“L’État, c’est moi!” “I am the State!” This famous phrase, attributed to the French king Louis XIV and proclaimed during a meeting with his ministers in the second half of the 17th century, represents the beginning in Europe of what was known as monarchical absolutism (Duruy 1917, 195-196). Inspired by his education, and encouraged by his courtiers – most famously, by the renowned orator and bishop, Jacques-Bénigne Bossuet, former tutor to the king’s oldest son – Louis XIV concentrated all earthly powers under his persona, supported by the claim that such prerogative came directly from God. But this was not a new idea, and from biblical times the divinely inspired rule of kings and statesmen had been supported by sacred scripture and tradition. To the king, this was his natural right, by birth and by law, and refusing to do his part would be ingratitude to God (Ibid., 134).
To the people, divine Providence had bestowed upon them this form of government, and any other form of rule, according to their lords, was direct disobedience not only to their rulers, but to God himself. However, and along with absolutism, this age also gave birth to the Enlightenment, a primarily European cultural and intellectual movement that brought forth new ideas and thoughts about reason, knowledge, justice, tolerance, and the need for the separation of the church and the state. A new era was being born, and new thoughts would raise in conflict with the establishment and its divinely inspired rule.
The general perception about politics believes that it only refers to the art of ruling, but the truth is, that if such were the case, our society would had accomplished so centuries, if not millennia ago. For politics and ruling are much more than this, and societies have been witnesses to the thirst for power and control that is inherent to them since the creation of the world. As Berger so clearly stated in his work Government by Judiciary, “It is axiomatic that all wielders of power, judges included, ever thirst for more.” (Berger 1997, 274). Due to this unrestrained thirst for power and governance, laws were created. Society acknowledged the divine right of their rules, but it also resisted the idea of tyranny and oppression.
Laws were created not only to protect property, or the rights and freedoms of the individual, but also the political rights of the people themselves (Lafitsky 2010, 167). Early laws discussed this issue by electing those rulers and statesmen who borne a right to such position, while at the same time reminding the people that God had also provided them with the right to resist or repel any arbitrary forms of power or ruling (Ibid.).
The most significant founding document of the American nation, the Declaration of Independence, affirms that the Founders of this nation relied on the protection of the divine Providence for the support of their actions (Hall 2016, 57). Moreover, the Founders had a clear understanding that the equality of men before society, and their unalienable rights, including life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, had been endowed by God upon men, as a natural right. Taking notice of the undertaking they were laying upon themselves, the Founders’ pledge of honor, life, and fortune, asked for divine intervention, as they understood that those rights they were right they were willing to fight and die for, came directly from God, and not from men (Ibid.).
This reliance on divine intervention and mandate was based directly on scripture, as the Bible provides us with five specific areas that support the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and property (Fischer 1998, 25). Not only has man been created in the image of God, but the same God has given man dominion over the earth. In addition, the Noahic covenant, and the Ten Commandments, support the natural rights of all members of society (Ibid.).
Our rights as members of society have not been created by the government or by laws, but they are natural rights that precede any legislature or ruling. The human reason understands that, as same supported by historical evidence, which is shown in all divinely inspired texts found in the history of mankind. The natural liberty of man is reflected in the right of nature which each person possesses (Allen 1998, 7). That societal freedom, that natural ability to free will and justice, should not and cannot be restrained by any arbitrary authority or power. To oppose such liberty and the natural right of the individual is to oppose not only society as a whole but the natural rights and liberties bestowed upon mankind by God Himself (Ibid.). That means that social movements, and political authorities, that prevent the delivery of justice and natural order, do not represent the real nature of society, but the undermining of the rights of men.
Under the U.S Constitution, the privileges and immunities clause provides that the citizens of each state shall also be entitled to those privileges and immunities of citizens in other states (U.S. Const. art. IV, § 2, cl. 1). This clause was the main provision of the rights of the individual within society, no matter where he is to be located, ensuring that local laws do not diminish those natural laws acknowledged by the Declaration of Independence. Nonetheless, the framers of the Constitution intended to confer on members of society those auxiliary rights that would ensure the protection of “life, liberty, and property”, and nothing more (Berger 1997, 30), due to the fact that those rights were considered fundamental, and God given natural rights, to all men.
Nevertheless, and on this matter, Lon Fuller argues that notwithstanding any belief of the individual about divine intervention incorporated into a society’s legal codes, the natural rights of men are inherently based on the nature of the human race, with or without the assistance of any outside influence (Fuller 1969, 96). To Fuller, natural laws have “nothing to do with any brooding omnipresence in the skies”, but are actually part of the fundamental activities of mankind, and should not interfere with other aspects of life, including morality, personal beliefs, or man-made social intricacies.
