No one can read the following historical accounts and still stay this country was not founded upon Christian principles.
THE CAUSES OF THE WAR OF INDEPENDENCE (III)
THE SPIRITUAL ISSUES
Historians often overlook the most important fact about a nation or culture – its theological views. As important as the economic and legal issues were, they, in and of themselves, would not have brought about the war. The spiritual convictions which prevailed in 1775, were crucial in convincing the people that they must fight to preserve their independence. These convictions were present largely as a result of the Great Awakening of the 1740’s
This revival had the effect of “restoring the foundations” laid by the Fathers. The nation was again focused upon the “chief end of man” – “to glorify God and to enjoy Him forever” (see the Westminster Confession of Faith, Shorter Catechism, question 1). There was, as a direct consequence of the Great Awakening, a renewed theological consensus and unity that had been missing for some time. This unity was critical both for the War and the settling of the form of government later.
The great Awakening had two very important results in this nation:
A. The Great Awakening restored Puritan theology
The influence of this theology (popularly known as “Calvinism”) cannot be ignored in the founding of this nation. Dr. E.W. Smith makes this observation:
“the famous German historian, Ranke, one of the profoundest scholars of modern times says…’John Calvin was the virtual founder of America.’… These revolutionary principles of republican liberty and self-government, taught and embodied in the system of Calvin, were brought to America and in this new land where they have borne so might a harvest were planted, by whose hands? — the hands of the Calvinists. The vital relation of Calvin and Calvinism to the founding of the free institutions of America, however strange in some ears the statement of Ranke may have sounded, is recognized and affirmed by historians of all lands and creeds.” (The Creeds of Presbyterians, p. 142, quoted by Lorraine Boettner, the Reformed Doctrine of Predestination, p. 389)
Historian Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn notes:
“If we call the American statesmen of the late eighteenth century the founding fathers of the United States, then the Pilgrims and Puritans were the grandfathers and Calvin the great-grandfather…Though the fashionable eighteenth century Deism may have pervaded some intellectual circles, the prevailing spirit of Americans before and after the War of Independence was essentially Calvinistic…”(quoted by Archie P. Jones, “The Christian Roots of the War for Independence was essentially Calvinistic…”(quoted by Archie P. Jones, “The Christian Roots of the War for Independence”, The Journal of Christian Reconstruction, vil. III, Summer, 1976, no. 1, p. 14)
Russell Kirk emphasizes the influence of Calvinism in these words:
“In colonial America, everyone with the rudiments of schooling knew one book thoroughly: The Bible. And the Old Testament mattered as much as the New, for the American colonies were founded in a time of renewed Hebrew scholarship, and the Calvinistic character of the Christian faith in early America emphasized the legacy of Israel…
“John Calvin’s Hebrew scholarship, and his expounding of the doctrine of sin and human depravity, impressed the old Testament aspect of Christianity more strongly upon America than upon European states or other lands where Christians were in the majority.” (quoted by John Robbins, “The Political Philosophy of the Founding Fathers”, The Journal of Christian Reconstruction, vol. III, Summer, 1976, no 1, P. 67)
The pervasiveness of Calvinism in the post-Great Awakening era of colonial America is illustrated by the fact that even the few Roman Catholics present (only around 20,000 at the time of the War) took on many Calvinistic attitudes and attributes:
“They were at the same time culturally Calvinistic and intellectually medieval and this was the occasion of many misunderstandings between them and their Continental coreligionists. To many Americans and Irish-American Catholics, the Italian immigrants seemed more pagan than Christian.” (Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, quoted by Archie Jones, op. cit., p. 15)
So Thorough was this influence that one Arminian clergyman complained that the only way for a minister to get into the graces of the populace was to espouse “Calvinistic Principles.” (Ibid., p. 40)
After the Great Awakening, the divisions in this country revolved around theology. Archie Jones notes:
“America was henceforth divided between rationalists and evangelicals. Rationalists manifested and ‘Enlightenment’ confidence in human nature and man’s reason; evangelicals manifested a Calvinistic conviction of human depravity, combined with an equally Calvinistic confidence in the power of God’s grace to transform men’s lives and, only through this means, society.” (Ibid., p. 37)
What Specific doctrines were influential?
