Political Dissent by Early American Covenanters

(Receive our blog posts in your email by clicking here. If the author links in this post are broken, please visit our Free PDF Library and click on the author’s page directly.)

“John Ploughman says, Of two evils choose neither. Don't choose the least, but let all evils alone.” — Charles Spurgeon, The Salt-Cellars: Being a Collection of Proverbs, Together with Homely Notes Thereon (1889), p. 297

“...instead of being fixed by their favourite poster, 'of two evils choose the least,' I say,... when you give me the choice of two moral evils, I can choose neither of them. If I have the choice of two physical evils, I will choose the least. If I am asked whether I would choose to lose a toe or a leg, I would choose to part with a toe; but if I am asked whether I would desecrate the Sabbath by steam or by horse power, I say I would do neither. There is a dangerous and deadly fallacy lurking beneath this common maxim, against which I would warn all; for of two moral evils we must choose neither — we are not at liberty to do evil that good may come.” — William Symington, Speech of the Rev. Dr. Symington at the great meeting, for protesting against the desecration of the Sabbath by the running of trains on the Edinburgh and Glasgow railway on the Lord's day, held in the City Hall, Glasgow, February 26, 1842

There is one political maxim that comforts me: ‘The Lord reigns.’” — John Newton, Letter III to Mrs. P., August 1775

When the Testimony of the Reformed Presbyterian Church in America (RPCNA) was adopted in 1806 (published in 1807 under the title Reformation Principles Exhibited), a full chapter was included on the subject, in addition to the one on civil government, concerning “the right of Dissent from a Constitution of Civil Government.” Because American Covenanters view the scope of Christ’s dominion as King to include all things — nations as well as the church — they historically considered it sinful to omit (as the U.S. Constitution does) allegiance to him as King (Ps. 2:10-12). And further, oaths such as that required of elected officials (and often voters) by the same Constitution were consequently considered unlawful.

William Gibson, one of the early Covenanter ministers in America, who was involved in the preparation of Reformation Principles Exhibited, had in fact fled Ireland because of his refusal to swear an oath of allegiance to the government during the Irish Rebellion of 1797. Alexander McLeod, author of Messiah, Governor of the Nations of the Earth — a classic statement of Covenanter doctrine concerning the Mediatorial Kingship of Christ over all things — wrote about political dissent in the historical section of the RP Testimony. These men, as well as James Renwick Willson, Samuel B. Wylie and others, were confronted early on with issues of what it meant to be a loyal, patriotic civic-minded American citizen in the newly-formed republic of the United States of America.

For many Covenanters — and abolitionists in general, such as William L. Garrison, who described the U.S. Constitution as “a covenant with death and an agreement with hell” — the founding charter of this country, rather than manifesting Biblically-required submission to the laws of Christ, mandated sinful involvement by all who voted or swore oaths of allegiance to a document that exalted “We, the people” at the expense of Christ’s honor, and positively required endorsement of, a system that upheld the wicked practice of enslaving human beings. Thus, early American Covenanters declined to vote, or serve on juries, or to participate in any political activity that required them to sanction the political process as it then existed.

Even after the War Between the States — or, the “Late Rebellion” as it was termed by some — political dissent was viewed as a crucial aspect of Covenanter testimony to the claims of the Lord Jesus Christ upon America. It was not until the 1960’s that the doctrine of political dissent was dropped as a term of communion within the RPCNA. The current RP Testimony allows for voting in American civil elections if candidates meet certain criteria involving fidelity to Christian moral and doctrinal standards. However, a consistent application of the even current standard teaching of the RPCNA would prohibit a Covenanter from voting for most (all?) candidates standing for the 2020 election, if principle rather than pragmatism holds sway.

At the heart of this historic dissent from political activity in America is not an Anabaptistic rejection of all involvement in civil affairs. Covenanters confess (see the Westminster Confession of Faith chap. 23) that civil government is a good and needful ordinance of God. Their political activity in American history with regard to opposition to slavery (and other current forms of legal but immoral conduct such as Sabbath-breaking and abortion), is well-documented (see Joseph S. Moore, Founding Sins: How a Group of Antislavery Radicals Fought to Put Christ into the Constitution). The concern of Covenanters for godly civil government has always been at the forefront of their core convictions; so much so that their unpopular stand regarding political dissent has led them to suffer persecution for their unwillingness to embrace American political ideals. James R. Willson was once burned in effigy after he published Prince Messiah's Claims to Dominion Over All Governments; and the Disregard of His Authority by the United States, in the Federal Constitution (1832). Covenanters have historically considered it a noble and worthy sacrifice to decline to avail themselves of the political privilege of voting as long as the oath of allegiance to the U.S. Constitution is a part of the process of the elective franchise. But these were the same body of people who — beginning with Alexander Craighead, who was the first Presbyterian in America to publicly justify armed rebellion against Great Britain in 1743, and whose principles inspired the 1775 Mecklenburg Declaration of Independence — were front and center in the fight for American Independence, and in the fight for freedom for American slaves. Their desire for reformation encompassed both church and state.

