By David Q Santos MA, MDiv, PhD

Introduction

Just like many family gatherings today, mixing politics and religion has often been considered taboo or at least unwise. Even some of the men in the Constitutional Congress found reasons to reject Benjamin Franklin’s appeal to daily prayer for God’s guidance in drafting the foundational document of the political experiment now known as the United States of America.[1] Like the preverbal Thanksgiving dinner or the decenters from the call for prayer many historical works decide to just leave religion out of the conversation, especially when it is related to politics. The trouble with this approach to early America is that early America was a nation born into a world of both philosophy and religion. To even attempt to understand the words and rhetoric of early America in that matter should be discouraged as that interpretation will be tainted by one’s own worldview. As historian Joseph Loconte notes, “numerous scholars have overlooked the importance of faith to his political philosophy.”[2] Therefore, the approach taken here will be to draw upon the words of the subjects in their original context and referencing complimentary documents from the same era to let the subjects speak for themselves.

The subjects under examination are two men, both Founding Fathers of the United States of America. The first is John Witherspoon, a preacher and professor who holds the distinction of being the only minister to sign the Declaration of Independence. He also held the honor of serving as the president of the College of New Jersey, now known as Princeton. And though he is one of the less known founding fathers of the United States of America, Thomas miller describes him as a “central figure for anyone interested in understanding rhetorical theory and practice in eighteenth-century America.” He also noted that some “have concluded that he was the first significant rhetorical theorist in America.”[3]

The second is one of Witherspoon’s many prominent pupils, James Madison. Madison earned his degree from Princeton and then stayed an additional year while studying directly with Witherspoon. This study will compare Madison’s philosophy of politics found in The Federalist Papers with Witherspoon’s first political sermon The Dominion of Providence Over the Passions of Men. In this sermon Witherspoon articulates his theology of liberty and support of the war against the British that was heating up. Madison’s essays in The Federalist Papers represent a type of document whereby Madison (along with Hamilton and Jay) argues for his philosophy of government as the architect of the Constitution which he desired to see ratified. These are the papers where Madison publicly argues for his own philosophy. As a student of Witherspoon, one expects to see many places where Witherspoon and Madison are in agreement as well as where they diverge from one another.

Witherspoon: The Dominion of Providence Over the Passions of Men

Surely the Wrath of Man shall praise thee; the remainder of Wrath shalt thou restrain.

Psalm 76:10

John Witherspoon opened the door to his public and overt support and involvement into the politics of revolutionary war with his first political sermon given at Princeton University in May of 1776, just weeks before signing the Declaration of Independence. This sermon “signaled his support for American independence” as he began to detail his theology of politics and liberty.[4] Dominion of Providence was quickly republished the following month, on June 22, 1776 and began to be circulated. Witherspoon’s sermon was reprinted at least five times in the colonies and in Europe causing a stir among those that read it.[5] Witherspoon preaching Dominion “stirred ideas and values that were uncharacteristic of his Scottish ecclesiastical career.”[6] Dominion is, on one hand, a Calvinistic treatise that offers an optimistic outlook for Christian people. On the other hand, it is a realistic apologetic for the necessity of rebellion from an oppressive government and corrupt ecclesiastical system were both civil and religious rights and liberty were being stomped on. The sermon’s apologetic nature takes a clear progression from the dominion of God through four theological points by which rebellion becomes a moral imperative for the godly. Certainly, Witherspoon knew that liberty could have a cost. As Gideon Mailer noted, it would only be a few months later when the cost would be realized by Witherspoon at the loss of two sons, one dead and the other imprisoned. Mailer also notes that Witherspoon’s personal library would be burned by British soldiers. The imagery of the classical works from Greek and Latin authors burning seems fitting as Witherspoon’s sermon was filled with the wisdom from these books. His ideas stirred up his audience and prepared them for what would be the hard-fought revolution.[7]

John Witherspoon’s message The Dominion of Providence over the Passions of Men is both a theologically rich sermon and a well-crafted philosophy of liberty. In this study Dominion is examined systematically. The systematic analysis will examine Witherspoon’s sermon in three topics; providence, nature of man, and liberty. When necessary the study draws upon additional works of Witherspoon for clarity of Witherspoon’s meaning. Witherspoon’s meaning will then be compared to Madison on the same topic from The Federalist Papers.

