In the past, Seventh-day Adventist religious liberty advocates regarded the Declaration of Independence as the definitive statement of America’s founding principles and therefore the primary source for correctly interpreting the US Constitution.
During the antebellum period, J. N. Loughborough noted that the Constitution was “professedly based on the Declaration of Independence.”[1] In the decades following the Civil War, the Declaration and its principles continued to be important to Adventists. In an 1895 book, Rights of the People, Alonzo T. Jones advanced an argument contending that the “Constitution originated in the principles of the Declaration of Independence.”[2] His friend, P. T. Magan argued “[t]he Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States are indeed the New and Old Testaments in things pertaining to Cæsar, the one serving as a commentary in the light of which the other must be interpreted.”[3]
Loughborough, Jones, and Magan echoed arguments expressed by John Quincy Adams, the sixth president of the United States who himself expressed the sentiments of his father and the other major founders. Adams was the leading anti-slavery politician in the 1830-40s and much admired by the Adventist pioneers as they were on the same side of many of the most controversial political issues of their day. In 1839, Adams noted that “[t]he Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States are parts of one consistent whole, founded upon one and the same theory of government.”[4] The theory of government that Adams referred to is clearly expressed in the words:
We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
This passage captures the core teaching of the Declaration. It rests on the rational insight that no class of human beings is so superior to other members of their species that they may legitimately govern them without their consent. Adams described the human species as the middle link in what he called “the great chain of being.” He argued that as rational creatures, humanity rises above “the rest of animal creation” and “by our reason we participate of the Divine nature itself.”[5] However, Adams also noted that human beings are not purely rational creatures. They are also influenced by passions and appetites, and their ability to reason is never free from error. Experience teaches that human nature is flawed and incapable of achieving perfection on its own. In short, because human beings share a common nature and occupy the same place between the bestial and divine realms, no one is born with a natural superiority that would entitle them to rule over others without their consent. The principle of equality therefore provides the foundation for legitimate government. In the memorable words of Thomas Jefferson “the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately, by the grace of God.” Natural rights are logical inferences from this understanding of human nature. P. T. Magan wrote:
The Declaration does not mean that all men are equal in all respects. But it does mean and it does say that they are equal in their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. And in this it recognizes the nobility of man as the creation of God, and makes no exception or distinction in favor of any human caste or human lineage.[6]
Thus, nineteenth-century Adventists believed the Constitution was grounded in a doctrine of human equality which recognized the objective, immutable natural rights of all human beings. The Constitution, so understood, did not create people’s rights, but it was written to secure the rights that had been clearly enunciated in the Declaration, rights that belong to all human beings because we are created equal.
Today, however, interpreting the Constitution and its principles has changed. Most legal scholars defend the idea of a “living Constitution,” one that evolves over time in response to changing mores and emerging ideas. On the other side of the contemporary constitutional debate are those constitutional scholars and judges who favor a jurisprudence of “original intent.” This approach denies that constitutional rights rest upon any underlying “idea of natural justice”[7] and instead views the Constitution as a strictly positivist document whose authority derives solely from the will of the people.
Progressive and conservative constitutional scholars disagree about the principles of constitutional interpretation. Nevertheless, contemporary scholars and judges from both camps reject the idea that the natural rights principles of the Declaration provide an authoritative guide for interpreting the Constitution. But if our Adventist pioneers were correct, the principles of the Declaration might still be critical not only for understanding the foundations of religious liberty, but also for fighting against all forms of despotism. For this reason, it is crucial for our church to recover an authentic Adventist understanding of religious liberty and constitutional interpretation.
[1] J. N. Loughborough, The Two-Horned Beast of REV. XIII, A Symbol of The United States. (Review and Herald, 1857), 14.
[2] Alonzo T. Jones, Rights of the People: or Civil Government and Religion (Oakland, CA: Pacific Press, 1895), 57.
[3] Percy T. Magan, The Peril of the Republic, (Chicago: Fleming H. Revell, 1899), 11.
[4] John Quincy Adams, The Jubilee of the Constitution: A Discourse (New York: Samuel Colmon VIII, Astor House, 1839), 40. For an in-depth discussion of Adams’s understanding of the Constitution see Gary V. Wood, Heir to the Fathers: John Quincy Adams and the Spirit of Constitutional Government (Lanham: MD: Lexington Books, 2004).
[5] John Quincy Adams, Lectures on Rhetoric and Oratory, vol. 1 (Cambridge: Hilliard and Metcalf, 1810), 13-14.
[6] Magan, The Peril of the Republic,
[7] William Rehnquest, “The Notion of a Living Constitution,” Texas Law Review 54 (1976): 679.
Dr. Gary Wood is the Associate Professor for Political Science at Andrews University.