Oration – July 4th- 1837


An

Oration

Delivered

Before the Inhabitants

of

the Town of Newburyport,

at their request,

on the Sixty-First Anniversary

of

theDeclaration of Independence,

July 4th, 1837.

By John Quincy Adams.

“Say ye not, A Confederacy, to all them to whom this people shall say A Confederacy; neither fear ye their fear, nor be afraid.” Isaiah 8:12.

ORATION.Why is it, Friends and Fellow Citizens, that you are here assembled? Why is it, that, entering upon the sixty-second year of our national existence, you have honored with an invitation to address you from this place, a fellow citizen of a former age, bearing in the records of his memory, the warm and vivid affections which attached him, at the distance of a full half century, to your town, and to your forefathers, then the cherished associates of his youthful days? Why is it that, next to the birthday of the Savior of the World, your most joyous and most venerated festival returns on this day? – And why is it that, among the swarming myriads of our population, thousands and tens of thousands among us, abstaining, under the dictate of religious principle, from the commemoration of that birth-day of Him, who brought life and immortality to light, yet unite with all their brethren of this community, year after year, in celebrating this, the birth-day of the nation? Is it not that, in the chain of human events, the birthday of the nation is indissolubly linked with the birthday of the Savior? That it forms a leading event in the progress of the gospel dispensation?

Is it not that the Declaration of Independence first organized the social compact on the foundation of the Redeemer’s mission upon earth? That it laid the corner stone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity, and gave to the world the first irrevocable pledge of the fulfillment of the prophecies, announced directly from Heaven at the birth of the Savior and predicted by the greatest of the Hebrew prophets six hundred years before? Cast your eyes backwards upon the progress of time, sixty-one years from this day; and in the midst of the horrors and desolations of civil war, you behold an assembly of Planters, Shopkeepers and Lawyers, the Representatives of the People of thirteen English Colonies in North America, sitting in the City of Philadelphia. These fifty-five men, on that day, unanimously adopt and publish to the world, a state paper under the simple title of ‘A DECLARATION.’

The object of this Declaration was two-fold. First, to proclaim the People of the thirteen United Colonies, one People, and in their name, and by their authority, to dissolve the political bands which had connected them with another People, that is, the People of Great Britain. Secondly, to assume, in the name of this one People, of the thirteen United Colonies, among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station, to which the Laws of Nature, and of Nature’s God, entitled them. With regard to the first of these purposes, the Declaration alleges a decent respect to the opinions of mankind, as requiring that the one people, separating themselves from another, should declare the causes, which impel them to the separation. – The specification of these causes, and the conclusion resulting from them, constitute the whole paper. The Declaration was a manifesto, issued from a decent respect of the opinions of mankind, to justify the People of the North American Union, for their voluntary separation from the People of Great Britain, by alleging the causes which rendered this separation necessary. The Declaration was, thus far, merely an occasional state paper, issued for a temporary purpose, to justify, in the eyes of the world, a People, in revolt against their acknowledged Sovereign, for renouncing their allegiance to him, and dissolving their political relations with the nation over which he presided. For the second object of the Declaration, the assumption among the powers of the earth of the separate and equal station, to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitled them, no reason was assigned, – no justification was deemed necessary.

The first and chief purpose of the Declaration of Independence was interesting to those by whom it was issued, to the people, their constituents in whose name it was promulgated, and to the world of mankind to whom it was addressed, only during that period of time, in which the independence of the newly constituted people was contested, by the wager of battle. Six years of War, cruel, unrelenting, merciless War, – War, at once civil and foreign, were waged, testing the firmness and fortitude of the one People, in the inflexible adherence to that separation from the other, which their Representatives in Congress had proclaimed. By the signature of the Preliminary Articles of Peace, on the 30th of November 1782, their warfare was accomplished, and the Spirit of the Lord, with a voice reaching to the latest of future ages, might have exclaimed, like the sublime prophet of Israel, – Comfort ye, comfort ye my people, saith your God [Isaiah 40:1]. But, from that day forth, the separation of the one People from the other was a solitary fact in their common history; a mere incident in the progress of human events, not more deserving of special and annual commemoration by one of the separated parts, than by the other. Still less were the causes of the separation subjects for joyous retrospection by either of the parties. – The causes were acts of misgovernment committed by the King and Parliament of Great Britain. In the exasperation of the moment they were alleged to be acts of personal tyranny and oppression by the King.

George the third was held individually responsible for them all. The real and most culpable oppressor, the British Parliament, was not even named in the bill of pains and penalties brought against the monarch. – They were described only as “others” combined with him; and, after a recapitulation of all the grievances with which the Colonies had been afflicted by usurped British Legislation, the dreary catalogue was closed by the sentence of unqualified condemnation, that a prince, whose character was thus marked by every act which might define a tyrant, was unworthy to be the ruler of a free people. The King, thus denounced by a portion of his subjects, casting off their allegiance to his crown, has long since gone to his reward. His reign was long, and disastrous to his people, and his life presents a melancholy picture of the wretchedness of all human grandeur; but we may now, with the candor of impartial history, acknowledge that he was not a tyrant. His personal character was endowed with many estimable qualities. His intentions were good; his disposition benevolent; his integrity unsullied; his domestic virtues exemplary; his religious impressions strong and conscientious; his private morals pure; his spirit munificent, in the promotion of the arts, literature and sciences; and his most fervent wishes devoted to the welfare of his people. But he was born to be a hereditary king, and to exemplify in his life and history the irremediable vices of that political institution, which substitutes birth for merit, as the only qualification for attaining the supremacy of power. George the third believed that the Parliament of Great Britain had the right to enact laws for the government of the people of the British Colonies in all cases. An immense majority of the people of the British Islands believed the same. That people were exclusively the constituents of the British House of Commons, where the project of taxing the people of the Colonies for a revenue originated; and where the People of the Colonies were not represented. The purpose of the project was to alleviate the burden of taxation bearing upon the people of Britain, by levying a portion of it upon the people of the Colonies. – At the root of all this there was a plausible theory of sovereignty, and unlimited power in Parliament, conflicting with the vital principle of English Freedom, that taxation and representation are inseparable, and that taxation without representation is a violation of the right of property. Here was a conflict between two first principles of government, resulting from a defect in the British Constitution: the principle that sovereign power in human Government is in its nature unlimited: and the principle that property can lawfully be taxed only with the consent of its owner.

Now these two principles, carried out into practice, are utterly irreconcilable with each other. The lawyers of Great Britain held them both to be essential principles of the British Constitution. – In their practical application, the King and Parliament and people of Great Britain, appealed for the right to tax the Colonies to the unlimited and illimitable sovereignty of the Parliament. – The Colonists appealed to the natural right of property, and the articles of the Great Charter. The collision in the application of these two principles was the primitive cause of the severance of the North American Colonies, from the British Empire. The grievances alleged in the Declaration of Independence were all secondary causes, amply sufficient to justify before God and man the separation itself; and that resolution, to the support of which the fifty-five Representatives of the One People of the United Colonies pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor, after passing through the fiery ordeal of a six years war, was sanctioned by the God of Battles, and by the unqualified acknowledgment of the defeated adversary.

This, my countrymen, was the first and immediate purpose of the Declaration of Independence. It was to justify before the tribunal of public opinion, throughout the world, the solemn act of separation of the one people from the other. But this is not the reason for which you are here assembled. The question of right and wrong involved in the resolution of North American Independence was of transcendent importance to those who were actors in the scene. A question of life, of fortune, of fame, of eternal welfare. To you, it is a question of nothing more than historical interest. The separation itself was a painful and distressing event; a measure resorted to by your forefathers with extreme reluctance, and justified by them, in their own eyes, only as a dictate of necessity. – They had gloried in the name of Britons: It was a passport of honor throughout the civilized world. They were now to discard it forever, with all its tender and all its generous sympathies, for a name obscure and unknown, the honest fame of which was to be achieved by the gallantry of their own exploits and the wisdom of their own counsels. But, with the separation of the one people from the other, was indissolubly connected another event. They had been British Colonies, – distinct and separate subordinate portions of one great community. In the struggle of resistance against one common oppressor, by a moral centripetal impulse they had spontaneously coalesced into One People. They declare themselves such in express terms by this paper. – The members of the Congress, who signed their names to the Declaration, style themselves the Representatives, not of the separate Colonies, but of the United States of America in Congress assembled. No one Colony is named in the Declaration, nor is there any thing on its face, indicating from which of the Colonies, any one of the signers was delegated. They proclaim the separation of one people from another. – They affirm the right of the People, to institute, alter, and abolish their Government: – and their final language is, “we do, in the name, and by the authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare that these United Colonies, are and of right ought to be FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES.”

The Declaration was not, that each of the States was separately Free and Independent, but that such was their united condition. And so essential was their union, both in principle and in fact, to their freedom and independence, that, had one of the Colonies seceded from the rest, and undertaken to declare herself free and independent, she could have maintained neither her independence nor her freedom. And, by this paper, this One People did notify the world of mankind that they thereby did assume among the powers of the earth the separate and equal station, to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitled them. This was indeed a great and solemn event. The sublimest of the prophets of antiquity with the voice of inspiration had exclaimed, “Who hath heard such a thing? Who hath seen such things? Shall the earth be made to bring forth in one day? Or shall a nation be born at once?” [Isaiah 66:8]. In the two thousand five hundred years, that had elapsed since the days of that prophecy, no such event had occurred. It had never been seen before. In the annals of the human race, then, for the first time, did one People announce themselves as a member of that great community of the powers of the earth, acknowledging the obligations and claiming the rights of the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God. The earth was made to bring forth in one day! A nation was born at once! Well, indeed, may such a day be commemorated by such a Nation, from year to year!

But whether as a day of festivity and joy, or of humiliation and mourning, – that, fellow-citizens, – that in the various turns of chance below, depends not upon the event itself, but upon its consequences; and after threescore years of existence, not so much upon the responsibilities of those who brought the Nation forth, as upon the moral, political and intellectual character of the present generation, – of yourselves. In the common intercourse of social life, the birth-day of individuals is often held as a yearly festive day by themselves, and their immediate relatives; yet, as early as the age of Solomon, that wisest of men told the people of Jerusalem, that, as a good name was better than precious ointment, so the day of death was better than the day of one’s birth [Ecclesiastes 7:1]. Are you then assembled here, my brethren, children of those who declared your National Independence, in sorrow or in joy? In gratitude for blessings enjoyed, or in affliction for blessings lost? In exultation at the energies of your fathers, or in shame and confusion of face at your own degeneracy from their virtues? Forgive the apparent rudeness of these enquiries: – they are not addressed to you under the influence of a doubt what your answer to them will be. You are not here to unite in echoes of mutual gratulation for the separation of your forefathers from their kindred freemen of the British Islands. You are not here even to commemorate the mere accidental incident, that, in the annual revolution of the earth in her orbit round the sun, this was the birthday of the Nation.

You are here, to pause a moment and take breath, in the ceaseless and rapid race of time; – to look back and forward; – to take your point of departure from the ever memorable transactions of the day of which this is the anniversary, and while offering your tribute of thanksgiving to the Creator of all worlds, for the bounties of his Providence lavished upon your fathers and upon you, by the dispensations of that day, and while recording with filial piety upon your memories, the grateful affections of your hearts to the good name, the sufferings, and the services of that age, to turn your final reflections inward upon yourselves, and to say: – These are the glories of a generation past away, – what are the duties which they devolve upon us? The Declaration if Independence, in announcing to the world of mankind, that the People comprising the thirteen British Colonies on the continent of North America assumed, from that day, as One People, their separate and equal station among the powers of the earth, explicitly unfolded the principles upon which their national association had, by their unanimous consent, and by the mutual pledges of their faith, been formed.

It was an association of mutual covenants. Every intelligent individual member of that self-constituted People did, by his representative in Congress, the majority speaking for the whole, and the husband and parent for the wife and child, bind his and their souls to a promise, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of his intentions, covenanting with all the rest that they would for life and death be faithful members of that community, and bear true allegiance to that Sovereign, upon the principles set forth in that paper. The lives, the fortunes, and the honour, of every free human being forming a part of those Colonies, were pledged, in the face of God and man, to the principles therein promulgated. My countrymen! – the exposition of these principles will furnish the solution to the question of the purpose for which you are here assembled. In recurring to those principles, let us remark, First, that the People of the thirteen Colonies announced themselves to the world, and solemnly bound themselves, with an appeal to God, to be One People. And this One People, by their Representatives, declared the United Colonies free and independent States. Secondly, they declared the People, and not the States, to be the only legitimate source of power; and that to the People alone belonged the right to institute, to alter, to abolish, and to re-institute government. And hence it follows, that as the People of the separate Colonies or States formed only parts of the One People assuming their station among the powers of the earth, so the People of no one State could separate from the rest, but by a revolution, similar to that by which the whole People had separated themselves from the People of the British Islands, nor without the violation of that solemn covenant, by which they bound themselves to support and maintain the United Colonies, as free and independent States.

An error of the most dangerous character, more than once threatening the dissolution by violence of the Union itself, has occasionally found countenance and encouragement in several of the States, by an inference not only unwarranted by the language and import of the Declaration, but subversive of its fundamental principles. This inference is that because by this paper the United Colonies were declared free and independent States, therefore each of the States, separately, was free, independent and sovereign. The pernicious and fatal malignity of this doctrine consists, not in the mere attribution of sovereignty to the separate States; for within their appropriate functions and boundaries they are sovereign; – but in adopting that very definition of sovereignty, which had bewildered the senses of the British Parliament, and which rent in twain the Empire; – that principle, the resistance to which was the vital spark of the American revolutionary cause, namely, that sovereignty is identical with unlimited and illimitable power. The origin of this error was of a very early date after the Declaration of Independence, and the infusion of its spirit into the Articles of Confederation, first formed for the government of the Union, was the seed of dissolution sown in the soil of that compact, which palsied all its energies from the day of its birth, and exhibited it to the world only as a monument of impotence and imbecility. The Declaration did not proclaim the separate States free and independent; much less did it announce them as sovereign States, or affirm that they separately possessed the war-making or the peace-making power. The fact was directly the reverse.

The Declaration was, that the United Colonies, forming one People, were free and independent States; that they were absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown; that all political connection, between them and the State of Great Britain, was and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as free and independent States, they had full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and do all other acts and things, which independent States may of right do. But all this was affirmed and declared not of the separate, but of the United, States. And so far was it from the intention of that Congress, or of the One People whom- they represented, to declare that all the powers of sovereignty were possessed by the separate States, that the specification of the several powers of levying war, concluding peace, contracting alliances, and establishing commerce, was obviously introduced as the indication of powers exclusively possessed by the one People of the United States, and not appertaining to the People of each of the separate States. This distinction was indeed indispensable to the necessities of their condition. The Declaration was issued in the midst of a war, commenced by insurrection against their common sovereign, and until then raging as a civil war. Not the insurrection of one of the Colonies; not the insurrection of the organized government of any one of the Colonies; but the insurrection of the People of the whole thirteen. The insurrection was one. The civil war was one. In constituting themselves one People, it could not possibly be their intention to leave the power of concluding peace to each of the States of which the Union was composed. The war was waged against all.

The war itself had united the inhabitants of the thirteen Colonies into one People. The lyre of Orpheus [Orpheus was, in Greek mythology, the son of the river god Oiagros and the Muse Calliope (the muse of epic poetry) and was called “the father of songs.” He was also considered to be the perfector of the lyre.] was the standard of the Union. By the representatives of that one People and by them alone, could the peace be concluded. Had the people of any one of the States pretended to the right of concluding a separate peace, the very fact would have operated as a dismemberment of the Union, and could have been carried into effect only by the return of that portion of the People to the condition of British subjects. Thirdly, the Declaration of Independence announced the One People, assuming their station among the powers of the earth, as a civilized, religious, and Christian People, – acknowledging themselves bound by the obligations, and claiming the rights, to which they were entitled by the laws of Nature and of Nature’s God. They had formed a subordinate portion of an European Christian nation, in the condition of Colonies. The laws of social intercourse between sovereign communities constitute the laws of nations, all derived from three sources: – the laws of nature, or in other words the dictates of justice; usages, sanctioned by custom; and treaties, or national covenants. Superadded to these, the Christian nations, between themselves, admit, with various latitudes of interpretation, and little consistency of practice, the laws of humanity and mutual benevolence taught in the gospel of Christ.

The European Colonies in America had all been settled by Christian nations; and the first of them, settled before the reformation of Luther, had sought their justification for taking possession of lands inhabited by men of another race, in a grant of authority from the successor of Saint Peter at Rome, for converting the natives of the country to the Christian code of religion and morals. After the reformation, the kings of England, substituting themselves in the place of the Roman Pontiff, as heads of the Church, granted charters for the same benevolent purposes; and as these colonial establishments successively arose, worldly purposes, the spirit of adventure, and religious persecution took their place, together with the conversion of the heathen, among the motives for the European establishments in this Western Hemisphere. Hence had arisen among the colonizing nations, a customary law, under which the commerce of all colonial settlements was confined exclusively to the metropolis or mother country. The Declaration of Independence cast off all the shackles of this dependency. The United States of America were no longer Colonies. They were an independent Nation of Christians, recognizing the general principles of the European law of nations. But to justify their separation from the Parent State, it became necessary for them to set forth the wrongs which they had endured. Their colonial condition had been instituted by charters from British kings. These they considered as compacts between the king as their sovereign and them as his subjects. In all these charters, there were stipulations for securing to the colonists the enjoyment of the rights of natural born Englishmen. The attempt to tax them by Act of Parliament, to sustain their right of taxing the Colonies had appealed to the prerogative of sovereign power, the colonists, to refute that claim, after appealing in vain to their charters, and to the Great Charter of England, were obliged to resort to the natural rights of mankind; – to the laws of Nature and Nature’s God.

And now, my friends and fellow citizens, have we not reached the cause of your assemblage here? Have we not ascended to the source of that deep, intense, and never-fading interest, which, to your fathers, from the day of the issuing of this Declaration, – to you, on this sixty-first anniversary after that event, – and to your children and theirs of the fiftieth generation, – has made and will continue to make it the first and happiest of festive days? In setting forth the justifying causes of their separation from Great Britain, your fathers opened the fountains of the great deep. For the first time since the creation of the world, the act, which constituted a great people, laid the foundation of their government upon the unalterable and eternal principles of human rights.

They were comprised in a few short sentences, and were delivered with the unqualified confidence of self-evident truths. “We hold,” says the Declaration, “these truths to be self-evident: – that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable 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; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundations on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.” It is afterwards stated to be the duty of the People, when their governments become incorrigibly oppressive, to throw them off, and to provide new guards for their future security; and it is alleged that such was the condition of the British Colonies at that time, and that they were constrained by necessity to alter their systems of government.

The origin of lawful government among men had formed a subject of profound investigation and of ardent discussion among the philosophers of ancient Greece. The theocratic government of the Hebrews had been founded upon a covenant between God and man; a law, given by the Creator of the world, and solemnly accepted by the people of Israel. It derived all its powers, therefore, from the consent of the governed, and gave the sanction of Heaven itself to the principle, that the consent of the governed is the only legitimate source of authority to man over man. But the history of mankind had never before furnished an example of a government directly and expressly instituted upon this principle. The associations of men, bearing the denomination of the People, had been variously formed, and the term itself was of very indefinite signification. In the most ordinary acceptation of the word, a people, was understood to mean a multitude of human beings united under one supreme government, and one and the same civil polity. But the same term was equally applied to subordinate divisions of the same nation; and the inhabitants of every province, county, city, town, or village, bore the name, as habitually as the whole population of a kingdom or an empire. In the theories of government, it was never imagined that the people of every hamlet or subordinate district of territory should possess the power of constituting themselves and independent State; yet are they justly entitled to the appellation of people, and to exemption from all authority derived from any other source than their own consent, express or implied.

The Declaration of Independence constituted all the inhabitants of European descent in the thirteen English Colonies of North America, one People, with all the attributes of rightful sovereign power. They had, until then, been ruled by thirteen different systems of government; none of them sovereign; but all subordinate to one sovereign, separated from them by the Atlantic Ocean. The Declaration of Independence altered these systems of government, and transformed these dependant Colonies into united, free, and independent States. The distribution of the sovereign powers of government, between the body representing the whole People, and the municipal authorities substituted for the colonial governments, was left for after consideration. The People of each Colony, absolved by the People of the whole Union from their allegiance to the British crown, became themselves, upon the principles of the Declaration, the sovereigns to institute and organize new systems of government, to take the place of those which had been abolished by the will of the whole People, as proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence. It will be remembered, that, until that time, the whole movement of resistance against the usurpations of the British government had been revolutionary, and therefore irregular. The colonial governments were still under the organization of their charters, except that of Massachusetts-Bay, which had been formally vacated, and the royal government was administered by a military commander and regiments of soldiers. The country was in a state of civil war. The people were in revolt, claiming only the restoration of their violated rights as subjects of the British king. The members of the Congress had been elected by the Legislative assemblies of the Colonies, or by self-constituted popular conventions or assemblies, in opposition to the Governors. Their original mission had been to petition, to remonstrate; to disclaim all intention or purpose of independence; to seek, with earnest entreaty, the redress of grievances, and reconciliation with the parent State. They had received no authority, at their first appointment, to declare independence, or to dissolve the political connection between the Colonies and Great Britain. But they had petitioned once and again, and their petitions had been slighted. They had remonstrated, and their remonstrances had been contemned. They had disclaimed all intention of independence, and their disclaimer had been despised. They had finally recommended to the People to look for their redemption to themselves, and they had been answered by voluntary and spontaneous calls for independence. They declared it, therefore, in the name and by the authority of the People, and their declaration was confirmed from New Hampshire to Georgia with one universal shout of approbation. And never, from that to the present day, has there been one moment of regret, on the part of the People, whom they thus declared independent, at this mighty change of their condition, nor one moment of distrust, of the justice of that declaration.

In the mysterious ways of Providence, manifested by the course of human events, the feeble light of reason is often at a loss to discover the coincidence between the laws of eternal justice, and the decrees of fortune or of fate in the affairs of men. In the corrupted currents of this world, not only is the race not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong [Ecclesiastes 9:11], but the heart is often wrung with anguish at the sight of the just man that perisheth in his righteousness, and of the wicked man that prolongeth his life in his wickedness [Ecclesiastes 7:15]. Far different and happier is the retrospect upon that great and memorable transaction. Every individual, whose name was affixed to that paper, has finished his career upon earth; and who, at this day would not deem it a blessing to have had his name recorded on that list? The act of abolishing the government under which they had lived, – of renouncing and abjuring the allegiance by which they had been bound, – of dethroning their sovereign, and of discarding their country herself, – purified and elevated by the principles which they proclaimed, and by the motives which they promulgated as their stimulants to action, – stands recorded in the annals of the human race, as one among the brightest achievements of human virtue: – applauded on earth, ratified and confirmed by the fiat of Heaven. The principles, thus triumphantly proclaimed and established, were the natural and unalienable rights of man, and the supreme authority of the People, as the only legitimate source of power in the institution of civil government. But let us not mistake the extent, nor turn our eyes from the limitation necessary for the application, of the principles themselves.

Who were the People, thus invested by the laws of Nature and of Nature’s God, with sovereign powers? And what were the sovereign powers thus vested in the People? First, the whole free People of the thirteen United British Colonies in North America. The Declaration was their act; prepared by their Representatives; in their name, and by their authority. An act of the most transcendent sovereignty; abolishing the governments of thirteen Colonies; absolving their inhabitants from the bands of their allegiance, and declaring the whole People of the British Islands, theretofore their fellow subjects and countrymen, aliens and foreigners. Secondly, the free People of each of the thirteen Colonies, thus transformed into united, free, and independent States. Each of these formed a constituent portion of the whole People; and it is obvious that the power acknowledged to be in them could neither be co-extensive, nor inconsistent with, that rightfully exercised by the whole People. In absolving the People of the thirteen United Colonies from the bands of their allegiance to the British crown, the Congress, representing the whole People, neither did nor could absolve them, or any on individual among them, from the obligation of any other contract by which he had been previously bound. They neither did nor could, for example, release any portion of the People from the duties of private and domestic life. They could not dissolve the relations of husband and wife; of parent and child; of guardian and ward; of master and servant; of partners in trade; of debtor and creditor; – nor by the investment of each of the Colonies with sovereign power could they bestow upon them the power of dissolving any of those relations, or of absolving any one of the individual citizens of the Colony from the fulfillment of all the obligations resulting from them. The sovereign authority, conferred upon the People of the Colonies by the Declaration of Independence, could not dispense them, nor any individual citizen of them, from the fulfillment of all their moral obligations; for to these they were bound by the laws of Nature’s God; nor is there any power upon earth capable of granting absolution from them.

The People, who assumed their equal and separate station among the powers of the earth by the laws of Nature’s God, by that very act acknowledged themselves bound to the observance of those laws, and could neither exercise nor confer any power inconsistent with them. The sovereign authority, conferred by the Declaration of Independence upon the people of each of the Colonies, could not extend to the exercise of any power inconsistent with that Declaration itself. It could not, for example, authorize any one of the United States to conclude a separate peace with Great Britain; to connect itself as a Colony with France, or any other European power; to contract a separate alliance with any other State of the Union; or separately to establish commerce. These are all acts of sovereignty, which the Declaration of Independence affirmed the United States were competent to perform, but which for that very reason were necessarily excluded from the powers of sovereignty conferred upon each of the separate States. The Declaration itself was at once a social compact of the whole People of the Union, embracing thirteen distinct communities united in one, and a manifesto proclaiming themselves to the world of mankind, as one Nation, possessed of all attributes of sovereign power. But this united sovereignty could not possibly consist with the absolute sovereignty of each of the separate States.

“That were to make Strange contradiction, which to God himself Impossible is held, as argument of weakness, not of power.” [Quoted from Milton’s Paradise Lots (London: S. Simmons, 1674), Book 10.]

The position, thus assumed by this one People consisting of thirteen free and independent States, was new in the history of the world. It was complicated and compounded of elements never before believed susceptible of being blended together. The error of the British Parliament, the proximate cause of the Revolution, that sovereignty was in its nature unlimited and illimitable, taught as a fundamental doctrine by all the English lawyers, was too deeply imprinted upon the minds of the lawyers of our own country to be eradicated, even by the civil war, which it had produced. The most celebrated British moralist of the age, Dr. Samuel Johnson, in a controversial tract on the dispute between Britain and her Colonies, had expressly laid down as the basis of his argument, that:

“All government is essentially absolute. That in sovereignty there are no gradations. That there may be limited royalty; there may be limited consulship; but there can be no limited government. There must in every society be some power or other from which there is no appeal; which admits no restrictions; which pervades the whole mass of the community; regulates and adjusts all subordination; enacts laws or repeals them; erects or annuls judicatures; extends or contracts privileges; exempts itself from question or control; and bounded only by physical necessity.” [Johnson’s Taxation no Tyranny (1775).]

The Declaration of Independence was founded upon the direct reverse of all these propositions. It did not recognize, but implicitly denied, the unlimited nature of sovereignty. By the affirmation that the principal natural rights of mankind are unalienable, it placed them beyond the reach of organized human power; and by affirming that governments are instituted to secure them, and may and ought to be abolished if they become destructive of those ends, they made all government subordinate to the moral supremacy of the People. The Declaration itself did not even announce the States as sovereign, but as united, free and independent, and having power to do all acts and things which independent States may of right do. It acknowledged, therefore, a rule of right, paramount to the power of independent States itself, and virtually disclaimed all power to do wrong. This was a novelty in the moral philosophy of nations, and it is the essential point of difference between the system of government announced in the Declaration of Independence, and those systems which had until then prevailed among men.

A moral Ruler of the universe, the Governor and Controller of all human power, is the only unlimited sovereign acknowledged by the Declaration of Independence; and it claims for the United States of America, when assuming their equal station among the nations of the earth, only the power to do all that may be done of right. Threescore and one years have passed away, since this Declaration was issued, and we may now judge of the tree by its fruit. It was a bold and hazardous step, when considered merely as the act of separation of the Colonies from Great Britain. Had the cause in which it was issued failed, it would have subjected every individual who signed it to the pains and penalties of treason, to a cruel and ignominious death. But, inflexible as were the spirits, and intrepid as were the hearts of the patriots, who by this act set at defiance the colossal power of the British Empire, bolder and more intrepid still were the souls, which, at that crisis in human affairs, dared to proclaim the new and fundamental principles upon which their incipient Republic was to be founded. It was an experiment upon the heart of man. All the legislators of the human race, until that day, had laid the foundations of all government among men in power; and hence it was, that, in the maxims of theory, as well as in the practice of nations, sovereignty was held to be unlimited and illimitable. The Declaration of Independence proclaimed another law. A law of resistance against sovereign power, when wielded for oppression. A law ascending the tribunal of the universal lawgiver and judge. A law of right, binding upon nations as well as individuals, upon sovereigns as well as upon subjects. By that law the colonists had resisted their sovereign. By that law, when that resistance had failed to reclaim him to the rule of right, they renounced him, abjured his allegiance, and assumed the exercise of rightful sovereignty themselves. But, in assuming the attributes of sovereign power, they appealed to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of their intentions, and neither claimed nor conferred authority to do any thing but of right. Of the war with Great Britain, by which the independence thus declared was maintained, and of the peace by which it was acknowledged, it is unnecessary to say more.