1 The Absolute Sovereignty of God
God alone possesses absolute authority over all areas of life and for the king or parliament to claim such authority is tyranny and blasphemy. The Dutch theologian and political leader, Abraham Kuyper describes the influence of this doctrine of the sovereignty of God over the political views of a people.
“…the Calvinistic confession of the Sovereignty of God holds good for all the world, is true for all nations, and is of force in all authority which man exercises over man…It is therefore a political faith which may be summarily expressed in these theses: 1. God only – and never any creature – is possessed of sovereign rights, in the destiny of nations, because God alone created them, maintains them by His Almighty power, and rules them by His ordinances. 2. Sin has, in the realm of politics, broken down the direct government of God, and therefore the exercise of authority, for the purpose of government, has subsequently been invested in men, as a mechanical remedy. And 3. In whatever form this authority may reveal itself, man never possesses power over his fellow man in any other way than by the authority which descends upon him from the majesty of god.
“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 s 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.” (quoted by Archie Jones, op. cit., pp. 20,21)
The acknowledgment of God’s sovereignty is central to the preservation of liberty. As William Penn said, “If men will not be governed by God they must be governed by tyrants.”
2 The Total (Radical) Depravity of Man
All human authority must be limited not only because God alone is absolutely sovereign, but also because man is sinful and cannot be trusted. This view was held in some degree by all the founding fathers, Jefferson included:
“Free government is founded on jealousy, not in confidence; it is jealousy and not confidence which prescribes limited constitutions, to bind those we are obliged to trust with power. In questions of power, let no more be heard of confidence in man but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the constitution”
Even Samuel Adams, generally viewed as among the more theologically radical of the founders makes this statement:
“The depravity of mankind that ambition and lust of power above the law are…predominant passions in the breasts of most men. “ (the above are quoted by John Robbins, op. cit., p. 53)
Benjamin Rush in his “Observations on the government of Pennsylvania” puts it this way, “Absolute power should never be trusted to man.” (Ibid., p.55)
The doctrines of the sovereignty of God and the depravity of man led to some very important conclusions, as Archie Jones points out:
“Because God is sovereign over all things, His law, given to man in Scripture, is universally valid and binding on man, and on man’s institutions. Thus, there can be no divinization of the community, as in the Greek polis, to justify total control of the life of the individual in the name of the common good. Nor is there the Platonic notion, poorly approximated in modern messianic ideologies, of justice as the subjection of all things to the will of that mythical being, the wise man.” (Jones, op. cit., p. 21)
3 This led to a revival of the “Covenantal” view of the government:
a) The King was under the authority of the Law of God.
b) The people were subject to the “legitimate authority” of the King. They followed 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 un-esteemed.” (Institutes of the Christian Religion, book IV, sec. 32)
c) Thus, a “just government is founded on a compact between ruler(s) and people, under divine law. Any act contrary to the constitution is illegal, and so null and void. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional act, so there is a right to resist encroachments of one’s rights to life, liberty, and the fruits on one’s labor…” (Jones, op. cit., p. 36)
4 These truths solidified the conviction that tyranny had to be resisted, wherever it was found.
a) The colonists defended their actions against England as a defense against tyrannical usurpation on the part of the King and Parliament. This position is plainly set forth in the “Declaration of the Causes and Necessity of Taking Up arms” which was approved by the Continental congress on July 6, 1775:
“But why should we enumerate our injuries in detail? By one statute it is declared, that parliament can ‘of right make laws to bind us in all cases whatsoever.’ What is to defend us against so enormous, so unlimited a power? Not a single man of those who assume it, is chosen by us; or is subject to our control or influence; … We for ten years incessantly and ineffectually besieged the throne as supplicants; we reasoned, we remonstrated with parliament, in the most mild and decent language…we have pursed 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. – this, we flattered ourselves, was the ultimate step of the controversy: but subsequent events have shown, how vain was this hope of finding moderation in our enemies…
“Lest this declaration would disquiet the minds of our friends and fellow-subjects in any part of the empire, we assure them that we mean not to dissolve that union which has so long and so happily subsisted between us, and which we sincerely ish to see restored.—Necessity has not yet driven us into that desperate measure, or induced us to excite any other nation to war against them. – 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 of even suspicion of offence…
“In our own native land in defense of the freedom that is o ur birth-right, and which we ever enjoyed till the late violation of it – for the protection of our property, acquired solely by the honest industry of our fore-fathers and ourselves, against violence actually offered, we have taken up arms. We shall lay them down when hostilities shall cease on the part of the aggressors, and all danger of their being renewed shall be removed, and not before.”