The Theology and Philosophy of Providence

Witherspoon’ Theology

Providence is an important doctrine to Witherspoon’s worldview. It was likely his influence that led to the Declaration of Independence inclusion of the phrase  “with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence.”^[8] Therefore, it should be of no surprise that “providence” is an important theme to Dominion. The title of the sermon provides that much information. Morrison makes this point writing, “The ‘Dominion of Providence’ was, as its title implies, a predictable Calvinist discourse on the general sovereignty of God, inspired by Psalm 76:10.”[9] Morrison is right in his observation that providence would be a predictable theme for the Calvinist pastor. However, one should not consider providence a minor topic within Witherspoon’s sermon. It is an essential part of Witherspoon’s concept of liberty and rebellion as will be demonstrated through the systematic analysis of Dominion. Witherspoon uses the word “providence” fifteen times in the text of Dominion which provides ample opportunity to understand Witherspoon’s reliance on providence. Drawing from Scripture, Witherspoon explains that providence is God’s universal presence, attention, influence, and operation of God’s providence.[10] (emphasis added) Witherspoon will conclude his sermon with an appeal that describes human existence in terms as though human existence is within a bubble of God’s providence, providence requires true religion, and asks God to grant America true religion that produces civic liberty that is indivisible from religious liberty. Witherspoon is clearly establishing his view that America is unique, and he asserts in prayerful fashion that America would have true religion which equates to being united with the will of the God of providence which requires religious and civic liberty.[11] Witherspoon uses the rhetorical device of providence to argue for the superiority of the American experience setting the enemy of the rebellion as standing against the will of God, as with David and Goliath, where the colonies are David and Britain is the debase Philistines championed by a giant.[12]

Providence Compared to Madison

Some would argue that Madison was “not necessarily known as outspoken regarding his Christianity.” ^[13] Yet, when it came to Franklin’s appeal to prayer at the Constitutional Congress that was noted earlier in this study, Madison “made the motion that the Convention delegates accept Benjamin Franklin’s appeal for prayer, a motion seconded by Roger Sherman.”^[14] Madison sees in the completion of the Constitution the hand of God Himself and in the Federalist 37 writes of being directed by God’s finger to overcome difficulties. He observes, “It is impossible for the man of pious reflection not to perceive in it a finger of that Almighty hand which has been so frequently and signally extended to our relief in the critical stages of the revolution.”^[15] James Madison does not use the language of the great theologian. Madison is direct in his application of providence placing the idea of God orchestrating the events and even ideas of the establishment of government as defined in the constitution as illuminated by God Almighty. For the skeptic, Madison includes the notion that that the medium by which God directs men is dim, though it is still the Almighty that is communicating and providentially directing man.[16] Witherspoon’s sermon places man within the realm of providence regardless of their belief system or their status. In Witherspoon’s estimation everyone has a duty to find the truth of God and the Gospel. Witherspoon portrays the providence in an optimistic fashion that allows for people to operate within God’s providence in an honorable way. Witherspoon unites the idea of duty and providence, writing, “It is the duty of every good man to place the most unlimited confidence in divine wisdom, and to believe that those measures of providence that are most unintelligible to him, are yet planned with the same skill, and directed to the same great purposes as others, the reason and tendency of which he can explain in the clearest manner.”[17] Madison saw the finger of the Almighty as the driving force that overcame the challenges of drafting the constitution. In this matter Madison affirms, like Witherspoon, that the new nation is a nation created by God Almighty. Madison wrote, “it is impossible to consider the degree of concord which ultimately prevailed as less than a miracle.”[18] Both Madison and Witherspoon see America as a nation established for God’s purpose.[19] Both see this responsibility through the lenses of a Christian worldview where they expect the majority to hold to a similar worldview.

