrannos - Counsel of Chalcedon

and to represent the whole body of the people." (p. 32)

It is not the place of private individuals to resist authorities· since they have not been given the power of the sword as have the magistrates. But, someone may object, ''May not God raise up an individual to oppose tyranny?" Yes, answers Duplessis~Mornay, but this is exceptional and the people must be cautious. "Let the people also be advised on their parts, lest in desiring to fight under the banner of Jesus Christ, they run not to their own confusion to follow the army of some Galilean Thendas, or of Barcozba ... " (t>. 47)

"What if the magistrates will not resist?" Magistrates who refuse to protect the people in this way are unspeakably base and unfaithful to their true calling ~· 134) and "may be truly ranked m the number of tyrants" themselves (p. 136) The people in such an unhappy state may either submit in humility and repentance to the tyranny as the judgment of God or flee the country. (p. 46) In this circumstance, the people have "no other weapons to be used but bended knees and humble hearts." They must bear patiently with bad princes as one bears with storms, floods, natural disasters, and other providential tragedies or take up residence in another country.

The representatives of the people, after using all means at their disposal short of armed resistance, may renounce the dominion of a tyrant and defend themselves against his attacks. If this occurs, the people are utterly innocent of the charge of insurrection: "There is ever and in all places, a mutual and reciprocal obligation between the people and the prince; the one promises to be a good and wise prince, the other to obey faithfully, provided he govern

justly. The people therefore are obliged to the prince under condition, the prince to the people simply and purely. Therefore, if the prince fail in his promise, the people are exempt from obedience, the contract is made void, the right of obligation of no force." Therefore; "that people are truly acquit from all perfidiousness, who publicly renounce the unjust dominion of a tyrant, or he, striving unjustly by strong hand to continue the possession, do constantly endeavour to expulse him by force of anns." (p. 134)

VINDICLE'S INFLUENCE IN THIS COUNTRY

The influence of Vindicia in the founding era of our nation was pervasive. The most noticeable effects of its teaching are perhaps seen in our response to the tyranny of King George m. The counsel set forth here was followed almost to the letter by the colonists. The logic of Vindicia produced a principled defense against tyrannical statism instead of a lawless attack against God~ordained authority in general (as was the case in France a decade later). The colonists sought first to appeal to the King on the basis of his "covenant" with them (through their colonial .charters). They presented solemn protests (among them, "The Fairfax Resolves" passed in 1744). They sent emissaries. They did every thing possible to avoid armed resistance.

On JUly 6, 1775 the Continental Congress passed the "Declaration of the Causes and Necessity of Taking Up Arms" where they delineate their "injuries" as well as their attempts to be reconciled and to have their constitutional rights maintained by the King:

"We for ten years incessantly and ineffectually besieged the

Page 16 • July 1990 • The Coun~el of Cholcedon

throne as supplicants; we reasoned, we remonstrated with , parliament, in the most mild and decent language. But administration sensible that we should regard these oppressive measures as freemen ought to do, sent over fleets and armies to enforce them. The indignation of the Americans was roused, it is , · true; but it was the indignation of a virtuous, loyal, and affectionate people ... We have pursued every temperate, every respectful · . , · · measure: we have even proceeded to break off our commercial . intercourse with our fellow~ subjects, as the last peaceable admonition, that our attachment to no nation upon earth should supplant our attachment to liberty ... We have not raised armies with ambitious designs of . separating from Great-Britain, and establishing independent · states. We fight not for glory or for conquest We exhibit to mankind the remarkable spectacle of a people attacked by . . unprovoked enemies, without any imputation or even suspicion · of offence ... " ··

Finally, they documented the tyranny of King George in their "Declaration of Independence11

where they listed a "long Train of Abuses and Usurpations." The. -Declaration closes this indictment with these words:

"In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned forRedress in the most humble Terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by . repeated Injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be Ruler of a free People."