The Age of Enlightenment presented society with new ideologies, while questioning the status quo of societal institutions. But the idea that social and political order must be founded on reason and science predates the Enlightenment. The roots of political theory can be traced all the way to Plato’s Republic (Kahn 1989, 463), but in the nascent American democracy, the responsibility of launching a political establishment was placed on the nation-state. Because of this, all political legitimacy should be dependent upon the consent of those being ruled upon or governed. Still, the philosophers of antiquity did not present a distinct concept with regard to a person’s will (Ibid.), and without having a separation between reason and will, they couldn’t formulate the possibility of political legitimacy without political truth.
Since all members of society are believed to be created equal before the eyes of God, without any distinction with regard to lineage or education, reason assumes that they should be treated equally by the law, and by other members of society. Whether this social equality was supported by divine promulgation or natural reasoning, America’s Founders were well aware of the presence of evil in society, and how easily could injustice become part of the day to day dealings of the newly found nation.
It is said that the art of ruling is learnt by man the day he starts to govern, as he faces the various tasks, conflicts, and issues that part of his role. To be a good ruler, a man should discern between good and evil, between right and wrong, between justice and injustice. This leads to the question: what is justice? Black’s Law Dictionary defines justice as “the fair and proper administration of laws.” Still, and even from the time of the Classical Athens, both legal and political theorists have struggled with the issue of justice, and whether it is part of the law, or simply a moral judgement about law (D’Amato 1992, 528).
Most studies on this matter have arrived at two opposite conclusions: justice is either a societal judgement about a particular set of laws, or justice is an intrinsic part of the law itself. It is here where we start dealing with reason and the natural aspect of justice and the rights of men. Natural justice, on its own, is referred as the moral aspect of justice, as opposed to legal justice (Garner 2009, 942). Therefore, the rights of men are protected by the universal conception that all justice is derived either by the nature of man itself, or by divine commandments, and not from legislative or judicial actions (Ibid. 1126).
Miguel de Unamuno describes the relationship between man and God, and reason and justice, when he writes about the nature of God Himself. Justice and reason are presented in God, and in His divine intervention in the lives of men, only when we understand that God, according to Unamuno, must be the supreme reason, and thus, the supreme source of justice. God is only born in the hearts of men when we accept him, and it is then when we become part of His reasoning and justice (Unamuno 1971, 135-137). Yet, the sense of justice and the reason imparted in the human mind is not limited just to its conscience, but to the implementation of those moral principles that have been handed down by generations of thinkers and advocates for the rights of men. This leads us to the need to study public policy, and how it affects the rights of men, and the way that justice works in society.
All social phenomena, including those which relate to the state and the law, must be studied starting with their origin, foundations, development, and their current status in society (Bulté 1988, 54). In the historical process of human societies, from the beginning of time, until our modern times, there has been an almost identical aim to protect the rights of the individual, and to preserve those rights for future generations. In order for us to understand the nature of the state, its policies, and how they relate to members of society, we must first study the origins and developments of said society or state, as well as those factors that influenced its cultural, religious, and legal processes. In recent years, the study of legal sources in the Bible has seen a dramatic change (Welch 2002, 611). The nature of these changes is based not only in the way that legal scholars now view the Bible as a source of living, contemporary law, but also as a historical account about the development of rights, justice, and law itself. And it was in the Bible where our Founding Father looked for in search of guidance and justice.
The idea that the American government is formed by a covenant of the people does not differ from biblical principles on this matter. Based on this agreement between government and society, emulating the ancient covenants between God and man, it is understood by society that the inalienable rights of the individual cannot be infringed upon by the government, nor should those natural rights be subject to punishment by the ruling class (Fischer 1998, 35). The covenantal principles set forth by the Founders, establish that government should be just and fair, and that among its characteristics one shall find a separation or limitation of powers, rule by consent, mutual obligation, self-government, and constitutionalism. Consequently, a covenantal government is defined as one where a covenant or alliance has been established, and where a mutual agreement or understanding, supported by a ratified and mutually agreeable document (in the case of the United States, its Constitution), protects and upholds the rights of the individual, while imparting justice for all.
However, justice is not always a black and white concept, and sometimes there is inherent justice, and at times this same law becomes part of an unjust system of government. For the legal positivist, no matter how regrettable a law might be, whether it is secret or public, it is still part of the legal system. For the criterion for the legitimacy of a law boils down to its enactment, and to the process that led to its promulgation, as long as this was done in accordance to the procedures of the jurisdiction where it belongs (D’Amato 1992, 541). A clear example of this is seen in biblical law. For the biblical scholar, the Bible serves as a detailed source of history and legal codes. For the legal specialist, the biblical texts are an illustration of the legal world of the Israelite nation. Those texts functioned not only as part of the constitution for the people of Israel, but also as codes of civil and criminal procedures, and as a compilation of private and public laws and regulations (Welch 2002, 612). To this day, many misunderstand the nature and purpose of the laws presented by the biblical texts and fail to see their relationship to the historical and cultural circumstances of the times they were enacted on.