The Theology and Philosophy of the Nature of Man

Witherspoon

The link between providence and human nature is important in examining both Witherspoon and Madison. The theology of human nature is the lynch pin between providence and protection of liberty. Witherspoon goes so far as to note that if human nature were not corrupt then heaven would be a place on earth. He stated, “the disorders in human society, and the greatest part even of the unhappiness we are exposed to, arises from the envy, malice, covetousness, and other lusts of man. If we and all about us were just what we ought to be in all respects, we should not need to go any further for heaven, for it would be upon earth.”[20] A key aspect of Witherspoon’s sermon is to prove and reflect on the depravity of nature and the “the corruption of our nature, which is the foundation stone of the doctrine of redemption.”[21] Witherspoon also makes his view clear that those with a corrupt nature are still subject to God and thus also obligated to the providence of God. On this he wrote, “…in the course of nature; and even so the most impetuous and disorderly passions of men, that are under no restraint from themselves, are yet perfectly subject to the dominion of Jehovah.”[22] While Witherspoon points to what he believes is the human condition, corrupt and disorderly, there is an optimism to his theology. In contrast to the selfish nature there is another nature for God’s saints or believers. Those saints are sanctified and overcome the selfish nature. Witherspoon refers to this in a contrasting manner of the “salutary nature” and the “sanctifying influence.” Marrow understands Witherspoon’s view of human nature and passion in the following fashion, “Passion, for example, was accepted as an inherent, observable part of human nature; it could both lead people to undertake moral actions and it could make a person “quicksighted,” inflamed, and driven to vice.”[23] However, Witherspoon does not put a positive spin on passion or human nature apart from sanctification in the Gospel. Witherspoon’s optimism is that the human nature and passion can be overcome because of sanctification and an observation of the presence of God.

Madison

It is not clear whether Madison’s view of human nature is totally the product of Biblical anthropology as it would be of Witherspoon. It is likely that Madison is also drawing on the philosophy from his classical education that was still provided by Witherspoon. Gideon Mailer points out that “Madison defended the new American Constitution by asserting that the ‘latent causes of faction’ were ‘sown in the nature of man.’”[24] Madison’s view of human nature leads him to be concerned about factions that can form. Madison addresses human nature in several of his essays in The Federalist Papers including number 55. In that essay Madison describes the two natures that people have, one of dignity and the other of depravity. In evangelical theology the dignity would originate from mankind being made in the image of God. The depravity has its origin in the original sin. Madison wrote, “As there is a degree of depravity in mankind which requires a certain degree of circumspection and distrust, so there are other qualities in human nature which justify a certain portion of esteem and confidence.”^[25] Mailer noted that Madison described human nature as being prone to factions which is an element of the nature of man that Madison is concerned with. He wanted to deal with the propensity to form factions by which the government could be overthrown or one faction could dominate other minority groups. Madison was well aware that some would eventually take advantage of the system and that moral traditions and religion would not prevail against the immoral faction that desired power and oppression.[26] Where Witherspoon had confidence that the redeemed would aspire to the greater good while living in the providence of God Almighty, Madison is less confident that the faults of human nature can be overcome without some kind of mechanism built into the system for protections of rights and liberty. This holds true for both religious and civic liberty. Madison’s policy became to set factions against one other. Let them have their selfish whims but keep them small and spread out. In The Federalist Papers 51 Madison explains his solution. He wrote, “There are but two methods of providing against this evil: the one by creating a will in the community independent of the majority—that is, of the society itself; the other, by comprehending in the society so many separate descriptions of citizens as will render an unjust combination of a majority of the whole very improbable, if not impracticable.”^[27] Madison adopted Witherspoon’s view of human nature, but only that of the natural or corrupt state. Madison did not appear to have confidence in the ecclesiastical piety that would produce a faction of moralists. Michael McConnell explains, “The Federalist Nos. IO and 5I, is to understand factions, including religious factions, as a source of peace and stability. If there are enough factions, they will check and balance one another and frustrate attempts to monopolize or oppress, no matter how in- tolerant or fanatical any particular sect may be.”[28] Madison had already seen that good men would ignore the greater good of nation building in favor of their own inclinations. These are the challenges that were overcome in drafting a national constitution. If left to their own devises, apart from the providence of God the constitution would not exist as noted previously in Madison’s writings. While Madison breaks to a degree with Witherspoon’s optimistic outlook he is in agreement with the theology of Witherspoon’s Biblical anthropology. As Mailer notes, “His greater realism did not deny the role of factionalism—even moral discrepancy—in human association. In this respect, at least, he did not contradict the Calvinistic emphasis of his earlier learning. He would construct a national constitution with the human propensity for factionalism, egoism, and disorder at the forefront of his mind.”[29]