The war was deeply distressing and calamitous, and its most instructive lesson was to teach the new confederate Republic the inestimable value of the blessings of peace. When the peace came, all controversy with Great Britain, with regard to the principles upon which the Declaration of Independence had been issued, was terminated, and ceased forever. The main purpose for which it had been issued was accomplished. No idle exultation of victory was worthy of the holy cause in which it had been achieved. No ungenerous triumph over the defeat of a generous adversary was consistent with the purity of the principles upon which the strife had been maintained. Had that contest furnished the only motives for the celebration of the day, its anniversary should have ceased to be commemorated, and the Fourth of July would thenceforward have passed unnoticed from year to year, scarcely numbered among the dies fasti [Latin for the days on which law business was allowed to be transacted, these days are part of the Fasti Diumi (the official year book of Rome included directions and dates for religious ceremonies, court days, and more).]of the Nation. But the Declaration of Independence had abolished the government of the thirteen British Colonies in North America. A new government was to be instituted in its stead.

A task more trying had devolved upon the People of the Union than the defense of their country against foreign armies; a duty more arduous than that of fighting the battles of the Revolution. The elements and the principles for the formation of the new government were all contained in the Declaration of Independence; but the adjustment of them to the condition of the parties to the compact was a work of time, of reflection, of experience, of calm deliberation, of moral and intellectual exertion; for those elements were far from being homogeneous, and there were circumstances in the condition of the parties, far from conformable to the principles proclaimed. The Declaration had laid the foundation of all civil government, in the unalienable natural rights of individual man, of which it had specifically named three: – life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, – declaring them to be among others not enumerated. The revolution had been exclusively popular and democratic, and the Declaration had announced that the only object of the institution of governments among men was to secure their unalienable rights, and that they derived their just powers from the consent of the governed. The Declaration proclaimed the parties to the compact as one People, composed of united Colonies, thenceforward free and independent States, constrained by necessity to alter their former systems of government. It would seem necessarily to follow from these elements and these principles, that the government for the whole People should have been instituted by the whole People, and the government of each of the independent States by the People of that State.

But obvious as that conclusion is, it is nevertheless equally true, that it has not been wholly accomplished even to this day. On the tenth of May preceding the day of the Declaration, the Congress had adopted a resolution, which may be considered as the herald to that Independence. After its adoption it was considered of such transcendent importance, that a special committee of three members was appointed to prepare a preamble to it. On the fifteenth of May this preamble was reported, adopted, and ordered to be published, with the resolution, which had been adopted on the tenth. The preamble and resolution are in the following words:

“Whereas his Britannic Majesty, in conjunction with the Lords and Commons of Great Britain, has, by a late Act of Parliament, excluded the inhabitants of these United Colonies from the protection of his crown; and whereas no answer whatever to the humble petitions of the Colonies, for redress of grievances and reconciliation with Great Britain, has been or is likely to be given, but the whole course of that kingdom, aided by foreign mercenaries, is to be exerted for the destruction of the good people of these Colonies; and whereas it appears absolutely irreconcilable to reason and good conscience for the people of these Colonies now to take the oaths and affirmations necessary for the support of any government under the crown of Great Britain, and it is necessary that the exercise of every kind of authority under the said crown should be totally suppressed, and all the powers of government exerted under the authority of the people of the Colonies, for the preservation of internal peace, virtue, and good order, as well as for the defense of their lives, liberties, and properties, against the hostile invasions and cruel depredations of their enemies: – Therefore, Resolved,

“That it be recommended to the respective assemblies and conventions of the United Colonies, where no government sufficient to the exigencies of their affairs hath been hitherto established, to adopt such government as shall, in the opinion of the Representatives of the People, best conduce to the happiness and safety of their constituents in particular, and America in general.”

The People of some of the Colonies had not waited for this recommendation, to assume all the powers of their internal government into their own hands. In some of them, the governments constituted by the royal charters were continued without alteration; or with the mere divestment of the portion of the public authority, exercised by the crown. In others, constitutions had been adopted, or were in preparation by representative popular conventions. Massachusetts was represented by a Provincial Congress, elected by the people as the General Court had been under the royal charter, and from that assembly the general Congress had been urgently invoked, for their advice in the formation of a government adapted to the emergency, and unshackled by transatlantic dependence. The institution of civil government by the authority of ‘the People, in each of the separate Colonies, was thus universally recognized as resulting from the dissolution of their allegiance to the British crown. But, that the union could be cemented and the national powers of government exercised of right, only by a constitution of government emanating from the whole People, was not yet discovered.

The powers of the Congress then existing, were revolutionary and undefined; limited by no constitution; responsible to no common superior; dictated by the necessities of a death-struggle for freedom; and embracing all discretionary means to organize and maintain the resistance of the people of all the Colonies against the oppression of the British Parliament. In devising measures for giving permanence, and, as far as human wisdom could provide, perpetuity, to the Union which had been formed by the common sufferings and dangers of the whole People, they universally concluded that a confederation would suffice; and that a confederation could be instituted by the authority of the States, without the intervention of the People. On the twenty-first of July, 1775, nearly a year before the Declaration of Independence, a sketch of articles of confederation, and contingently perpetual union, had been presented to Congress by Doctor Franklin, for a confederacy, to be styled the United Colonies of North America. It was proposed that this confederacy should continue until a reconciliation with Great Britain should be effected, and only on failure of such reconciliation, to be perpetual.

This project, contemplated only a partnership of Colonies to accomplish their common re-subjugation to the British crown. It made no provision for a community of independent States, and was encumbered with no burden of sovereignty. No further action upon the subject was had by Congress, till the eleventh of June, 1776. Four days before this, that is, on the seventh of June, certain resolutions respecting independency had been moved and seconded. They were on the next day referred to a committee of the whole, and on Monday, the tenth of June, they were agreed to in the committee of the whole and reported to the Congress. The first of these resolutions was that of independence. The second was, that a committee be appointed to prepare and digest the form of a confederation, to be entered into between these Colonies. The third, that a committee be appointed to prepare a plan of treaties to be proposed to foreign powers. The consideration of the first resolution, that of independence, was postponed to Monday the first day of July; and, in the meanwhile, that no time should be lost, in case the Congress should agree thereto, it was resolved, that a committee be appointed to prepare a Declaration, to the effect of the resolution. On the next day, the eleventh of June, the committee to prepare the Declaration of Independence was appointed; and immediately afterwards, the appointment of two other committees was resolved; one to prepare and digest the plan of a confederation, and the other to prepare the plan of treaties to be proposed to foreign powers. These committees were appointed on the twelfth of June.

The one, to prepare and digest the plan for a confederation, consisted of one member from each Colony. They reported on the twelfth of July, eight days after the Declaration of Independence, a draught of articles of confederation and perpetual union between the Colonies, naming them all from New Hampshire to Georgia. The most remarkable characteristic of this paper is the indiscriminate use of the terms Colonies and States, pervading the whole document, both the words denoting the parties to the confederacy. The title declared a confederacy between Colonies, but the first article of the draught was – “The name of this confederacy shall be the United States of America.” In a passage of the 18th article, it was said, – “The United States assembled, shall never engage the United Colonies in a war, unless the delegates of nine Colonies freely assent to the same.” The solution to this singularity was that the draught was in preparation before, and reported after, the Declaration of Independence. The principle upon which it was drawn up was, that the separate members of the confederacy should still continue Colonies, and only in their united capacity constitute States. The idea of separate State sovereignty had evidently no part in the composition of this paper. It was not countenanced in the Declaration of Independence; but appears to have been generated in the debates upon this draught of the articles of confederation, between the twelfth of July, and the ensuing twentieth of August, when it was reported by the committee of the whole in a new draught, from which the term Colony, as applied to the contracting parties, was carefully and universally excluded. The revised draught, as reported by the committee of the whole, exhibits, in the general tenor of its articles, less of the spirit of union, and more of the separate and sectional feeling, than the draught prepared by the first committee; and far more than the Declaration of Independence.

This was, indeed, what must naturally have been expected, in the progress of a debate, involving all the jarring interests and all the latent prejudices of the several contracting parties; each member now considering himself as the representative of a separate and corporate interest, and no longer acting and speaking, as in the Declaration of Independence, in the name and by the authority of the whole People of the Union. Yet in the revised draught itself, reported by the committee of the whole, and therefore exhibiting the deliberate mind of the majority of Congress at that time, there was no assertion of sovereign power as of right intended to be reserved to the separate States. But, in the original draught, reported by the select committee on the twelfth of July, the first words of the second article were, – “The said Colonies unite themselves so as never to be divided by any act whatever.” Precious words! – words, pronounced by the infant Nation, at the instant of her rising from the baptismal font! – words bursting from their hearts and uttered by lips yet glowing with the touch from the coal of the Declaration! – why were ye stricken out at the revisal of the draught, as reported by the committee of the whole? – There was in the closing article, both of the original and of the revised draught, a provision in these words, following a stipulation that the articles of confederation, when ratified, should be observed by the parties – “And the union is to be perpetual.” – Words, which, considered as a mere repetition of the pledge, the sacred pledge given in those first words of the contracting parties in the original draught, – “The said Colonies unite themselves so as never to be divided by any act whatever,” – discover only the intenseness of the spirit of union, with which the draught had been prepared; but which, taken by themselves, and stripped of that precious pledge, given by the personification of the parties announcing their perpetual union to the world, – how cold and lifeless do they sound! – “And the union is to be perpetual!” – as if it was an after-thought, to guard against the conclusion that an union so loosely compacted, was not even intended to be permanent.

The original draught, prepared by the committee contemporaneously with the preparation, by the other committee, of the Declaration of Independence, was in twenty articles. In the revised draught reported by the committee of the whole on the twentieth of August, the articles were reduced to sixteen. The four articles omitted, were the very grappling hooks of the Union. They secured to the citizens of each State, the right of native citizens in all the rest; and they conferred upon Congress the power of ascertaining the boundaries of the several States, and of disposing of the public lands which should prove to be beyond them. All these were stricken out of the revised draught. You have seen the mutilation of the second article, which constituted the Union. The third article contained the reserved rights of the several parties to the compact, expressed in the original draught thus:

“Each Colony shall retain and enjoy as much of its present laws, rights, and customs, as it may think fit; and reserves to itself the sole and exclusive regulation and government of its internal police, in all matters that shall not interfere with the articles of this confederation.”

In the revised draught, the first clause was omitted, and the article read thus:

“Each State reserves to itself the sole and exclusive regulation and government of its internal police, in all matters that shall not interfere with the articles of this confederation.”

From the twentieth of August, 1776, to the eighth of April, 1777, although the Congress were in permanent session, without recess but from day to day, no further action upon the revised draught reported by the committee of the whole was had. The interval was the most gloomy and disastrous period of the war. The debates, on the draught of articles reported by the first committee, had evolved and disclosed all the sources of disunion existing between the several sections of the country, aggravated by the personal rivalries, which, between the leading members of a deliberative assembly, animated by the enthusiastic spirit of liberty, could not fail to arise. When, instead of a constitution of government for a whole People, a confederation of independent States was assumed, as the fundamental principle of the permanent union to be organized for the American nation, the centripetal and centrifugal political powers were at once brought into violent conflict with each other.

The corporation and the popular spirits assumed opposite and adversary aspects. The federal and anti-federal parties originated. State pride, State prejudice, State jealousy, were soon embodied under the banners of State sovereignty, and while the cause of freedom and independence itself was drooping under the calamities of war and pestilence, with a penniless treasury, and an all but disbanded army, the Congress of the people had no heart to proceed in the discussion of a confederacy, overrun by a victorious enemy, and on the point, to all external appearance, of being crushed by the wheels of a conqueror’s triumphal car. On the eighth of April, 1777, the draught reported by the committee of the whole, on the preceding twentieth of August, was nevertheless taken up; and it was resolved that two days in each week should be employed on that subject, until it should be wholly discussed in Congress. The exigencies of the war, however, did not admit the regular execution of this order. The articles were debated only upon six days in the months of April, May, and June, on the twenty-sixth of which month the farther consideration of them was indefinitely postponed. On the eighteenth of September of that year, the Congress were obliged to withdraw from the city of Philadelphia, possession of which was immediately afterwards taken by the British army under the command of Sir William Howe. Congress met again on the thirtieth of September, at Yorktown, in the state of Pennsylvania, and there, on the second of October, resumed the consideration of the articles of confederation. From that time to the fifteenth of November, the debates were unremitting.

The yeas and nays, of which there had until then been no example, were now taken upon every prominent question submitted for consideration, and the struggle between the party of the States and the party of the People became, from day to day, more vehement and pertinacious. The first question upon which the yeas and nays were called was, that the representation in the Congress of the confederation should be proportional to a ratio of population, which was presented in two several modifications, and rejected in both. The next proposal was, that it should be proportional to the tax or contribution paid by the several States to the public treasury. This was also rejected; and it was finally settled as had been reported by the committee, that each State should have one vote. Then came the question of the proportional contributions of the several States. This involved the primary principle of the Revolution itself, which had been the indissoluble connection between taxation and representation. It follows as a necessary consequence from this, that all just taxation must be proportioned to representations; and here was the first stumbling block of the confederation. State sovereignty, which in the collision of debates had become stiff and intractable, insisted that, in the Congress of the Union, Massachusetts and Rhode Island, Virginia and Delaware, should each have one vote and no more. But when the burdens of the confederacy came to be apportioned, this equality could no longer be preserved; a different proportion became indispensable, and a territorial basis was assumed, apportioned to the value of improved land in each State. From the moment that these two questions were thus settled, it might have been foreseen that the confederacy must prove an abortion. Inequality and injustice were at its root. It was inconsistent with itself, and the seeds of its speedy dissolution were sown at its birth. But the question of the respective contributions of the several States, brought up another and still more formidable cause of discord and collision. What were the several States themselves? What was their extent, and where were their respective boundaries?

They claimed their territory by virtue of charters from the British kings, and by cessions from sundry tribes of Indians. But the charters of the kings were grossly inconsistent with one another. The charters had granted lands to several of the States, by lines of latitude from the Atlantic to the Pacific Ocean. Yet by the treaty of peace of February, 1763, between Great Britain and France, the King of Great Britain had agreed that the boundary of the British territories in North America should be the middle of the river Mississippi, from its source to the river Iberville, and thence to the ocean. The British colonial settlements had never been extended westward of the Ohio, and when the peace should come to be concluded, it was exceedingly doubtful what western boundary could be obtained from the assent of Great Britain. Besides which, there were claims of Spain, and a system of policy in France, in no wise encouraging to the expectation of an extended western frontier to the United States. Here then were collisions of interest between the States narrowly and definitely bounded westward, and the States claiming to the South Sea or to the Mississippi, which it was in vain attempted to adjust.

In the original draught of the articles of confederation, reported on the twelfth of July, among the powers proposed to be within the exclusive right of the United States assembled, were those of “limiting the bounds of those Colonies, which, by charter, or proclamation, or under any pretence, are said to extend to the South sea; and ascertaining those bounds of any other Colony that appear to be indeterminate: assigning territories for new Colonies, either in lands to be thus separated from Colonies, and heretofore purchased or obtained by the crown of Great Britain of the Indians, or hereafter to be purchased or obtained from them: disposing of all such lands for the general benefit of all the United Colonies: ascertaining boundaries to such new Colonies, within which forms of government are to be established on the principles of liberty.” This had been struck out of the revised articles reported by the committee of the whole.

A proposition was now made to require of the legislators of the several states, a description of their territorial lands, and documentary evidence of their claims, to ascertain their boundaries by the articles of confederation. This was rejected. Another proposition was, to bestow upon Congress the power to ascertain and fix the western boundary of the States claiming to the South Sea, and to dispose of the lands beyond this boundary for the benefit of the Union. This also was rejected, as was a similar proposal with regard to the States claiming to the Mississippi, or to the South Sea. These were all unavailing efforts to restore to the definitive articles of confederation, the provisions concerning the boundaries of the several States which had been reported in the original draught, and struck out of the draught reported by the committee of the whole, on the twentieth of August, 1776. An interval of fourteen months had since elapsed, which seemed rather to have weakened the spirit of union, and to have strengthened the anti-social prejudices, and the lofty pretensions of State sovereignty.

The articles containing the grant of powers to Congress, and prescribing restrictions upon those of the States, were fruitful of controversial questions and of litigious passions, which consumed much of the time of Congress till the fifteenth of November, 1777, when the articles of confederation, as finally matured and elaborated, were concluded and sent forth to the State Legislatures for their adoption. They were to take effect only when approved by them all, and ratified with their authority by their Delegates in Congress. It was provided, by one of the articles, that no alteration of them should ever be admitted, unless sanctioned with the same unanimity. There was a solemn promise, inserted in the concluding article, that the articles of confederation should be inviolably observed by every State, and that the Union should be perpetual. The consummation of the triumph of unlimited State sovereignty over the spirit of union, was seen in the transposition of the second and third of the articles reported by the committees, and the inverted order of their insertion in the articles finally adopted.

The first article in them all gave the name, or as it was at last called, the style, of the confederacy, “The United States of America.” The name, by which the nation has ever since been known, and now illustrious among the nations of the earth. The second article, of the plans reported to the Congress by the original committee and by the committee of the whole, constituted and declared the Union, in the first project commencing with those most affecting and ever-memorable words, – “The said Colonies united themselves so as never to be divided by any act whatever:” In the project reported by the committee of the whole, these words were struck out, but the article still constituted and declared the Union. The third article contained, in both projects, the rights reserved by the respective States; rights of internal legislation and police, in all matters not interfering with the articles of the confederation.

But on the fifteenth of November, 1777, when the partial, exclusive, selfish and jealous spirit of State sovereignty had been fermenting and fretting over the articles, stirring up all the oppositions of the corporate interests and humors of the parties, when the articles came to be concluded, the order of the second and third articles was inverted. The reservation of the rights of the separate States was made to precede the institution of the Union itself. Instead of limiting the reservation to its municipal laws and the regulation and government of their internal police, in all matters not interfering with the articles of the confederation, they ascend the throne of State sovereignty, and make the articles of confederation themselves mere specific exceptions to the general reservation of all the powers of government to themselves. The article was in these words: “Each State retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the United States in Congress assembled.” How different from the spirit of the article, which began, – “The said Colonies unite themselves so as never to be divided by any act what ever!” The institution of the Union was now postponed to follow and not to precede the reservations; and cooled into a mere league of friendship and of mutual defense between the States.

More then sixteen months of the time of Congress had been absorbed in the preparation of this document. More than three years and four months passed away before its confirmation by the Legislatures of all the States, and no sooner was it ratified, than its utter inefficiency to perform the functions of a government, or even to fulfil the purposes of a confederacy, became apparent to all! In the Declaration of Independence, the members of Congress who signed it had spoken in the name and by the authority of the People of the Colonies. In the articles of confederation they had sunk into Representatives of the separate States. The genius of unlimited State sovereignty had usurped the powers which belonged only to the People, and the State Legislatures and their Representatives had arrogated to themselves the whole constituent power, while they themselves were Representatives only of fragments of the nation.

The articles of confederation were satisfactory to no one of the States: they were adopted by many of them, after much procrastination, and with great reluctance. The State of Maryland persisted in withholding her ratification, until the question relating to the unsettled lands had been adjusted by cessions of them to the United States, for the benefit of them all, from the States separately claiming them to the South sea, or the Mississippi. The ratification of the articles was completed on the first of March, 1781, and the experiment of a merely confederated Union of the thirteen States commenced. It was the statue of Pygmalion before its animation, – beautiful and lifeless. And where was the vital spark which was to quicken this marble into life? It was in the Declaration of Independence. Analyze, at this distance of time, the two documents, with cool and philosophical impartiality, and you will exclaim, – Never, never since the creation of the world, did two state papers, emanating from the same body of men, exhibit more dissimilarity of character, or more conflict of Principle! The Declaration, glowing with the spirit of union, speaking with one voice the vindication of one People for the act of separating themselves from another, and ascending to the First Cause, the dispenser of eternal justice, for the foundation of its reasoning: – The articles of confederation, stamped with the features of contention; beginning with niggardly reservations of corporate rights, and in the grant of powers, seeming to have fallen into the frame of mind described by the sentimental traveler, bargaining for a post chaise, and viewing his conventionist with an eye as if he was going with him to fight a duel! Yet, let us not hastily charge our fathers with inconsistency for these repugnances between their different works. Let us never forget that the jealousy of power is the watchful handmaid to the spirit of freedom.

Let the contemplation of these rugged and narrow passes of the mountains first with so much toil and exertion traversed by them, teach us that the smooth surfaces and rapid railways, which have since been opened to us, are but the means furnished to us of arriving by swifter conveyance to a more advanced stage of improvement in our condition. Let the obstacles, which they encountered and surmounted, teach us how much easier it is in morals and politics, as well as in natural philosophy and physics, to pull down than to build up, to demolish than to construct; then, how much more arduous and difficult was their task to form a system of polity for the people whom they ushered into the family of nations, than to separate them from the parent State; and lastly, the gratitude due from us to that Being whose providence watched over, protected, and guided our political infancy, and led our ancestors finally to retrace their steps, to correct their errors, and resort to the whole People of the union for a constitution of government, emanating from themselves, which might realize that union so feelingly expressed by the first draught of their confederation, so as never to be divided by any act whatever. The origin and history of this Constitution is doubtless familiar to most of my hearers, and should be held in perpetual remembrance by us all.

It was the consummation of the Declaration of Independence. It has given the sanction of half a century’s experience to the principles of that Declaration. The attempt to sanction them by a confederation of sovereign States was made and signally failed. It was five years in coming to an immature birth, and expired after five years of languishing and impotent existence. On the seventeenth of next September, fifty years will have passed away since the Constitution of the United States was presented to the People for their acceptance. On that day the twenty-fifth biennial Congress, organized by this Constitution, will be in session. And what a happy, what a glorious career have the people passed through in the half century of their and your existence associated under it! When that Constitution was adopted, the States of which it was composed were thirteen in number, – their whole population not exceeding three millions and a half of souls; the extent of territory within their boundary so large that it was believed too unwieldy to be manageable, even under one federative government, but less than one million of square miles; without revenue; encumbered with a burdensome revolutionary debt, without means of discharging even the annual interest accruing upon it; with no manufactures; with a commerce scarcely less restricted than before the revolutionary war; denied by Spain the privilege of descending the Mississippi; denied by Great Britain the stipulated possession of a line of forts on the Canadian frontier; with a disastrous Indian war at the west; with a deep-laid Spanish intrigue with many of our own citizens, to dismember the Union, and subject to the dominion of Spain the whole valley of the Mississippi; with a Congress, imploring a grant of new powers to enable them to redeem the public faith, answered by a flat refusal, evasive conditions, or silent contempt; with popular insurrection scarcely extinguished in this our own native Commonwealth, and smoking into flame in several others of the States; with an impotent and despised government; a distressed, discontented, discordant people, and the fathers of the revolution burning with shame, and almost sinking into despair of its issue.

Fellow citizens of a later generation! You, whose lot it has been to be born in happier times; you, who even now are smarting under a transient cloud intercepting the dazzling sun-shine of your prosperity; – think you that the pencil of fancy has been borrowed to deepen the shades of this dark and desolate picture? Ask of your surviving fathers, cotemporaries of him who now addresses you, – ask of them, whose hospitable mansions often welcomed him to their firesides, when he came in early youth to receive instruction from the gigantic intellect and profound learning of a Parsons, – ask of them, if there be any among you that survive, and they will tell you, that, far from being overcharged, the portraiture of that dismal day is only deficient in the faintness of its coloring and the lack of energy in the painter’s hand. Such was the condition of this your beloved country after the close of the revolutionary war, under the blast of the desert, in the form of a confederacy; when, wafted, as on the spicy gales of Araby [Arabia] the blest, your Constitution, with Washington at its head,

“Came o’er our ears like the sweet sound That breathes upon a bank of violets, Stealing and giving odor.” [Quoted from William Shakespeare’s Twelfth Night, Act. 1, Scene 1 (c. 1601).]

And what, under that Constitution, still the supreme law of the land, is the condition of your country at this hour? Spare me the unwelcome and painful task of adverting to that momentary affliction, visiting you through the errors of your own servants, and the overflowing springtides of your fortunes. These afflictions, though not joyous but grievous, are but for a moment, and the remedy for them is in your own hands. But what is the condition of your country, – resting upon foundations, if you retain and transmit to your posterity the spirit of your fathers, firm as the everlasting hills? What, looking beyond the mist of a thickened atmosphere, fleeting as the wind, and which the first breath of a zephyr will dispel, – what is the condition of your country? Is a rapid and steady increase of population, an index to the welfare of a nation? Your numbers are more than twice doubled in the half century since the Constitution was adopted as your fundamental law. Would those of you whose theories cling more closely to the federative element of your government, prefer the multiplication of States, to that of the People, as the standard test of prosperous fortunes? The number of your free and independent States has doubled in the same space of half a century, and your own soil is yet teeming with more. Is extent of territory, and the enlargement of borders, a blessing to a nation? And are you not surfeited with the aggrandizement of your territory? Instead of one million of square miles, have you not more than two? Are not Louisiana and both the Florida’s yours? Instead of sharing with Spain and Britain the contested waters of the Mississippi, have you not stretched beyond them westward, bestrided the summits of the Rocky Mountains, and planted your stripes and your stars on the shores of the Pacific Ocean? And, as if this were not enough to fill the measure of your greatness, is not half Mexico panting for admission to your Union? Are not the islands of the Western Hemisphere looking with wistful eyes to a participation of your happiness, and a promise of your protection? Have not the holders of the Isthmus of Panama sent messengers of friendly greeting and solicitation to be received as members of your confederation? Is not the most imminent of your dangers that of expanding beyond the possibility of cohesion, even under one federative government – and of tainting your atmosphere with the pestilence of exotic slavery? Are the blessings of good government manifested by the enjoyment of liberty, by the security of property, by the freedom of thought, of speech, of action, pervading ever portion of the community? Appeal to your own experience, my fellow citizens; and, after answering without hesitation or doubt, affirmatively, all these enquiries, save the last, – if, when you come to them, you pause before you answer, – if, within the last five or seven years of your history, ungracious recollections of untoward events crowd upon your memory, and grate upon the feelings appropriate to this consecrated day, – let them not disturb the serenity of your enjoyments, or interrupt the harmony of that mutual gratulation, in which you may yet all cordially join. But fix well in your minds, what were the principles first proclaimed by your forefathers, as the only foundations of lawful government upon earth. – Postpone the conclusion, of their application to the requirements of your own duties, till to-morrow; – but then fail not to remember the warnings, while reaping in peace and pleasantness the rewards, of this happy day.

And this, my fellow citizens, or I have mistaken the motives by which you have been actuated, is the purpose for which you are here assembled. It is to enjoy the bounties of heaven for the past, and to prepare for the duties of the future. It is to review the principles proclaimed by the founders of your empire; to examine what has been their operation upon your own destinies, and upon the history of mankind; to scrutinize with an observing eye, and a cool, deliberate judgment, your condition at this day; to compare it with that of your fathers on the day which you propose to commemorate; and to discern what portion of their principles has been retained inviolate, – what portion of them has been weakened, impaired, or abandoned; and what portion of them it is your first of duties to retain, to preserve, to redeem, to transmit to your offspring, to be cherished, maintained, and transmitted to their posterity of unnumbered ages to come. We have consulted the records of the past, and I have appealed to your consciousness of the present; and what is the sound, which they send forth to all the echoes of futurity, but Union; – Union as one People, – Union so as to be divided by no act whatever. We have a sound of modern days, – could it have come from an American voice? – that the value of the Union is to be calculated! – Calculated? By what system of Arithmetic? By what rule of proportion? Calculate the value of maternal tenderness and of filial affection; calculate the value of nuptial vows, of compassion to human suffering, of sympathy with affliction, of piety to God, and of charity to man; calculate the value of all that is precious to the heart, and all that is binding upon the soul; and then you will have the elements with which to calculate the value of the Union. But if cotton or tobacco, rocks or ice, metallic money or mimic paper, are to furnish the measure, the stamp act was the invention of a calculating statesman. “Great financier! Stupendous calculato!” And what the result of his system of computation was to the treasury of Great Britain that will be the final settlement of every member of this community, who calculates, with the primary numbers of State sovereignty and nullification, the value of the Union. Our government is a complicated machine.