b) The colonists were as opposed to tyranny in ecclesiastical matters as they were in political. One of the factors which contributed to colonial distrust of England, was the fear that the King and Parliament might seek to establish the Church of England in this nation.
Jonathan Mayhew, a Congregationalist minister in Massachusetts spoke and wrote against the possibility of Anglican bishops being appointed for America. His pamphlets had a tremendous influence as John Adams notes;
“It [Mayhew’s warning] spread a universal alarm against the authority of Parliament. It excited a general and a just apprehension, that bishops, and dioceses, and churches, and priests, and tithes, were to be imposed on us by Parliament. It was known that neither king, nor ministry, nor archbishops, could appoint bishops in America, without an act of Parliament; and if Parliament could tax us, they could establish the Church of England, with all its creeds, articles, tests, ceremonies, and tithes, and prohibit all other churches…”(quoted by Murray Rothbard, Conceived In Liberty, vol. III, p. 72)
Without the revival of the theology of the Puritans, there would have been no War of Independence. Perry Miller has noted, “a pure rationalism’ might have declared the independence of the American people, but it could never have inspired them to fight for it.” (quoted by Jones, op. cit., p. 19)
LESSON NUMBER 12 – THE CAUSES OF THE WAR OF INDEPENDENCE (Cont)
B. The great Awakening restored the Puritan vision.
This vision involved the restoration of two things:
1 The belief that America was obligated to be a holy nation.
a) They believed that America was God’s “new Israel” and as such was destined to be the headquarters of a world-wide revival. Bernard Bailyn notes:
“It [Puritanism] carried on into the eighteenth century and into the minds of the revolutionaries the idea, originally worked out in the sermons and tracts of the settlement period, that the colonization of British America had been an event designed by the hand of God to satisfy his ultimate aims. Reinvigorated in its historical meaning by newer works…this influential strain of thought, found everywhere in the eighteenth-century colonies, stimulated confidence in the idea that America had a special place…in the architecture of god’s intent.” (quoted by Robbins, op. cit., p. 67)
Mark Noll refers to this sentiment as it came through the preaching of the day:
“Indeed, it often appears that colonial ministers felt the history of Israel was merely a foreshadowing of the fully realized glories of an American Christian nation. As far back as the French and Indian War, ministers had begun to conceive of the British empire, and more specifically the American colonies, as God’s unique people…
“Closer to war Itself, an anonymous layman argued:
“That the English nation, as such having universally received the Christian religion and established it as a natural religion…and having formed all their laws and regulations of civil society, agreeable to its holy precepts, have a right to look upon themselves as much in visible covenant with God as ever the Jews had.” (Christians in the American Revolution, pp. 70,71)
b) As God’s covenanted nation, they were under obligation to conform to His laws in every area of life. They believed with Calvin,
“That king who in ruling over his realm does not serve God’s glory exercises not kingly rule but brigandage [usurpation, robbery]. Furthermore, he is deceived who looks for enduring properity in his kingdom when it is nor ruled by God’s scepter, that is, His Holy word…” (Institutes of the Christian religion, Calvin’s address to Francis I)
2 Along with this came an unbounded confidence that god would prosper their efforts.
This confidence was founded upon god’s promises to defend the righteous. Listen to the language of “The Declaration of the Causes and Necessity of Taking Up Arms”:
“Our cause is just. Our union is perfect. Our internal resources’ are great, and, if necessary, foreign assistance is undoubtedly attainable.—We gratefully acknowledge, as signal instances of the Divine favor towards us, that his providence would not permit us to be called into this severe controversy, until we were grown up to our present strength, had been previously exercised in warlike operation, and possessed of the means of defending ourselves. With hearts fortified with these animating reflections, we most solemnly, before God and the world, declare, that, exerting the utmost energy of those powers, which our beneficent Creator hath graciously bestowed upon us, the arms we have been compelled by our enemies to assume, we employ for the preservation of our liberties; being with one mind resolved to die freemen rather than to live slaves.”