The Theology and Philosophy of Liberty of Witherspoon and Madison

Witherspoon concludes his sermon with the prayer, “God grant that in America true religion and civil liberty may be inseparable, and that the unjust attempts to destroy the one, may in the issue tend to the support and establishment of both”[30] which as noted earlier in this study is related to the topic of providence. Witherspoon’s solution for factions is true religion. This is a world where even those outside of Witherspoon’s orthodoxy are still part of greater Christendom such as Catholics. Witherspoon fought to end persecution of Catholics just as Madison fought to end persecution of Baptists in Virginia. The key principle seems to be a religion that did not do harm to the greater community. Both men would have been aware of the persecution of the Anglican church which is perhaps why Madison was less optimistic about the ability of religion to solve the issue of factions. Witherspoon’s appeal to true religion is that of an outward conduct that is representative of an inward temper while recognizing a providential circumstance. Morrow observes that it is the problem of human nature, factions, and the necessity of protecting liberty that led to “rejection of pure democracy and its invitation to popular participation.”[31]

Witherspoon’s concept of liberty and theology of rebellion is that America had the opportunity to exist with an “undefiled religion” and a nation where morality would be the social norm to be a “friend to American Liberty.”[32] Witherspoon wrote, “The magistrate ought to defend the rights of conscience, and tolerate all in their religious sentiments that are not injurious to their neighbors.”^[33]

The religious protection would include protection from having one’s conscience manipulated by force. [34] In his lectures of moral philosophy Witherspoon describes this philosophy as allowing a person to “judge for himself in matters of religion” and the government providing protections against religious discrimination for one’s choices.^[35] This rhetoric is the key to a theology of rebellion. Witherspoon and Madison have both concluded that liberty must be protected. Those that oppress religious and/or civic liberties are an enemy of the country as well as of God. Therefore, rebellion becomes a moral and religious duty. It would also be a duty to rebel against any ecclesiastic system that oppresses other Christian denominations including Roman Catholicism, such as the Church of England. Madison did not employ the same language of Witherspoon who seems to argue for a special covenant between God and the United States of America. As Morrison notes, “Engaged as they were in a desperate war with Great Britain, ‘public bodies, as well as private persons,’ were urged by Witherspoon and Congress ‘to reverence the Providence of God, and look up to Him as the supreme disposer of all events.’”[36] Witherspoon’s appeal to the greater cause is bound back to providence in his theology. He argues that protections of liberty must go beyond the civic. He knows that the fervent servant of God will not comply with unjust or sinful regulations. He wrote, “Another reason why the servants of God are represented as troublesome is, because they will not, and dare not comply with the sinful commandments of men. In matters merely civil, good men are the most regular citizens and the most obedient subjects. But, as they have a Master in heaven, no earthly power can constrain them to deny his name or desert his cause.”^[37] In the Federalist 51 Madison agrees with Witherspoon’s argument that both civil and religious liberties must be preserved together.[38] Madison wrote, “In a free government the security for civil rights must be the same as that for religious rights” which seems to mimic Witherspoon’s argument for protecting civil and religious freedoms.^[39]

Conclusion

Witherspoon’s Dominion of Providence is more than a theological sermon. It represents Witherspoon’s theology of rebellion and government. It reveals that his view of providence and human nature lead to an imperative to create a new nation devoid of the oppression of the British civic and religious systems. He is clearly arguing that America is a nation with a covenant with God and therefore will providentially prevail. Much of Madison’s argument for government building mimics the theology of Witherspoon, though Madison stretches the boundaries in favor of stronger protections than perhaps Witherspoon would have sought. Although
 Madison’s thinking follows closely with Witherspoon’s theological progression expressed in Dominion of Providence. Though many have missed a key point, Witherspoon and Madison both wrote from a Christian worldview. When they speak of religious protections, they do distinguish those protections are for religions or denominations that could fit into a framework of this liberated society. Both men have a desire to see the Unites States of America exist within the providence of God providing a nation of true religion dwelling in the providence of God Almighty.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Primary Sources

Madison, James. Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments, [ca. 20 June] 1785. In the Madison Papers. Washington D.C.: National Archives Founders Online. https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/01-08-02-0163.