We hold for an inviolable first principle, that the People are the source of all lawful authority upon earth. But we have one People to be governed by a legislative representation of fifteen millions of souls, and twenty-six Peoples, of numbers varying from less than one hundred thousand to more than two millions, governed for their internal police by legislative and executive magistrates of their own choice, and by laws of their own enacting; and all forming in the aggregate the one People, as which they are known to the other nations of the civilized world. We have twenty-six States, with governments administered by these separate Legislatures and Executive Chiefs, and represented by equal numbers in the general Senate of the nation. This organization is an anomaly in the history of the world. It is that, which distinguishes us from all other nations ancient and modern; from the simple monarchies and republics of Europe; and from all the confederacies, which have figured in any age upon the face of the globe. The seeds of this complicated machine, were all sown in the Declaration of Independence; and their fruits can never be eradicated but by the dissolution of the Union. The calculators of the value of the Union, who would palm upon you, in the place of this sublime invention, a mere cluster of sovereign confederated States, do but sow the wind to reap the whirlwind.

One lamentable evidence of deep degeneracy from the spirit of the Declaration of Independence, is the countenance, which has been occasionally given, in various parts of the Union, to this doctrine; but it is consolatory to know that, whenever it has been distinctly disclosed to the people, it has been rejected by them with pointed reprobation. It has, indeed, presented itself in its most malignant form in that portion of the Union, the civil institutions of which are most infected with the gangrene of slavery. The inconsistency of the institution of domestic slavery with the principles of the Declaration of Independence, was seen and lamented by all the southern patriots of the Revolution; by no one with deeper and more unalterable conviction, than by the author of the Declaration himself. No charge of insincerity or hypocrisy can be fairly laid to their charge. Never from their lips was heard one syllable of attempt to justify the institution of slavery. They universally considered it as a reproach fastened upon them by the unnatural stepmother country, and they saw that before the principles of the Declaration of Independence, slavery, in common with every other mode of oppression, was destined sooner or later to be banished from the earth. Such was the undoubting conviction of Jefferson to his dying day.

In the Memoir of his Life, written at the age of seventy-seven, he gave to his countrymen the solemn and emphatic warning, that the day was not distant when they must hear and adopt the general emancipation of their slaves. [From Jefferson’s Memoir, Correspondence and Miscellanies (Boston: Gray & Bowen, 1830), Vol. 1. p. 40.] “Nothing is more certainly written,” said he, “in the book of fate, then that these people are to be free.”

My countrymen! It is written in a better volume than the book of fate; it is written in the laws of Nature and of Nature’s God. We are now told, indeed, by the learned doctors of the nullification school, that color operates as a forfeiture of the rights of human nature; that a dark skin turns a man into a chattel; that crispy hair transforms a human being into a four-footed beast. The master-priest informs you, that slavery is consecrated and sanctified by the Holy Scriptures of the old and new Testament; that Ham was the father of Canaan, and that all his posterity were doomed by his own father to be hewers of wood and drawers of water to the descendants of Shem and Japheth; that the native Americans of African descent are the children of Ham, with the curse of Noah still fastened upon them; and the native Americans of European descent are children of Japheth, pure Anglo-Saxon blood, born to command, and to live by the sweat of another’s brow. The master-philosopher teaches you that slavery is no curse, but a blessing! – that Providence – Providence! has so ordered it that this country should be inhabited by two races of men, one born to wield the scourge, and the other to bear the record of its stripes upon his back, one to earn through a toilsome life the other’s bread, and to feed him on a bed of roses; that slavery is the guardian and promoter of wisdom and virtue; that the slave, by laboring for another’s enjoyment, learns disinterestedness, and humility, and to melt with tenderness and affection for his master; that the master, nurtured, clothed, and sheltered by another’s toils, learns to be generous and grateful to the slave, and sometimes to feel for him as a father for his child; that, released from the necessity of supplying his own wants, he acquires opportunity of leisure to improve his mind, to purify his heart, to cultivate his taste; that he has time on his hands to plunge into the depths of philosophy, and to soar to the clear empyrean of seraphic morality. The master-statesman, – ay, the statesman in the land of the Declaration of Independence, – in the halls of national legislation, with the muse of history recording his words as they drop from his lips, – with the colossal figure of American liberty, leaning on a column entwined with the emblem of eternity, over his head, – with the forms of Washington and La Fayette, speaking to him from the canvass, – turns to the image of the father of his country, and forgetting that the last act of his life was to emancipate his slaves, to bolster the cause of slavery says, – That man was a slaveholder.

My countrymen! These are the tenets of the modern nullification school. Can you wonder that they shrink from the light of free discussion? That they skulk from the grasp of freedom and truth? Is there among you one who hears me, solicitous above all things for the preservation of the Union so truly dear to us, – of that Union, proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence, – of that Union, never to be divided by any act whatever, – and who dreads that the discussion of the merits of slavery will endanger the continuance of the Union? Let him discard his terrors, and be assured that they are no other than the phantom fears of nullification; that while doctrines like these are taught in her schools of philosophy, preached in her pulpits, and avowed in her legislative councils, the free and unrestrained discussion of the rights and wrongs of slavery, far from endangering the union of these States, is the only condition upon which that union can be preserved and perpetuated.

What! Are you to be told with one breath, that the transcendent glory of this day consists in the proclamation that all lawful government is founded on the unalienable rights of man, and with the next breath that you must not whisper this truth to the winds, lest they should taint the atmosphere with freedom, and kindle the flame of insurrection? Are you to bless the earth beneath your feet, because she spurns the footstep of a slave, and then to choke the utterance of your voice, lest the sound of liberty should be re-echoed from the palmetto groves, mingled with the discordant notes of disunion? No! No! Freedom of speech is the only safety valve, which, under the high pressure of slavery, can preserve your political boiler from a fearful and fatal explosion. Let it be admitted that slavery is an institution of internal police, exclusively subject to the separate jurisdiction of the States where it is cherished as a blessing, or tolerated as an evil as yet irremediable. But let that slavery, which entrenches herself within the walls of her own impregnable fortress, not sally forth to conquest over the domain of freedom. Intrude not beyond the hallowed bounds of oppression; but if you have by solemn compact doomed your ears to hear the distant clanking of the chain, let not the fetters of the slave be forged afresh upon your own soil; far less permit them to be riveted upon your own feet. Quench not the spirit of freedom. Let it go forth, – not in the panoply of fleshly wisdom, but with the promise of peace, and the voice of persuasion, clad in the whole armor of truth, – conquering and to conquer.

Friends and fellow citizens! I speak to you with the voice as of one risen from the dead. Were I now, as I shortly must be, cold in my grave, and could the sepulchre unbar its gates, and open to me a passage to this desk, devoted to the worship of almighty God, I would repeat the question with which this discourse was introduced: – “Why are you assembled in this place”? – And one of you would answer me for all, – Because the Declaration of Independence, with the voice of an angle from heaven, “put to his mouth the sounding alchemy,” and proclaimed universal emancipation upon earth!

It is not the separation of your forefathers from their kindred race beyond the Atlantic tide. It is not the union of thirteen British Colonies into one People and the entrance of that People upon the theatre, where kingdoms, and empires, and nations are the persons of the drama. It is not that this is the birthday of the North American Union, the last and noblest offspring of time. It is that the first words uttered by the Genius of our country, in announcing his existence to the world of mankind, was, – Freedom to the slave! Liberty to the captives! Redemption! Redemption forever to the race of man, from the yoke of oppression! It is not the work of a day; it is not the labor of an age; it is not the consummation of a century, that we are assembled to commemorate. It is the emancipation of our race. It is the emancipation of man from the thralldom of man!

And is this the language of enthusiasm? The dream of a distempered fancy? Is it not rather the voice of inspiration? The language of holy writ? Why is it that the Scriptures, both of the old and new Covenants, teach you upon every page to look forward to the time, when the wolf shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid? Why is it that six hundred years before the birth of the Redeemer, the sublimest of prophets, with lips touched by the hallowed fire from the hand of God, spake and said, – “The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me; because the Lord hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the broken hearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound?” [Isaiah 61:1] And why is it, that, at the first dawn of the fulfillment of this prophecy, – at the birth-day of the Savior in the lowest condition of human existence, – the angel of the Lord came in a flood of supernatural light upon the shepherds, witnesses of the scene and said, – Fear not, for behold I bring you good tidings of great joy which shall be to all people? Why is it, that there was suddenly with that angle, a multitude of the heavenly host, praising God, and saying, – Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, – good will toward men? [Luke 2:9, 10, 13, 14] What are the good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people? The prophet had told you six hundred years before, – liberty to the captives, – the opening of the prison to them that are bound. – The multitude of the heavenly host pronounced the conclusion, to be shouted hereafter by the universal choir of all intelligent created beings, – Glory to God in the highest; and on earth peace, – good will toward men.

Fellow citizens! Fellow Christians! Fellow men! Am I speaking to believers in the gospel of peace? To others, I am aware that the capacities of man for self or social improvement are subjects of distrust, or of derision. The sincere believer receives the rapturous promises of the future improvement of his kind, with humble hope and cheering confidence of their final fulfillment. He receives them too, with the admonition of God to his conscience, to contribute himself, by all the aspirations of his heart, and all the faculties of his soul, to their accomplishment. Tell not him of impossibilities, when human improvement is the theme. Nothing can be impossible, which may be effected by human will. See what has been effected!

An attentive reader of the history of mankind, whether in the words of inspiration, or in the records of antiquity, or in the memory of his own experience, must perceive that the gradual improvement of his own condition upon earth is the inextinguishable mark of distinction between the animal man, and every other animated being, with the innumerable multitudes of which every element of this sublunary globe is peopled. And yet, from the earliest records of time, this animal the only one in the visible creation, who preys upon his kind. The savage man destroys and devours his captive foe. The partially civilized man spares his life, but makes him his slave. In the progress of civilization, both the life and liberty of the enemy vanquished or disarmed are spared; ransoms for prisoners are given and received. Progressing still in the paths to perpetual peace, exchanges are established, and restore the prisoner of war to his country and to the enjoyment of all his rights of property and of person. A custom, first introduced by mutual special convention, grows into a settled rule of the laws of nations, that persons occupied exclusively upon the arts of peace, shall with their property remain wholly unmolested in the conflicts of nations by arms.

We ourselves have been bound by solemn engagements with one of the most warlike nations of Europe, to observe this rule, even in the utmost extremes of war; and in one of the most merciless periods of modern times, I have seen, towards the close of the last century, three members of the Society of Friends, with Barclay’s Apology and Penn’s Maxims in their hands, pass, peaceful travelers through the embattled hosts of France and Britain, unharmed, and unmolested, as the three children of Israel in the furnace of Nebuchadnezzar. War, then, by the common consent and mere will of civilized man, has not only been divested of its most atrocious cruelties, but for multitudes, growing multitudes of individuals, has already been and is abolished. Why should it not be abolished for all? Let it be impressed upon the heart of every one of you, – impress it upon the minds of your children, that this, total abolition of war upon earth, is an improvement in the condition of man, entirely dependant on his own will. He cannot repeal or change the laws of physical nature. He cannot redeem himself from the ills that flesh is heir to; but the ills of war and slavery are all of his own creation. He has but to will, and he effects the cessation of them altogether. The improvements in the condition of mankind upon earth have been achieved from time to time by slow progression, sometimes retarded, by long stationary periods, and even by retrograde movements towards primitive barbarism. The invention of the alphabet and of printing are separated from each other by an interval of more than three thousand years. The art of navigation loses its origin in the darkness of antiquity; but the polarity of the magnet was yet undiscovered in the twelfth century of the Christian era; nor, when discovered, was it till three centuries later, that it disclosed to the European man, the continents of North and South America. The discovery of the laws of gravitation, and the still more recent application of the power of steam, have made large additions to the physical powers of man; and the inventions of machinery, within our own memory, have multiplied a thousand fold the capacities of improvement practicable by the agency of a single hand.

It is surely in the order of nature, as well as in the promises of inspiration that the moral improvement in the condition of man should keep pace with the multiplication of his physical capacities, comforts, and enjoyments. The mind, while exerting its energies in the pursuit of happiness upon matter, cannot remain inactive or powerless to operate upon itself. The mind of the mariner, floating upon the ocean, dives to the bottom of the deep, and ascends to the luminaries of the skies. The useful manufactures exercise and sharpen the ingenuity of the workman; the liberal sciences absorb the silent meditations of the student; the elegant arts soften the temper and refine the taste of the artist; and all in concert contribute to the expansion of the intellect and the purification of the moral sense of our species. But man is a gregarious animal. Association is the second law of his nature, as self-preservation is the first. The most pressing want of association is government, and the government of nature is the patriarchal law, the authority of the parent over his children. With the division of families commences the conflict of interests. Avarice and ambition, jealousy and envy, take possession of the human heart and kindle the flames of war. Then it is that the laws of Nature become perverted, and the ruling passion of man is the destruction of his fellow-creature, man. This is the origin and the character of war, in the first stages of human societies.

But war, waged by communities, requires a leader with absolute and uncontrolled command; and hence it is that monarchy and war have one and the same origin, and Nimrod, the mighty hunter before the Lord, was the first king and the first conqueror upon the record of time. “A mighty hunter, and his prey was man.” In process of time, when the passions of hatred, and fear, and revenge, have been glutted with the destruction of vanquished enemies, – when mercy claims her tribute from the satiated yet unsatisfied heart, and cupidity whispers that the life of the captive may be turned to useful account to the victor, -the practice of sparing his life on condition of his submission to perpetual slavery was introduced, and that was the condition of the Asiatic nations, and among them of the kingdoms of Israel and of Judah, when the prophesies of Isaiah were delivered. Then it was that this further great improvement in the condition of mankind was announced by the burning lips of the prophet. Then it was that the voice commissioned from Heaven proclaimed good tidings to the meek, mercy to the afflicted, liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound.

It is generally admitted by Christians of all denominations, that the fulfillment of this prophecy commenced at the birth of the Redeemer, six hundred years after it was promulgated. That it did so commence was expressly affirmed by Jesus himself, who, on his appearance in his missionary character at Nazareth, we are told by the gospel of Luke, went into the synagogue on the Sabbath-day, and stood up to read. And there was delivered to him the book of the prophet Isaiah. And when he had opened the book, he found this very passage which I have cited. “The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me; because the Lord hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the broken hearted; to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound! And he closed the book, and gave it again to the minister, and sat down” [Luke 4:17, 18, 20, 21]. This was the deliberate declaration of the earthly object of his mission. He merely read the passage from the book of Isaiah. He returned the book to the minister, and, without application of what he had read, sat down. But that passage had been written six hundred years before. It was universally understood to refer to the expected Messiah. With what astonishment then must the worshippers in the synagogue of Nazareth have seen him, an unknown stranger, in the prime of manhood, stand up to read; on receiving the book, deliberately select and read that particular passage of the prophet; and without another word, close the volume, return it to the minister, and sit down! The historian adds, “and the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue, were fastened on him. And he began to say unto them, This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears.” The advent of the Messiah, so long expected, was then self-declared. That day was that scripture fulfilled in their ears. They had heard him, at once reading from the book of the prophet, and speaking in the first person, declaring that the Spirit of the Lord God was upon himself. They heard him give a reason for this effluence of the Spirit of God upon him because the Lord had anointed him to preach good tidings to the meek. They had heard him expressly affirm that the Lord had sent him to bind up the broken hearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound. The prophecy will therefore be fulfilled, not only in the ears, but in the will and in the practice, of mankind. But how many generations of men, how many ages of time, will pass away before its entire and final fulfillment?

Alas! More than eighteen hundred years have passed away since the fulfillment of that scripture, which announced the advent of the Savior, and the blessed object of his mission. How long – Oh! how long will it be before that object itself shall be accomplished? Not yet are we permitted to go out with joy, and to be led forth with peace. Not yet shall the mountains and the hills break forth before us into singing, and all the trees of the field clap their hands. Not yet shall the fir tree come up instead of the thorn, nor the myrtle-tree instead of the brier. But let no one despair of the final accomplishment of the whole prophecy. Still shall it be to the Lord for a name, for an everlasting sign that shall not be cut off [Isaiah 55:12-13]. The prediction of the prophet, the self-declaration of the Messiah, and his annunciation of the objects of his mission, have been and are fulfilled, so far as depended upon his own agency. He declared himself anointed to preach good tidings to the meek; and faithfully was that mission performed. He declared himself sent to bind up the broken hearted; and this, too, how faithfully has it been performed! Yes, through all ages since his appearance upon earth, he has preached, and yet preaches, good tidings to the meek. He has bound up; he yet binds up the broken hearted. He said he was sent to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison doors to them that are bound. But the execution of that promise was entrusted to the will of man. Twenty centuries have nearly passed away, and it is yet to be performed. But let no one surrender his Christian faith, that the Lord of creation will, in his own good time, realize a declaration made in his name, – made in words such as were never uttered by the uninspired lips of man, – in words worthy of omnipotence.

The progress of the accomplishment of the prophecy is slow. It has baffled the hopes, and disappointed the wishes, of generation after generation of men. Yet, observe well the history of the human family since the birth of the Savior, and you will see great, remarkable, and progressive approximations towards it. Such is the prevalence, over so large a portion of the race of man, of the doctrines promulgated by Jesus and his apostles, – lessons of peace, of benevolence, of meekness, of brotherly love, of charity, – all utterly incompatible with the ferocious spirit of slavery. Such is the total extirpation of the licentious and romantic religion of the heathen world. Such is the incontrovertible decline and approaching dissolution of the sensual and sanguinary religion of Mahomet. Such is the general substitution of the Christian faith for the Jewish dispensation of the Levitical law. Such is the modern system of the European law of nations, founded upon the laws of Nature, which is gradually reducing the intercourse between sovereign states to an authoritative code of international law. Such is the wider and wider expansion of public opinion, already commensurate with the faith of Christendom; holding emperors, and kings, and pontiffs, and republics, responsible before its tribunals, and recalling them from all injustice and all oppression to the standard maxims of Christian benevolence and mercy, always animated with the community of principles promulgated by the Gospel, and armed with a two edged sword, more rapid and consuming than the thunder bolt, by the invention of printing.

But of all the events tending to the blessed accomplishment of the prophesy so often repeated in the book of Isaiah, and re-proclaimed by the multitude of the heavenly host at the birth of the Savior, there is not one that can claim, since the propagation of the Christian faith, a tenth, nay a hundredth part of the influence of the resolution, adopted on the second day of July, 1776, and promulgated to the world, in the Declaration of Independence, on the fourth of that month, of which this is the sixty-first anniversary. And to prove this has been the theme of my discourse.

And now, friends and fellow citizens, what are the duties thence resulting to yourselves? Need I remind you of them? You feel that they are not to waste in idle festivity the hours of this day, – to your fathers, when they issued their decree, the most solemn hours of their lives. It is because this day is consecrated to the cause of human liberty, that you are here assembled; and if the connection of that cause, with the fulfillment of those clear, specific predictions of the greatest of the Hebrew prophets, re-announced and repeated by the unnumbered voices of the heavenly host, at the birth of the Savior, has not heretofore been traced and exhibited in the celebrations of this day, may I not hope for your indulgence in presenting to you a new ray of glory in the halo that surrounds the memory of the day of your national independence?

Yes, from that day forth shall the nations of the earth hereafter say, with the prophet, – “How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him that bringeth good tidings, that publisheth peace!” [Isaiah 52:7] “From that day forth shall they exclaim, Sing, O heavens, and be joyful, O earth; and break forth into singing, O mountains! for the Lord hath comforted his people, and will have mercy upon his afflicted” [Isaiah 49:13, 24-25]. From that day forth, to the question, – “Shall the prey be taken from the mighty, or the lawful captive be delivered?” – shall be returned the answer of the prophet, – “But thus saith the Lord, – Even the captives of the mighty shall be taken away, and the prey of the terrible shall be delivered; for I will contend with him that contends with thee, and I will save thy children.” – “From that day forth, shall they say, commenced the opening of the last seal of prophetic felicity to the race of man upon earth, when the Lord God shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people; and they shall beat their swords into ploughshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more” [Isaiah 2: 4].

My countrymen! I would anxiously desire, and with a deep sense of responsibility, bearing upon myself and upon you, to speak to the hearts of you all. Are there among you those, doubtful of the hopes or distrustful of the promises of the Gospel? Are there among you those, who disbelieve them altogether? Bear with me one moment longer. Let us admit, for a moment, that the prophesies of Isaiah have no reference to the advent of the Savior; – let us admit that the passage in the Gospel of Luke, in which he so directly makes the application of this particular prophesy to himself, is an interpolation; – go further, and if, without losing your reverence for the God to whom your fathers, in their Declaration of Independence, made their appeal, you can shake off all belief, both of the prophesies and revelations of the Scriptures; – suppose them all to be fables of human invention; yet say with me, that thousands of years have passed away since these volumes were composed, and have been believed by the most enlightened of mankind as the oracles of truth; – say, that they contain the high and cheering promise, as from the voice of God himself, of that specific future improvement in the condition of man, which consists in the extirpation of slavery and war from the face of the earth. Sweep from the pages of history all the testimonies of the Scriptures, and believe no more in the prophesies of Isaiah, than in those of the Cumaean sybil [a priestess of Roman mythology who presided over the Cumae (a Greek colony in Naples) Apollonian oracle]; but acknowledge that in both there is shadowed forth a future improvement in the condition of our race, – an improvement of good tidings to the meek; of comfort to the broken hearted; of deliverance to the captives; of the opening of the prison to them that are bound. Turn then your faces and raise your hands to God, and pray that, in the merciful dispensations of his providence, he would hasten that happy time.

Turn to yourselves, and, in the Declaration of Independence of your fathers, read the command to you, by the unremitting exercise of your highest energies, to hasten, yourselves, its consummation!

William Henry Harrison 1835

Sermon – Fasting – 1841, Massachusetts


Bela Bates Edwards (1802-1852) graduated from Amherst in 1824 and was licensed to preach in 1831. He served in the American Education Society, as editor of several publications, Professor of the Hebrew Language and later the chair of Biblical Literature at Andover Theological Seminary. This sermon was preached on May 14, 1841, a fast day mourning the death of President William Henry Harrison.


ADDRESS

DELIVERED ON THE DAY OF THE

NATIONAL FAST, MAY 14, 1841,

AT A UNITED MEETING OF THE

RELIGIOUS SOCIETIES IN ANDOVER.

BY B. B. EDWARDS,

PROF. IN THE THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY, ANDOVER.

ANDOVER:

PUBLISHED BY WILLIAM PEIRCE.

ALLEN AND MORRILL, PRINTERS.

1841.

 

 

                                                                                                Andover, May 14, 1841.

 

Rev. B. B. Edwards—Dear Sir,

The undersigned, ministers of the several denominations of Christians in this town, having to-day, with their people, listened, with great pleasure, to your eloquent and appropriate Address on the character of General William H. Harrison, our lamented Chief Magistrate, and wishing to have the sentiments expressed in it placed before their fellow-townsmen, and the public generally, do hereby most respectfully request a copy for publication.

LORING.

C. JACKSON.

PAGE.

FULLER, Jr.

L. TAYLOR.

HERVEY.

A. MUDGE.

H. GRISWOLD.

 

 

ADDRESS.

The event which has called us together on this occasion,  is commonly spoken of as unexpected.  That the President of the United States should die, immediately upon his elevation to his high office, appears to have been wholly unanticipated.  Possibly not one in a thousand of those who contributed to his election, ever imagined, that he could claim no exemption from the common lot of man.  It seems to have been taken for granted, that after one had reached the object of his wishes, perhaps the fruit of a long and hard struggle, he should be permitted to enjoy it awhile; that even the inexorable enemy would show some pity.

But is it so?  Does the crown which was yesterday put on, sit more firmly than that which has been worn for half a century?  Is the life, which is vigorous to-day, insured against the accidents of to-morrow?  On the contrary, is there not in the anxiety and heated action which are incident to the pursuit of power, or wealth, or great usefulness, an obvious cause, why the over-tasked frame should suddenly fail?  Besides, no observation is more common, and none is more just, than that adversity is set over against prosperity; and often it is an invisible line which divides them.

We read, last week, in the public papers, of a family that had come into the possession of about all which is commonly regarded as desirable.  A joyous household shared in the nameless delights which wealth honorably acquired, could secure.  But in three or four days, an only son was borne from that household to his burial-place, and the frantic mother, like Rachel, refused to be comforted.

Last November, a youthful preacher,[i] whom some of you knew, was set apart to his work.  Many years he had spent, most industriously, in the fields of human and sacred learning.  Rich in acquisition, graceful in manners, bland in temper, strong in aspiration, he entered upon his labors.  A large, and almost for the first time unanimous, congregation hung upon his lips, as if they uttered the accents of angels.  The educated and the illiterate alike acknowledged his mastery over them.  But he passed away like some dream of the night which is too delicious to be real.  In four short months, he added another impressive commentary upon frail man’s fondest hopes.  He had hardly essayed his polished armor before he must put it off forever.

On the 17th of April last, a morning newspaper in a neighboring city informed us that the proprietor and principal editor would on that afternoon embark for Europe.  He had labored long and almost convulsively in his vocation.  His sleepless vigilance was crowned with success.  Those for whom he battled so unintermittingly came into power, and the worn laborer thought that he might rest from his toil.  “I have dreamed all my life,” he said, “of seeing Europe.  To-day I go:  yes, I am going to Rome.  These eyes will soon gaze on the Eternal City.”  He did embark, but it was upon that great ocean from which no voyager returns.

These, however, it may be said, were individuals in private life.  They did not sit in the seat of presidents or kings.  Surely the men who are high in power, and who are entrenching themselves in the warm affections of millions, will not thus pass away.  Their premature death will not crush in the germ hopes which are so sanguine.  But what is the testimony of the historian?  What are the annals of States and Empires?  Is it not the concurrent voice of history both sacred and profane, that it is the good, the ardently beloved among sovereigns who die first, while those, “whose hearts are dry as summer dust, burn to the socket.”

Across the centre of the Holy Land, from the Mediterranean to the Jordan, is a large plain, called the valley of Jezreel, or the plain of Esdraelon, which has been the theatre of many sanguinary battles, from the days of Joshua to those of Bonaparte and Sir Sidney Smith.  Thirty-three hundred years ago, the brook which winds its way through this plain, was called the Kishon of battles.  A few hundred years later, its pure water was reddened with the blood of a Jewish monarch, who there fell mortally wounded.  Never, perhaps, did death come in more affecting circumstances.  Hardly in the page of universal history is there a character more faultless than his.  In his continued life, the very existence of his nation was bound up.  He fell too in the meridian of his days, when he was just ready to enjoy the fruits of the gigantic reformation which he had accomplished.  Well might the tearful Jeremiah lament for Josiah, while all the singing men and singing women spake of him in their lamentations, for the hope of the nation was extinct, and we shut up the remaining history in despair.

Coming down to modern times, we find that the best king that France ever had, Henry the Fourth, the most interesting monarch, it is said, whom history describes, the defender of Protestantism against hosts of enemies, whose only victories, during a large part of his life, were those which he won over the hearts of his subjects by his generosity, magnanimity and patience, fell by the dagger of a Jesuit; he fell too just as he was on the point of commencing a great enterprise for the peace of Europe.  The grief for his death partook of the character of madness.  Tears were the least tokens of sorrow.  Many persons died on learning the catastrophe.

A few years earlier, the English Josiah, the good king Edward, as he was familiarly called, died in the sixteenth year of his age, leaving a nation in tears, the Protestant cause in despair, and the throne to one whose characteristic epithet is, “the bloody.”

On the 2d of May, 1816, an English princess, of the age of twenty-one years, was married.  She was the undisputed heiress to the most enlightened and coveted throne of earth; and to which she would have brought the spirit of an English queen of former days.  She had read much and with discrimination.  There was a mingled dignity and sweetness in her looks.  Warmth and openness of heart marked her conduct through life.  Her cherished place of resort was not the palace, but the cottage of the poor.  She was the favorite of the religious portion of her people, for she was of pious habits, and a strict observer of the Sabbath day.  When she found herself blessed with the husband of her choice, and saw that choice justified by his virtues, she more than once repeated, that she was the happiest woman in the kingdom.

Just eighteen months after her marriage, her bonnet and cloak were on the screen where she placed them, and her watch was suspended upon the wall by her own hands; and there they remained untouched for weeks, for the brokenhearted survivor would not allow them to be removed, and he looked upon them with such fixedness, as if his eyes had been marble.  Never, perhaps, was there an instance in which a whole nation, through all its ranks and degrees, was more deeply moved.  Never had a mourning been so universal; and its universality attested its sincerity,  It was as if the whole people formed but one afflicted family, and every individual had lost a dear sister, an affectionate friend, or a kind benefactress.  To this universal grief, there was but one exception, and that was the most lamentable sight of all, for to the old king, there was neither sun, nor moon, nor kingdom, nor wife, nor children.[ii]

Somewhat similar has been our experience during the last few weeks.  It is not, indeed, over departed youth and beauty, that the country mourns, but it is over withered hopes, blasted expectations, and fallen goodness.  The solemn observance of this day, these tokens of universal grief are not uncalled for.  The sorrow is no less considerate and befitting, than it is extensive and heart-felt.  The United States have experienced a heavy calamity.  Every incident which has come to light respecting the President since his decease, every new development of his character which has been brought to our knowledge, is fitted to awaken a profounder impression of our loss, and to create a more thorough conviction, that but poor justice was done to him while living, even by his more immediate friends.

