The PCA’s First Preliminary Principle, John Witherspoon, and Christian Government
In debates over the civil government’s relationship to Christianity, some Presbyterians of late have expressed opposition to any form of Christian civil government. In support of their position, they regularly cite two Presbyterian documents: (1) the American revisions to the Westminster Standards, especially Westminster Confession chapter 23, and (2) and the first Preliminary Principle of the PCA’s Constitution. Below we will focus on the latter but also refer to the former.
The PCA’s First Preliminary Principle
The Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) has eight “Preliminary Principles” in its Book of Church Order, the first of which says:
God alone is Lord of the conscience and has left it free from any doctrines or commandments of men (a) which are in any respect contrary to the Word of God, or (b) which, in regard to matters of faith and worship, are not governed by the Word of God. Therefore, the rights of private judgment in all matters that respect religion are universal and inalienable. No religious constitution should be supported by the civil power further than may be necessary for protection and security equal and common to all others.
This principle is not unique to the PCA, as it comes from the introductory “general principles” of the Constitution of the 1788 American Presbyterian Church. Thus, the Book of Church Order of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC), also a descendent of the 1788 Presbyterian Church, has similar language that “church officers or judicatories…may not inflict any civil penalties nor may they seek the aid of the civil power in the exercise of their jurisdiction further than may be necessary for civil protection and security.” (Form of Government, 3.4)
However, the PCA’s first Preliminary Principle is much closer to the 1788 version, as both quote Westminster Confession 20.2 (“God alone is Lord of the conscience…”), followed by language about private judgment and religious constitutions.[1] Opponents of Christian government argue that since “the rights of private judgment in all matters that respect religion are universal and inalienable,” this means that the civil magistrate is not to interfere with religious beliefs in any way. Some would argue that in application this prohibits the magistrate from enforcing Sabbath laws or laws against public blasphemy. Like this first Preliminary Principle, the American version of the Westminster Confession (1788) says that “no law of any commonwealth should interfere with, let, or hinder, the due exercise thereof, among the voluntary members of any denomination of Christians.” (WCF 23.3)
The Text and Context of the American Presbyterian Constitution
In response, we should note that WCF 23.3 explicitly refers to “any denomination of Christians,” which means that the limitation on the magistrate here is in reference to hindering the religious exercise of Christians. But there is no prohibition on the magistrate punishing public blasphemy or enforcing laws to protect the Sabbath or any other measure to protect Christian worship and practice. In fact, WCF 23.3 still refers to magistrates as “nursing fathers,” per Isaiah 49:23, and WCF 23.2 requires the magistrate to “maintain piety.”
Indeed, in 1798, the General Assembly agreed to support a “society established in Philadelphia to aid the civil magistrate in the suppression of vice and immorality.” (See the 1793 letter by Rev. Ashbel Green—chaplain to the U.S. Congress from 1792 to 1800—and other ministers who petitioned the Pennsylvania legislature for “the suppression of vice and immorality,” calling for “some effectual provision for the orderly and religious observation of the Lord’s day; for the prevention and punishment of the profanation of the name of God, and every species of impious imprecation.”)
George Washington seemed to echo the General Assembly’s interest in maintaining Christian piety in his letter to the Assembly:
While all men within our territories are protected in worshipping the Deity according to the dictates of their consciences; it is rationally to be expected from them in return, that they will be emulous of evincing the sincerity of their profession by the innocence of their lives, and the beneficence of their actions: For no man, who is profligate in his morals, or a bad member of the civil community, can possibly be a true Christian, or a credit to his own religious society.
While the Assembly removed the right of the magistrate to call synods, they were evidently eager to receive the approval of the “chief magistrate,” entitling him a “friend of the Christian religion,” and praising him as one who “adorns the doctrines of the gospel of Christ” and “on the most public and solemn occasions, devoutly acknowledges the government of divine Providence.”
As for the first Preliminary Principle, the language of “conscience” is directly tied to “the Word of God,” which sets the context for “the rights of private judgment in all matters that respect religion” (see also WCF 20.2). This is speaking of the Christian religion, not atheism or false religions. Moreover, the first Preliminary Principle speaks of “private” opinions, not opinions expressed publicly. So again, this does not prohibit the magistrate from punishing public blasphemy or enforcing laws to protect the Sabbath and the public worship of God. (In fact, the General Assembly sent several petitions calling Congress to uphold the Sabbath in the early nineteenth century.)