Much more could be said about the Covenanter principle of political dissent, but to read them in their own words, it is helpful to consult the following:

  • Thomas Houston Acheson, Why Covenanters Do Not Vote (1912) - In this brief two-part article, Acheson gives six reasons that are NOT the reason why Covenanters do not vote; his six-fold reason why Covenanters do not vote; and the response to twelve objections to the Covenanter position.

  • George Alexander Edgar, The Reformed Presbyterian Catechism (1912) - In this catechism of RP principles (a reprise of Roberts’ 1853 catechism cited below), it is taught that nations and their constitutions are morally accountable before God, and that Christians therefore have a duty to dissent from immoral constitutions.

  • Finley Milligan Foster, What Voting Under an Unchristian Constitution Involves (n.d.) - This tract sketches the basic arguments of Covenanters that the U.S. Constitution is immoral, the act of voting involves acceptance of an immoral constitution, and that such is a sin against the King of the nations.

  • James Mitchell Foster, Shall We Condemn the Aggravated Guilt of This Nation in Vitiating the Consciences of its Christian Citizens by Requiring Them to Swear Allegiance to the Secular Constitution of the U.S. as the Condition of Exercising Their Political Privileges in the Governing Body? (1909) — No summary is needed after reading the title.

  • William Melancthon Glasgow, History of the Reformed Presbyterian Church in America - Political dissent is a recurring theme throughout Glasgow’s standard history of the denomination.

  • Nathan Robinson Johnston, “Political Dissent” (1892) - This is a letter to the editor of the Christian Instructor, reprinted in Political Dissenter, which responds to an article critiquing the Covenanter position on political dissent. Johnston responds to several points made by the author of that article in defense of political dissent.

  • James Calvin McFeeters, The Covenanters in America: The Voice of Their Testimony on Present Moral Issues (1892) - This testimony by McFeeters includes a chapter on “The Covenanters and Political Dissent.”

  • Alexander McLeod, Reformation Principles Exhibited (1807) - As mentioned above, this first Testimony of the RPCNA contains an historical section as well as a doctrinal outline, both of which articulate a position of political dissent from constitutions which omit and oppose allegiance to Christ.

  • John Wagner Pritchard, Soldiers of the Church: The Story of What the Reformed Presbyterians (Covenanters) of North America, Canada, and the British Isles, Did to Win the World War of 1914-1918 (1919) - This volume, of which we have written before, examines the contributions of RP members to the war effort in World War I in light of the issue of the usual requirements of soldiers to swear an oath of allegiance to their government. He writes: "People who do not understand, marvel that a Covenanter will give his life for his country but withholds his vote at election time. A Covenanter will give his life because of his loyalty to his country, and withholds his vote at election time because of his loyalty to Christ. To become a soldier he is required to swear loyalty to his country, and that he is always eager to do; but to vote at an election he is required to swear to a Constitution of Civil Government that does not recognize the existence of God, the authority of Christ over the nation, nor any obligation to obey His moral law; and that his conception of loyalty to Christ will not permit him to do."

  • William Louis Roberts, The Reformed Presbyterian Catechism (1853) — In this catechism of RP principles, “The right and duty of dissent from an immoral constitution of civil government” is identified as one of the twelve distinctive teachings of the RPCNA.

  • James McLeod Willson, Bible Magistracy; or, Christ's Dominion Over the Nations (1842) - After sketching fundamental principles of civil government and Christ’s Kingship over the nations, Willson applies those principles to the situation in the United States and affirms the need for political dissent.

  • James Renwick Willson, Prince Messiah's Claims to Dominion Over All Governments; and the Disregard of His Authority by the United States, in the Federal Constitution (1832) - This is perhaps the most detailed critique of the U.S. Constitution and its flaws from the Covenanter perspective.

  • Richard Cameron Wylie, Dissent From Unscriptural Political Systems (1896) - An address delivered at the First International Convention of Reformed Presbyterian Churches, held in Scotland, outlines reasons why Covenanters held to the doctrine of political dissent.