We are aware, that there may be some, who, now that the first shock occasioned by his death has passed away, do not regard it as a national calamity at all.  He died, they say, at the critical moment for his own fame, before he had plunged into the treacherous sea of politics.  The government will move on as strongly and as prosperously as before.  Only one of the many eminent men in the nation has been removed.  Let us thank God, and take courage.

But we are not among those who can dispose of a great event so summarily. We are not ready to brand this universal sorrow as a hollow show, or an irrational sympathy.  If it is not to be viewed in the light of a national judgment; if in the President’s death there be no cause for mourning, why was he elected to his office.  Why was he borne to it by an overwhelming majority?  Why should we raise one to his high position whose death would be nothing more than an ordinary calamity?  He was not chosen by a mere popular impulse.  Wise and discerning men thought that they saw in his honesty, integrity, and comprehensive views, evidence of his eminent fitness for the station.

If we cannot, indeed, say what would have happened, had he lived.  We do not know but that the country maybe more prosperous under his successor, than if he had completed his term of office.  These things do not now concern us.  They are understood only by God.  They do not, however, diminish in the least the causes for the national sorrow.

His death may be, in various aspects of it, a most calamitous event.  It may be that his personal influence was indispensable in order to carry through some one of those prominent measures, on which, in the opinion of many, the repose of the country depends.  It may appear, without reflection on any other individual, that a President was needed, whose home was neither in the North, nor in the South, but in the controlling West.  It is a possible thing, that some of the great religious interests of the country are destined to suffer several additional years of embarrassment; and that, too, not through any fault of his successor.  It may be found, that as a people we were not worthy of a President who was manifestly a religious man, and who had determined to exert that religious influence, which is so much needed at our capital city, and which is so becoming in the Head of a great Christian people.  It may be, that the fate of the wretched Aborigines was depending on his continued life.  No paragraph in his Inaugural Address was perused with a warmer gush of emotion than that which asserted his determination to protect their rights.  We had hoped, that the time had now come when their captivity would be turned back, when some of the wrongs which we have ruthlessly heaped upon them should be redressed.  Their lot has been a hard one, and the day of their extinction draws near.  General Harrison might not have been able to arrest their descent; but he would have wiped some of the tears from their cheeks.  The good old soldier would have placed himself between them and the remorseless whiskey-dealer of the frontier.  His heart was full of tenderness towards them.  His death they may well mourn with bitterer tears than others shed, for no one who has survived him so well understood their peculiar circumstances; none would have administered so effectually to their relief.  For many years, he stood up their unflinching guardian, when they were infested by hordes of depredators and swindlers.

It is not my intention, on the present occasion, to narrate the incidents of General Harrison’s eventful life.  They are, doubtless, perfectly familiar to all who hear me.

It has seemed to me, that the main features of his character might be legitimately deduced from his Inaugural Address.  With the political views contained in that document, I shall not meddle.  I refer, mainly, to certain moral lineaments which cannot be mistaken.  The address is perfectly characteristic of the mind from which it proceeded.  It bears the indubitable impress of the generous soldier, of the man of integrity, compassion, forbearance, firmness, patriotism, unaffected simplicity.

Exceptions have, indeed, been taken to it in several respects; among others, as a literary performance.  It does not exactly please the refined scholar.  There are too many words in it; and the classical allusions are too frequent.  But General Harrison was not educated as a scholar.  His collegiate course was early interrupted, and never resumed.  The days of his later youth were passed in the unbroken forests and tangled swamps of the North West Territory.  His intellectual discipline was gained in unraveling the plots of the wary trapper, and in reconciling the feuds of the jealous and fault-finding emigrant.  His academic halls were the ancient woods of Vincennes; the lamps by which he read Caesar and Tacitus were the watch-fires of Tippecanoe.  Almost the whole of his adult life, from the time when he received an ensign’s commission from Washington, was spent in the most laborious practical duties, far away from books, and from nearly everything which could nurture a correct literary taste.

We have, however, but little patience with the men who dwell on defects of this nature.  Such defects are not, indeed, to be overlooked in documents which emanate from high places.  But compared with certain other things, they are lighter than the dust of the balance.  What we need in these papers are evidences of candor, benevolence, love of country, firmness, incorruptible integrity.  We want plain, direct, straight-forward writing, such as flows from the heart of an honest man, though the style may not be modeled after Quinctilian, and though the periods are not altogether graceful.

General Harrison had studied Roman History attentively and fondly, and in the Latin originals.  His address throughout betrays this predilection, while certain features of his character are in accordance with the models with which he was familiar.

He possessed the sterling integrity of some of the old Romans.  At certain periods of his life, he had immense pecuniary resources at his command.  But no one has detected, after the sharpest scrutiny, the slightest trace of dishonesty.  General Harrison never prostituted any office to the purpose of personal emolument.  By taking advantage of legal technicalities, he might have become affluent.  In former times, land-titles in the western country were loosely secured.  In one case, it is stated, that an individual recovered $80,000 for property which his ancestors had designed to alienate, but for which they gave no sufficient title.  In circumstances almost precisely similar, General Harrison, in the right of his wife, might he ejected the honest purchaser, and entered upon the possession of property of untold value.  But, said he, “if I have no moral title, I have no legal title.[iii]  No man who has filled an office in our country has enjoyed so many tempting opportunities as General Harrison did, to amass great wealth by deviating from the strict line of integrity, and, at the same time, with less risk of detection.  But he had that nice sense of honor in pecuniary and official engagements, which shrank from the remotest contact with aught corrupt or mean.  With Roman fastidiousness, he disdained all modes of acquiring wealth, which would not bear investigation.  In the Head of government, in these times of peculation and fraud, how inestimable such an example of more than Catonian probity!

All who knew General Harrison, speak of his unaffected simplicity.  He was a frank, large-hearted, affable farmer.  In his dress, equipage, manners, domestic arrangements, in all his intercourse with society, he was a plain man.  Pride of office, superciliousness of aspect, impatience of contradiction, airs of bustling importance, were as alien to him, as if he had had no conception of their existence.  He was not the friend of the people for the sake of winning their applause, or of buying their votes.  Everywhere, and at all times, he showed the same guileless, unassuming deportment, in office and out of office, retiring from public life, and a candidate for its honors.

These qualities were not, however, isolated and disproportionate.  If President Harrison had the unostentatious simplicity of him who was called from the plough to the dictatorship, he had his firmness also.  Without a large measure of it, he could never have fulfilled the numerous and complicated trusts which were committed to him.  The governor of a newly-established, ill-defined territory, filling up with emigrants from every region, who were dissimilar in habits, and often involved in bickering and law-suits, must have been a man of firm nerves.  The superintendent of a score of Indian tribes, that were at enmity with each other, always jealous of the encroaching white settler, and often the dupes of some French renegade, or Canadian sharper, could not have proceeded a single step, if he had not had a will of his own.

To these characteristics of integrity, simplicity, and decision, which might have flourished, and which did flourish on Roman soil, others were associated, which are more peculiarly the growth of a Christian land.  General Harrison was a remarkably kind and compassionate man.  In the document to which we have referred, there is an entire freedom from all acerbity of feeling, from all expressions of bitterness towards the party which had so strenuously sought the election of another individual.  There is not a harsh phrase in it.  This magnanimous forbearance characterized his whole life, military as well as civil.  Many of the anecdotes related of him strikingly illustrate his freedom from censoriousness, his habit of putting a charitable construction upon the conduct of others.  In his protracted, public career, he must have met with many temptations to indulge in exasperated passion and bitter animosity.  Even General Washington, on one or two occasions, could not control his anger.  But among all the military officers with whom General Harrison was associated, he had no enemy.  All unite in testifying to his habitual kindness, and his promptitude, in every emergency, to succor those in distress.  Even the poor comforts which followed him in his wet encampments and forced marches, he was prompt to resign to one who had greater need, let him be friend or foe.  The miserable man who had determined to take his life, he promptly rescued from his deserved punishment; thus exemplifying that forgiving spirit, which he could not have learned from Plutarch or Caesar, but which beams from every page of that volume which it was both his habit and his pleasure to read morning and evening.

In respect to the most interesting of all questions relating to the deceased President—his religious character—his countrymen are not required, nor are they competent, to decide.  This must be left with Him who judges without prejudice or partiality, and before whom the distinctions of earth are of no avail.  Amid the sorrow in which the country is involved, it is affecting to observe the solicitude which is felt on this point, and which is not confined to the religious press, or to professedly religious men.  All other questions are merged in this:  Was General Harrison a true Christian?  Every minute circumstance, every casual incident bearing on this subject, is repeated, as affording the most precious consolation which can be set before an afflicted people.  It shows what are the honest convictions of men.  We are not content with vague generalities.  In the case of one so much beloved, we cannot rest calmly on mere negative evidence.  We search for something more specific; we enter into his secret retirements, and rejoice to find, that, amid the strife of parties, and even the excitements of a triumphal march, he did not neglect his Maker, nor his Bible.

This solicitude indicates, also, that there is a conviction in the public mind of the indispensableness of moral principle in him who administers our government.  We have ceased to be frightened with the miserable bug-bear of “Church and State.”  We do not demand that a president or a judge should be an atheist, lest he should infringe on the rights of conscience.  For several years a reaction has been going forward in the public mind towards the better feelings and practices of our early ancestors.  Every recognition of a superintending Providence, every reverential allusion to the Inspired Word, in the doings or writings of the high officers of State, is welcomed with joy by multitudes in every part of our land, and of all Christian sects.

When it was seen, that General Harrison went beyond this, and avowed his profound reverence for the Christian system, as distinguished from Judaism, or from the religion of nature, multitudes hailed it as a still brighter omen.  And when, further, it was understood, that this was not mere profession, but was the utterance of what the President was, and what he meant to be and to do, how could a Christian people help feel a rushing of heart towards him?  The blessed days of the Winthrops, the Trumbulls, the Belchers, the Boudinots, the Witherspoons, were coming once more.  The highest man in the nation was not ashamed to have it known, that he bowed his knees daily to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and that he had determined, whatever others might do to interrupt him, to hallow the Christian Sabbath.

Now when these joyous anticipations were dashed to the ground by his sudden departure, how could a Christian people suppress their tears?  How could they avoid being astonished at the inextricable mystery?  Most appropriately is it regarded as a national judgment.  Pertinently is this day set apart to learn the solemn lessons which it cannot fail to teach.

I. One use of this bereavement, we say in general, is the same, which should be made in every instance of personal or family grief.  In such a case, you are the subjects of a new experience.  The stony soil in your hearts is broken up.  The vain things which cheat men out of the great object of life, you instinctively cast aside.  Death and the eternal state rise up before you as vital realities, which are not to be shuffled away by any of the devices which fools may invent.  So in the bereavement which affects a whole  people.  The national heart is softened.  The general conscience has an unwonted susceptibility.  Practices which are at war with virtue and with God, are felt to be what they are, an impertinence, or an abomination.  When the news of the death of the Princess Charlotte Augusta reached London, the midnight reveler stole silently away from his unfinished banquet.  Not a theatre was opened, and, we presume, not an infidel club was held, that week, throughout Great Britain.  Thus, when the intelligence of the great calamity which has befallen our country first reached us, amusements lost their power to charm; secular business stood still.  Tears came unbidden.  It was felt that God was in his holy Temple, and that the whole land should keep silence before Him.  The public mind was in that mellowed, softened state, which is one of the richest blessings of Heaven; which indicates the presence of the Holy Spirit, affecting millions, as a mighty wind bows down the forest, and which, if cherished, is the sure harbinger of a brighter day.

II. We are taught by this event the importance of cherishing kind feelings towards our rulers, and of forming liberal judgments of their measures.

It would shock us now to hear any harsh epithets applied to General Harrison.  We should turn away in sorrow or in anger from him who had it in his heart to vilify the dead.  We should be ready to eject from civilized society the man who could wantonly traduce the motives of one who is now alike insensible to human praise or blame.

But is it not wrong to lacerate the feelings of the living?  Is it any palliation of our offence, that the object at which we aim our envenomed shafts has nerves which are quick with sensibility?  It is a poor business to make war upon the dead.  But it is a poorer business to injure the feelings and vilify the name of the living.

Yet it has been done to a mournful extent in relation to our civil rulers.  We do not now refer to any particular individual or party.  It is a national sin.  It is the original sin, we had almost said, of every party.  The utmost ingenuity is called into requisition in the invention of abusive epithets, in distorting the plainest facts, in tearing open character, and then pouring into the wounds the venom of asps.  He is apt to be regarded as the ablest editor of a newspaper, who can use the most stinging phrases, who has at his command the largest vocabulary of excoriating epithets.  It is not unfrequently mentioned in praise of some zealous orator hat he flayed alive his poor opponent.  Withering sarcasm has come into the place of calm reasoning; the traducing of motives into that of respectful remonstrance, or of gentlemanly refutation.  One would think that many among us had passed their lives in studying the plays of Aristophanes, or the writings of John Wilkes or William Cobbett.

And the abuse is as indiscriminate, as it is abundant.  Who does not now see that Mr. Madison did not deserve the torrent of obloquy which was heaped upon him in 1812?  Thousands would gladly recall the hard speeches which they then uttered against that illustrious patriot.  So we feel it a duty to say, that many illiberal and unjust accusations were laid against the immediate predecessor of General Harrison; accusations to which General Harrison gave no countenance, and whose circulation conferred no honor upon their authors or abettors.

One would think, that it is the great business of men living under a free government, to show their freedom by maligning their rulers, just as the Athenians showed their democracy by ostracizing every citizen of extraordinary virtue.  But why can we not learn to distinguish between ignorance and bad intention, between limited capacity and malice, between ignorance which is unavoidable and that which is criminal?  Our rulers are not omnipresent.  They must often, and necessarily, decide on imperfect information.  If they waited for exact knowledge in every case, they would commit flagrant wrong, by the delay, in some other quarter.  Many of them have not the keen-sighted sagacity of Sully, nor the comprehensive statesmanship of Burke.  They must sometimes test a measure before they can decide upon its practical utility.  Why should we assign a sinister motive, when an honorable one is much more probable?

An eminent individual is strongly attached to office.  He wishes to have a voice in public affairs up to extreme old age.  We attribute it to his ambition, to his love of office for its own sake; whereas it may result from the perfect consciousness which he has, that the abandonment of an occupation with which he has been fifty years familiar, would be the shipwreck of his understanding.  The same individual does not act in some great emergency as we had anticipated.  He does not remain steadfast in the traces of the party with which he generally votes.  We wonder at his inconsistency.  We are amazed at his wrong-headedness.  Now the day of the revelation of all hidden things may show, that he was not obstinate, but conscientious, that his solemn and well-ascertained convictions of duty would not allow him to vote with his party.  Shall we then visit him with our maledictions?  To his own Master, he standeth or falleth.

Ought we not to practice a little magnanimity?  Ought we not to judge our public men with comprehensive and Christian charity?  It may be the trade of a partisan to show how adroit he can be in the use of opprobrious terms.  Be it ours, so far as we can, to correct this crying national offense, to rise superior to the miserable arts of the demagogue, and to demonstrate in our own case the ennobling influence of our free institutions, whose foundation rests upon a fraternal and affectionate equality.  In no other way, can we obey the authoritative injunctions of the Bible; for how an we offer intercessions for “all in authority,” when in the next breath, we cast out their names as evil, and denounce their knavery or incompetency.

III. Another vice, for which we may be suffering the chastisement of Heaven, is a want of moral integrity, which is the result, in part at least, of an insatiable desire for the acquisition of wealth.  This is one of the most vigorous off-shoots of our national depravity.  And yet, for the most part, it seems to be overlooked and uncondemned. When we speak of the offences for which we are visited in judgment, our minds instantly revert to the violation of the Sabbath, to intemperance, or to the wrongs inflicted by involuntary servitude.  But we are not certain, that either of these is more offensive, or more wide-spread than that controlling love of money which is growing upon the country and menacing alike its purity and its happiness.  Thus it was regarded by the departed President.  In a speech before the Historical Society of Ohio in 1837, he said, “The inordinate desire for the accumulation of riches, which has so rapidly increased in our country, if not arrested, will ere long effect a deplorable change in the character of our countrymen.  This basest of passions could not exhibit itself in a way more destructive to republican principles, than by exerting an influence on the course of education adopted by our youth.”

This impatience of labor, this reluctance to pursue the honorable and toilsome way for the acquisition of wealth, manifests itself in a great variety of forms.  It has occasioned a rush of young men from the country to the large towns and cities, many of whom look with contempt upon what they consider the menial and ill-requited tasks of the husbandman; imagining that, as merchants or importers, they shall rapidly rise to the high places of wealth and consideration.  Hence, in the reverses or stagnation of business, they are thrown out of employment, and are compelled to resort to almost any occupation, provided it is in a city, for their habits and tastes now unfitted to the dull and prosaic vocation of the tiller of the soil.  Hence, also, we may account, in part, for the disgraceful eagerness which thousands manifest to obtain a public office, saying like some of former times, “Thrust me into one of the offices, that I may obtain a morsel of bread;” preferring to live in a sort of precarious vassalage, rather than to go to work, like independent men, and earn, by hard labor, the means of subsistence.

Hence, also, the before unheard-of speculations, the stupendous frauds, forgeries, embezzlement of public funds, ruin of character, which are so common now as to cease to create any surprise.  This vice has infested all classes of society.  It has even crept into the sacred profession, and men have been found who could preach against the love of money on the Sabbath, and during the whole of the following week speculate in western lands.

It is obvious, that something was necessary to stop this insinuating and fatal vice.  It was fast corrupting the vitals of our prosperity, disgracing our character and institutions in the view of the civilized nations of Europe, some of whom are not unwilling now to brand us a community of swindlers and knaves.  If the death of General Harrison, coupled with the fact, that both his example and remonstrances were uniformly and decidedly in opposition to the vice in question, should be the means, in any degree, of turning the minds of men to it, with a view to its utter abandonment, then that death, so much lamented, will not have been in vain.  It may have been one of the principal reasons of the frown of Heaven.  In this matter, we have gone in defiance of the plainest precepts of the Bible.  We have run counter to the laws impressed on our own nature, and to the whole tenor of human experience.

IV. One use of this national bereavement maybe to teach us to estimate more adequately the value of our free institutions.

During the last twelve months, these institutions have passed through pretty severe ordeals.  It has been proved again, that there is in them some fitness to our character and wants, some adaptation to the genius of the people.  It has been too common to represent them as arbitrary and conventional, as something to which the people must inure themselves with long and severe discipline.  They are often likened to a reed shaken by the wind, to a rope of sand, to a sheet of perishing parchment, or to the feeblest and frailest objects in nature.  It seems to be imagined, that the great Author of our freedom is honored when we speak disparagingly, or contemptuously, of our political institutions, as though he could protect us just as well in some other way, by a monarchical establishment, for instance, or a paternal despotism, between which and the feelings of the people, there is no possible correspondence.  It is often said, that our frame of government is no defense against exasperated passion.  It is a mere paper bulwark, which a breath may throw down.  But is it not thus with any of the works of man?  Would not the boasted British constitution be like tow in the fire in some conceivable exigency?  And yet that instrument is fitted to the spirit and genius of the British people.  It has weathered the storms of more than a dozen centuries.  So with our Constitution.  It has had somewhat violent handling for more than fifty years, and yet it is substantially unimpaired.  It may be battered by some daring innovator, but it has a self-recovering energy.  It may be infringed upon by some State or local partisanship, but it is so nicely balanced, so perfectly adjusted, that the attack will call forth a powerful defense from some opposite quarter of the Union; and where one hand of violence is raised for its overthrow, a thousand hands will rally for its rescue.  God is to be honored, we conceive, not by mournful ditties on the worthlessness of these civil privileges, but by praising Him, that they are as good as they are, and that He presided in those illustrious councils which gave birth to them.  His wisdom was most conspicuously manifest.  His spirit of conciliation, and of comprehensive benevolence was breathed into the hearts of the venerable fathers of our republic.  One is struck in reading the journals of their secret deliberations, with their repeatedly-expressed consciousness of the solemnity of their work; that the well-being of a “continent,” to use their favorite term, was suspended on the result of their deliberations.[iv]

It has been confidently predicted, over and over again, by the wise and by the unwise, that our frame of government would not endure this or the other sharp trial.  Men trembled for the ark when General Washington’s steadying hands were withdrawn from it.  The gulf of ruin was yawning before us in the period of the embargo, and of the Berlin and Milan decrees.  Many men gave up all for lost when the war of 1812 burst upon us.  The financial embarrassments, which succeeded, would ruin forever, it was thought, our public credit.  The horrors of civil strife would inevitably follow the discussion of the Missouri question, whichever way it should be decided.  Again, when one of the twenty-six planets showed some tokens of rushing out of its orbit, the whole system, it was supposed, would be thrown into disastrous confusion.  But the sun still shines in the centre, and the goodly company of stars hold on their luminous road.  The elections of the last year were full of inauspicious omens.  The immense meetings of the people would be a fatal precedent.  The voice of reason would be drowned in the uproar of a multitude.  But the constitution and the country came out of the conflict without any serious defacement.  It was certainly a sublime spectacle to see two or three millions of men meet together, with strong political preferences, and elect peaceably, without the loss of a single human life, and without anything which could be termed a riot, a fellow-citizen to preside over them, whom most of them had never seen, and who resided hundreds or thousands of miles from them; and then, in the course of a few days, to behold all parties quietly acquiesce in the will of the majority.  It shows, that, with all our degeneracy, there is some self-control among us, some true love of country.  It demonstrates that our Constitution is not that miserable parchment, which some men would call it.  It proves that our fathers’ God has not wholly deserted the people whom he once blessed with his presence.

To one test, however, our institutions had never been subjected.  There was one fire into which their metal had never been thrown.  No President had ever died in office.  No one, for any reason, had ever vacated his seat.  A provision of the Constitution is now, for the first time, practically applied.  For fifty years the vice-president, as such, as a cipher in our system.  A slumbering article of the immortal instrument awakes into life.  We have a President, not by the choice of even a minority of the people.  He assumes his office, by the immediate dispensation of Almighty God.  There is not, however, the slightest jarring in the system.  When Alexander of Russia died—the only one of the monarchs of Europe who was styled an autocrat—there were serious disturbances.  His legitimate successor soon abdicated his office, and the present emperor succeeded, not without hazard of the most fearful insurrections.  But in our country, which is full of the fiery elements of freedom, there has been a succession to the chief magistracy, without the slightest desire or whisper of those changes, which sometimes perplex hereditary monarchs.  This noiseless and admirable working of our system must, we should suppose, exert some influence in Europe in favor of republican and representative governments.  We are aware, that the people of Europe do not like to take lessons of us.  They are much more apt to chronicle our misdemeanors, than to study patiently our invaluable civil polity.  Still, our country is, in this respect, like a city set on a hill.  The eagerness with which our faults are scanned shows that our example, be it good or bad, is felt among the old despotisms of Europe.  Every great and successful struggle which we pass through is welcomed by all the friends of human improvement from the cliffs of Norway to the rock of Gibraltar.  Several of the Northern and central governments of Europe are gradually extending to their people the benefits of representative forms.  Whether this improvement shall advance any further depends essentially upon us.  Dishonesty, want of integrity, misgovernment here, will certainly put an end to the generous aspirations which are breathed forth there.  We cannot but believe, that the severe tests to which our civil institutions are subjected, from time to time, in the Providence of God, are intended to demonstrate the superiority of our system, for the benefit of other nations.

We are aware, that the common doctrine is, that one form of government is as good as another.  What is best for us could not be administered in Austria.  Some tribes of men are born to be the tools of a despot.  All these fond and ardent expressions about freedom and popular governments are but idle prating.  The Cossacks and the Tartars must be taught, as the men of Succoth were, with the thorns and briers of the wilderness.  But we suppose that the Russian emperor is not always to rule over a nation of rein-deer or of wolves.  A despotic government is as good as any other, provided the people do not know the difference between it and any other.  But the moment you enlighten them, you infuse a doubt into their minds whether an irresponsible monarchy is the best form of human government.  And just according to the degree in which you enlighten them, to that degree you make a popular government indispensable for them.  The reason why Nicholas is an autocrat is, that his subjects are boors.  England and France are becoming more enlightened every year, and they are approximating, indisputably, to the American theory.  Therefore it is, that our example is of immeasurable importance.  Therefore it may be that God afflicts us, that he may benefit our brethren over the waters.

It is, however, objected, that our form of government, by its leveling tendencies, annihilates all that wholesome reverence which every people should manifest towards their rulers.  This feeling sickens and dies except under the sun-light of a monarchy.  We deny the position altogether.  The observance of this day is a refutation of it, borne upwards by voices like the sound of many waters, from the Southern Gulf to the Lake of the Woods.  Yes, the simple observance of this day is a tribute of mingled love and reverence from a people towards a ruler, sublime than was ever chanted in royal cathedral, or listened to in the precincts of courts.  It was not ordered, it was recommended; it is not a hard service; it is a spontaneous outflow.  And it is not a solitary instance.  What sovereign in Europe was ever honored as Washington is now, and as he will be till the republic which he founded shall cease to exist?

V. One lesson, we might say, the great lesson, to be learned from this bereavement is, the necessity of a profounder conviction that God is the Governor of the world.

If there be one truth on the pages of the Bible more luminous than any other it is this, that Jehovah is King of kings.  The Jewish theocracy is sometimes spoken of as if God’s Providence were confined to it, and as if he permitted the contemporary nations to live as they listed.  Nothing, however, is plainer, than that they felt his punishing arm, or heard his cheering voice, according as they sinned or feared before Him; and this too when their conduct had no special reference to his chosen race.  The cry of the oppressed in Nineveh and in Jerusalem alike clothed Him in vengeance.  Repentance was equally opportune with both.  Monuments of his consuming wrath met you in the Holy City and in the fastnesses of Edom.  They jut out from under the second temple, they rise up from the sands of Egypt, and from the banks of the Euphrates.

All history is full of like examples.  Evidences of God’s supremacy, and of his anger with nations, are chronicled on every shore.  The lightning has scorched them into the eternal rocks on every part of the globe.

Fifty years ago, men wondered at the events which were transpiring in the French capital.  There appeared to be no cause adequate to the tragedy.  France was suffering a punishment, not only greater than she could bear, but greater than she deserved.  Demons could hardly merit a heavier infliction.  But men forgot the age of Louis XIV. And the night when the great bell of St. Bartholomew tolled.

So when the storm of war swept over the central and northern kingdoms of the continent, near the beginning of the present century.  Why were the old capitals of Europe sacked?  Why were the hoary thrones of despotism like the chaff before the wind?  Why were the Francises and the Gredericks compelled to flee, like the veriest thieves, under cover of midnight?  Because God was remembering Poland.  When the sun went down upon Austerlitz and Jena, thoughtful men recurred to Warsaw and Kosciusko.  “Righteous are thy judgments,” might have been written on “the ocean of flame” which rose up from the old palace of the czars.  Spain too—she suffers a long time, for it will take a long time to expiate the innocent blood which her viceroys poured out on this continent, for ages, like water.

May we not learn a lesson from the honest page of history?  Can we safely neglect the warning voice?  Has not God a controversy with us?  May not our long-continued commercial embarrassments, which have brought ruin into so many families, and disgrace upon our national character, have a deeper cause than our worldly-wise men are apt to imagine?  May they not be foretokens of more bitter afflictions to come?  Behind this visible scene of things, there is One, “who shutteth up a man and there can be no opening;” “who leadeth away” the most sagacious financiers, the most sharp-sighted statesmen, “spoiled;” “who discovereth deep things out of darkness, and bringeth out to light the shadow of death;” “who enlargeth the nations, and straiteneth them again.”  In the sad event which we this day mourn, is there not some other agency than the course of nature, or the ministry of a disease?

Lay not, therefore, upon thy soul any atheistic unction by practically denying the Providence of God, by referring to accident or to nature what was meant as a pointed admonition.  Beware, that thou do not hide thyself under any indistinct generalities.  If God speaks to the whole people, he speaks to thee.  Interrogate thyself, personally, under this national bereavement.  Break off the sins which make a part of the vast national aggregate.  Beware, lest thou provoke God to withdraw in anger from thy country.  See to it, that the cry of the oppressed does not arm Him in wrath.  Pollute not his holy Sabbath.  Profane no more his awful name, for he is a jealous God.  Take heed, lest thy thoughtless ingratitude, thy abuse of favors and of afflictions alike, prove the ruin of the fairest inheritance which the sun in his circuit beholds; lest the friends of freedom and the rights of conscience in other lands should curse thee as miserably faithless to the most precious hopes ever entrusted to man.