Rev. John Rodgers (1727–1811) of New York City was likely the most influential in the 1788 American confessional revisions and constitutional developments, as he was the only individual to have been on every committee related to drafting the Plan of Government (1788).[2] It is noteworthy that in his 1783 sermon preached on a day of Thanksgiving occasioned by the end of the war with Britain, Rodgers celebrated that the “rights of conscience, both in faith and worship,” had been “fully secured to every denomination of Christians.” This meant that “No one denomination in the State, or in any of the States, have it in their power to oppress another. They all stand upon the same common level, in point of religious privileges.” This “liberty of worshipping God” was extended also to the Jews, meaning, no one was “excluded from the rights of citizenship” on account of their religion. Yet, no mention is made of atheism or Roman Catholics, for that matter, nor is blasphemy or immorality.
Fifteen years after the adoption of the 1788 Presbyterian Constitution, the appendix to the minutes of the General Assembly (1788–1802), published in 1803, included “An Address to the Citizens of the Mississippi Territory,” written in 1801 by James Hall, James Bowman, and William Montgomery. The address noted that “honour, patriotism or private interest” are insufficient means to “promote public utility and social happiness…. Hence all governments in civilized nations have made it their business to inculcate religion on their citizens.” This begins with inculcating the moral law, “which contains an epitome of those duties which we owe to God and man,” precepts which provide an “unerring standard of conduct by every member of society.”
Like patriotism and private interest, mere human laws are “too feeble” to maintain society. A sense of the “universality of God’s government” is needed, and this sense is “inseparably connected with the principles of religion.” The address went on to condemn Sabbath breaking, profane swearing, and drunkenness as contrary to “industry, frugality, and sobriety” and Christian virtue, and closed by exhorting the inhabitants to piety and proper use of their civil and religious rights. Clearly, the authors of the address did not envision an irreligious society, but one wherein government promotes Christian piety and practice.
John Witherspoon on Civil Government and Religion
This brings us to Rev. John Witherspoon (1723–1794), who was likely the primary author of the introductory “general principles” to the Plan of Government, as was claimed by Ashbel Green.[3] Yet regardless of whether Witherspoon himself wrote the introductory general principles (the basis for the PCA’s Preliminary Principles), there is little doubt that Witherspoon was influential upon the American Presbyterian Church and the American revisions to the Westminster Confession of Faith in 1788. Witherspoon was president of the College of New Jersey (later known as Princeton University) from 1768 to 1794, and he trained a large number of the ministers in the Presbyterian Church. He also trained many college presidents and American statesmen, such as James Madison.
What did Witherspoon say about civil government? Witherspoon did not produce a full treatise on civil government, but we do have student notes that were later published as part of his works. In his “Lectures on Moral Philosophy,” Witherspoon said “that a constitution is excellent when” its laws “have a tendency to…make men good.”[4] This raises the question “how far the magistrate ought to interfere in matters of religion.” Witherspoon said the magistrate “ought to encourage piety by his own example,” as well as “defend the rights of conscience, and tolerate all in their religious sentiments that are not injurious to their neighbors.”[5]
Witherspoon then said, “The magistrate may enact laws for the punishment of acts of profanity and impiety.” Thus, Witherspoon thought it is permissible for the civil magistrate to enforce laws related to the first table of the law (i.e., the worship of God). Witherspoon added:
Many are of opinion that, besides all this, the magistrate ought to make public provision for the worship of God in such manner as is agreeable to the great body of society; though at the same time all who dissent from it are fully tolerated. And indeed there seems to be a good deal of reason for it, that so instruction may be provided for the bulk of common people, who would, many of them, neither support nor employ teachers, unless they were obliged. The magistrates right in this case seems to be something like that of the parent, they have a right to instruct, but not to constrain.[6]
So, Witherspoon thought that there is “a good deal of reason for” the view that “the magistrate ought to make public provision for the worship of God.” He supported full toleration for dissenters, but he thought laws punishing profanity and impiety were permissible. And he thought the magistrate could support Christian teachers to instruct people in religion. One scholar summarized John Witherspoon’s views on state religion as follows:
The insistence on the role of religion in relation to the civil laws suggests some kind of state support of religion, and such is more directly implied by all that Witherspoon said about the relation of religion and the civil officials. The magistrate ought to encourage piety by defending the ‘rights of conscience’ and tolerating all in their religious sentiments, ‘if such are not injurious to their neighbors,’ by guarding against religious persecution (‘because such as hold absurd tenets are seldom dangerous’) and by enacting laws to punish profanity and impiety. Witherspoon added that there was ‘a good deal of reason’ for the view of many persons that ‘the magistrate ought to make provision for the worship of God, in such manner as is agreeable to the great body of society; though at the same time all who dissent from it are fully tolerated.’ Clearly, this idea that the laws must be designed to make good men put Witherspoon in the camp with those who favored state-supported religion, but with full toleration being provided for dissenters. Although the state needs to support true religion that the general purpose of its laws may be realized, the state has no right to interfere with the religious views of any individual because one of the perfect rights of man is ‘that every one should judge for himself in matters of religion.’[7]
Thus, John Witherspoon was in the camp of “those who favored state-supported religion.” Granted, this is not identical to earlier Scottish establishmentarianism. It is more of a “soft establishment” with greater toleration of religious dissenters, though still allowing for the state support of Christianity. As one who influenced the American revisions to the Westminster Standards and Presbyterian Church’s Constitution, it is likely that Witherspoon thought these documents were consistent with his expressed views of the civil magistrate. And considering his stature within the Presbyterian Church of his day, it is unlikely anyone else thought Witherspoon’s view of the magistrate was at odds with the 1788 American Standards or the Presbyterian Constitution.