Although the doctrine of political dissent from immoral constitutions is not widely understood or accepted today among Christians and even among some Reformed Presbyterians, it is helpful to consider what early Covenanters believed in this country concerning involvement in civil affairs. There are some today who may abstain from voting because of indifference or apathy; those Covenanters did so out of a deep abiding conviction that Christ must be honored in the halls of government and at the ballot box. In this election year, it is worth pondering those convictions in the light of Scripture, and seeking to understand whether these principles remain relevant. There are many avenues to reformation, but the means as well as the end must be able to stand in the light of God’s word in order for a nation to be blessed. As A.A. Hodge (not a Covenanter, but a vice-president of the National Reform Association) said:

In the name of your own interests I plead with you; in the name of your treasure-houses and barns, of your rich farms and cities, of your accumulations in the past and your hopes in the future, — I charge you, you never will be secure if you do not faithfully maintain all the crown-rights of Jesus the King of men. In the name of your children and their inheritance of the precious Christian civilization you in turn have received from your sires; in the name of the Christian Church, — I charge you that its sacred franchise, religious liberty, cannot be retained by men who in civil matters deny their allegiance to the King. In the name of your own soul and its salvation; in the name of the adorable Victim of that bloody and agonizing sacrifice whence you draw all your hopes of salvation; by Gethsemane and Calvary, — I charge you, citizens of the United States, afloat on your wide wild sea of politics, There is Another King, One Jesus: The Safety Of The State Can Be Secured Only In The Way Of Humble And Whole-souled Loyalty To His Person and of Obedience His Law (Popular Lectures on Theological Themes, p. 287).

Christ's Law and Immigration

RPCNA minister James Mitchell Foster (1850-1928) served as pastor of a congregation in Cincinnati, Ohio for nearly a decade before assuming the position of Secretary of the National Reform Association (the same position which this writer currently occupies). Among his many writings is a remarkable study of the kingship of Christ entitled Christ the King (1894). 

In this book Foster examines many aspects of Christ's mediatorial kingship, considering those who came before him as typical representatives, and his kingly rule especially as it relates to the state and society. Many particular societal issues are specifically addressed by Foster in this volume, including the subject of immigration, a matter concerning which 19th century American Covenanters and other Presbyterians were very concerned to address (see William Speer's writings here, for example). The perspective from which Foster examines this and many other topics is well articulated by John Alexander in his introduction: "I would suggest that ...  the Kingship of Christ and the supremacy of His law from which all our proposed reforms logically emanate." 

The chapter on "Christ's Law and Immigration" is highlighted here today not because this writer necessarily concurs with all that the author says, and not because Log College Press takes a particular position on political questions faced by 21st century America, but rather because it is a striking example of how one 19th century Presbyterian minister viewed a topic that almost appears ripped from today's news headlines. 

Foster begins thus: "The law of Christ is the solution of all national questions. He has been exalted to the throne of universal dominion. The wheels of providence in their intricacy, mystery, sublimity and universality are subject to His hand. He is head over all things to His Church. He is the Lawgiver, King and Judge. The legislative, executive and judicial departments of government are under law to Christ. He executes the judgments of God upon rebellious nations. He bestows the blessings of heaven upon obedient nations. All national questions are to be referred to Him." 

Foster then makes a crucial point that the Christian statesman and citizen must consider with respect to the matter of immigration: "Paul said to the Athenians on Mars' Hill: 'God hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed and the bounds of their habitation.' By precept and example Christ taught that Roman Centurion, Samaritan women, Phoenician, Greek, and Syrian, were as dear to Him as the Jew. Peter was taught by a vision to call no man of the Gentile nations common or unclean. The great principle of Christ's kingdom is thus announced: 'There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free; but ye are all one in Christ Jesus.' Christ's kingdom is made up of representatives from all kindreds and nations and tongues and people. Under Christ, whether a man be white, black, yellow or red -- 'A man's a man for a' that.'" 

He reminds the reader that "This country was settled by immigration originally. The Pilgrim Fathers came to Plymouth, the Hollanders to New York, William Penn and the Quakers to Pennsylvania, the Germans to New Jersey and Virginia, the Scotch-Irish to North Carolina, the Spanish to Florida, the French to Louisiana and the Northern Lakes.

This country has grown great by immigration. The hand of God is in it, and man can no more arrest it than he can keep back the rising tide. As long as there are lands untilled to be occupied and mines unworked and sources of public wealth undeveloped they will continue to come and we cannot hinder them. The under-currents of supply and demand which sends oranges to Maine, potatoes to New York, tobacco to Wisconsin, cotton to California and money everywhere, sends laborers where they are needed. The Chinese, to exclude the invading hordes from the North and West, built a great and high wall, 1500 miles long on their western border. But it did not serve any good end. We cannot build a wall of legal enactments that will keep out immigrants. As well try to dam up Niagra." 

While Foster desired to see America welcome immigrants of all sorts (notably, he spoke against the then-current anti-Chinese immigration laws), he also desired overall reform in our national system of government. "So let immigrants comes to us from every land. But this nation must adopt and enforce the law of Christ. There must be a constitutional recognition of Christ as King of nations. A constitutional provision must be made for the exclusion of the enemies of Christ from places of office and trust and making the friends of Christ only eligible to office." 

With the aim of applying the principle of Christ's kingly rule to America, Foster thus tackled a difficult subject. Read him for yourself, on immigration and other matters. One might not agree with him in all particulars, but all Christians may unite in the desire to see our country honor Christ the King in all its laws and in how it treats immigrants to this land.