 

END.

 


[i] Rev. William Bradford Homer.

[ii] See the details in the English newspapers, Nov. 1817.

[iii] Se the Sermon of Rev. Thomas Brainerd of Philadelphia.

[iv] See the Journals of Mr. Madison.

Sermon – Fasting – 1832, Massachusetts


Orville Dewey (1794-1882) graduated from Williams in 1814 and pastored various churches from 1823 to 1862. This sermon was given on August 9, 1832.


     SERMON        

On the Moral Uses

Of the Pestilence

Denominated

Asiatic Cholera

Delivered on
Fast-Day August 9, 1832

By Rev. Orville Dewey

Pastor of the First Congregational Church in New-Bedford

published by Request of the Society

New – Bedford

Printed by Benjamin T Congdon

1832

SERMON

Isaiah XXVI

When Thy Judgments Are In The Earth, The Inhabitants of the

World Will Learn Righteousness

   The visitation of a calamity in some respects of an unprecedented character, has awakened the world to an unusual degree of consideration.  It is most desirable that this consideration should be rightly directed; that it should be guarded from all resorts to superstitious reliances and from an absorption in mere world fears; and that it should yield some results adequate to the greatness of the occasion.  If the world after this calamity shall have passed over it, is to be no wiser than it was before, such a failure must, to every sober mind, believing in providence, be a deep cause of regret.  The end is more important than the means.  It more concerns every being to improve God’s discipline, than to escape it.  To fail of that end, to fail of the improvement of the discipline would be a greater calamity than it is to endure the visitation of the pestilence itself.  For surely we are not , as Christians to forget that there are worse evils than the pestilence—worse evils than all outward calamities— evils so much worse , that all outward calamities  are designed to be their antidote and cure.
   

This consideration too, of the moral uses of the prevailing pestilence, would tend more than anything else, to allay the fears it inspires.  To caution the people against being alarmed, to reiterate  and multiply admonitions on this point, to warn the timid and terror-sticken, that this panic is among the surest harbingers of the dreaded disease, to tell them continually that the more alarmed , the more exposed they are, to exhort and urge them, as they value their lives, to be calm,  to recommend to them , in fine, by such constant implication,  to try not to be afraid—this seems to be very ill adapted to answer the purpose.  It is as if we would frighten people out of their fears, or hurry them into moderation and calmness.  Besides, it is not easy, unless we look at the moral aspects of this calamity, to prevent some natural tremors, some agitations, perhaps of unmanly fear.  If the elements are left to work their will upon us, if they are working to no end, but to show their awful and destructive power; if the scourge is borne upon the uncommissioned winds and its pavilion is darkness and its way is mystery and its end is death and there is no object and no explanation and nothing for the mind to deal with, but elements and powers, but inevitable fate and dire necessity.  How can mortal hearts sustain themselves in the dread encounter with agents so blind, inexorable and awful!  But if there is a Power, beneficent as it is mighty, that stays at its pleasure, the pestilence that walketh in darkness and the destruction that lays waste at noon-day; if it suffers the prevalence of disease to answer wise purposes.  If this calamity , however singular it is , nevertheless a part of the universal providence; if it is , like all other means for the reform and improvement of the world , to do more good than evil; then surely may we learn to look upon it with calmness and acquiescence.  Then indeed shall we look seriously upon it and we shall look upon it and we shall look upon it with fear too, but with a fear that is rational  and religious ; with a fear that will turn very much indeed upon the state of our own minds.  We shall think much of ourselves and so much more the less of the outward and physical forms of this evil.  We shall think much of the good it is to do millions of our fellow-men and so much the less of the mere bills of mortality , dreadful as they are.  In fine, we shall have our fears, but they will mingle much of devout and grave consideration with them —a trust and satisfaction in the wisdom of God’s providence; an apprehension lest we and others shall not reap the good designed to be communicated and these moral considerations will assuage and moderate those panic sensations which are now occupied with nothing but danger and rumors of danger.
     

There is another argument for attention and for universal attention.  The visitation of this calamity is a voice to the world.  Other calamities have been partial in their extent.  Other forms of pestilence have been confined to particular countries, or districts of country.  No famine ever devastated a whole continent.  No war ever raged from ocean to ocean.  But to the ravages of this fearful destroyer, neither oceans nor continents have set bounds.  It has compassed the habitable globe.  From the plains of India, from the mountains of central Asia, its march has been steady and irresistible.  It has traversed deserts and seas.  It has broken through all the defenses which the power and vigilance of governments could set up against it; till that which for years has been the rumor of far off evils, is suddenly become terrific reality and the spoiler of two continents knocks at the door of our American homes.

At such a visitation, it is meet that the world should pause.  It is meet that days of fasting and humiliation and prayer should suspend the ordinary pursuits and cares of life and give an opportunity to meditate upon the “ways of God to man”. 

I have thus far urged the propriety and advantage of a sober and attentive consideration of this extraordinary calamity, but is there anything to consider?  Is there any meaning in this visitation which can without presumption, be fixed upon by us, as the subject of attention.

I ask in reply:  Is there not a providence in it?   Permitted, or produced, does it not come within the range of the Almighty power and Agency?  Who will say that it is without the sphere of God’s government?   Who will tell us where those dread regions are, over which God has no control, in which He does not His pleasure?  Has not the whole course of events which take place in the world, a design?  Did they receive their original, do they receive their present impulses from the tendencies of matter, or the ordinations of fate?  But if there are ends to be accomplished by all things, will there not be a relation, an intentional relation between the means and the ends?  Why then —- so far as the agency of any event is specific —-why shall we not say that the object, the design, the meaning, is specific.

And now, let me ask, was there ever a calamity in the world, not miraculous, which apparently possessed such a high and solemn moral significance as this pestilence?  Was any design of earthly events ever more clear, specific or solemn?  We saw an evil, the most insidious and deadly, entering the world by a thousand avenues and gaining a strength, unknown to former ages, by the modern improvements, if improvements we must call them, in the process of distillation.  We saw the produce of ten thousand harvest-fields wrought, from all wholesome uses, into an intoxicating and destroying poison.  We heard the voice of wailing and lamentation and despair, from ten times ten thousand dwellings: and we asked, with many others, what can stay the progress of this horrible evil?  What is to save the world?  What is to leave in the world, any innocent father, mother, sister, friend, not utterly broken-hearted?  And now, at this very crisis, when good men had begun to be alarmed, indeed, but when the good were more alarmed than the bad were reformed—at this very crisis, there appears in the world, a disease  unknown to former times and it appears as the grand antagonist power to the monster, Intemperance.  It strikes as its foremost victims the votaries of strong drink and to them, its blow, though all others, or nearly all, with prudence may escape-–to them its blow is almost inevitable death!

If this be not providence, what is providence?  If this be not a voice from heaven, by what tokens shall we know such a voice?  If all the pains and penalties that follow vice, are held, in all creeds but that of the atheist, to be the remedial and disciplinary process of the Supreme wisdom; if those specific diseases, which set their mark and brand upon particular vices, are justly to be regarded as possessing, in a more striking degree, the same admonitory character, what less shall we think of a visitation like this unprecedented pestilence?  If a new species of brain-fever were to appear in the world and if it made gamesters its principle victims, what more specific and solemn moral would it hold out, than to be found in this plague of the cholera?

It is true, indeed, that the desire, natural to the reflecting mind, of finding reasons for things and of finding reasonableness, intelligence and wisdom, in the whole surrounding scene of life, may have carried us too far.  It is true, too, that this is one of the subjects that comes not within the range of demonstrative, but only of moral evidence. I do not say that I know that this is a special visitation, designed to check a particular vice; and on the other hand, no man can say that he knows it is not. I can only say, that my mind leans to this view of the subject.  I firmly believe that if there had been no intemperance in the world, this pestilence would not have been in the world.  But what do I say?  I had thought that I was arguing and I find that I am stating a simple fact.  Certainly there would have been no such pestilence in the world; there might have been such a disease and it might have prevailed like other diseases—but there would have been no such pestilence in the world, if it had not been for intemperance.  Intemperance is its very haunt, its resort, its prey—that without which it could not live.  Intemperance has occasioned it, created it, called it into being.  Has it not?  What means then, the language of every medical report and opinion on the subject?  What is to be made of the sense and experience of the whole world upon this point?  Why do the intemperate everywhere feel that it is they who are exposed, that it is they who are meant?  And why are so many moderate drinker, as the disease approaches nearer and nearer to them, setting down the untasted cup?  Is it too much to say , that it was designed for the check and destruction of the vice in question?

But it may be said, that the intemperate are not its only victims.  It is true, that they only its chief, its most conspicuous victim; others suffer.  But this only comports with the general order of God’s providence.  The innocent are everywhere suffering with, and for, and through, the guilty.  It may possibly be said, also, that this pestilence does not, after all and will not, altogether reform the world and so will fail of the alleged end and therefore could not have been designed for that end.  The general answer to both these objectives is the same.  God’s providence over the mind, is adapted to the mind; does not compel it or overwhelm it with flagrant and instantaneous results, but appeals to its reason, elicits it powers, respects its freedom, deals with it by influences that are gentle and persuasive and not coercive and irresistible.  Whether the world will be reformed or not—it is warned—and this is the material point for us to establish.  It  is all the less likely to be reformed, till it feels that it is warned.

It is for this reason that I am concerned to urge the doctrine of a providence, in relation to this stupendous and wide-spreading calamity: for indeed the facts without the doctrine, are sufficient for my main purpose.  And so eminently providential does it appear, that it might not be difficult for us to persuade ourselves, that it was designed to teach and explain this great doctrine of a providence, to the generation of the thoughtless, the negligent and skeptical.  Let us then, dwell a moment longer on this point, to illustrate this use, if not design, of the affliction that is sent upon us.

The difficulty sometimes found with the doctrine of a providence is, that it is held to be special, that it recognizes the efficacy of prayer, that it is believed to interpose at the call of human weakness and distress and penitence.  It is the interposition of providence, that is by some doubted.

But let it be supposed that the world were to be reformed from the vice of intemperance and then, the cholera—that peculiar disease which is now prevailing—would cease.  It would cease, because it would no longer find victims.  The very element which supports it, would be taken away.  On what condition then, would it cease?  The answer is, on the very condition of repentance.  It would cease at the voice of humiliation and prayer; at the voice of a sorrowing and reformed people.  Here then, in a general view, is the efficacy of prayer and here is the doctrine of a providence.

And why may we not go farther?  Why may we not go beyond the general view?  Why should it be thought “a thing incredible” with us, that who inflicts the blow, should with an interposing hand, suspend it, when its purpose is answered?  It is here perhaps, that the difficulty about a providence presses hardest.  Are not the operations of nature, it may be said—are not the laws that govern the elements, uniform?  I answer, we do not know that they are.  What saith the visitation of this calamity?  It reminds us how wide a theatre there is for the operations of the overruling hand—how vast a region, before which the vail is lifted up, that none can penetrate.  Where is the origin of this dread pestilence?  Where are its dark magazines, out of which swift destruction comes?  Where is the secret of its presence and the hiding of its power? Wisdom is baffled in the inquiry and experience is but a blind guide.  Whether it is in the heaven or in the earth or in the waters under the earth, it is questioned and it is questioned in vain.  Whether it is in the atmosphere or in the human system—whether it is contagious or infectious or epidemic or local, the understanding of the learned has not found out and the wisdom of the wise has not decided.  It has travelled through the world: the eyes of millions have been eagerly bent upon it; the voices of every language have invoked from it, its dark secret; the seers of every healing art, from the Ganges to the Atlantic shore, have sought for the interpretation of its fearful signs and still it is shrouded in impenetrable mystery.  The object is clear; it is proclaimed as with the voice of a trumpet; all else is darkness and silence.  Where the bolt strikes, we can see; we see who are its foremost victims; but the bosom of the black cloud, as it rolls onward, no eye has penetrated.

Let no man tell me, that in the bosom of that black cloud, there is no might or mystery beyond the reach and measure of His understanding—no space for the secret work of God—for the operations of an inscrutable and interposing providence.  Let no man tell me, that he who rides on the whirlwind and directs the storm, is bound by the chains of any fate or necessity.  He does his pleasure amidst the armies if heaven, amidst the thrones and powers of the firmament and among the inhabitants of the earth and none can say unto Him, what doest thou?  None can know what He does, or may dare to say what He doeth not.  What is interposition or what is not interposition; how far the overuling hand is stretched out or where it is stayed; what chord in the mighty system of things it touches or what hidden spring it unlocks; what it binds that shall not be loosed, or losses that shall not be bound.

But the skeptic will perhaps say, in fine, that man is a creature too insignificant to be the object of such attention and care, as we allege, that the Being who sits enthroned above the heavens and governs millions of world, will not stoop to regard a thing so inconsiderable and indifferent as this dweller in the dust.  But look at this being, when struggling as a victim in the grasp of the fell destroyer.  If it were the lot of man, to drop from the course of life like an animal, a mere inert lump of clay, we might think differently.  But what is the death of a man?  What is it when it comes in the form of this disease, held to be so terrible?  It is not any frightful paroxysm of pain, which makes that hour so awful; it is not the gathering mist that settles upon the closing eye-lids, that makes it so dark; it is not convulsion and grasping for breath and the mortal strife , that gives such intensity to every thought and feeling; but it is parting from the thousand ties that bind the heart to life; it is the solemn vision of eternity opening upon the soul; it is that intense spiritual consciousness that seems to concentrate all that is solemn and sublime in the universe, upon that dread moment; it is an element mightier than any earthly power, that imparts such grandeur to the death-bed scene; it is a portion of the Divinity, that is holding conflict with disease and pain and sorrow and death.  Will not God regard it, in its great and perilous hour?   Can He hold that which was made in His own image, as too mean for His interposition or disposal?  Can we believe that thousands and millions in the world are dying under the stroke of this one peculiar and extraordinary infliction and that there is no providence and no meaning in all this?

II. But if there is a meaning in this, what is it?  If there is a providence, what does it teach?  What do facts teach, let the doctrine be what it may?

The answer to this question has been necessarily implied in the previous discussion; but we should be totally wanting to the occasion that has assembled us together, if we did not give it our direct and separate attention.  I say then, that which providence teaches, that which facts teach the world in this great calamity, is a lesson of temperance.  The calamity itself, as I think, naturally leads us to recognize a providence and a special interposing providence.  But providence, if there be any in this matter, has an end.  That end, if there be an end, must be, I repeat, to teach the world a lesson of temperance.

Will it not teach this?  Will not increased temperance be the effect?  And if it will, why should we not say, that it was intended to be the effect?  But will it not, I repeat?  Suppose the cholera were to remain ten years in this country or in Europe : there is no reason to expect its speedy disappearance—it has already returned to some of the cities in Europe—it has been a long period in Asia: if I say, the cholera were to remain ten years among us; if for that length of time it should hover in the air, ready to stoop with its deadly talons upon any dissolute city or village or individual, can it be doubted that by such an agency, the work of reform would be carried on with a success  and effect, beyond all former example?  Can it be doubted, that ten years, with the sword hanging over every man’s head, would make us comparatively a temperate people?  How many is this single summer’s experience showing that they can live without spirituous drinks and that they are altogether better without them!  “When thy judgments are in the earth,” saith the prophet and surely when such judgments are in the earth, “the inhabitants of the world will learn righteousness.”

And if they are to learn righteousness, or if this going forth of the pestilence is fitted to teach them, then I am prepared to take another step, and to say, that it is a beneficent visitation.  If you doubt whether your ears hear me rightly, I repeat it, and say it is a beneficent visitation.  I confess that I do not partake of the unmixed and supreme horror, which many feel at this disease.  There is another calamity, another curse, which, as I believe, it is designed to remove, and which impresses me with greater horror.  The Cholera, I am firmly persuaded, will prevent more suffering than it will occasion.  The woes of unrestricted intemperance in this country for ten years, would be far greater than the woes of a ten years’ plague.  I cannot pray, therefore, without the most careful qualification, and the most guarded submission, that this pestilence should depart from our borders.  I dare not say, it is best for us that it should depart.  I dare not absolutely pray for the removal of this disease, any more than for the removal of many diseases.  I see clearly that the world would sink at once into the ruins of sensual indulgence, if no pain or sickness followed excess.  I see that to indulgence, disease, of some kind or other, is the antagonist power.  I now see indulgence of one particular species, rising to a most alarming height; and I see a disease breaking out at the same time to counteract it.  This, to my apprehension, is the method which Providence has adopted for teaching the lesson of temperance.  Say that his pestilence is developed by intemperance itself, or say that its causes, not of any new creation, have always lain hidden in the bosom of the elements; or say that it is the result of general laws; still it is none the less the teaching of Providence.  And I dare not absolutely ask that the teaching should be suspended till the lesson is learnt.  Though the discipline be costly and dear, I dare not ask it.  I know that it is taking from us the lives of some valuable and beloved citizens, but I do not esteem even their lives too precious a sacrifice for the salvation of the land.  I see the innocent, indeed, dying for the guilty; but I see in this, only the usual order of God’s providence; I see, indeed, the order of his grace; I see, as it were, Jesus again in his members, dying for the world.

The horrors of the Cholera, I must be allowed to repeat, are not the greatest horrors that are to be found in the abodes of the civilized world.  The convulsions of this disease are not, in my eyes, so horrible as the paroxysm of drunkenness—the riotings of its merriment, or the writhings of its fury.  The delirium of sickness is not so dreadful as the madness of the inebriate man. The dreaded “collapse” presents not a picture so dreadful as the poor wretch who lies by the wayside; no waiting friends or sympathizing kindred around him; senseless to the passing jest or buffet; no longer a human being, but the ghastly ruins of what was once human.  And a brief sickness and a speedy death carry no such agony to the bosom of a family as ten, or twenty, or thirty years of dissoluteness in it; no, nor as one year’s woe and shame of intemperance, in one of its before cherished and beloved members.  Nor doth the land mourn, nor ever can it mourn for a pestilence, nor is its substance wasted, nor are all its laws and safeguards sapped and undermined, though all the plagues of Egypt fall upon it—no, there is no such peril to any people in all this, as there is in the poisoned fountains of intoxication that are now deluging the world—there is no such sorrow, as the sorrow of millions by their desolate hearths, made desolate by this accursed indulgence; there is no such “cup of trembling” and of “wrath poured out without mixture,” as the horrible cup or excess!

It is impossible not to observe in this connection, that this judgment of Providence on the people at large, is especially a voice of admonition, a call for reform, to cities and populous places.  It has always been found that in proportion as men congregate together, and wealth increases in the hands of some, and poverty presses hard upon others, that the vices shoot up into monstrous and fearful luxuriance.  The most splendid advantages, the brightest gifts of heaven as they seem as least to most men, are here set in glaring and mournful contrast with most awful abuses of them.  It is here too perhaps, that the noblest virtues are developed and formed; but the powers of good in these circumstances have hitherto held but a feeble and doubtful conflict with the powers of evil; they have not, indeed, been put forth; and Christian men and women in our cities, are yet, perhaps, to learn the measure and the methods of their duty. 

It would be dullness, worse than ingratitude, and more inexcusable, not to refer in this view to the noble efforts for teaching the poor and rescuing the vicious, which are now making by a Christian ministry devoted to those objects, in the metropolis of our own State—efforts, which it is hoped will in process of time, present to the world, the model of a Christian City.  This Ministry for the poor in cities, like the Sunday School, and the improved Prison Discipline, and the Bethel Churches, I regard as one of the great moral discoveries of the age.  Physical causes, I trust, are also to lend their aid.  It seems to me, not an extravagant anticipation, that the astonishing improvements about to be introduced in the facilities for carriage and passage,—the rail-roads, I mean—will have the effect to prevent the enormous growth of cities, to send their inhabitants abroad to build beautiful and delightful abodes in the country, and will thus tend to break up those hot beds of vice, those congregated masses of filth and misery which are now found in them.  Meanwhile this pestilence is doing its work—its work of mercy as well as of judgment—its work of physical as well as moral purification.  It would be scarcely too much to say, that the cleansing of our cities and villages, especially if it may be a precedent for future years, will save more lives, than the cholera will destroy. 

Will there not be a moral cleansing, also?  Will not this judgment of the Most High, strike a salutary dread into the scenes of drunkenness, debauchery, and Sabbath-breaking—and of that horrible filthiness which is itself a heinous sin?  Is not that very point—the mass of evil in cities—that  wickedness in high places, to which, of all the earth, the philanthropist and Christian have looked with the greatest despondency,—is it not to have light poured in upon it—the light of inquiry and of hope?  Are not the miseries of those ten thousand thronged abodes, which it makes the heart ache to think of—are they not to be relieved?  Is not that pestilential atmosphere of contagious vice, forever hanging ever the cities and crowded villages of the world, and every year drawing millions from the healthful airs of a simple and rural life, to breathe it and die—is it not, at length, to be purified?  Is not this fearful stroke of the lightning from the heaven, to break the heavy and thick and settled cloud, beneath which such iniquities and abominations have been done for ages?  When, ye children of darkness and vice and vileness!  Will ye hear?  Hath not trembling and death come into your habitations?  Hath not horror taken hold of your hearts?  When, till the judgment-hour break upon you, will ye listen to the voice of God?

I feel, too, that the visitation ought to speak to men in power, to the rulers of the earth, and to those, who, by their influence, reign in society.  Why are those masses of vice, and filth, and famine, and bodily prostration, where the cholera finds its haunt, suffered to exist?  It is, in part, because great men, aye, and good men, have failed to do their duty.—Much of this prostration, physical and moral, is to be referred, ultimately, to political oppression, to arbitrary distinctions in society, to cruel and unjust laws, and to proud self-complacency and selfishness, “passing by, on the other side.”  In Asia, helpless millions have been swept away, the victims of grinding tyranny and of unparalleled social abuses.  Such victims are to be found in Europe, too; nor are they wanting America!  When, let me ask then—ye great ones of the earth, and ye good men!  When will ye hear?  When will the whole power of the world, political and moral, arise to do good, and to heal the wounds of society, and to build up the fallen fortunes of afflicted humanity!

No, I am not indifferent to the fate of the unhappy victims of this visitation, hurried as they are by thousands to an untimely grave, and to a sudden and unlooked-for judgment.  Who, with a Christian’s heart, will not mourn for them, as well as for the evil that they have inflicted upon the world? And yet, what can I say to them, or to the partakers of their guilt—what can I say, more or less than this?  “You have been reasoned with, pleaded with, besought, warned, by every voice of tenderness and by every voice of terror, that God has given to man, or to woman, to utter, and it has been all in vain.  You have resisted the outstretched hands of affection, and the pleading eye, and the breaking heart.  You have trampled upon the dearest interests of society, as if it were without remorse.  You have trampled upon all the admonitions of God’s word and providence, as if it were, without fear.  You have trodden under foot all the agonizing remonstrances of your own heart and consciences, as if they were but fit to pave you way to the resorts and haunts of indulgence.  Would to God, that all this had not been in vain; but it has been in vain.  It has been all in vain!  You would not hear.  You would not relent.  You would not give up the deadly draught that bereaved you of everything to respect, and of everything to love.  The child, the wise, the friend, have asked permission but to respect, but to love you; and you have hardened yourself against appeals, that might have broken—Oh!  They might have broken, a heart of stone.”  What then shall we say?  Must we say and think, that it is hard, very hard, that this additional, this last dread infliction, has come upon the victims of excess,—that this bolt has fallen, as it were, direct from heaven, to dash the guilty cup from their hands?  God Almighty give them grace to be wise in the day of his rebuke!  We dare not prescribe the term of this, to the vicious, tremendous day.  May it be shortened, we are ready to say; yet we dare not ask that it may be shortened, but through the intervention of repentance, at the instance of a humbled and reformed people!

This, my friends, is the only escape, of which we can feel any assurance, or ought to feel any very strong desire.  This pestilence has a moral mission to fulfill; its fulfillment is the only pledge for its termination.  No services, no offerings to God, coming short of this, can promise us any relief.  No wall of prayers is to be built up, to keep out this dreaded disease; no mere solemnities of fasting and humiliation, will disinfect the atmosphere; nothing, within our knowledge, but removing the cause, will remove the curse.       

One word more, and I will relieve you attention from the unusual task, which I have ventured, at this time, to lay upon it. 

What is it, then, I ask, which imparts to the pestilence, whose ravages have been the occasion of setting apart this day of solemn prayer and humiliation,—what imparts to this pestilence, I say, its peculiar horror?  And, I answer, it is the terrible speed with which it does its work.  It is not that its victims, according to present appearances, are likely to be more numerous than sometimes are the victims of a prevailing influenza, of a malignant fever; not more numerous, than are, every year, the victims of consumption.  It is, that the cholera, unlike every other disease that has appeared among us, makes but a step, between us and death.  It is, that death has been brought near to many minds, as it never was before.  The impression has been made upon them, in a character and with an emphasis altogether new, that they might, indeed, die suddenly; that their moral account with this life, might be made up, and settled, and sealed forever, in a few brief hours; that although to-day in the midst of life, to-day walking in the same negligent course as for years before, to-day unprepared to die,—yet that to-morrow’s rising sun might behold them dead, and its parting ray might shine around the grave, that had closed upon them forever. 

It is, my brethren, a most solemn and monitory conviction.  This pestilence has created an era, I believe, in many of our minds, from which a new spiritual life ought to be dated.  We have erred in this matter; we have erred in regard to the strict account, which we have to give, of life.  We have been misled, with the negligent world, into the irrational, the absurd idea, that we may live in sin, and yet die in safety; that we may live without religion, and yet die with it; that we may at last find some gracious dispensation from the law that is to “render to every man according to his living deeds.”  We have vaguely and vainly imagined, with multitudes in the same delusion, that our sickness may, at length, do, what our health will not;  that the last feeble pulses of life, may be strong enough to turn back the mighty current of tastes, and affections, and habits, that for years has been flowing on with accumulated power. 

This is one of the grand ruining delusions of the world.  “It is not this day,” men are perpetually saying, and still with every successive period of life they are saying, forever saying, “it is not this day, it is not this year, on which I can venture the decision of the great question for eternity; by and bye,” is the secret thought of thousands of hearts, “by and bye, amidst the days of sickness and sorrow, or of old age, I will prepare for heaven.”  Let this solemn visitation of God, let this voice of the pestilence, break up forever that tremendous delusion.  It speaks not only to the heinous transgressor, but scarcely less awfully to the careless neglector of his duty.  It is in his heart, a voice of weighty admonition.  What meaneth,—if it means not this—what meaneth that fear, curding the very heart’s blood,—the fear of smiting disease and sudden death?  Yes, its meaning is moral.  It is not a mere dread of pain, or of parting with life.  It is fear, breathed in the deeper recesses of the soul.  It is a voice, that speaks of duties neglected, of sins indulged, of the soul, unprepared for death.  That very fear, that very voice, believe me, shall yet give witness at the bar of judgment: for us, or against us,—to proclaim our fidelity, or our neglect,—to declare that we have listened to the voice of God’s judgments, or have hardened ourselves in the day of his rebuke.  But let me not close with the words of this last dreadful alternative upon my lips.  Let us hope better things, and things, that pertain to salvation.  Let us give all earnestness, to meditation, and watchfulness, and humble prayer, that we may be found faithful to all the teachings of God’s wisdom, and all the tokens of God’s will!   

Sermon – Fasting – 1836, Massachusetts

David Peabody (1805-1839) Biography:

David Peabody grew up working the family farm in Massachusetts. When 15 years old, he told his father he wanted to attend college. His father consented and in 1821, Peabody entered Dummer Academy, where he began the study of Latin, to prepare him for college. He soon realized his personal need of salvation, but it was three years before he acted on it. In 1824, he entered Dartmouth College.

To cover his expenses, Peabody worked as a teacher while attending college, but the stress took a toll on him. After graduating in 1828, he returned home to regain his strength, working as the assistant editor of the New Hampshire Observer of Portsmouth. He began attending the Theological Seminary in Andover and also agreed to run a Young Ladies’ Select School at Portsmouth, but once again the physical strain took its toll and he was forced to resign.

To regain his strength, Peabody moved south to Prince Edward County, Virginia, and began working privately as a tutor for a prominent family. After creating a plan of study for the children, he returned to study at Union Theological Seminary.

In 1831, he received his license to preach from the West Hanover Presbytery and began pastoring a church. Six months later, his health had returned so he left the church and moved back north. In 1832 he became pastor of First Church in Lynn, Massachusetts, but three years later he suffered a serious hemorrhage. He resigned his pastorate and went to work for the Massachusetts Sabbath School Society. His health improved, so he took the pastorate of a Calvinist church in Worchester, but later that year the hemorrhage returned and so he retired.