That this was the nature of the American "revolution" was .· confmned in another important work (which has also been lost in the "memory hole" of modem · history), "The French and American Revolutions Compared", the German: historian

Page 6: 1990 Issue 6 - Book Review: Vindiciae Contra Tyrannos - Counsel of Chalcedon

Friedrich Gentz observed, "The American revolution was from beginning to end, on the part of the Americans, merely a defensive revolution ... The resistance, which the colonies opposed against the mother country, was, in every period of this unhappy contest, exactly commensurate with the attack; th total separation was not resolved, until the utter impossibility of preserving the ancient condition was proved ... '' (The French and American Revolutions Compared, pp. 52,53, transla~ by John Adams from the German Historical Journal, 1800)

From the beginning, the colonists viewed the war as an effort to defend themselves against unwarranted invasion and unlawful tyranny. In their view, King George now had become a tyrant, and as such, forfeited all right he had to their submission. He had broken his covenant with the colonies and to continue to subject themselves to him and the pretended jurisdiction of the British Parliament, would be to deny God's covenant with them.

In light of this, we can see the modem definition of "revolution" (the lawless overthrow of God­ordained authority) hardly describes the war for colonial independence which occurred in this country. But strangely, thanks to the revolutionary brainwashing Americans get in government schools, most of us think there was very little difference between what occurred here and what occUrred in France later.

The difference was prodigious and was rooted in the rival theologies which prevailed in each nation. Here, the dominant theology was that of Calvin. There, the pagan theology of Rousseau held sway. The American "revolution" therefore ended in true "liberty and fraternity", the French, with false "equality" and real death.

Vindicae Contra Tyrannos had as much to do with the happy outcome here as the wntings of Rousseau and the other atheistic revolutionaries had with the sad consequences in France.

But the question might be asked, "Why do modem histories seek to identify the American and French Revolutions?" The answer surely lies in the modern antagonism toward the principles that were defended in this country in 177 6. Constitutionalism, biblical authority, the preeminence of God's law and the absolute sovereignty of God are all "out of vogue" in today's revolutionary environment. Modem revolutionaries have engaged in a carefully orchestrated flimflam to represent the Founding Fathers as their "blood brothers." All to the end of making us and our children converts to the religion of revolution. Thus, Common Sense is heralded, Vindicice Contra Tyrannos, ignored. "Revolutionary" rhetoric is repeated, the founders concern for legality in opposition conveniently overlooked. The idea of limited government is denounced and the doctrine of "Leviathan" praised.

Do you see the pattern here? Modern revolutionaries refuse to . acknowledge a meaning in history which condemns them. This, to a large degree explains why Vindicice has been ignored, it promotes godly order rather than godless revolution. What we see here is nothing more. them the outworking of that native · enmity of the natural man against the living God and His holy will.

HOW SHOULD WE THEN LIVE?

No one would gainsay the historical significance of this gr~t work, but some might question its relevance for

Twentieth Century Americans. Does Vindicice Contra Tyrannos have any value for us today? Indeed it does. Obviously, it is valuable for its exposition of the true foundations of social order and the real basis of liberty (both of which have been forgotten by this generation). But in addition to this, it teaches us how to tackle some of the problems of our own day.

"But," says the skeptical reader, "What value could Vindicic.e be to us when there are no (or precious few) godly, principled lesser magistrates in our land?" The point is well taken. The holders of public office in most state houses and city halls of our land would sooner go skinny-dipping in a piranha-infested stream than to interpose themselves between us and Federal tyranny.

The temptation is to throw up our hands and take our place on the mountainside like Jonah to watch God's judgment fall. Ah, but we will resist this. We must not throw out the wisdom of Vindicice merely because we live in the "dark age" of spineless politicians. Let me suggest a plan of action in light of the teaching found here. What can we do? I suggest at least 7 things:

1. REPENT: Remember that ancient adage, "the character of . the leaders reflects the character of the people." It's true. The sad fact is, we deserve those people in Washington and in your state capital and city hall. We have not been faithful and our unfaithfulness is reflected in our leaders. We have not been godly, courageous and concerned for integrity in ourselves -- and so we have not demanded these things of our leaders. Thus, we have ungodly, cowardly people to rule over us. The first thing we must do therefore is repent -- or as Duplessis-Momay puts it, we must resort to the weapons of "bended knees and hwnbled