With the advent of the Christian religion, the old law became part of the foundations of the new law, both in a theological and legal manner of speaking. The acceptance of Christianity by the Roman emperor Constantine led to great developments in the legal field, as influenced by the new precepts and rules of his newly acquired faith (Lafitsky 2010, 160). Although Constantine only accepted the faith of Jesus’s followers on his deathbed, by opening the doors of the empire to the Christian religion, he also opened the doors to a variety of morals and beliefs, some of which were unknown or foreign to the Roman culture. One of the first signs of the influence of Christianity in the development of the new Roman state and its law was the unification of the empire under a new faith.
The Christian precepts of humility, mercy, and love served as foundations of integrity and justice for the future codes of law that were to be implemented throughout the empire (Ibid.). Along with the ideals of divine justice and just retribution, the implementation of Christianity in the Roman empire allowed for a greater growth of its economy and society. Labor and fraternity brought were part of the early Christian communities, and such beliefs where shared with other members of society, as the former pagan nation became a Christian empire. A new covenant was born between the ruler and his people, between the nation and society. These were determinant factors in holding the nation together, and in preserving justice for all, from the slave to the patrician, from the clergy to the Emperor himself.
Moving forward over a thousand years, we find a similar concept in the mindsets of the New England settlers. Persecuted for their faith, having reached a new promised land, the communities in the New World saw themselves as victims of injustice and oppression, living in a world full of incertitude and dangers. For the new settlers, the secular government had been constituted to achieve goals that were both sacred as well as mundane (Allen 1998, 6). The law of the land was seen as a direct descent of God’s law, as it mainly helped in organizing the local communities in a manner that helped their members to secure and maintain a life that was God-pleasing. Societal institutions, including the secular government, were just part of the tools that facilitated the efforts of the early Americans in pursuing a life that followed God’s precepts and commandments (Ibid.). This was the birth of a new society, a new way of thinking that would eventually pursue new ideals and goals.
The development of new societies is the result of two main basic factors: the development and growth of the economic forces, and the development of a major social institution, the family (Bulté 1988, 56). The general organization of a society, along with the powers and rules that eventually emanate from it, corresponds to the economic and social policies imposed by those who achieve command of the area where said society is founded. Social power and justice are based on the collective conscience of the members of the community, along with their moral authority (Ibid. 57).
Historically, society has been held by traditions, discipline, and by the organization maintained by its leaders, and the respect the latter received by other members of the community. But the success of a society is also based on the justice it upholds, and how it supports the rights of its members. For America, the manner in which its Founders led the people can be characterized as covenantal, as America’s federal form of government was a direct development from covenantal agreements (Allen 1998, 2-3).
When considering the influence of biblical texts in the history of America it is crucial to understand the prevalence of biblical teaching and the religious mentality of the early American settlers. In Colonial America, the Bible played a significant factor in the development of the earliest laws and societal regulations (Welch 2002, 619). Traditionally, the Bible has been regarded a role model of both legal wisdom and social justice, its legal provisions drawing the attention of legal reformers and social advocates. In America, early colonial legislators were not an exception to this, as they drew heavily on the legal precepts or provisions found in the biblical texts (Ibid. 613). John Winthrop, when describing the relationship between the individual right and civic responsibility, as implied in covenant-based institutions, used the word foedus, or federal, which is the Latin word for covenant (Allen 1998, 7).
Winthrop believed that the terms federal, civil, and moral, were synonymous to each other, which implied that the use of these words modified the liberty of the members of a society pursuant to not only the commandments of God, but also the legal restraints imposed by the government. Therefore, the liberty of the individual is linked to the relationship of man with God, and his fulfilment of both moral law and secular regulations. By submitting themselves to the authority of the government, men where submitting at the same time to the authority of God, and His grace. For the Puritan, public policy meant the divine intentions revealed in the Mosaic law and augmented by the Christian faith (Welch 2002, 619). Thus, the rule of the law was not just the rule of man, but the rule of God.
During the birth of the American republic, however, it is believed that some of the Founders had a new, but not altogether different approach toward the relationship between God and society. Various scholars argue that rather than religious men, the Founders were deists, and that such personal beliefs were shown in their writings and the new perspectives presented in the revolutionary movement (Hall 2016, 51). To understand this position, we first must understand the times the Founders lived in, and the society they belonged to. We are describing the 18th century, the Era of the Enlightenment, where there was a great emphasis on reason and intellect, and almost a disdain for those customs associated with traditional Christianity. This is also the time of social and political revolutions, where society rebels against the establishment, seeking to retrieve those divinely inspired rights that government has taken away.
