Atheists declare that America is not a Christian
nation. They’ll state that many of our
founders were deist. True, some
were. But the vast majority was
Christians. To deny this is to rewrite
history. Samuel Adams is considered the Father of the
American Revolution. He was a devout
Christian. Here is his The Rights of the
Colonist:
I.
Natural Rights of the Colonists as Men.
Among the natural rights of the Colonists are these: First, a right to life; Secondly, to liberty; Thirdly, to property; together with the right to support and defend them in the best manner they can. These are evident branches of, rather than deductions from, the duty of self-preservation, commonly called the first law of nature.
All men have a right to
remain in a state of nature as long as they please; and in case of intolerable
oppression, civil or religious, to leave the society they belong to, and enter
into another.
When men enter into
society, it is by voluntary consent; and they have a right to demand and insist
upon the performance of such conditions and previous limitations as form an
equitable original compact.
Every natural right not
expressly given up, or, from the nature of a social compact, necessarily ceded,
remains.
All positive and civil
laws should conform, as far as possible, to the law of natural reason and
equity.
As neither reason
requires nor religion permits the contrary, every man living in or out of a
state of civil society has a right peaceably and quietly to worship God
according to the dictates of his conscience.
"Just and true
liberty, equal and impartial liberty," in matters spiritual and temporal,
is a thing that all men are clearly entitled to by the eternal and immutable
laws of God and nature, [Page 418] as well as by the law of
nations and all well-grounded municipal laws, which must have their foundation
in the former.
In regard to religion,
mutual toleration in the different professions thereof is what all good and
candid minds in all ages have ever practised, and, both by precept and example,
inculcated on mankind. And it is now generally agreed among Christians that
this spirit of toleration, in the fullest extent consistent with the being of
civil society, is the chief characteristical mark of the Church. Insomuch that
Mr. Locke has asserted and proved, beyond the possibility of contradiction on
any solid ground, that such toleration ought to be extended to all whose
doctrines are not subversive of society. The only sects which he thinks ought to
be, and which by all wise laws are excluded from such toleration, are those who
teach doctrines subversive of the civil government under which they live. The
Roman Catholics or Papists are excluded by reason of such doctrines as these,
that princes excommunicated may be deposed, and those that they call heretics
may be destroyed without mercy; besides their recognizing the Pope in so
absolute a manner, in subversion of government, by introducing, as far as
possible into the states under whose protection they enjoy life, liberty, and
property, that solecism in politics, imperium in imperio, leading directly to
the worst anarchy and confusion, civil discord, war, and bloodshed.
The natural liberty of
man, by entering into society, is abridged or restrained, so far only as is
necessary for the great end of society, the best good of the whole.
In the state of nature
every man is, under God, judge and sole judge of his own rights and of the
injuries done him. By entering into society he agrees to an arbiter or indifferent
judge between him and his neighbors; but he no more renounces his original
right than by taking a cause out of the ordinary course of law, and leaving the
decision to referees or indifferent arbitrators.
In the last case, he
must pay the referees for time and trouble. He should also be willing to pay
his just quota for the support of government, the law, and the constitution;
the end of which is to furnish indifferent and impartial judges in all cases
that may happen, whether civil, ecclesiastical, marine, or military.
[Page 419] The natural liberty of man is to be free
from any superior power on earth, and not to be under the will or legislative
authority of man, but only to have the law of nature for his rule.
In the state of nature
men may, as the patriarchs did, employ hired servants for the defence of their
lives, liberties, and property; and they should pay them reasonable wages.
Government was instituted for the purposes of common defence, and those who
hold the reins of government have an equitable, natural right to an honorable
support from the same principle that " the laborer is worthy of his
hire." But then the same community which they serve ought to be the
assessors of their pay. Governors have no right to seek and take what they
please; by this, instead of being content with the station assigned them, that
of honorable servants of the society, they would soon become absolute masters,
despots, and tyrants. Hence, as a private man has a right to say what wages he
will give in his private affairs, so has a community to determine what they
will give and grant of their substance for the administration of public
affairs. And, in both cases, more are ready to offer their service at the
proposed and stipulated price than are able and willing to perform their duty.
In short, it is the
greatest absurdity to suppose it in the power of one, or any number of men, at
the entering into society, to renounce their essential natural rights, or the
means of preserving those rights; when the grand end of civil government, from
the very nature of its institution, is for the support, protection, and defence
of those very rights; the principal of which, as is before observed, are Life,
Liberty, and Property. If men, through fear, fraud, or mistake, should in terms
renounce or give up any essential natural right, the eternal law of reason and
the grand end of society would absolutely vacate such renunciation. The right
to freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in the power of man to
alienate this gift and voluntarily become a slave.
II.
The Rights of the Colonists as Christians.
These may be best understood by reading and carefully studying the institutes of the great Law Giver and Head of the Christian Church, which are to be found clearly written and promulgated in the New Testament.
