Considering Witherspoon’s influence upon the American Presbyterian Church prior to and during the 1788 revision of the Westminster Standards, as well as his likely authorship of what is now the PCA’s first Preliminary Principle, it is unlikely his form of “state-supported religion” is inconsistent with the American Westminster Standards or the Preliminary Principles. It is far more likely that the 1788 Constitution of the American Presbyterian Church allowed for—and even favored—a soft establishment of Christianity.

In debates over the civil government’s relationship to Christianity, some Presbyterians of late have expressed opposition to any form of Christian civil government. In support of their position, they regularly cite two Presbyterian documents: (1) the American revisions to the Westminster Standards, especially Westminster Confession chapter 23, and (2) and the first Preliminary Principle of the PCA’s Constitution. Below we will focus on the latter but also refer to the former.

The PCA’s First Preliminary Principle

The Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) has eight “Preliminary Principles” in its Book of Church Order, the first of which says:

God alone is Lord of the conscience and has left it free from any doctrines or commandments of men (a) which are in any respect contrary to the Word of God, or (b) which, in regard to matters of faith and worship, are not governed by the Word of God. Therefore, the rights of private judgment in all matters that respect religion are universal and inalienable.  No religious constitution should be supported by the civil power further than may be necessary for protection and security equal and common to all others.

This principle is not unique to the PCA, as it comes from the introductory “general principles” of the Constitution of the 1788 American Presbyterian Church. Thus, the Book of Church Order of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC), also a descendent of the 1788 Presbyterian Church, has similar language that “church officers or judicatories…may not inflict any civil penalties nor may they seek the aid of the civil power in the exercise of their jurisdiction further than may be necessary for civil protection and security.” (Form of Government, 3.4)

However, the PCA’s first Preliminary Principle is much closer to the 1788 version, as both quote Westminster Confession 20.2 (“God alone is Lord of the conscience…”), followed by language about private judgment and religious constitutions.[1] Opponents of Christian government argue that since “the rights of private judgment in all matters that respect religion are universal and inalienable,” this means that the civil magistrate is not to interfere with religious beliefs in any way. Some would argue that in application this prohibits the magistrate from enforcing Sabbath laws or laws against public blasphemy. Like this first Preliminary Principle, the American version of the Westminster Confession (1788) says that “no law of any commonwealth should interfere with, let, or hinder, the due exercise thereof, among the voluntary members of any denomination of Christians.” (WCF 23.3)

The Text and Context of the American Presbyterian Constitution

In response, we should note that WCF 23.3 explicitly refers to “any denomination of Christians,” which means that the limitation on the magistrate here is in reference to hindering the religious exercise of Christians. But there is no prohibition on the magistrate punishing public blasphemy or enforcing laws to protect the Sabbath or any other measure to protect Christian worship and practice. In fact, WCF 23.3 still refers to magistrates as “nursing fathers,” per Isaiah 49:23, and WCF 23.2 requires the magistrate to “maintain piety.”

Indeed, in 1798, the General Assembly agreed to support a “society established in Philadelphia to aid the civil magistrate in the suppression of vice and immorality.” (See the 1793 letter by Rev. Ashbel Green—chaplain to the U.S. Congress from 1792 to 1800—and other ministers who petitioned the Pennsylvania legislature for “the suppression of vice and immorality,” calling for “some effectual provision for the orderly and religious observation of the Lord’s day; for the prevention and punishment of the profanation of the name of God, and every species of impious imprecation.”)

George Washington seemed to echo the General Assembly’s interest in maintaining Christian piety in his letter to the Assembly:

While all men within our territories are protected in worshipping the Deity according to the dictates of their consciences; it is rationally to be expected from them in return, that they will be emulous of evincing the sincerity of their profession by the innocence of their lives, and the beneficence of their actions: For no man, who is profligate in his morals, or a bad member of the civil community, can possibly be a true Christian, or a credit to his own religious society.

While the Assembly removed the right of the magistrate to call synods, they were evidently eager to receive the approval of the “chief magistrate,” entitling him a “friend of the Christian religion,” and praising him as one who “adorns the doctrines of the gospel of Christ” and “on the most public and solemn occasions, devoutly acknowledges the government of divine Providence.”

As for the first Preliminary Principle, the language of “conscience” is directly tied to “the Word of God,” which sets the context for “the rights of private judgment in all matters that respect religion” (see also WCF 20.2). This is speaking of the Christian religion, not atheism or false religions. Moreover, the first Preliminary Principle speaks of “private” opinions, not opinions expressed publicly. So again, this does not prohibit the magistrate from punishing public blasphemy or enforcing laws to protect the Sabbath and the public worship of God. (In fact, the General Assembly sent several petitions calling Congress to uphold the Sabbath in the early nineteenth century.)

Rev. John Rodgers (1727–1811) of New York City was likely the most influential in the 1788 American confessional revisions and constitutional developments, as he was the only individual to have been on every committee related to drafting the Plan of Government (1788).[2]

Read More