American Presbyterians and Christian Government
The Westminster Confession teaches that the Christian magistrate “ought especially to maintain piety” (WCF 23.2)—something the American revisions left untouched. The maintenance of piety requires the magistrate to teach piety (or at least support the teaching of piety) and the punishing of impiety. As Witherspoon himself said, “The magistrate may enact laws for the punishment of acts of profanity and impiety.”
The Confession also refers to civil magistrates as “nursing fathers” of the church, which carries the “duty…to protect the church of our common Lord, without giving the preference to any denomination of Christians above the rest” (WCF 23.3). This calls for the special protection of all Christian churches. This is not inconsistent with Witherspoon’s position that there is good reason for the magistrate making “public provision for the worship of God” (e.g., enforcing Sabbath laws), which may even include the support of Christian teachers.
Considering Witherspoon’s influence upon the American Presbyterian Church prior to and during the 1788 revision of the Westminster Standards, as well as his likely authorship of what is now the PCA’s first Preliminary Principle, it is unlikely his form of “state-supported religion” is inconsistent with the American Westminster Standards or the Preliminary Principles. It is far more likely that the 1788 Constitution of the American Presbyterian Church allowed for—and even favored—a soft establishment of Christianity. This is also supported by other General Assembly statements after 1788 (as noted above). The American revisions to the Westminster Confession did modify the original Confession’s view of church establishment, such as removing clauses allowing for the magistrate to call synods (WCF 23.3; 31.2 [1646]). However, Presbyterians today should not cite the American Westminster Confession or the PCA’s first Preliminary Principle as arguments against all forms of Christian civil government.
Image: “The City of Philadelphia,” engraving. London Gentleman’s Magazine (1762).
[1] The 1788 version reads: “I. That “God alone is Lord of the conscience; and hath left it free from the doctrine and commandments of men; which are in any thing contrary to his word; or beside it in matters of faith or worship”: Therefore, they consider the rights of private judgement, in all matters that respect religion, as universal and alienable: They do not even wish to see any religious constitution aided by the civil power, further than may be necessary for protection and security, and, at the same time, equal and common to all others.” The Constitution of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America Containing the Confession of Faith, the Catechisms, the Government and Discipline, and the Directory for the Worship of God, Ratified and Adopted by the Synod of New-York and Philadelphia, held at Philadelphia May the 16th 1788, and Continued by Adjournments Until the 28th of the Same Month (Philadelphia: Thomas Bradford, 1789), cxxiii–cxxiv.
[2] Leonard J. Trinterud, The Forming of an American Tradition (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1949), 292–93. The Synod of New York and Philadelphia in May 1878 “appointed the Rev. Dr. John Rogers, Dr. Alexander MacWhorter, Mr. Alexander Miller and Mr. James Wilson” as a committee to print a draft of the proposed changes to the Confession, to print a draft of the Form of Government and Discipline, and “to revise the Directory for the Public worship of God.” A Draught of the Form of the Government and Discipline of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America (New York: S. and J. Loudon, 1787), ii.
[3] Trinterud, The Forming of an American Tradition, 293. Trinterud cited Ashbel Green as saying of Witherspoon, “The propriety of an Introduction to this Formula in which should be specified the general principles on which the Synod had proceeded as the ground work of the whole system which they adopted was first suggested by him, was prepared solely by himself.” Ibid., 292–93 (citing Ashbel Green, “Ms. Life of the Revd John Witherspoon,” 172, Princeton University).
[4] John Witherspoon, “Lectures on Moral Philosophy,” The Works of the Rev. John Witherspoon (Harrisonburg, VA: Sprinkle Publications, 2006), 6:131.
[5] Ibid., 132.
[6] Ibid., 133.
[7] James L. McAllister, “John Witherspoon: Academic Advocate for American Freedom,” in A Miscellany of American Christianity: Essays in Honor of H. Shelton Smith, ed. Stuart C. Henry (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1963), 214 [emphasis mine].