The justice of their cause made it one worth dying for. And even if God were not pleased to grant them victory, their efforts would not be lost:
“We are reduced to the alternative of choosing an unconditional submission to the tyranny of irritated ministers, or resistance by force. – the latter is our choice.—We have counted the cost of this contest, and find nothing so dreadful as voluntary slavery. –Honor, justice, and humanity, forbid us to surrender that freedom which we received from our gallant ancestors, and which our innocent posterity have a right to receive from us. We cannot endure the infamy and guilt of resigning succeeding generations to the that wretchedness which inevitably awaits them, if we basely entail hereditary bondage upon them.” (The Declaration “ of 1775)
The “Declaration” closes with these words:”
“With an humble confidence in the mercies of the supreme and impartial Judge and ruler of the Universe, we most devoutly implore His divine goodness to protect us happily through this great conflict, to dispose our adversaries to reconciliation on reasonable terms, and thereby to relieve the empire from the calamities of civil war.”
Apart from the Great Awakening and the consequent revival of Puritan theology and the Puritan vision, there would never have been a struggle for independence.
1) Only the theology of the bible (Calvinism) can insure liberty and true freedom
Arminianism (the theological antonym of Calvinism) rejects the sovereignty of God and thus allows from the sovereignty of man (thus inadvertently laying the foundation for tyranny and anarchical democracy).
I would like to quote what the teacher of this course actually wrote, but first I want to comment, that even in these modern times, these times when we can know the truth of Scripture with all the technology we have today. Each and every one of us can go to the Greek or Hebrew original languages, see exactly what was being said, and interpret it properly. Our forefathers did not have this luxury, they were at the mercy of false teachers such as John Calvin, John Knox, and Martin Luther. Their saving grace was the condition of their hearts, totally committed to God’s word. The teacher, or instructor is stating an untruth in this course, concerning Calvinism vs Arminianism.
Comments from Jim Carmichael:
He states in the above statement that Calvinism is the “bible” correctness, and nothing could be further from the truth.
Let’s take a look at the truth of the matter.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Five Articles of Remonstrance
Armianism in the Anglican Church
Synod of Dort participants
Arminianism is based on the theological ideas of the Dutch Reformed theologian Jacobus Arminius (1560–1609) and his historic supporters known as the Remonstrant. His teachings held to the five Solae of the Reformation, but they were distinct in some ways from particular teachings of Martin Luther, Zwingli, John Calvin, and other Protestant Reformers. Jacobus Arminius (Jacobus Hermanszoon) was a student of Beza (successor of Calvin) at the Theological University of Geneva. Arminianism is known as a soteriological diversification of Protestant Christianity. Dutch Arminianism was originally articulated in the Remonstrance (1610), a theological statement signed by 45 ministers and submitted to the States-General of the Netherlands. The Synod of Dort (1618–19) was called by the States General to consider the Five Articles of Remonstrance. These articles asserted that
1.salvation (and condemnation on the day of judgment) was conditioned by the graciously enabled faith (or unbelief) of man;
2.the Atonement, is qualitatively adequate for all men, “yet that no one actually enjoys [experiences] this forgiveness of sins, except the believer…” and thus is limited to only those who trust in Christ;
3.”That man has not saving grace of himself, nor of the energy of his free will,” and unaided by the Holy Spirit, no person is able to respond to God’s will;
4.The (Christian) grace “of God is the beginning, continuance, and accomplishment of any good”, yet man may resist the Holy Spirit; and
5.believers are able to resist sin through grace, and Christ will keep them from falling, but whether they are beyond the possibility of ultimately forsaking God or “becoming devoid of grace”, “must be more particularly determined.”
