FREE ESSAY ON BEGINNING OF A NATION

BEGINNING OF A NATION

Page 2
THE BEGINNINGS OF A NATION
Theonomy is a term for the belief that the moral law of God is to be applied as a
standard of righteousness for governing individuals and society. The term comes from the
Greek for God's law and is the concept that all of the moral laws (those excluding the
non-ceremonial and dietary laws) given to Moses and recorded in the Pentateuch are
binding on people of all nations forever. Theonomy posits God's law as the only just
standard for regulations in every human institution: family, church, and state. 
Theocracy is the term for a nation ruled by God and God's law. Theocracy does not imply
rule of the state by the church. The proper term here would be an ecclesiocracy. Although
the church and the state are separate spheres of government, both are to be ruled by
God's law. 
Detractors of theonomy and theocracy like to argue that the civil law and its sanctions
were limited to Old Covenant Israel because there was no separation of church and state
in Israel's theocracy. Even a casual survey of the law of Moses disproves this
conjecture. The Old Covenant commands that alien and sojourners in Israel, even those who
were uncircumcised heathen, were bound to the civil law (Lev. 24:22). 
Yet these foreigners were not required to keep most of the ceremonial aspects of the
Mosaic law (Ex. 12:43,44,48; 9:33; Deut. 14:21). Only the circumcised were allowed to
participate in the Passover, the old covenant communion meal. The two marks of the
covenant separated members of the church from members of the state. There was also a
separation between the priests of the ceremonial law, the Levites, and the magistrates of
the civil law, the elders and judges (Lev. 14:35; 27:11; Deut. 1:16; 16:18; 19:12; 21:2;
25:1). 
In the New Covenant, the primary purpose of the church is to minister God's grace in the
world. Christ's commission to the church was to preach salvation to the nations (Matt.
28:18-20). The Apostles were given the keys of the kingdom and the sword of the Spirit,
the Word of God, in order to carry out the Great Commission. The state is to be a
minister of justice (Rom. 13:1-7). It alone is given the sword of power to execute
vengeance on those who would violate the law of God as expressed in the laws of the civil
sphere. The church is never to control civil government, but may instruct state
proceedings with biblical counsel (Deut. 17:8-13). The church is also expected to train
godly men for civil leadership. 
The problem, of course, with the colonial Massachusetts theocracy was that it was not a
true theocracy with separation of powers, but an ecclesiocracy. Cotton Mather wrote: Yet,
after all...in this world a Church-State was impossible, whereinto there enters nothing
which defiles. 
Page 3
On the other hand, it was this experiment with self-government which finally led to the
emancipation of the colonies from the tyranny of the British crown in later years. In all
fairness to the Massachusetts Puritans, we must realize that they came to the New World
at a time when the Protestant Reformation was still very much in progress in England. 
A unifying and comprehensive church confession describing the relationship between church
and state had not been adopted. Connecticut, Plymouth, and Rhode Island experimented with
alternate forms of theocracy. 
According to 19th century Harvard historian John Fiske: The spirit in which the Hebrew
prophet rebuked and humbled an idolatrous king was a spirit they could comprehend. Such a
spirit was sure to manifest itself in cramping measures and in ugly acts of persecution;
but it is none the less the fortunate alliance of that fervid religious enthusiasm with
the Englishman's love of self government that our modern freedom owes its existence. 2 
Modern theonomists can neither completely defend the rigidity of the Massachusetts Bay
Colony nor completely disparage the attempts towards a godly separation of powers by
Roger Williams and the Rhode Island colony. A more honest approach would be to settle on
the example of civil liberty found in the Fundamental Orders of Connecticut. 
The United States Constitution owes allegiance to Thomas Hooker, more than any other man,
for providing a working model of decentralized government, one which had not appeared on
the face of the earth since the time of the ancient Hebrews. 
The Fundamental Orders of Connecticut was the first biblical covenant in modern times
which founded a federal government. The Mayflower Compact was not a constitution, in that
it did not define and limit the functions of government. The Magna Charta had the nature
of a written constitution because it described the rights of the people, but it did not
create a civil government. 
This constitution states that Connecticut is submitted to the Savior and Lord. There are
none of the patronizing references to a dread sovereign or a gracious king nor the
slightest allusion to the authority of British government or any other government over
the colony. It presumes Connecticut to be self-governing. It does not describe church
membership as a condition for suffrage. In this federation, all powers not granted to the
General Court remained in the towns. Each township had equal representation in the
General Court. The governor and the council were chosen by a majority vote of the people
with almost universal suffrage. 
Page 4
In his sermon to the General Court, May 31, 1638, Hooker said, The foundation of
authority is laid in the free consent of the people...the choice of public magistrates
belongs unto the people by God's own allowance...they who have power to appoint officers
and magistrates have the right also to set the bounds and limitations of the power and
place unto which they call them. 
John Fiske writes: It was the first written constitution known to history, that created a
government, and it marked the beginnings of the American republic, of which Thomas Hooker
deserves more than any other man to be called the father. The government of the United
States today is in lineal descent more nearly related to that of Connecticut than to that
of any of the other thirteen colonies. 
STATEMENT
This book was pretty deep for even a graduate student to read, but I tried to bring out
some of, what I thought , were important issues. The Puritans of Massachusetts came to
the New World at the time of the Protestant Reformation was in full force which gave a
very difficult view of religious beliefs in America. The facts have been long imbedded in
our history, that religion is the major factor that founded our country. Freedom of
religion was a necessity to the colonist. The author was very informative and convincing
to me.