The following year, his health had improved and he reentered the ministry, only to experience another relapse. On the advice of his doctor, he took a sea voyage and then wintered in St. Francisville, Louisiana. While there, he preached to both black and white congregations, returning to his flock in the north the following spring. He worked hard preaching but by 1838 experienced yet another relapse. To recuperate his health, he and a friend traveled in Vermont and New Hampshire, and while there he was offered the position of Professor of Rhetoric at Dartmouth College. Believing that a change from pastor to professor would lighten the strain on his body, he accepted the position. His health was improving, until he was struck with pleurisy, but this time he refused to slow down and died six months later, at the age of thirty-four. A number of his works were published during his lifetime.


The conduct of Men,

Considered in contrast with the Law of God.

A

DISCOURSE,

DELIVERED IN THE CALVINIST CHURCH, WORCESTER,

ON FAST DAY, APRIL 7, 1836.

BY D. PEABODY,

PASTOR OF SAID CHURCH.

PUBLISHED BY REQUEST.

 

WORCESTER:

PRINTED BY HENRYJ. HOWLAND.

1836. 

 

ADVERTISEMENT.

It may be due to those readers of the following Discourse who heard it from the Pulpit, to state, that, as it was originally prepared in a double form, and delivered with sundry extemporaneous additions, it was found necessary, in preparing it for the press, to make several alterations; which, it is believed however, do neither change its character, nor detract from what little value it may have possessed.

DISCOURSE. 

DANIEL 9:5.

“We have sinned, and have committed iniquity, and have done wickedly, and have rebelled, even by departing from thy precepts, and from thy judgments.”

                In pursuing the rain of reflection naturally suggested by the text, it will be my object, my hearers, to lead you to look at the world—at man—in contrast with the Law of God; to furnish you with some views of human character on a large scale, as it appears in the light which is reflected from the Decalogue; and hence to deduce moties to humiliation and prayer.  You are perfectly aware, indeed, that the world lieth in wickedness; and you need no arguments to convince you, that man, as a race, is opposed to the divine Law.  All this is familiar, because often affirmed and illustrated; all this, too, is to your minds unquestionable, because you see the evidence of it both on the pages of Revelation, and in living exhibition around you.  But we need something more than conviction, something more than knowledge.  We need a frequent repetition of well known lessons, a fresh representation of admitted truths, with such variations of light and position, as shall, in some degree, impart novelty to what is old, and impressiveness to what is familiar.

            Some men are disposed to complain of us, that we make the world far worse than it really is; that we spread over it shades of depravity much darker than do actually exist, except here and there in the lives of those who are to be regarded rather as anomalies than as fair examples of human character; and that we carefully shut out from view the bright sports of innocence and joy, which no unjaundiced eye can fail to discover.  These men, however, we apprehend, are either not over-zealous students of the Bible; or else they imagine, that when that antiquated book was written, human nature was vastly worse than it is at present.

            But what is the present moral condition of the world?  What is its actual state, compared not with any Utopian scheme of excellence and virtue, not with any standard of perfection which man has devised,—but with the universal, the unchanging, the only obligatory standard—the law of God?  Why, in sober truth, its state is such, that a holy and impartial observer—suppose an angel that has never sinned—who should critically survey it in all its operations and principles of action, would conclude at once that men had banded together in one general conspiracy to set the divine laws at defiance, except as far as the observance of them is found indispensable exception; but it makes nothing against our position; for when men act in accordance with law only because their own temporal interest requires it, they cannot be said, in any proper religious sense, to obey law, but only to obey the impulses of a selfish nature.  From such an impartial survey, we should be prepared to return to our closets with something of the penitential sorrow of the Prophet, and mourn over what we had discovered in the midst of ourselves and everywhere among men, saying, “we have sinned, and have committed iniquity, and have done wickedly, and have rebelled, even by departing from thy precepts and from thy judgments.”

            Let us see, then, in what this departure consists;—let us compare the conduct of men extensively with the requisitions of the Decalogue, fixing on those points—since we cannot on all—in which the contrast is most strikingly apparent, or which are peculiarly worthy of attention.

            Take the first and second Commandments; which together require that men have no other gods but Jehovah, and that they render to him, as a spirit, spiritual worship.  With these in your hand, travel abroad among men, and make your observations.  First, visit if you will,—though these are not within the province of our immediate concern,—the four hundred and eighty millions of Pagans, three fifths of the human family, who, to a man, have set their faces against God; and here and there a tribe only excepted, have changed his glory into the corruptible image of men, birds, four footed beasts, and creeping things.  All that portion of the race you must set aside at once as palpable transgressors of the fundamental and universal law—that law which constitutes the basis of the whole moral code.  If from them you turn to the Jews and Mohammedans,—in the one you discern a people, who, though professing to worship the God of Abraham, have long since virtually rejected him; for of them the Savior said, “He that despiseth me, despiseth him that sent me;”—and in the other, a people, who, amidst many corrupt notions of the Deity, have in truth elevated their Prophet above his throne.  How far all these are from obeying that comprehensive rule, which requires all men to render unto God a spiritual and undivided homage, is sufficiently apparent. 

            But not to linger on ground so remote, and so little a matter of our concern to-day, you will come back and cast your eye over what is passing in nominally Christian communities.  And you will say—“Surely men here have no other gods but Jehovah.”  But tell me can He be said to be their God whom they never affectionately acknowledge; whom they never devoutly worship; to whom they erect no altar in their dwellings; whose word and ordinances they regard with indifference; towards whom they feel in their hearts no reverence and no love!  If Jehovah be their God, why not serve him; why not confess him before the world; why not make at least some decided demonstration of their homage and attachment?  Is it enough that they do not put themselves to the trouble of openly and boldly denying him?  Enough that they do not announce to the world that they are idolators or atheists?  Judge ye,—for if the Lord be God, he is a great God and a jealous; and if he is chosen by you as your God, you will worship him, ay, in spirit and in truth,—judge ye, how many such worshippers the eye of Omniscience discerns among all the thousands of decent, honest, kind hearted, moral, church-going men in Christian lands!  Of how many can the Omniscient Searcher of hearts say—“They have no other gods before me?”  If by their fruits we are to know them, few, alas! We must judge, are the spiritual worshippers of God.

            Again: Repeat your tour of observation with another article of the Decalogue:  “Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.”  Profane oaths and blasphemies, it is well known, abound among the heathen; and it is a remarkable and melancholy fact, that the first sentences of a Christian language which pagans learn to pronounce, are generally—at least to a great extent—sentences of profaneness and blasphemy.  So true is this, that travelers in heathen countries have often been surprised by a salutation accompanied by an oath, in their own tongue, when the speaker could scarcely pronounce any other word in the language.

            Of the frequency of this vice among ourselves, you are sufficiently aware.  You have daily examples of it, in various forms more or less gross among almost all ages and classes in society, from the brisk gentlemen of the bar-room and the theatre, down to the unruly and vulgar school-boy.  By some men, and some too who profess to be men of sense and respectability, one might suspect, a covenant had been entered into with their lips, that they should never utter the sacred name of God, except in connection with an oath!  They know not how to approach their Maker in prayer; but they can dare him to vengeance on themselves or their fellow men just to give expression to momentary anger, or,—what is if possible still more contemptuous of Heaven,—to impart grace to a period or pungency to wit!  Such is the treatment, from vast numbers, which this third most easy and reasonable requisition of the Divine Law receives.

            Again:  God demands, in his immutable Law, that one day in seven shall be consecrated peculiarly to him, as a day of holy rest.  The voice in which this demand was originally made known, seems, either with full emphasis or in fainter echoes, to have gone abroad everywhere among men, and been reiterated down through their successive generations.  But, my hearers, take another survey, and see how this law has been observed.  By a great majority, the day has been employed merely to mark into convenient divisions the lapse of time.  Some have regulated by it the seasons of licentious festivity and idolatrous worship—sad perversion surely of its original design!

            But,—to turn to a more important inquiry,—what is the manner of its observance among Christians?  How and to what extent, does it appear that they who bear the Christian name, are in this point obedient to the Law of God?  Why, my hearers, you shall find a numerous class of them who regard the Sabbath of our times as a mere human institution.  They observe it, not because it has been consecrated by divine authority, but because it is required by human convenience.  They honor it not as arising from an ordinance of Heaven, and, of course, they honor not the ordinance whence it arises; but because they consider it as, on the whole, a happy accident of custom, and even perhaps essential to the good order and well-being of society.  God and his Law they leave entirely out of view; and the Sabbath, in their estimation, has little more to do with either, than have the stated terms of legislative assemblies and judicial courts.

            Another numerous class acknowledge the divine origin and binding authority of the Christian Sabbath; but still suppose it to be designed as a day of rest from labor for the refreshment and reinvigoration of the exhausted body and mind; and not at all as a day holy unto the Lord for purposes of spiritual worship and improvement.  Consequently, with them it is a holy day—a season of relaxation and amusement.  Possibly they may be found in the sanctuary occasionally in the morning or evening;—but it is to gratify friends, or to fall in with established customs, or to break up the monotony of the week’s affairs.—Their motives in all this are essentially the same with those, which require on the Lord’s Day a particularly sumptuous entertainment or a ride for pleasure, as a necessary part of its sacred observances.  They cannot imagine what harm there can be in a little social visiting, with its edifying accompaniment of gossip and gaiety; and if the evening should pass away without a friendly call given or received, why then the holy season has been to them altogether incomplete and unsatisfactory.

            And even of that other class, who feel in some measure, or profess to feel, the claims of the Christian Sabbath upon them, as the day of God, the feast day of the soul, the seed time for the harvests of eternity,—how few devote its precious hours to the sublime purposes for which they were appointed!  How, even by the best class that can be selected among men, is the intent of the Divine Law, as interpreted by the principles and examples of Christianity, frustrated and lost!  Some deem the season well spent, if they have placed themselves within hearing of the ordinary number of sermons and prayers in the house of God, or kept their eye running over the pages of some religious book,—no matter whether or not the mind apprehends or retains a single truth, or whether or not a single devotional feeling is stirred in the soul.  Some plead hard the necessity of laboring, at particular times, on this day; and would rather run the risk of diminishing, by their example, the respect that is felt for it in a hundred hearts, than hazard the loss of injury, from the contingency of bad weather, of a little precarious property.  On this principle, the farmer drives his team afield, to save a half eared crop from a gathering storm; and the man of business indulges himself and his family in a ride to a neighboring town; or commences or prosecutes a journey to a distant mart of trade; and our wise legislators enact laws requiring the transportation of the mail, and the employing of thousands of hands, and the famishing of thousands of souls; and continue their deliberations on important questions almost till the very dawn of the holy morning—all on the day which they hold to be sacred to religion and to God; and all, I say, on the same principle, That man’s secular profit or convenience may set aside the laws of Heaven.  It is nothing more nor less than this.  Not one of them can offer any apology for such a desecration of the Sabbath, that does not involve the principle—that mere human profit or convenience may in these cases,—and if in these cases, why not in any other?—countervail the ordinances of Infinite wisdom.

            Our country is deeply stained with the guilt of violating the Fourth Commandment.  The stain is upon our Statute Books; upon our legislative halls; upon our rulers;—and upon the common body of the people.  Touching this matter, we are a guilty nation:—are we not guilty, too, as individuals?  Certainly it becomes us to be silent concerning the nation’s guilt, so long as we allow ourselves to act—though perhaps on a smaller scale—on the same unhallowed principle.  In view of all this, we surely have occasion to humble ourselves before the Lord to-day, and to say with the Prophet, “We have sinned, and have committed iniquity, and have done wickedly, and have rebelled, even by departing from thy statutes and from thy judgments.”

            Turn now a rapid but honest glance on what is passing in domestic circles.  Suspend the precept, “Honor thy father and thy mother,” in the interior of every dwelling; and under it write the multiplied and diversified delinquencies which occur in every household—the unkind words, the disobedient acts, the disrespectful demeanor, the ill wishes, the unuttered heartburnings, and longings for freedom from parental restraint, together with all other varieties of this sin;—do this, not merely in heathen communities, which are proverbial for a want of natural affection,—but among ourselves, where Christianity has labored to exert its purifying power; and then collect the scattered items into one aggregate amount, and weigh them in the balance of the Sanctuary; and say whether there be not matter here, if the Divine Law is to be strictly interpreted, of deep humiliation before God.  Is there not a growing prevalence of this sin amongst us, which calls not only for grief and self abasement, but also for active efforts to stay the evil and avert the consequences?

            But there is one point on which, you may flatter yourselves, that the most patient and critical scrutiny, will be able to detect no guilt, except among the most inhuman and ferocious of the race.  “Thou shalt not kill.”  Rarely, you may imagine, is this law broken.  Well, then, before you pronounce with confidence, take some post of extensive observation, and note down your discoveries.  Confine your view, if you will, to our own Christian community.  Let us see with what scrupulosity this Sixth great command of God is obeyed.  How often, in the intercourse of life, do you perceive this and that man angry with his brother without cause!  They, according to the moral code of Jesus Christ, are murderers.  If they cherish anger in their hearts, so that it becomes a settled passion, they are, in temper and spirit, chargeable with the murder’s guilt.  It is not necessary, however, to dwell on cases so little tangible.

            Look up, now, to the higher walks of life.  Who is he whom you see blustering and storming at his fellow in a hurricane of passion?  It is a man of honor, who has been entrusted perhaps with the responsibility of enacting laws for you and your country.  The delicate scarf-skin of his honor has been wounded by some unkind remark of his friend;—and now, when the violence of anger ought to be subsiding in feelings of forgiveness, he coolly intimates the necessity of reciprocal compliments of pistol-shot to atone for the insult and restore friendship.  The challenge in due time and form is given and accepted.  Look once more, and see these dignified personages, at the hour appointed, stealing away with their attendants to some solitary glen, on this honorable errand.  The ground is measured—the arms are prepared—the preliminaries are completed—the signal is given, followed by the flash and the peal;—and whether both fall, or one, or neither, they leave the ground, dead or alive—murderers, murderers in the sight of God and man.

            And these tragedies, as we well know, are acted over by our lawmakers—not to speak of others encouraged by their example—so frequently that the appellation of duelist applied to them excites no surprise; and sometimes almost within sight of the Capitol.  Not a few of our most admired statesmen, are men who have thus aimed the weapon of death at a fellow’s breast, and perhaps left the field stained with his blood.  And, tell me, as they go back to their sacred work of preserving and enriching the ark of our liberties, does not that blood follow them; and as they put forth their hands to write or seal our laws, does not that blood mark and remain upon the parchment—unseen indeed by men, but read by Omniscience, and heard, too, in its cry to Heaven for vengeance on a guilty land?

            There are those,—and their number is not small, as recent occurrences testify,—who seem to care nothing for the shedding of blood, whether of one man or of thousands; who would be willing to involve the country in war, and commit it to all the direful consequences of war, for the sake of a few millions of dollars, or for some other reason, if possible more insignificant, for which this was held up as a mere pretext and disguise.  Happily, indeed, through a merciful Providence, the dreaded event has been forestalled.  But how must God regard a people on whom he has lavished the riches of his goodness, who to so great an extent and for so unworthy a reason, were almost on the point of sending forth their ships to belch death on the ocean, and drawing up their troops to cut down every one of their once honored allies who should land on the shore!

            These suggestions are made in the spirit—not of a political partisan, but simply of a plain advocate of the principles of the Divine Law.

            Would, my hearers, that the work of death in our land ended here.  But—to pass over that common waste and destruction of the vital energy by means of animal indulgences, which might be set down to the score of suicide—there are ways not yet alluded to, in which men are ready to engage in the wholesale sacrifice of life.  Distillers and venders of intoxicating liquor are yet found among us.  In a single town in this Commonwealth, five thousand hogsheads, it is said, are manufactured annually.  Nor is this the only manufactory general of this essence of misery and death.  Many a fountain, it is true, and we would be grateful for the fact, has been dried up; but you may still see them scattered here and there over almost the whole surface of the country, pouring out their deadly streams, to be distributed wherever man’s beastly appetite or love of gold may convey them.  And observe, as these streams flow on, how every place through which they pass, is accursed.  Disorder, poverty, famine, crime, disease, and death, hold their revels along their borders, and laugh and batten amid the desolations which the poisonous waves spread around them in their course. 

            And to facilitate the work of destruction, there are, very fortunately, men holding some a more and some a less honorable rank, according to the kind of service to be performed in the general business, who regularly divide and subdivide these streams into smaller currents, and distribute the precious poison for the public good at so much per gallon and so much per glass, that all those families and individuals may be accommodated, who are disposed to ruin their health, squander their estate, and make shipwreck of their souls,—and are able to pay the rumseller for the privilege.

            So extensively is this business still carried on in the midst of us, and so prolific is it in all the varieties of human woe, that it would seem as if our Great Enemy might cheerfully consent never more—except as the legitimate fruit of this—to breath famine or pestilence from his shriveled lips, or sound the alarm of war among the nations.  One might suppose, that, insatiate as he is, this alone, since it is so easy to obtain auxiliaries often of very respectable character in the work, might suffice to glut his ravenous appetite with victims, and stay the greedy yearnings of his malice.

            Ah! My hearers, here is matter of grief and humiliation.  From this cause, there is blood on our country;—is there not blood on some of our own hands?

            In relation also to the Seventh Commandment—for in this review we must omit none of the Commandments of God—a careful examination would disclose guilt around us, of the extent and deep dyed aggravation of which we are little aware.  I shall not dwell here on those offences against the law of purity, which, being confined to the imagination and the heart, are known only to conscience and to God; but which, as Jesus Christ assures us, are regarded as positive transgressions.  Nor shall I do more than allude to those dens of wickedness which the persevering efforts of good men have not yet been able to remove from our cities and large towns; to the purlieus of our theatres, and other chambers of abomination which, though perhaps on a small scale, would, if opened, “shame the eye of day.”  I should hardly be believed, should I fully describe to you the systematic exertions of wicked men, acting by a common understanding and concert in many of our large towns, with the manifest design of corrupting the young and unsuspecting; and preparing them to become hereafter a prey to the grossest seductions of vice.  Such an association of profligates has actually been discovered, within a comparatively short period, together with their obscene pictures and other machinery of like character, with which they carry on their infernal plans.  And this is only a sight glance, a mere surface view of the evil, as it exists in the community.  Such is its prevalence in our most populous cities, that it is often found unsafe for unsuspecting innocence to trust itself, even in respectable families, without the most vigilant protection.  The young and the aged, the married and unmarried, the respected and the despised, are frequently alike guilty.  My hearers, it is my sober belief, that if we were fully apprised of the extent to which this sin, in its various forms, prevails; how many licentious practices, natural and unnatural, exist among us; and what wide spread mischief, moral and physical, is their legitimate result,—we should start back with horror to find in the midst of ourselves, so many foul features of resemblance to the people of Sodom whom God destroyed.  There is in the community a generation of vipers gliding often under a specious disguise,—possibly there may be some of them in our own neighborhood;—and it becomes families to be on their guard, lest they discover “the trail of the serpent” when too late to escape the poison.  Let mothers, let fathers, let confiding youth, beware!

            Verily we have reason to enter into our closets to-day, and mourn over the guilt which rests upon us as a people and as individuals; and to say, “O God, we are ashamed and blush to lift up our faces unto thee; for our iniquities are increased over our heads, and our trespass is grown up unto the heavens.”

            Look abroad then with a microscopic eye;—and what do you discover?  Is there no unfairness here—not in singular and solitary instances, but in the common business transactions of men?  Is there no study to take advantage, in as honest and polite a way as possible,—but nevertheless to take advantage,—of the ignorance, or the necessities, or the vices of other men?

            In the first place, of their ignorance.  Is there never a concerted scheme among merchants, or an attempt made by individuals of them, to raise or keep up the market, for the express purpose of augmenting their own gains at the purchaser’s expense, who is ignorant that the balance of trade requires a reduction?  I do not speak here of professed merchants exclusively; but of all who are engaged in buying and selling;—and I ask, if they do not often contrive to turn to their advantage the ignorance of those with whom they have dealings, by concealing the true state of the market, or by managing to keep it up where it cannot justly be held?

            Again:  In respect to the quality of what is manufactured, or bought or sold, is there not frequently a dishonest use made of the ignorance of others?  Is it not common with the manufacturer and vender, to make the commodity pass for more than its real value; and with the purchaser, to labor to obtain it for less, crying, It is naught, It is naught, while the bargain is pending, and then, when he has accomplished his purpose, boasting of his adroitness and success?  And does the mechanic in his work, study durability and good service, as much as strict honesty would require?  Or, is his eye rather on the number of articles he turns off and the amount of profit he gains; and does he not often laugh in his sleeve over the ignorance and gullibility of those who may be so unfortunate as to purchase his fabrics for their use?  These may serve as examples of what I mean by taking advantage of another’s ignorance.  And, unless I mistake, this is not a rare thing among men who would be held respectable.

            In the second place, advantage is often taken of another’s necessities.  Suppose that a time of great scarcity is seen to be approaching.  Immediately the price of the “staff of life” is raised, and raised sometimes quite above the reach of the poor.  What is the consequence?  Numbers of them are reduced to great suffering, if not to absolute starvation.  But a few are enriched, enriched by the misery and destruction of their neighbors.  This may serve as an example of a numerous class of cases of similar kind.  I know they are vindicated on the ground of the universal laws of trade.  But are they, can they be vindicated by the holy Law of God?  Is there a whit more regard paid here to the rights and well-being of these men, than is paid by the high-way robber to those of the man whose property he seizes?  In the one case, the alternative presented, is the payment of the price demanded, or death by starvation: in the other, the tribute of your purse, or death by the bullet or the bludgeon.  In the one, a demand is made, backed by necessity; in the other, by violence.  And in the sight of God, what, judge ye, is the difference between the two, in point of honesty and justice?

            And, in the third place, would not a careful observer discover a large class of men, who gladly turn to their advantage the vices of others?  Who would sell to another the material of his ruin, but for the profit of it.  It is said, indeed, that it is an equitable bargain; that on each side there is so much given and so much received, forming a true and satisfactory balance.  One party receives his lucre, and the other his poison, and both are content.  But suppose a man calls on you for a half gill of aqua-fortis to drink, under the insane but honest impression that it will do him good; and offers you the fair market price for it; and you sell it to him.  Is it, think ye, in the eye of God, an equitable bargain?  Our standard, be it remembered, is not human law, but divine.  And according to this standard, in other words, in the sight of God, is it an equitable bargain?  Is the article, so used, of any value to the purchaser.  Does he not pay you for that which is infinitely worse than worthless, when applied to such purposes?  And if you should engage in the business of such traffic, would you not, in addition to all other guilt, the guilt especially of being accessory to another man’s self-destruction, which comes under the prohibition of the commandment, “Thou shalt not kill,” would you not be guilty of taking from him that for which you return no proper equivalent—nothing but misery and death;–and so come, to say the least, fearfully near the confines both of murder and robbery?  True the purchaser imagines he receives and equivalent; but you know he does not.  He consents freely to be imposed on and deluded; but you know it is a delusion.  Is it, then, as viewed by a God of justice, a sufficient vindication?  Can the imagination of a man whose vices have made him, on this one point, insane, and who under this insanity, offers you a purse of gold for a few gallons of deadly poison, can his imagination constitute the traffic honest, in which you are engaged?  What is it but turning to your advantage the hallucinations of vice, and taking from a fellow man, with his consent, under a delusion, it is true, that money which enriches you, but is paid back to him in no equivalent—nothing but disease and death, both of the body and the soul!  And this is palpably condemned by the obvious principles of the Divine Law.

            The law, which in terms forbids Slander,—“Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor,” may be considered, like all others in the Decalogue, as embracing in its prohibition a large class of sins, but aimed specifically at the highest of the class.  In a direct, liberal application, it seems to forbid slander only.  But interpreted more generally, yet in perfect accordance with acknowledged principles of interpretation, it will be found to prohibit falsehood of perhaps every conceivable kind.  A very large proportion, certainly,—indeed I believe it correct to say, the whole, of the falsehood which is uttered, tends in some way or other to the injury of our fellow men.  It may not be aimed directly against their character: yet it may be equally against their happiness.  If a man deceives in trade, or by falsifying a promise, or in any other of a thousand ways which might be mentioned, he violates the spirit of this law, quite as much, it may be, as if he sought to injure his neighbor’s reputation.

            Write, then, this law on every door-post; inscribe it on the inner walls of every dwelling; and let it stand emblazoned in every place where men congregate for business or pleasure;—and as each breath of slander or injurious falsehood passes over it, let it send back a power that shall silence the tongue of the offender;—and my hearers, how much worse than wasted breath would be saved; how much more quiet would be the public haunts of men, and how much less loquacious, allow me to speak it, would often be the private coteries of women!

            Should we extend this prohibition so as to embrace all the varieties of falsehood, what a vast amount of guilt should we find in every community and neighborhood!  Even if it was in his haste only, that David exclaimed—“All men are liars”—we are compelled by a deliberate survey, to admit that few are entirely innocent of the transgression.  It cannot be concealed that there is much of practical, if not of literal, verbal lying in almost every branch of the intercourse which man carries on with man.  It abounds in the commercial, and, if possible, still more in the political world.  It has well nigh come to this in our country, that a politician who, on all occasions, boldly speaks the truth and acts the truth, must be set down as scarcely better than a driveller.  The cunning, necessary for political promotion and glory, is little else than consummate skill in violating the ninth Commandment.  And when that skill is possessed by any individual, who has talents enough to enlist in his favor more than one half the tongues and presses of the people in the same unholy art—his success is sure.

            Let me not be misunderstood.  I speak not in accusation of a party, but rather in rebuke of a sin, which is too extensively characteristic of the people.  To whatever political party we look, and to whatever sphere of action, we find sufficient evidence of the prevalence of this sin, to cover us with shame and confusion.

            But once more:  The Law of God finally forbids all Covetousness.  This is a disposition of the heart, an internal principle of action, a root from which springs no inconsiderable proportion of the vices and crimes most common in the world.1  To give a brief and summary definition of it, it is an inordinate desire of natural, worldly good—of that good or that measure of good, real or imaginary, which it is not proper that we should possess, either because it belongs to another, or would be injurious to us.  It seems to have been originally, and to be still, the first principle of evil, the elementary germ of sin in the heart.  Most wisely, then, does the holy Decalogue close with this prohibition.  The axe, in its final blow, is here laid at the root of the tree; and were this law obeyed, the whole aspect of the sinful world would be changed.  Avarice would no longer grind the face of the poor, and hoard its ungodly grains.  Ambition would no longer aspire at power, and trample on the rights of men.  Sensuality would no longer spread snares for the unwary and riot in polluted pleasures.  Pride would give place to humility, and vanity to meekness.  Envy would be exchanged for sympathetic joy; and anger, malice, and revenge, for pity, grief, and love.  We should be greeted with the smile of contentment and the song of gratitude, instead of the lowering brow of care and the bitter plaint of repining.  And in all habitations and along all the walks of men, we should breathe the balmy atmosphere of cheerfulness and peace.

            But, alas, what a contrast to this, does the actual condition of the world around us present!  What is it, I might almost inquire, that puts every wheel in society in motion,–that keeps all its active elements astir,—but some form or other of Covetousness, an inordinate desire of worldly good?  How much of this is embodied in the enterprising schemes of speculators and merchants!  How much of it enters into the patriotism of the statesman and the fervid eloquence of the orator!  How much of it is couched under that zeal for the public good, so loudly professed by partisan sycophants and aspiring demagogues!  Subtract this principle with its kindred adjuncts from the motives which stir and govern the world,—substituting nothing else in its place,—and almost the whole machinery of life would stand still.  Here and there would remain a spring still operating, of a temper and elasticity drawn from above; but with this exception, it would be like destroying the principle of gravitation in nature, causing every orb in the firmament to stop in its course.  It is covetousness, too often, that, with the help of winds and waves, wafts our Commerce over every stormy sea, and to every sickly shore.  It is Covetousness, too often, that smiles at the counter and presides over the day-book of the tradesman.  It is Covetousness, too often, that urges on the march of improvement in husbandry and the arts, clothing the earth with richer harvests, and making the most ungovernable elements subserve the convenience and comfort of men.  It is Covetousness, too often, that drowns the noise of our water courses with the din of machinery, and causes our villages to resound with the hum of business.  It is Covetousness, too often, that distils in the honey of flattery or the gall of invective from the Editor’s pen, and throws off the sheets of political cant from a hireling press.  It is Covetousness, always, that oils the lying lips of the cheat; and gives dexterity to the hand of the gamester; and emboldens the thief on his nightly errand; and nerves the assassin’s arm for its deed of death; and feeds the fires of the distillery, and pours off, and transports, and distributes its sublimated poison.  It is Covetousness, always, that sits snug in its abundance, closing its ear against the cry from Zion’s wastes at home, and the habitations of cruelty abroad; that prompts the perjurer’s oath, and by the aid of law filches the bread of the widow and the fatherless; and sends forth the adulterer at midnight, and fills peaceful homes with shame, infamy, and wretchedness; and rivets the chains of Slavery; and presses the foot of despotism on the neck of nations; and deluges empires with blood.