Many Christian denominations have been influenced by Arminian views on the will of man being freed by grace prior to regeneration, notably the Baptists (See A History of the Baptists Third Edition by Robert G. Torbet) in the 16th century, and the Methodists in the 18th century and the Seventh-day Adventist. Some assert that Universalists and Unitarians in the 18th and 19th centuries were theologically linked with Arminianism. Denominations such as the Anabaptists (beginning in 1525), and Waldensians  (pre-Reformation), and other groups prior to the Reformation have also affirmed that each person may choose the contingent response of either resisting God’s grace or yielding to it.
The original beliefs of Jacobus Arminius himself are commonly defined as Arminianism, but more broadly, the term may embrace the teachings of Hugo Grotius, John Wesley, and others as well. Classical Arminianism, to which Arminius is the main contributor, and Wesleyan Arminianism, to which John Wesley is the main contributor, are the two main schools of thought. Wesleyan Arminianism is often identical with Methodism. Some Arminian schools of thought share certain similarities with Semi-Pelagian, believing the first step of salvation is by human will but classical Arminianism holds that the first step of salvation is the grace of God. Historically, the Council of Orange (529) condemned semi-Pelagian thought, and is accepted by some as a document which can be understood as teaching a doctrine between Augustinian thought and semi-Pelagian thought, making it similar to Arminianism.
The two systems of Calvinism and Arminianism share both history and many doctrines, and the history of Christian theology. Arminianism is related to Calvinism historically. However, because of their differences over the doctrines of divine predestination and election, many people view these schools of thought as opposed to each other. In short, the difference can be seen ultimately by whether God’s allows His desire to save all to be resisted by an individual’s will (in the Arminian doctrine) or if God’s grace is irresistible and limited to only some (in Calvinism). Put another way, is God’s sovereignty shown, in part, through His allowance of free decisions? Some Calvinists assert that the Arminian perspective presents a synergistic system of Salvation and therefore is not only by grace, while Armenians firmly reject this conclusion. Many consider the theological differences to be crucial differences in doctrine, while others find them to be relatively minor. 
2) It was the revival of true religion that prevented the “revolution” in this country from the unbiblical excesses which have dominated other revolutions.
The amazing restraint exercised by the colonists from the beginning to the end of the resistance can only be explained by the influence of biblical Christianity.
Simon Bolivar, (the George Washington of South America”) who led the revolution in south America against Spain in the early 19th century, died a disillusioned idealist in exile. Before he died he made this remark:
“There is no good faith in [Latin] America, nor among the nations of [Latin] America. Treaties are scraps of paper: constitutions, printed matter; elections, battles; freedom, anarchy; and life a torment.”
Shortly before his death he would say, “[Latin] America is ungovernable. He who serves a revolution ploughs the sea.” (both quotes found n Edward Coleson, “the American Revolution: typical or Unique?”, The journal of Christian reconstruction, vol. III, Summer, 1976, no. 1, p. 177)
Resistance to tyranny will always lead to more tyranny apart from the restraining and guiding influence of Christianity.
Resistance to tyranny will always lead to more tyranny apart from the restraining and guiding influence of Christianity.
It hardly needs to be said that those things so abundantly present in 1775, are alarmingly absent in our day. The patriots of 1775 believed that it was their obligation to form a holy nation and that God would grant success to their labors. Both of these convictions are vital. If we were are not convinced of the obligation to conform society to God’s will, we will do nothing to oppose the deterioration of Biblical law and order. But, no matter how convinced we are of our obligation to reform society, if we do not have an equal conviction that God is going grant success to our efforts, we will quickly lose heart and give up in despair.