_____. The Federalist Number 10 The Utility of the Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and Insurrection (continued). Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems, 1998.

_____. The Federalist Number 37 Concerning the Difficulties of the Convention in Devising a Proper Form of Government. Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems, 1998.

_____. The Federalist Number 51 The Structure of the Government Must Furnish the Proper Checks and Balances Between the Different Departments. Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems, 1998.

_____. The Federalist Number 55 The Total Number of the House of Representatives. Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems, 1998.

_____. To Thomas Jefferson from James Madison, 24 October 1787. In the Madison Papers. Washington D.C.: National Archives Founders Online. https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/01-12-02-0274.

Witherspoon, John. “The Dominion of Providence Over the Passions of Men. A Sermon Preached at Princeton on the 17^th of May 1776.” In Political Sermons of the American Founding Era, Volume 1, 1730-1805, edited by Ellis Sandoz, 529-558. Carmel, IN: Liberty Fund Inc., 1998.

__________. “Delivered at a Public Thanksgiving After Peace: Sermon 45” In The Works of the Rev. John Witherspoon D.D., Second Edition. Philadelphia: William W. Woodward, 1815.

__________. “Lectures on Moral Philosophy: Lecture XIV Jurisprudence.” In The Works of the Rev. John Witherspoon D.D., Second Edition. Philadelphia: William W. Woodward, 1815.

__________. “The Charge of Sedition and Faction Against Good Men, Especially Faithful Ministers.” In The Works of the Rev. John Witherspoon D.D.,” Second Edition. Philadelphia: William W. Woodward, 1815.

Secondary Sources

Brant, Irving. James Madison—Father of the Constitution, 1787–1800. New York: Bobbs-Merrill, 1950.

Bow, Charles Bradford. “Reforming Witherspoon’s Legacy at Princeton: John Witherspoon, Samuel Stanhope Smith and James McCosh on Didactic Enlightenment, 1768-1888,” History of European Ideas 39, no. (2013): 650-69.

Foster, James. “Of the civil magistrate: John Witherspoon’s doubly religious Toleration,” Global Intellectual History 5, no. 2 (2020): 264-78.

Mailer, Gideon. John Witherspoon’s American Revolution: Enlightenment and Religion from the Creation of Britain to the Founding of the United States. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2017.

Morrison, Jeffry H. John Witherspoon and the Founding of the American Republic: Catholicism in American Culture, 113-28. Notre Dame, Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press, 2005.

Gaustad, Edwin S. Faith of the Founders: Religion and the New Nation, 1776–1826. Waco: Baylor University Press, 2011.

Gingrich, Robert D. Faith and Freedom: The Founding Fathers in Their Own Words. Uhrichsville: Barbour Publishing, Inc., 2012.

Loconte, Joseph. “Faith and the Founding: The Influence of Religion on the Politics of James Madison.” Journal of Church and State 45, no. 4 (Autumn 2003): 699-715.

McConnell, Michael W. “The Origins and Historical Understanding of Free Exercise of Religion.” Harvard Law Review 103, no. 7 (May 1990): 409-1517.

Morrison, Jeffrey Hays. “John Witherspoon and ‘The Public Interest of Religion.’” Journal of Church and State 41, no 3 (Summer 1999): 551-573.

Morrow, Terence S. “Common Sense Deliberative Practice: John Witherspoon, James Madison, and the U.S. Constitution.” Rhetoric Society Quarterly 29 no. 1 (Winter, 1999): 25-47.

Miller, Thomas. “John Witherspoon and Scottish Rhetoric and Moral Philosophy in America.” Rhetorica 10, no 4 (1992): 381–403.

Wallbuilders. Franklin’s Appeal for Prayer at the Constitutional Convention, Accessed October 1, 2020, https://wallbuilders.com/franklins-appeal-prayer-constitutional-convention/.

---

[1] Irving Brant, James Madison—Father of the Constitution, 1787–1800 (New York: Bobbs-Merrill, 1950), Vol. III, 84. For a discussion of the debate and possible fallacies surrounding the call to prayer see, Wallbuilders, Franklin’s Appeal for Prayer at the Constitutional Convention, Accessed October 1, 2020, https://wallbuilders.com/franklins-appeal-prayer-constitutional-convention/.