The Coun$el of Chelcedon • July 1990 • Page 17

Page 7: 1990 Issue 6 - Book Review: Vindiciae Contra Tyrannos - Counsel of Chalcedon

hearts." 2. CONFRONT: After we

have prayed for mercy, we must arise and begin to insist on the things God expects of our leaders. We must confront our present leaders with God's demands and tell them we shall be watching to see if they comply -- and praying they will, because (we will tell them) God takes no pleasure in fools who do not keep their vows (Ecclesiastes 5:4,5). We must tell our leaders that God requires them to defend us . against tyrannical laws and policies; and appeal to them to uphold God's righteousness in the face of modem lawlessness. Mayors and police chiefs must be confronted with the fact that they will answer to God.for their cowardly capitulation to the unrighteous claims of wicked men. When they protect the pornographers, abortionists, and others who profit by iniquity; they are breaking their vows to God and to us. And God is not pleased. We must begin to hold them accountable for their actions --remembering their infidelities when election day rolls around. Our opposition must be sober (rather than incoherent), zealous (but not insanely rabid), just (not. deceptive or lawless), and determined (rather than temporary). The "old guard" . must know that if they don't change, we are determined to put a "new guard" in their place.

3. ELECT GODLY LEADERS: Wemustbeginto follow Jethro's counsel and get us leaders who are "able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness" (Ex. 18:21). We must have leaders who care more about righteousness than fame and arbitrary _])ower.

4. EDUCATE: We must teach and train our children so that they will not put up with what we have endured because of our ignorance or guilty, fearful silence. They must learn to say

"NO" not just to drugs and temptation, but to the effeminate . and unprincipled men who seek to receive a government salary at the expense of our liberties. We must also do all in our power to educate our neighbors to the truths of biblical liberty and justice.

5. LEAD: We must take leadership positions in our churches, communities, and states. Spineless leadership promotes spineless followers. But bold, courageous leaders encourage boldness in others. We must pray that God make us mature men and raise up. others with us who are willing to give up our own convenience and live to His glory and for the good of our neighbors. Good men need to run for office -- especially on the state and local level

(aren't you sick to death of voting for "the lesser of two evils"?) .. Men of holy boldness need to exercise leadership in the churches of this land. Men of integrity need to take control of· their families and lead them unapologetically in the way of righteousness. .

6. DENY OURSELVES: All thi.s requires sacrifice. The sacrifice involved in equipping yourself for leadership .. The sacrificial use of your gifts, abilities, and money. The sacrifice of your free time. The sacrifice that our forefathers made to insure our liberties. It will often be vexing; annoying, aggravating, and irritating. It will be painful and troublesome. It may even get downright dangerous. But it must be done if we are once again to enjoy the sweet fruits of freedom in this land.

7. PRAY AND PERSEVERE: Nothing worthwhile and lasting happens overnight. Qui.ck fixes are short­lived. If you are not in the battle for the long term, you will accomplish little. We must be stubbornly, unflinchingly,

Page 18 • July 1990 • The Counsel of Chalcedon

doggedly devoted to theend.of seeing God glOrified in this · country. Much of the success of· the Liberals may be attributed to the fact that they were willing to .' · take "little victories" knowing that ' they would eventually win if they · just hang in long enough. (The · chosen symbol of the British Fabians in the last century was the tortoise) We must learn this lesson. God is· honored by perseverance -- in both prayer and labor. Let us labor and not lose heart knowing "in due .. _ season we shall reap if we fairit · not" And let us remember to Cry to the God of victories in the meanwhile that He might bear His mighty arm and come and saveus. · · ·

Reading Vindicite Contra . ·· Tyrannos is like being awakened by having a bucket of cold water thrown in your face. It rouses you from the slumber into which you've been lulled by the muddleheaded droning of the "experts" of these days (Lord : deliver us). True, it doesn't tell . us everything we need to know, but it does point us down the right path. It is one of those old "landmarks" of our fathers and ought to be studied and loved by our generation and not forgotten. Within its pages we are taught how to engage in "honorable opposition" (George Grant's wonderful phrase). We are told how to be effective without resortfug to revolutionary tactics · or falling into an equally darigerous revolutionary mentality. For this reason, the message of Vindic;ite is vital. . . · Critical. ·To be ignorant of it is to · be unable to distinguish freedom· from slavery. EDITORS NOTE: This importa. nt w.•. ork can be ordered directly from STILL WATERS· REVIVAL BOOKS,. . 12810-126st Edmonton. AB Canada TSL OYl. The price is $9.95