            Such is Covetousness,—so powerful as a principle, so subtle, so diffusive, so universal in its operation.  It finds its way into almost every channel of human feeling and action, sometimes mingling itself with better principles, frequently producing valuable results, but always corrupting and degrading the soul.

            And what a dark picture must this be to the eye of a holy God!  The law has gone forth from his mouth,—Thou shalt not covet; and as he looks down to see if there be any that do understand and obey, and with the exception of here and there a bright spot partially redeemed from the common waste, beholds the whole world alive and busy with the workings of Covetousness, must not his displeasure be enkindled, as it was against Israel, when he said, “For the iniquity of his Covetousness was I wroth, and smote him!”

            Perhaps in no country, certainly in no Christian country, is this sin more prevalent and more pernicious in its influence, than our own.  The facilities thrown here in every man’s way, for the attainment of wealth, honor, and power, tend directly to cultivate this passion, and give it a disastrous supremacy over the mind.  They have undeniably had this effect; and Covetousness is one of our crying, national sins.

            Thus have we taken a rapid survey of the condition of the world, as it appears in contrast with the Law of God.  And surely every step of our progress, every discovery we have made, has furnished fresh matter of sorrow—fresh occasion for humiliation and fervent prayer for forgiveness before the Lord.  We might have paused, at different points in our progress, to notice what lights there are, in connection with the shades of the picture; but the shades, deep, heavy, and almost unrelieved, form the appropriate object of our attention to-day.  The first Table of the Law, prescribing summarily the duties which we owe to God; and the second Table also, prescribing in the same summary manner the duties which we owe to man,—both the more forcibly enjoined for the use of the negative and prohibitory form,—we have seen to be transgressed, to a deplorable extent, among all classes of mankind.  Except by a remnant, God is not worshipped in spirit and in truth; his reverend name is blasphemed; and his Sabbath violated by multitudes.  Parents are dishonored, it is feared, to an increasing extent; life is often wantonly sacrificed; adultery, in its protean form and fair disguise, steals abroad through the community; virtual fraud often marks the commercial transactions, of men; slander and falsehood are so common as to have become almost a necessary art; and Covetousness is the mighty spring of action and enterprise throughout our busy world.

            This picture is not too darkly drawn.  The pencil has been dipped in no deeper colors than those employed by the pencil of inspiration; nor than those which an eye that has gazed on Sinai’s brightness, discovers in the present state and character of mankind.  There is no view which can be taken of men and their doings, so mournful and mortifying, as that which presents them in full-drawn contrast with the Divine Law.  While we honestly endeavor to form a true estimate of the character of men, holding in one hand the Tables of the Decalogue, radiating light from every line, and unrolling with the other the dark moral map of the world, we are constrained to say, “We have sinned, and have committed iniquity, and have done wickedly, and have rebelled, even by departing from the precepts and from the judgments of our God.  O Lord, to us belongeth confusion of face, because we have sinned against thee.”  Such a view, as far as time allowed, I have labored to set fully and faithfully before you.  Let your minds dwell upon it, my hearers, while in your closets, you bow down at the Mercy Seat, humbly confessing your guilt and earnestly imploring pardon.  Let a sense of guilt,—of guilt personal—for are we not personally involved in the prevailing iniquities?—of guilt national—for we as a people have grievously transgressed,—rest on every heart, till with sincere penitence and earnest longings for mercy, you can pray, “O Lord, hear; O Lord, forgive; O Lord hearken and do; defer not, for thine own sake, O my God.”  “Turn us, O God of our salvation, and cause thine anger towards us to cease.”

            But, my hearers, if the view which we have taken, should be productive of nothing more than mortification and sorrow, our labor will have been in vain.  Let it be a godly sorrow, working repentance, that ye may receive damage by us in nothing.  Send up not only your importunate supplications for forgiveness, but like Israel, when they returned from their backsliding, enter into a covenant to seek the Lord God with all the heart and, like Jehoshaphat, when he not only sought the God of his fathers, but walked in his commandments.

            Ye who love Zion, the design of this day calls you to double your diligence, watchfulness, and fidelity.  Let the multitude of your thoughts within you, prompt the individual inquiry—“Lord what wilt thou have me to do?”  “What can I do to stay this mighty tide of iniquity!  Let all on whose hearts the Divine Law has been inscribed anew, array themselves close and strong against those sins which abound in the land, and with untiring perseverance and with all the power of example, influence, and prayer, labor to suppress them.

            Let the young also set their faces as a flint against them.  To you, under God, is soon to be committed, all that remains of the hope of our country.  Fall in carelessly with the prevailing tide of sin, and the last rays of that hope are extinguished.  Take for your guide the eternal laws of Heaven, and better omens will yet cheer us; the clouds will pass away from the sky; and our sun, now threatening to fall from his mid-day height, will still rejoice, as a strong man, to run his race of glory.

            Finally; God calls upon you all, to day, my hearers, to array yourselves under the banner and in support of his righteous Law; relying on his strength, to plant yourselves in eternal opposition to sin, wherever and in whatever form it exists; and to toil on, year after year, in the conflict, till, at least in your own heart, the victory shall be complete.  This is the day to commence the work.  For to keep a Fast acceptable unto God, is not merely for a man “to afflict his soul, and bow down his head as a bulrush, and spread sackcloth and ashes under him.—But, to loose the bands of wickedness”—(whether they bind your own souls, my hearers, or the souls of other men;) to undo the heavy burdens; to set the oppressed free; and to break every yoke; to deal thy bread to the hungry; to bring the poor that are cast out to thy house;”—in short, to act under the constant impulse of a spirit of heavenly benevolence, irrevocably pledged to a war against sin, to the defense of right, to the relief of woe.  “Then shall thy light break forth as the morning, and thine health shall spring forth speedily; and thy righteousness shall go before thee; and the glory of the Lord shall be thy reward.”

 

END.

 


1 “In this disposition seem naturally to be involved, Ambition, Avarice, and Voluptuous wishes for its attainment [the attainment of the good sought]; and out of it to spring as consequences, Pride, Vanity, and criminal Sensuality, in its enjoyment; Envy towards those who possess more of it than ourselves; Anger and Malice towards those who hinder us from acquiring it: Revenge towards those who have deprived us of it; Falsehood as the means of achieving and securing it; Forgetfulness and therefore Ingratitude with respect to such as give it; and Impiety, and consequent Rebellion, Repining, and Profaneness towards Him from whom we receive less of it, than our unreasonable wishes demand.” Dwight’s Ser. 129.(Return)

Sermon – Fasting – 1841, Pennsylvania

John Alonzo Clark (1801-1843) Biography:

Clark’s father and grandfather were both involved in the American War for Independence, and he was born in Massachusetts shortly after Thomas Jefferson became president. Clark was the youngest of eleven siblings, and grew up as a sickly child. Coming from a long line of relatives who were openly professing Christians (and with two of his own brothers being Episcopalian ministers), he early became interested in spiritual things, aspiring to become a minister. In 1823, he graduated from Union College in New York, and in 1826 became an Episcopal missionary to the state. He then became the assistant rector (or priest) of Christ Church in New York City. In 1832, he accepted the pastorate of a very small congregation at Grace Church in Providence, Rhode Island. Under his leadership, the church grew rapidly, and he also began a number of home churches and actively evangelized from home to home in the community (an activity that was unusual in that day). In 1835, he became pastor at St. Andrew’s Church in Philadelphia, where he worked for two years before his already poor health began to fail even more rapidly. He spent a year in Europe, trying to recuperate (a trip that led to his two-volume work “Glimpses of the Old World”), but the trip did not improve his health. By 1843, he permanently retired from the ministry and died shortly thereafter, having been the author of a number of written works over his lifetime.


A STRICKEN PEOPLE’S CONFESSION.

 

A

 

DISCOURSE,

 

PREACHED IN

 

ST. ANDREW’S CHURCH, PHILADELPHIA,

 

BY

 

REV. JOHN A. CLARK, D. D.

 

May 14, 1841,

 

On the occasion of the National Fast recommended by his Excellency John Tyler, President of the United States.

 

 

 

PHILADELPHIA:

HOOKER & AGNEW.

1841.

PREFACE.

 

            The following Correspondence is inserted merely by way of preface to explain the occasion of the publication of this Discourse.

Philadelphia, May 14, 1841.

 

REV. AND DEAR SIR:

            At a meeting of the Vestry of St. Andrew’s convened immediately after divine service in the morning, the following Resolution was unanimously adopted.

            “Resolved, That the Rector be requested to furnish the Vestry with a copy of the Sermon preached by him this morning, for publication; and that the Wardens be requested to make the application.”

            In compliance with the Resolution of the Vestry, we respectfully solicit from you a copy of the Discourse for publication.

With great regard we are

Sincerely and truly your’s

C. STEVENSON,

LAMBERT DUY,      Church Wardens.

 

Rev. John A. Clark, D. D.

Rector of St. Andrew’s Church.

 

 

 

Philadelphia, May 15, 1841.

 

 

C. STEVENSON, ESQ.

LAMBERT DUY,                  Church Wardens.

 

 

 

GENTLEMEN:

            I have just received your communication, enclosing a Resolution of the Vestry, requesting a copy of my Sermon preached yesterday morning, on the occasion of our national fast, for publication.  The request quite surprised me, as the Discourse which you would thus honour is of the most unpretending character, and was prepared in a very feeble state of health, and without the remotest expectation that it would be desired for publication.  I hope the feelings of personal kindness on the part of the Vestry towards me—multiplied and unceasing expressions of which I am happy to record I have continued to receive during my whole connexion with St. Andrew’s Church, a period of six years—I hope their feelings of personal kindness have not prompted them, in this instance, to prefer a request which, if granted, their after and more mature judgment will not approve.

            The views I endeavoured to present in my Sermon yesterday, are such as the events transpiring around us have forced upon my attention.  I am not aware, however, that there is anything connected with these views, new or original, and I am sure that there is nothing in the mode in which they were presented, deserving the publicity you would give them.

            Still, as I am desirous ever to gratify those who have in so many ways sought to promote my comfort, and have uniformly evinced towards me so much personal regard and kindness—if in the honest judgment of the individuals composing the Vestry, it is believed that the publication of the Discourse will be useful, in the smallest degree, in arresting the progress of those national sins, which now unhappily darken and overshadow our land—and in leading the minds of our fellow countrymen to the love and practice of that “righteousness” which alone can “exalt a nation”—it shall be at their disposal.

With great regard, dear sirs,

I am sincerely and truly

Your friend and pastor,

JOHN A. CLARK.

 

Philadelphia, May 24, 1841.

REV. AND DEAR SIR:

            We have received your note of the 15h inst., and laid the same before the Vestry, and we beg leave to assure you that the opinion of the Vestry remains unchanged in relation to the expediency of publishing your Fast-day Sermon.  They believe that the views it contains are such as the great majority of the people would do well to hold and act upon; and they are convinced that its publication would tend to the good of those into whose hands it might fall.  With these feelings they were induced to request your consent to its publication, and further reflection has served but to increase their desire that this step might be taken.

We are, very respectfully,

            Your most obedient servants,

            G. STEVENSON,

            LAMBERT DUY,      Church Wardens.

 

 

Rev. John A. Clark, D. D.

 

                                                                                                            Philadelphia, June 1, 1841.

 

C. STEVENSON, ESQ.

LAMBERT DUY, ESQ.        Church Wardens.

 

GENTLEMEN:

           

            In consequence of my absence from the city, I have not till now had an opportunity of replying to your second letter, bearing date of the 24h ult., in which the request is still reiterated on the part of the Vestry for my Sermon, preached on the occasion of our recent national fast, for publication.  Having already left the matter wholly to the verdict of the Vestry—I herewith send you a copy of the Discourse.

            With great regard,

            I am, gentlemen, truly

            Your affectionate friend,

            JOHN A. CLARK.

 

 

 

DISCOURSE.

 

            “Thou art just in all that is brought upon us; for thou hast done right, but we have done wickedly.”—NEHEMIAH, ix 33.

We are presented, in the chapter from which our test is taken, with the affecting scene of a whole nation congregated in one vast assembly, to observe a solemn national fast.  They appear clothed in sackcloth, with earth upon their heads: and among their confessions to Almighty God, whose hand now lay heavy upon them, are the words of our test—Thou art just in all that is brought upon us; for thou hast done right, but we have done wickedly.

            These words seem well suited to the occasion upon which we have assembled, and will naturally lead to a train of reflections in keeping with this day—a day in which a great and mighty nation, in conformity with the suggestion of their chief magistrate, are bowing themselves down in deep humiliation before that august Being whose breath called them into existence, and who in just displeasure has smitten them with the rod of chastisement.

            We are assembled here this morning in the sanctuary of God, in compliance with the Proclamation of our present Chief Magistrate, who has recommended to the people of the United States, of every religious denomination, to observe this as a day of FASTING and PRAYER—“and to join with one accord in humble and reverential approach to Him in whose hands we are, invoking Him to inspire us with a proper spirit and temper of heart and mind, under the frowns of His providence, and still to bestow his gracious benedictions upon our government and our country.”1

            We may truly say, that “the frowns of God’s providence” are upon the nation:—and glad we are to know, that this truth is recognized and admitted by one who now, by the fiat of that same Providence, sits at the helm of our government.  Truly can we take up the sad response, and say—the frowns of God’s providence are upon us.  Most emphatically do the words of ancient Judah’s holy seer depict the state of things around us at this moment, when he said, the land mourneth!”  Yes:  the land mourneth!  It mourneth, because God hath smitten us with the rod of his displeasure.  He hath smitten us, not simply once, or twice, but many times; and this in a great variety of ways.  Just now again he hath repeated the blow, and stricken us at a point and in a way which justifies the appropriation to ourselves of the strong language of Israel’s pathetic lament—the Lord hath covered us with a cloud in his anger, and cast down from heaven unto the earth the beauty of Israel.

            And if the inquiry be made—what is our duty at this moment, and under these circumstances?  We reply, unquestionably it is to imitate smitten and stricken Israel—to look up and say, to Him whose chastening hand is upon us—“Thou art just in all that is brought upon us; for thou hast done right, but we have done wickedly.”

            The leading idea—the main position—in our text, is the assertion of the entire justice of God in the infliction of judgments upon Israel in the case referred to, and consequently in all cases, and in reference to all nations upon whom he in his wisdom sees fit to lay his chastening hand.

            This idea, and the truth it asserts, we shall endeavour to elucidate, and distinctly set forth, in the remarks offered on the present occasion.

            Before we proceed to this main position, however, we desire to call your attention to three preliminary considerations, which will greatly tend to illustrate and confirm this position.

            1.  And first I would remark, that all the nations of the earth are under the control of Jehovah.  This idea is necessarily involved in the fact of a divine government, and of an overruling Providence.  This idea, with its various ramifications, runs through every part of the divine record.  In the test itself there is a distinct recognition of this truth.  Why should it be said, that God was “just in all that was brought upon” the Jewish nation, unless all that befell them came from His hand—unless their destiny was under His control?  And it is not merely of the Hebrew people, in reference to whom the scriptures affirm that Jehovah exerts a controlling power—but in reference to every people and tribe.  It is in this sense that he is emphatically described “THE KING OF NATIONS;” and it is distinctly affirmed that “by Him Kings reign and Princes decree justice.”  His ability to control the destiny and to regulate the movement of nations, is described in the most sublime strains by the Prophet—“Behold the nations are as a drop of a bucket, and are counted as the small dust of the balance.”  “Have ye not known?  Have ye not heard?  Hath it not been told you from the beginning?  Have ye not understood from the foundations of the earth?  It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth; and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers, that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell           in: that bringeth the Princes to nothing:  He maketh the judges of the earth as vanity.  Yea, they shall not be planted; yea, they shall not be sown; yea, their stock shall not take root in the earth:  And He shall also blow upon them, and they shall wither, and the whirlwind shall take them away as stubble.”

            So indisputable is Jehovah’s control over all nations, that in designating Jeremiah to the Prophetic office, who was to predict, as God’s messenger, the fall and rise of many people, he says to him—“See, I have this day set thee over the nations and over the kingdoms, to root out and to pull down, and to destroy and to throw down—to build and to plant.”

            The idea of this absolute divine control over nations, is still more graphically depicted in a subsequent chapter of the same Prophet—“The word came to Jeremiah, saying—Arise and go down to the potter’s house, and there will I cause thee to hear my words.  Then I went down to the potter’s house, and behold he wrought a work on the wheels.  And the vessel that he made of clay was marred in the hand of the potter:  So he made it again another vessel, as seemed good to the potter to make it.  Then the word of the Lord came to me, saying—O house of Israel, Cannot I do with you, as this potter? Saith the Lord.  Behold, as the clay is in the potter’s hand, so are ye in mine hand, O house of Israel.  At what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, and pull down, and to destroy it:  If that nation against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them.  And at what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it:   If it do evil in my sight, that it obey not my voice, then I will repent of the good wherewith I said I would benefit them.”

            No language could more explicitly assert the absolute control of Jehovah over the nations of the earth than this.  They are all in his hand, as the clay is in the hand of the potter.  He can mould them as he pleases.  He can destroy them when he chooses—and out of their ruins raise up other nations and empires.  When the Lord would punish Israel, he employs “the Assyrian” “as the rod of his anger.”  But when the king of Assyria would come against Israel contrary to the will of Jehovah, he “puts a hook into his nose,” and “a bridle into his lips,” and “turns him back by the way by which he came.”  When God hath any purpose to accomplish, “he lifteth up an ensign on the mountains,” and “all the inhabitants of the world and dwellers on the earth, see it,” and are moved.  When “the nations rush like the rushing of many waters,” “God rebukes them, and they flee far off, and are chased as the chaff of the mountains before the wind, and like a rolling thing before the whirlwind.”

            The eternal Jehovah causes Palestinato be “dissolved”—“Moab” to “howl”—Damascus to be taken away from being a city, and converted into a ruinous heap”—“the Egyptians” to be “given into the hand of a cruel lord”—“Tyre to be laid waste, so that there is no house—no entering in.”—Yea, adds the prophet, “behold the Lord maketh the earth empty, and maketh it waste, and turneth it upside down, and scattereth abroad the inhabitants thereof.”  Do not these statements show the entire sovereignty of God over the nations of the earth?  Does not Jehovah most distinctly assert his indisputable control over nations, and kingdoms, and empires, when he says in reference to a wicked prince, “remove the diadem, and take off the crown; I will overturn, overturn, overturn it, until he come whose right it is; and I will give it to him?”  Is not God the Lord of the whole earth, and of all the creatures that move upon it?  Is he not the universal, uncontrolled, and uncontrollable sovereign?  Are not all creatures in his hand?  Unquestionably they are!  And as God controls the destiny of individuals, orders their lot, and numbers the very hairs of their heads, in like manner does he control the destiny of nations.  The hearts of kings, the deliberations of senates, the issues of war, the wealth and prosperity of nations, are all in the hand of God.  Look at the great empires that have risen, and filled the earth with their fame.  Where are they now?  Swept into oblivion!  In the hour of their highest prosperity, God foresaw and foretold their ruin.  His decree sealed their fate.  The history of Tyre, of Babylon, of Egypt, of Greece, of Rome, and especially of the Jews, demonstrates the truth that all the nations of the earth are under the control of Jehovah.  The traveller in the oriental world, whose feet treads upon the dust of Babylon, once “the glory of kingdoms, the beauty of Chaldee’s excellency”—or upon the marble ruins of Gaza—or within the rocky places of Petra—or amid the broken pillars of ancient Thyatira, is constrained to see and feel that cities, and kingdoms, and empires, rise, and flourish, and decay, at the bidding of God.  All nations are wholly under his control.

            2.  Again we remark, that all nations are not only under Jehovah’s control, but under his moral government.  Nations have a moral responsibility as well as individuals.  God holds them accountable for their conduct just as strictly as he does individuals, and will just as certainly punish them for their sins.  Hence, it is said of Israel, “The Lord hath afflicted her for the multitude of her transgressions”2  And again, “Jerusalem hath grievously sinned: therefore she is removed.”3  Nations are punished for national sins.  Those are regarded as national sins which pervade the great mass of the people.  Those also are accounted as national sins which are connived at, or sanctioned, either by legislative acts, or by the example and influence of individuals who are appointed to govern the nation, or who are the official representatives of the people, chosen or appointed by the nation to enact her laws and to conduct her government.

            This, then, is to be distinctly noted: the sins of the great mass of the people—the sanction of wrong on the part of government—and the open depravity of the rulers of any people, all come under the class of national sins.  As the moral governor of the universe, and a God of justice, Jehovah must punish these sins.  What was the destruction of Sodom and the cities of the Plain—what was the fall of Tyre, and Babylon, and Jerusalem, but an illustration of this very principle—that God holds nations morally accountable to him for their national acts?  It was not until the drunken Chaldean king in that night of his fatal revel, as he sat amid his thousand lords, commanded the sacred vessels which had been taken out of the temple of the house of God which was at Jerusalem, to be brought—it was not until those sacred vessels were used as common wine cups by “the king and his princes, his rulers and his concubines,” lifting up their voices in profane songs, “praising the gods of gold and of silver, or brass, of iron, of wood, and of stone”—it was not until this last heaven-daring act of desecration, that the fingers of that mysterious hand came forth and wrote upon the plaster of the wall the doom of the king and the nation.  That very night Belshazzar was slain, and Darius the Median took the kingdom.”

            Does not God hold nations morally accountable to him for their conduct as nations?  Look at Nineveh!  Consider Jonah’s commission!  “The word of the Lord came unto Jonah the son of Amittai, saying, Arise, go to Nineveh, that great city, and cry against it; for their wickedness is come up before me.”  And what was the proclamation tht Jonah was to make?  Simply this!  “Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be destroyed.”  Nineveh was an immense city—the seat of a great empire—containing a population among which there were more than sixty thousand of so tender an age that they “knew not their right hand from their left.”  These were to be involved in the general destruction.  Though individually innocent, yet as a part of the nation, they shared the national guilt, and were to be involved in the national destruction.  Within forty days, Nineveh, then flourishing in the zenith of its glory, was to be laid in utter ruins; its doom was sealed; and it was to perish on account of its wickedness.  A messenger is sent by the Almighty to proclaim this through its streets—“Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be destroyed!”  Had this message been unheeded, just as sure as God is on his throne that city, like Sodom, would have been whelmed in destruction.  But “the people of Nineveh believed God, and proclaimed a fast, and put on sackcloth, from the greatest of them even to the least of them.  For word came unto the king of Nineveh; and he arose from his throne, and he laid his robe from him, and covered him with sackcloth, and sat in ashes.  And he caused it to be proclaimed and published through Nineveh, (by the decree of the king and his nobles,) saying, Let neither man nor beast, herd nor flock, taste any thing; let them not feed, nor drink water.  But let man and beast be covered with sackcloth, and cry mightily unto God; yea, let them turn every one from his evil way, and from the violence that is in their hands.  Who can tell if God will turn and repent, and turn away from his fierce anger, that we perish not?  And God saw their works that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not.”  Here we see fully carried out, that principle in the divine government, which Jehovah himself had laid down, and upon which he acts in the administration of that government as it respects nations.  “At what instant I shall speak concerning a kingdom, to pluck up and pull down and to destroy it; if that nation against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them.”  You see, therefore, that the divine government under which nations as well as individuals are placed, is a moral government.  Sin in nations as well as in individuals, displeases God, and he will certainly empty upon them the vials of his displeasure.

            3.  Again:  I remark that God punishes nations for national sins, by the infliction of TEMPORAL JUDGMENTS.  It is only here that they have a corporate and national existence.  Individuals, each one for himself, will for their personal sins have at last to meet the retributions of Christ’s judgment-seat.  But God judgeth the nations, and awards to them their allotments, while they still have a name and local habitation upon the theatre of this world’s existence. 

            The instruments which God employs for the execution of his displeasure upon  any people whose sins cry to heaven for vengeance, are multiplied and various.  He has infinite resources at his command.  War, and pestilence and famine, and flame and flood, are all ministers that wait upon his beck.  He can, at his pleasure, open the windows of heaven, and break up the fountains of the great deep, to drown a sinful world.  He can cause the heavens to empty a deluge of fire upon the cities of the plain.  He can turn the waters of Egypt into blood, and send death into every habitation.  He can bring up locusts upon the land to eat up every green thing.  He can “make the heavens as brass, and the earth as iron.”  He can “smite with a consumption, and with a fever, and with an inflammation, and with an extreme burning, and with the sword, and with blasting, and with mildew.”  He can make the embattled thousands of Assyria, the rod of his anger to punish Israel; and he can send the angel of destruction into the camp of the Assyrians to “punish the stout heart of the king of Assyria, and the glory of his high looks,” by smiting with the silent withering touch of death, a hundred and eighty-five thousand of his armed warriors in a single night.4  That same God who did such wonders in ancient times, still lives; and still holds the same sway over the nations of the earth.  He still abhors sin; and still possesses infinite expedients by which to execute his displeasure upon the nations that cast away his fear, and trample upon his law.  God punishes nations now, as he did formerly, for their sins.  He punished Israel.  Though they were his peculiar people—though they were highly exalted above all other nations, he would not allow sin in them to go unrebuked.  When they cast his law behind them, he held them responsible not only as individuals, but as a nation.  He therefore brought upon them national judgments.  He therefore brought upon them national judgments.  He caused them to be carried away captive.  He allowed the crimson tide of war to roll over their land.  He sent multiplied judgments upon them.  He wrested from them their property, and subjected them to a foreign yoke.

            Now the position laid down in our text is, that in the infliction of these various judgments, God acts strictly in accordance with the principles of rectitude and justice.  The history of the Jews, as far as their case is concerned, most strikingly demonstrates this position.  This, at the time they observed the great national fast referred to in our text, they distinctly acknowledged.  Their language in their humble confession to Almighty God, was “Thou art just in all that is brought upon us; for thou hast done right, but we have done wickedly.”  God had in all respects acted as a righteous governor.  In all the inflictions of judgment upon the nation, he had proceeded no farther than was necessary to uphold his moral government, and to indicate his deep and changeless displeasure against sin.

            And what was affirmed of Jehovah in that case, may be affirmed of the divine administration in every case.  “Thou art just in all that is brought upon us; for thou hast done right, but we have done wickedly.”

            The great truth asserted in our text, would lose much of its force on this occasion, and the object for which we are assembled in a great measure be defeated, did I not in this connexion call your attention particularly to the undoubted fact, that God has been displeased with us as a nation.  During the last ten years he has rebuked us in a variety of ways, and spoken out his displeasure in tones that have been reverberated through the whole land.  How solemnly did he speak to this whole nation, when he permitted the Asiatic cholera to be wafted on the wings of the wind across the great deep, and bade it hang like a dark cloud of death over every city in our land!  Was not the voice of God in that pestilence!  With what awful tread it marched from place to place, filling all hearts with dismay, and sweeping thousands into eternity!  And when the moral impression of this awful visitation faded away like “the morning cloud and early dew,” Jehovah again spoke to us in flame and fire.  A mighty conflagration was kindled in the very centre of the great mart and metropolis of our land, which no human power could stay, till edifice after edifice, and block after block had fallen, and millions of property had been swept away in one fatal night.5 

            Since that period, how often, how emphatically, how distinctly, has the Most High spoken to us by tempest,6 and by flood, on the sea and on the land!  Since that period, what unwonted scenes have been acted upon our great rivers, and bays, and along our coast!  Were not the three combined elements of flame, and frost, and flood, manifestly the ministers of the Lord, and acting in obedience to his word, when in a single night—in a single hour—they became the dread executioners to sweep hundreds from time to eternity; and in the sudden, awful, and bitter bereavement they occasioned, carried grief and mourning through the whole land!7

            But, more particularly, and no less distinctly, has God spoken in the silent, noiseless, but deadly blight that has fallen upon our national prosperity.  We were prosperous; we were heaping up wealth; thousands were enjoying perfect ease of circumstances a few years since.  A wonderful change, however, has come over the land.  The wheels of business have suddenly stopped.  The sinews of trade have been cut in sunder.  The affluent have become poor; men who considered themselves rich, have seen their property melt away like the dew of morning.  Individuals who supposed that they had a competence for life, have unexpectedly found poverty staring them in the face.  And all this has occurred in a time of peace—when no enemy had been among us to lay waste and destroy—when no civil commotion had occurred to shake the pillars of our government—when everything upon which national prosperity is supposed to depend, seemed auspicious—and at a period when the earth has not withheld her bounties, but has poured forth her productions with unwonted profusion.  Now, men may speculate, and theorize, and ascribe this to a variety of secondary causes; but if we are not atheists, if we do not shut out God altogether from the government of the world, we shall see His hand in this.  “Shall there be evil in a city,” or a land, “and the Lord hath not done it?”  Whatever may have been the proximate, political or natural causes that have brought these disastrous influences upon us, the hand of God has most assuredly been in it.  We can read our sin in our punishment.  “The Lord hath done that which he had devised.”8

            Men, however, did not choose to look at the matter under this aspect.  God’s hand was not seen.  They looked to secondary causes.  Still, however much, and however honestly they differed, in relation to the causes which they supposed had involved the nation in this wide-spread disaster, and borne it down to the very dust in depression; all were ready to concede the fact of the disastrous state in which our country was involved.  Various were the expedients devised to roll away this dark cloud of adversity.  But among all the propositions which the wise counselors suggested, how few thought or said—“Bring hither the ephod, and let us inquire of the Lord.”9  Men undertook to settle this matter themselves; some in one way, and some in another.  A large majority of the nation looked for relief in the elevation of a new and favourite candidate to the Presidential chair.  The nation was agitated to its very centre to compass his election.  He was proclaimed the successful candidate.  He was inducted into office with the accustomed ceremonies, amid assembled thousands of his countrymen.  Combining in his character every public and private virtue, all hearts began to be drawn towards him, and all eyes were fixed upon his movements.  Every step that he took, seemed to be directed with so much caution, and to proceed from such singleness of heart, that public expectation fastened still more intensely upon him every day, as the agent that was to extricate the nation from all its difficulties.  In all this, it is to be feared, men looked not to God, but to human instrumentality.  They forgot that it was for their sins that the nation’s prosperity had been cloven down.  And, therefore, in the midst of the people’s acclamations of triumph, while the laurels which were hung around their representative head at his inauguration, were still fresh and blooming, God stretched forth his hand, and suddenly touched him with death.  No one had anticipated such an event.  Of the hundreds that saw and heard him on the day of his inauguration, who thought of his dying before the expiration of his Presidential term?  “His eye was bright; his voice was clear; his step was firm; no part of his iron constitution gave signs of failing.”  But, one short month was scarcely completed, amid the cares and toils of government, and the news flew through the land—The President is dead!