[2] Joseph Loconte, “Faith and the Founding: The Influence of Religion on the Politics of James Madison,” Journal of Church and State 45, no. 4 (Autumn 2003): 699.

[3] Miller, Thomas, “John Witherspoon and Scottish Rhetoric and Moral Philosophy in America,” Rhetorica 10, no 4 (1992): 381.

[4] Gideon Mailer, John Witherspoon’s American Revolution: Enlightenment and Religion from the Creation of Britain to the Founding of the United States (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2017): 26.

[5] John Witherspoon, “The Dominion of Providence Over the Passions of Men. A Sermon Preached at Princeton on the 17^th of May 1776,” in Political Sermons of the American Founding Era, Volume 1, 1730-1805, ed. Ellis Sandoz (Carmel, IN: Liberty Fund Inc., 1998): 532.

[6] Charles Bradford Bow, “Reforming Witherspoon’s Legacy at Princeton: John Witherspoon, Samuel Stanhope Smith and James McCosh on Didactic Enlightenment, 1768-1888,” History of European Ideas 39, no. (2013): 654.

[7] Mailer, 1.

^[8] Robert D. Gingrich, Faith & Freedom: The Founding Fathers in Their Own Words (Uhrichsville, OH: Barbour Books, 2012), Chapter 6.

[9] Jeffry H. Morrison, John Witherspoon and the Founding of the American Republic: Catholicism in American Culture (Notre Dame, Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press, 2005) 20.

[10] Witherspoon, Dominion, 533.

[11] Ibid, 533, 558.

[12] Ibid, 547.

^[13] Gingrich, Chapter 7.

^[14] Ibid.

^[15] James Madison, The Federalist Number 37 Concerning the Difficulties of the Convention in Devising a Proper Form of Government, (Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems, 1998), 7.

[16] Madison, Federalist 37, 10.

[17] Witherspoon, Dominion, 535.

[18] James Madison, To Thomas Jefferson from James Madison, 24 October 1787, in the Madison Papers, Washington D.C.: National Archives Founders Online. https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/01-12-02-0274.

[19] John Witherspoon. “Delivered at a Public Thanksgiving After Peace: Sermon 45,” in The Works of the Rev. John Witherspoon D.D., Second Edition. (Philadelphia: William W. Woodward, 1815), 61. Witherspoon’s Thanksgiving sermon is devoted to the topic of divine providence in the establishment and victory of liberty for the colonies. He explains all of the ways in which God providentially provided for the establishment of the United States of America and what the nation owes God in return.

[20] Witherspoon, Dominion, 536.

[21] Ibid.

[22] Ibid, 533.

[23] Morrow, 27.

[24] Mailer, 38.

^[25] James Madison. The Federalist Number 55 The Total Number of the House of Representatives, (Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems, 1998), 9.

[26] James Madison, The Federalist Number 10 The Utility of the Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and Insurrection (continued), (Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems, 1998.), 12.

^[27] James Madison, The Federalist Number 51 The Structure of the Government Must Furnish the Proper Checks and Balances Between the Different Departments, (Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems, 1998), 10.

[28] Michael W. McConnell, “The Origins and Historical Understanding of Free Exercise of Religion,” Harvard Law Review 103, no. 7 (May 1990): 1515.

[29] Mailer, 410.

[30] Witherspoon, Dominion, 558.

[31] Morrow, 32.

[32] Witherspoon, Dominion, 554.

^[33] John Witherspoon “Lectures on Moral Philosophy: Lecture XIV Jurisprudence,” The Works of the Rev. John Witherspoon, Second Edition, Revised and Corrected., vol. 3 (Philadelphia: William W. Woodward, 1802), 448.

[34] James Foster, “Of the Civil Magistrate: John Witherspoon’s Doubly Religious Toleration,” Global Intellectual History 5, no. 2, (2020): 272.

^[35] Witherspoon, Jurisprudence, 448.

[36] Morrison,21.

^[37] John Witherspoon, “The Charge of Sedition and Faction Against Good Men, Especially Faithful Ministers,” in The Works of the Rev. John Witherspoon D.D.,” Second Edition, (Philadelphia: William W. Woodward, 1815), 415.

[38] Madison, Federalist 51, 4-10.

^[39] Ibid, 10.