[Page 420] By the act of the British Parliament,
commonly called the Toleration Act, every subject in England, except Papists,
&c., was restored to, and re-established in, his natural right to worship
God according to the dictates of his own conscience. And, by the charter of
this Province, it is granted, ordained, and established (that is, declared as
an original right) that there shall be liberty of conscience allowed in the
worship of God to all Christians, except Papists, inhabiting, or which shall
inhabit or be resident within, such Province or Territory. Magna Charta itself
is in substance but a constrained declaration or proclamation and promulgation
in the name of the King, Lords, and Commons, of the sense the latter had of
their original, inherent, indefeasible natural rights, as also those of free
citizens equally perdurable with the other. That great author, that great
jurist, and even that court writer, Mr. Justice Blackstone, holds that this
recognition was justly obtained of King John, sword in hand. And peradventure
it must be one day, sword in hand, again rescued and preserved from total
destruction and oblivion.
III.
The Rights of the Colonists as Subjects.
A commonwealth or state is a body politic, or civil society of men, united together to promote their mutual safety and prosperity by means of their union.
The absolute rights of
Englishmen and all freemen, in or out of civil society, are principally
personal security, personal liberty, and private property.
All persons born in the
British American Colonies are, by the laws of God and nature and by the common
law of England, exclusive of all charters from the Crown, well entitled, and by
acts of the British Parliament are declared to be entitled, to all the natural,
essential, inherent, and inseparable rights, liberties, and privileges of
subjects born in Great Britain or within the realm. Among those rights are the
following, which no man, or body of men, consistently with their own rights as
men and citizens, or members of society, can for themselves give up or take
away from others.
[Page 421] First, "The first fundamental,
positive law of all common wealths or states is the establishing the
legislative power. As the first fundamental natural law, also, which is to
govern even the legislative power itself, is the preservation of the
society."
Secondly, The
Legislative has no right to absolute, arbitrary power over the lives and
fortunes of the people; nor can mortals assume a prerogative not only too high
for men, but for angels, and therefore reserved for the exercise of the Deity
alone.
"The Legislative
cannot justly assume to itself a power to rule by extempore arbitrary decrees;
but it is bound to see that justice is dispensed, and that the rights of the subjects
be decided by promulgated, standing, and known laws, and authorized independent
judges"; that is, independent, as far as possible, of Prince and people.
"There should be one rule of justice for rich and poor, for the favorite
at court, and the countryman at the plough."
Thirdly, The supreme
power cannot justly take from any man any part of his property, without his
consent in person or by his representative.
These are some of the
first principles of natural law and justice, and the great barriers of all free
states and of the British Constitution in particular. It is utterly
irreconcilable to these principles and to many other fundamental maxims of the
common law, common sense, and reason that a British House of Commons should
have a right at pleasure to give and grant the property of the Colonists. (That
the Colonists are well entitled to all the essential rights, liberties, and
privileges of men and freemen born in Britain is manifest not only from the
Colony charters in general, but acts of the British Parliament.) The statute of
the 13th of Geo. 2, C. 7, naturalizes even foreigners after seven years'
residence. The words of the Massachusetts charter are these: "And further,
our will and pleasure is, and we do hereby for us, our heirs, and successors,
grant, establish, and ordain, that all and every of the subjects of us, our
heirs, and successors, which shall go to, and inhabit within our said Province
or Territory, and every of their children, which shall happen to be born there
or on the seas in going thither or returning from thence, shall have and enjoy
all liberties and immunities of free and natural subjects within any of the
dominions [Page 422] of us, our heirs, and successors, to all
intents, constructions, and purposes whatsoever as if they and every one of
them were born within this our realm of England."
Now what liberty can
there be where property is taken away without consent? Can it be said with any
color of truth and justice, that this continent of three thousand miles in
length, and of a breadth as yet unexplored, in which, however, it is supposed
there are five millions of people, has the least voice, vote, or influence in
the British Parliament? Have they all together any more weight or power to
return a single member to that House of Commons who have not inadvertently, but
deliberately, assumed a power to dispose of their lives, liberties, and
properties, than to choose an Emperor of China? Had the Colonists a right to
return members to the British Parliament, it would only be hurtful; as, from
their local situation and circumstances, it is impossible they should ever be
truly and properly represented there. The inhabitants of this country, in all
probability, in a few years, will be more numerous than those of Great Britain
and Ireland together; yet it is absurdly expected by the promoters of the
present measures that these, with their posterity to all generations, should be
easy, while their property shall be disposed of by a House of Commons at three
thousand miles' distance from them, and who cannot be supposed to have the
least care or concern for their real interest; who have not only no natural
care for their interest, but must be in effect bribed against it, as every
burden they lay on the Colonists is so much saved or gained to themselves.
Hitherto, many of the Colonists have been free from quit rents; but if the
breath of a British House of Commons can originate an act for taking away all
our money, our lands will go next, or be subject to rack rents from haughty and
relentless landlords, who will ride at ease, while we are trodden in the dirt.
The Colonists have been branded with the odious names of traitors and rebels
only for complaining of their grievances. How long such treatment will or ought
to be borne, is submitted.
No comments:
Post a Comment