We must see,
1. It is our obligation to do everything in our power to make our nation a Christian nation. A.A. Hodge, theologian of the last century, exhorted Christians along this line:
“since the kingdom of God on earth is not confined to the mere ecclesiastical sphere, but aims at absolute universality, and extends it supreme reign over every department of human life, it follows that it is the duty of every loyal subject to endeavor to bring all human society, social and political, as well as ecclesiastical, into obedience to its law of righteousness. It is our duty, as fare as lies in our power, immediately to organize human society and all its institutions and organs upon a distinctively Christian basis. Indifference of impartiality here between the law of the kingdom and the law of the world, or of its prince, the devil is utter treason to the King of Righteousness. The Bible, the great statue-book of the kingdom, explicitly lays down principles which, when candidly applied, will regulate the action of every human being in all relations. There can be no compromise. The King said, with regard to all descriptions of moral agents in all spheres of activity, ‘He that is not with me is against me.” (Evangelical theology, pp. 283,284)
2. Only when we take a stand against evil can we expect God to arise to our defense:
“The church must confront the unrighteous demands of the modern dictators, whether in business, in society or in the state with a primary loyalty to God, if necessary even unto death. Only when the church is prepared to do this can it expect to see the ‘rod of iron’ coming into action on its behalf, and visibly vindicating the persecuted church and demonstrating to all beholders the existence and the supreme authority and power of the kingdom over which Christ in glory reigns.” (Roderick Campbell, Israel and the New Covenant, p. 227)
We desperately need to hear Patrick Henry’s challenge to those who counselled caution in the face of over tyranny (given at St. John’s Church, Richmond, VA, on Thursday, March 23, 1776):
“Mr. President, no man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the house. But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope I will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen, if entertaining, as I do, opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely, and without reserve. This is no time for ceremony. The question before the house is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery…Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself guilty of treason toward my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.
“Mr. President, it is natural for a man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth—and listen to the song of the siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty?…For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it might cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst and to provide for it.
“…Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves longer. Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned—we have remonstrated—we have supplicated—we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrance’s have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne. In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be fee—if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending—if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engage, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained—we must fight! I repeat it sir, we must fight!! An appeal to arms and to the god of Hosts is all that is left us!
“They tell us sir, that we are weak—unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs, and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are no weak, if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. Three millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides Sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battle for us. The battle sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat, but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged, their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable—and let it come!! I repeat is sir, let it come!!
“It is vain sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, peace, peace—but there is no peace. The war is actually begun. The next gale that sweeps from the North will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so der or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give liberty or give me death!” (Norine Dickson Campbell, Patrick Henry: Patriot & Statesman, pp. 128-130)
BIBLIOGRAPHY FOR LESSONS 11 & 12:
Lorraine Boettner, The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination, Nutley, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1973
Archie P. Jones, “The Christian roots of the War for Independence”, The Journal of Christian Reconstruction, vol. III, Summer, 1976, no. 1, Vallecito, CA: the Chalcedon Foundation.
John Robbins, “The political Philosophy of the Founding Fathers”, The Journal of Christian Reconstruction, vol. III, summer, 1976 no. 1Vallecito, CA: The Chalcedon Foundation.
E.L. Hebden Taylor, “The Rock from Which America Was Hewn”, The Journal of Christian Reconstruction, vol. III, summer, 1976 no. 1, Vallecito, CA: The Chalcedon Foundation.
Gary North, “The Declaration of Independence as a Conservative Document” The Journal of Christian Reconstruction, vol. III, Summer, 1976, no. 1, Vallecito, CA: the Chalcedon Foundation.
Edwar Coleson, “The American Revolution: Typical or Unique?”, The Journal of Christian Reconstruction, vol. III, Summer, 1976, no. 1, Vallecito, CA: the Chalcedon Foundation.
John Calvin, Institutes’ of the Christian Religion, Philadelphia: Wesminster Press, 1972.
Murray Rothbard, Conceived in Liberty, vol. III, New Rochelle, NY: Arlington House Publishers, 1976
Mark Noll, Christians in the American Revolution, Washington, D.C.: Christian University Press, 1977
A.A. Hodge, Evangelical Theology, Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1976.
Roderick Campbell, Israel and the New Covenant, Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1954.
Norine Dickson Campbell, Patrick Henry: Patriot & Statesman, Old Greenwich, CT: The Devin-Adair Company, 1969.