            Now, the point to which we wish to call your attention, is, that in this—that in all that has been brought upon us—God has been rebuking us.  He has done right.  The pestilence, the flame, the flood, the commercial depression, the fall of our beloved President; all these are to be regarded as so many successive tokens of God’s displeasure against our national sins.

            Have we not national sins?  Can there be any question in relation to our having “done wickedly” as a nation?  No people under heaven ever enjoyed more civil liberty than we.  In soil, and climate, and laws, and advantages of education, and religious privileges, God has distinguished us above all the nations of the earth.  And yet, what wretched returns have we made to him for all this!  What sins and enormities disgrace our land!  Go through the whole Decalogue, and see what command has not been openly trampled in the dust by this nation.  Some of the Legislatures of our States have scoffingly rejected, and driven out with scorn from their legislative halls, all recognition of God and of his control.10  In how many instances have the legislators of our land, in the very temples of justice, trampled on all laws, human and divine, cherishing and uttering sentiments full of murder and blood!  How often have they set at defiance all decency; being notorious for drunkenness, and debauchery, and every evil work!  How often have they desecrated the Sabbath, and profaned the name of Jehovah, and scoffed at religion!  These things our rulers have but too frequently done.  And God has seen it all.  This, however, is only a small part of our national guilt.

            As in the days of one of Israel’s prophets, so now with great force and truth it may be said, “because of swearing, the land mourneth!”  Profanity is one of the crying sins of our land.  Go from one end of our country to the other, and all along our rail-roads, and canals, and navigable rivers, and national roads, you will hear one continued volley of profane oaths bursting upon your ears; and that, in utter contempt and defiance of that divine precept proclaimed from the burning top of Sinai, “Thou shall not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.”  We are not strangers to these things.  We can scarcely walk along through a single street of our city, without having our ears assailed with oaths, and curses, and awful profanity.  God sees all this, and keep a record of it in the book of his remembrance.

            Drunkenness is another sin of our land.  Notwithstanding all the laudable efforts that have been made to suppress intemperance, this sin, like a wide spreading pestilence, stalks abroad everywhere through the land; the foul minister of disease, and ruin, and death.  In a statistical calculation made recently by an intelligent clergyman of this city, from accurate data which he had collected, it was stated, that the amount paid annually in our country, for intoxicating drinks, exceeded the amount paid out to sustain the government, to sustain all our schools, to sustain the preaching of the gospel at home, to sustain our charitable institutions, and all our missionary operations: that a larger number of persons had been destroyed since the declaration of American Independence, by intemperate drinking, than had ever been called into the field to defend our country in all the several wars in which this nation has been engaged: and that at the present moment, so wide spreading is this evil, if you were to allow twelve hours for each day, there is on an average a drunkard committed to the grave, somewhere in the United States, every six minutes each day, from one end of the year to the other.  What an idea does this give us of the extent and frequency of this terrible sin of drunkenness!  And does not the Holy One of Israel see and abhor all this?  And will he not visit for these things?  What does he mean when he says to Israel, “Woe to the crown of pride, to the drunkards of Ephraim, whose glorious beauty is a fading flower, which are the head of the fat valleys of them that are overcome with wine!  Behold, the Lord hath a mighty and strong one, which, as a tempest of hail, and a destroying storm, as a flood of mighty waters overflowing, shall cast down to the earth with the hand.  The crown of pride, the drunkards of Ephraim, shall be trodden under feet.”11

            Licentiousness is another of our national sins.  Of all the sins that defile the earth, none can be more hateful to God than this!  And yet its extent, especially in our large towns and cities, is truly awful and appalling.  Were it proper or possible to give statistics here, what startling facts would be brought to light!  How many thousands and tens of thousands is this sin yearly hurrying forward to a ruined eternity!  And how many who wish to claim high respectability in society, and to be ranked even among the virtuous, give countenance and support to this vice!  O, what scenes of pollution does the all-seeing eye of God behold around us on every side!  The only wonder is, that having drunk so deep into Sodom’s sin, we have not, ere this, shared its fate.

            But I pass on to another point.  Among the causes which have operated to involve the nation in great and crying sins, and which have contributed to the utter shipwreck of private character, is the undue love of money, which has pervaded the whole mass of society, and spread its infection through all classes like a fearful pestilence.  Men everywhere, in all ranks and stations in society, were “in haste to be rich.”  The old paths of patient toil and honest industry were deserted, and new ways devised, by which the object of men’s pursuit could be more speedily attained.  Hence, those extensive schemes of speculation, and of wholesale gambling, which in their operation have fallen with suh disastrous influence upon the most safely vested interest in the country.  This mania for speculation, not only scattered the fortune of thousands to the winds, but exerted a most deleterious moral influence upon the public mind.  It seemed to crush and obliterate the few vestiges of moral sense that had remained in the human mind.  This was manifested in a variety of ways.  The whole country began speedily to put on a new aspect.  Singly, and in masses, men hesitated not to adopt new courses of action.  They no longer waited around the gates of justice, but, in many instances, trampled down into the dust all respect for law and authority.  The mob undertook to be umpire, and to settle all questions in a summary way, by an appeal to the excited passions of the worst portion of the community.  There is nothing that has stained the fair honour of our country with so foul a blot—nothing which has made us so much the sport and by-word of European nations—and nothing, we may believe, which has been more offensive in the eye of God, than the existence and toleration of mobs in this land.  Our own city has participated in the guilt, and been the theatre upon which one of these disgraceful scenes has been acted.12

            Alas, what elements of depravity are around us!  The workings of iniquity are seen under ten thousand varied manifestations.  It seems as though the crime and corruption of the old world had been transplanted here, and was springing up with increased vigour on our soil.

            Among the sins which are rife around us, we must not forget to mention that of systematic gambling.  How many rooms—how many dwellings in this city—are yearly rented for the express purpose of carrying on this nefarious business, and exclusively devoted to this object!  And how many individuals are there that calculate to get their livelihood by this system of deliberate robbery!13

            Another of the crying sins of our land, is the desecration of the Sabbath.  In the early history of this country, there was nothing that ore strikingly characterized those venerable men who cleared away the mighty forest, and planted the first germ of our nation, than their strict and conscientious observance of the Sabbath.  They proceeded upon the plain and obvious principle, that they were not to look for success in their various enterprises, unless they feared God and kept his commandments.  And to them the Most High acted on that rule of his government, declared by the man of God to Eli, “them that honour me, I will honour.”  While our fathers honoured God, the banner of prosperity waved over our country, and we were overshadowed with the blessings of the Most High.  But a new order of things for many years past has sprung up among us.  The ancient reverence for the Lord’s day has greatly declined.  Men have allowed their love of pleasure, and of gain, to urge them on to an utter disregard of the command so sacredly enjoined by the Almighty, remember the Sabbath-day and keep it holy.  Where can you now go, and not see crowds around you on every side, trampling this sacred injunction of Jehovah in the dust?  And alas, this sin is participated in by almost all classes in society!  This disregard of divine authority does not escape the omniscient eye!

            Again:  So common has dueling become in this country—that it may with great propriety be mentioned as one of our national sins.  How long, and by what distinguished names has this barbarous and heaven-daring sin been upheld and practiced in our country!  And even to this present moment, how many there are that would contend that it was their privilege to avenge any imaginary or real wrongs they have suffered—by the pistol, or the bowie-knife!

            What law of Jehovah has not been set at defiance by the nation?  Look around!  What acts of peculation, of embezzlement, of high-handed fraud, have been committed, not only by private individuals but by officers of public institutions—by those holding high official stations under government!  What dishonesties—what derelictions from the path of rectitude have been practiced—what forgeries have been committed—what developments of depravity—what tales of murder and bloodshed have come to our ears, or have been acted in our very streets!  And does not God see and abhor all these?

            I might here specify several other national sins that lift up a mighty voice to heaven, calling down upon us the wrath of God.—But I pass over these, and close by remarking, that the greatest of all our national sins is the neglect and contempt with which the gospel of Christ is treated; and the utter disregard which has been manifested to the various and multiplied rebukes which Jehovah hath put forth to recall and reclaim this nation.

            Though to all the people of this land, there has been proffered and proclaimed a free and full and everlasting salvation—a salvation purchased by the tears and toil and agony and death of the incarnate Son of God—these riches of infinite grace have been utterly neglected or despised!  Of the seventeen millions that form the entire mass of our nation, by far the great majority act and live just as they would if Christ had never come here on the errand of their redemption—had never poured out his precious blood for their salvation!  How few in all this land have truly received and truly submitted to the glorious gospel of the Son of God!  God’s greatest gift to man—that gift which filled all heaven with amazement—has been scorned and rejected by millions in this land.  This, I repeat it, is our greatest sin—the neglect or rejection of Him who came down from heaven for our redemption.

            And we have not only closed our ears to the sound of the gospel—but to the voice of God as he has been speaking in his various providences.  Who hath heard and regarded his voice?  Who, under these various divine rebukes which we have noticed, hath turned from his evil ways and humbled himself under the mighty hand of God!  And though God’s long-suffering and forbearance with us have been so distinguished—where shall we find any proper sense of gratitude at all commensurate with the extent of this goodness!  Indeed, how few, how very few in all this land have any adequate conception of the goodness of Jehovah to us as a nation!  What multitudes and multitudes have set him utterly at defiance!

            Now, when you consider the forgetfulness and neglect of God of which this nation has been guilty—when you consider what an immense amount of crime is spread over all this land, and how the depravity of the people has broken forth in every form;—and then, when you consider in connexion with this, that God claims to be the moral governor of this nation, and that he has determined to punish our national sins with national judgments, can you be surprised at what has befallen us?  Do you not rather wonder that he hath dealt so gently with us?  Who that reflects will not unite with Israel and say—“Thou art just in all that is brought upon us; for thou hast done right, but we have done wickedly?” 

            But we must hasten to a close.  Allow me to call your attention in conclusion, to three practical deductions.

            1.  It becomes us first of all to acknowledge the justice of God in his dealings with us.  He has chastened us.  We see his hand in the various calamities that have befallen us.  It was the Lord that took away our chief magistrate.  He took him away on account of the sins of the people.  This was JUST on the part of God.  We deserved it.  Our sins deserved it.  “Thou art just in all that is brought upon us; for thou hast done right, but we have done wickedly.”

            2.  At this time, we are especially called upon to confess and bewail our sins.  Even if we have not personally participated in those national sins to which we have alluded, yet as members of this great national compact, we all share in the guilt, and so we must in the punishment of our national sins.  We are bound therefore to confess them before God, and to mourn over them, and seek for pardon, that the divine displeasure shall no longer rest upon us as a nation.  How sad it is to remember, that the good old General who had fought for his country so many battles, and had now reached the evening of life, and was garnering up his hopes for heaven, and diffusing happiness by his presence in the domestic circle—had he been left in his happy home might have passed many more years on the earth—but when he was torn from that retirement, and invested with the robes of office, and placed at the head of the nation, then the nation’s sins came upon him, and he was cut down for their sake.  We trust he has gone to a world where sin is unknown.  But it becomes as none the less to humble ourselves before Almighty God, for those sins which called down this last heavy stroke upon our country.

            3.  And, finally, it becomes us on this occasion not only to acknowledge the justice of God in all that he has done—not only to confess our sins before the Lord, but to pray and labour for a universal reformation through the land.  What will all our confessions, and rebukes, and fasting, amount to, if we go on in sin just as we have hitherto done?  Listen to the divine word, “Is not this the fast I have chosen?  To loose the bands of wickedness; to undo the heavy burdens, and to let the oppressed go free, and that ye break every yoke?  Is it not to deal thy bread to the hungry, and that thou bring the poor that are cast out to thy house?  When thou seest the naked, that thou over him, and that thou hide not thyself from thine own flesh?”  In other words, we are to seek to bring about a great and extended reformation—to roll away that load of sin which presses down this nation, “as a cart is pressed down that is full of sheaves.”  For this we are to labour and pray without ceasing.  Let us begin with ourselves.  Let us embrace if we have hitherto neglected to do so, at once, the Lord Jesus as our Saviour.  Let us break off every sin, and seek to have the light of our example such as becometh the gospel of Christ.  Let us do wickedly no more, but live as enlightened, free, Christian men, ever remembering that it is “righteousness” alone that will save, preserve, and “exalt” our “nation.”

            Let this day be spent by all in prayer.  Let us seek the face of the Lord, not only in public but in private.  Humble prayer to God is mighty, and it is the duty to which we are now especially called.  Let us not fail to call upon God, with one accord, for his mercy and for his blessings.  If we—if all thus humble themselves before the Lord—thus call upon his name, we may hope that for the sake of our great Intercessor he will turn, and show mercy upon us, and continue to bless us in all our interests as a nation.

END.

           

           

 

 

                                                           


1 The Proclamation of President Tyler, recommending the 14th of May as a day of Fasting, is a document that ought to be preserved—and is couched in the following terms:
“When a Christian people feel themselves to be overtaken by a great public calamity, it becomes them to humble themselves under the dispensation of Divine Providence, to recognize His righteous government over the children of men, to acknowledge his goodness in time past, as well as their own unworthiness, and to supplicate His merciful protection for the future.
“The death of William Henry Harrison, late President of the United States, so soon after his elevation to that high office, is a bereavement peculiarly calculated to be regarded as a heavy affliction, and to impress all minds with a sense of the uncertainty of human things, and of the dependence of nations, as well as individuals, upon our Heavenly Parent.
“I have thought, therefore, that I should be acting in conformity with the general expectation and feelings of the community, in recommending as I now do to the people of the United States, of every religious denomination, that according to their several modes and forms of worship, they observe a day of fasting and prayer, by such religious services as may be suitable to the occasion:—And I recommend Friday , the fourteenth day of May next, for that purpose; to the end that, on that day, we may all with one accord join in humble and reverential approach to Him in whose hands we are, invoking Him to inspire us with a proper spirit and temper of heart and mind, under these frowns of His providence, and still to bestow His gracious benedictions upon our Government and our country.
John Tyler.
Washington, April 13, 1841.
(Return)
2 Lament. Jer. i. 5. (Return)
3 Id. 8. (Return)
4 See Isaiah xxxvii. 36, and also Isaiah x. 12. (Return)
5 In the great fire in New York in 1836, it was supposed that between twenty and twenty-five millions of property were destroyed. (Return)
6 We shall not soon forget the tornado of 1840, that in one moment laid Natchez in ruins; beneath which, so many of its inhabitants were ensepulcherd. (Return)
7 Among the disasters above referred to, we may mention the stranding of the Barque Mexico, on Hempstead Beach, south shore of Long Island, in January, 1837, by which catastrophe one hundred and sixteen lives were lost, many of the sufferers having frozen to death; the burning of the Ben Sherod on the Mississippi river, in May, 1837, by which not less than two hundred persons were buried beneath the flood; the destruction of the Steam Packet Home on Ocracoke Island, off the coast of North Carolina, in October, 1837, in which ninety persons sunk like lead to the depths of the ocean; the loss of the Pulaski off Cape Lookout, on the coast of North Carolina, by the explosion of its steam-boiler, in June, 1838, in which more than one hundred and twenty persons perished; and finally, the awful conflagration of the Lexington on Long Island Sound, during a cold wintry night in January, 1840, in which more than one hundred and thirty souls, hemmed in by fire, and frost, and the devouring flood, were driven from their last hold on life, and engulfed in the dark deep waters. (Return)
8 Lament. Jer. Ii, 17. (Return)
9 I Samuel xxiii. 9. See also Dr. Humphrey’s Sermon on the death of Harrison. (Return)
10 Were we to confine ourselves merely to our own State, we might be furnished with facts that too nearly make up the outlines of this sad picture. There has been no recognition of Religion in the person of a chaplain, in our State Legislature, since the adoption of the Constitution in 1790. Some two or three years since a proposition was made in the Senate to appoint a chaplain, or rather to invite the clergy of Harrisburgh to officiate alternately in that capacity. After a long discussion, the resolution was rejected by a large vote—we believe not less than two-thirds of that body. This was but too manifestly saying we have no need of God, nor of his guidance, in our legislative deliberations. Can we be surprised at the crippled and maimed state of our public financial affairs? Whether men acknowledge it or not, there is a God in heaven that ruleth over all. And we would ask with one of old—“Who hath hardened himself against him and prospered?” (Return)
11 Isaiah xxviii. 1, 2, 3. (Return)
12 We allude to the burning of Pennsylvania Hall. (Return)
13 There are parts of Philadelphia, and those in the very centre of the most peaceable and respectable neighbourhoods, in which within a single stone’s throw, there are said to be not less than twenty of these gambling establishments. (Return)

A God-Given Inalienable Right

One of the first rights to be protected in early America was the right of conscience – the right to believe differently on issues of religious faith. As John Quincy Adams explained, this right was a product of Christianity:

Jesus Christ. . . . came to teach and not to compel. His law was a Law of Liberty. He left the human mind and human action free. 1

Early American legal writer Stephen Cowell (1800-1872) agreed:

Nonconformity, dissent, free inquiry, individual conviction, mental independence, are forever consecrated by the religion of the New Testament. 2

President Franklin D. Roosevelt likewise declared:

We want to do it the voluntary way – and most human beings in all the world want to do it the voluntary way. We do not want to have the way imposed. . . . That would not follow in the footsteps of Christ. 3

The Scriptures teach that there will be differences of conscience (cf. 1 Corinthians 8) and that if an individual “wounds a weak conscience of another, you have sinned against Christ” (v. 12). We are therefore instructed to respect the differing rights of conscience (v. 13). (See also I Corinthians 10:27-29.) Extending toleration for the rights of conscience is urged throughout the New Testament. (See also Romans 14:3, 15:7, Ephesians 4:2, Colossians 3:13, etc.)

Leaders who knew the Scriptures therefore protected those rights. For example, in 1640, the Rev. Roger Williams established Providence, penning its governing document declaring:

We agree, as formerly hath been the liberties of the town, so still, to hold forth liberty of conscience. 4

Similar protections also appear in the 1649 Maryland “Toleration Act,” 5 the 1663 Charter for Rhode Island, 6 the 1664 Charter for Jersey, 7 the 1665 Charter for Carolina, 8 the 1669 Constitutions of Carolina, 9 the 1676 Charter for West Jersey, 10 the 1701 Charter for Delaware, 11 and the 1682 Frame of Government for Pennsylvania. 12 John Quincy Adams affirmed that: “The transcendent and overruling principle of the first settlers of New England was conscience.” 13

Then when America separated from Great Britain in 1776 and the states created their very first state constitutions, they openly acknowledged Christianity and jointly secured religious toleration, non-coercion, and the rights of conscience. For example, the 1776 constitution of Virginia declared:

That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity towards each other. 14

Similar clauses appeared in the constitutions of New Jersey (1776), 15 North Carolina (1776), 16 Pennsylvania (1776), 17 New York (1777), 18 Vermont (1777), 19 South Carolina (1778), 20 Massachusetts (1780), 21 New Hampshire (1784), 22 etc. Today, the safeguard for the rights of conscience pioneered by Christian leaders is a regular feature of state constitutions. 23

The Founding Fathers were outspoken about the importance of this God-given inalienable right. For example, signer of the Constitution William Livingston declared:

Consciences of men are not the objects of human legislation. . . . [H]ow beautiful appears our [expansive] constitution in disclaiming all jurisdiction over the souls of men, and securing (by a never-to-be-repealed section) the voluntary, unchecked, moral suasion of every individual. 24

And John Jay, the original Chief Justice of the U. S. Supreme Court, similarly rejoiced that:

Security under our constitution is given to the rights of conscience and private judgment. They are by nature subject to no control but that of Deity, and in that free situation they are now left. 25

President Thomas Jefferson likewise declared that the First Amendment was an “expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience.” 26

But President Obama disagrees with what for four centuries in American history has formerly been an inalienable right. He has specifically singled out and attacked the rights of religious and moral conscience, seeking to coerce dissenters into accepting his own beliefs. While Biblical teachings result in protection for differences of opinion on religious issues, secularists demand conformity of belief and practice to their own secular standards; they are especially intolerant of any differences that stem from Biblical faith.

While the President has targeted the Catholic Church for its religious beliefs, his attacks on religious conscience were ongoing, beginning shortly after he first took office when he first announced his plans to repeal religious conscience protection for medical workers. (We have posted on our website a piece showing the extreme and consistent hostility of this President against Biblical faith and values. As proven by his own actions and words, he is the most anti-Biblical president in American history.)


1 John Quincy Adams, A Discourse on Education Delivered at Braintree, Thursday, October 24th, 1839 (Boston: Perkins & Marvin, 1840), 17-18.

2 Stephen Colwell, Politics for American Christians: A World upon our Example as a Nation, our Labour, our Trade, Elections, Education, and Congressional Legislation (Philadelphia: Lippincott, Grambo & Co. 1852), 82.

3 “Franklin D. Roosevelt, “Christmas Greeting to the Nation,” American Presidency Project, December 24, 1940, https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/node/209414.

4 “Plantation Agreement at Providence,” The Avalon Project, August 27 – September 6, 1640, https://avalon.law.yale.edu/17th_century/ri01.asp.

5 William MacDonald, Select Charters and Other Documents Illustrative of American History 1606-1775 (New York: MacMillan Company, 1899), 104-106.

6 “Plantation Agreement at Providence August 27 – September 6, 1640,” The Federal and State Constitutions, Colonial Charters and Other Organic Laws, ed. Francis Newton Thorpe (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1909), VI:3211; “Charter of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations,” The Avalon Project, July 15, 1663, https://avalon.law.yale.edu/17th_century/ri01.asp.

7 “The Concession and Agreement of the Lords Proprietors of the Province of New Caesarea, or New Jersey,” The Avalon Project, 1664, https://avalon.law.yale.edu/17th_century/nj05.asp.

8 “Charter of Carolina,” The Avalon Project, June 30, 1665, https://avalon.law.yale.edu/17th_century/nc03.asp.

9 “Fundamental Constitution of Carolina,” The Avalon Project, March 1, 1669, https://avalon.law.yale.edu/17th_century/nc05.asp.

10 “The Charter or Fundamental Laws of West New Jersey,” The Avalon Project, 1676, https://avalon.law.yale.edu/17th_century/nj05.asp.

11 “Charter of Delaware,“ The Avalon Project, 1701, https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/de01.asp.

12 “ Frame of Government of Pennsylvania,“ The Avalon Project, May 5, 1682, https://avalon.law.yale.edu/17th_century/pa04.asp.

13 John Quincy Adams, A Discourse on Education Delivered at Braintree, Thursday, October 24th, 1839 (Boston: Perkins & Marvin, 1840), 28.

14 “Constitution of Virginia: Bill of Rights,” The American’s Guide: Comprising the Declaration of Independence; the Articles of Confederation; the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitutions of the Several States Composing the Union (Philadelphia: Hogan & Thompson, 1845), 180.

15 “Constitution of New Jersey,” The Avalon Project, 1776, https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/nj15.asp.

16 Constitutions of the Several Independent States of America (Boston: Norman & Bowen, 1785), 132.

17 Constitutions of the Several Independent States of America (Boston: Norman & Bowen, 1785), 77.

18 “The Constitution of New York,” The Avalon Project, April 20, 1777, https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/ny01.asp 1777.

19 The Federal and State Constitutions, Colonial Charters, and Other Organic Laws, 3d. Francis Newton Thorpe (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1909), VI:3740.

20 Constitutions of the Several Independent States of America, (Boston: Norman & Bowen, 1785), 152-154.

21 Constitutions of the Several Independent States of America (Boston: Norman & Bowen, 1785), 6.

22 Constitutions of the Several Independent States of America (Boston: Norman & Bowen, 1785), 3-4.

23 “State Policies in Brief: Refusing to Provide Health Services,” Guttmacher Institute, March 1, 2012, https://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/spibs/spib_RPHS.pdf.

24 William Livingston, The Papers of William Livingston, eds. Carl E. Prince, et al (Trenton: New Jersey Historical Commission, 1980), 2:235-237, writing as “Cato,” February 18, 1778.

25 Benjamin F. Morris, Christian Life and Character of the Civil Institutions of the United States, Developed in the Official and Historical Annals of the Republic (Philadelphia: George W. Childs, 1864), 152.

26 Thomas Jefferson to Messrs. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, and Stephen S. Nelson, A Committee of the Danbury Baptist Association, in the State of Connecticut, January 1, 1802 Writings of Thomas Jefferson, ed. Albert Ellery Bergh (Washington D.C.: Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1904), XVI:281-282.

* This article concerns a historical issue and may not have updated information.

Who was known as “First in war, First in peace, First in the hearts of his countrymen”?

This month marks the 217th anniversary of George Washington’s famous Farewell Address ending his remarkable career of public service. To understand the impact of Washington’s unique leadership, it is worth reviewing a few incidents from his life.

George Washington began his military career as an officer over the Virginia militia and then later as an aide-de-camp to British General Edward Braddock during the French and Indian War.1

Washington’s military advice in that War was very wise, but was rejected by the British.2 During the famous Battle of the Monongahela outside of Pittsburgh, Washington repeatedly escaped death through what he later described as miraculous intervention by God. In fact, an Indian chief who fought against him in that battle3 later traveled a long distance to meet Washington, whom he described as one who “cannot die in battle”4 because he clearly was “under the protection of the Great Spirit.”5 (For the full story of God’s Divine intervention in this battle, be sure to get the audiobook Bulletproof George Washington, read by famous Disney legend Dean Jones.)

Washington’s strong religious faith was evident on numerous occasions throughout the French and Indian War, and early artists later made lithographs capturing some of those reported incidents. One was a lithograph showing George reading the Bible to his troops, and another was Washington fulfilling the role of chaplain at the death of British commander Edward Braddock.

His firm reliance on God was evident throughout all of his endeavors, including in his General Orders to his troops during the American Revolution. And just as had occurred during the French and Indian War, God’s protection of Washington’s life was also evident during the American War for Independence.6

Following the end of the Revolution and the writing and adoption of the Constitution, Washington was unanimously chosen as the nation’s first President — the only president to receive a unanimous electoral college vote.7 From his inauguration (which included seven distinctly religious activities) to his retirement from public service, George Washington repeatedly demonstrated his firm reliance on God, openly acknowledging Him in public prayer proclamations (such as those of 1789 and 1795), speeches 8 and messages. 9 So well established was Washington’s Christian character, that decades after his death, sermons were still being preached to honor his life.

Washington affirmed his strong religious beliefs in his final public message to Americans: his “Farewell Address” of September 17, 1796. That message is considered to be among the most significant political speeches ever delivered by any president,10 and subsequent presidents recommended to Americans that they read and study that Address.11 (We have it available in Documents of Freedom.)

Because of his significant influence, it is no surprise that Washington was lovingly titled by his contemporaries as the man who was “First in war, First in peace, First in the hearts of his countrymen.”12


Endnotes

1 David Ramsay, The Life of George Washington (Baltimore: Joseph Jewett and Cushing & Sons, 1832), 13; John S.C. Abbott, American Pioneers and Patriots. George Washington, or Life in America One Hundred Years Ago (New York: Dodd & Mead Publishers, 1875), 82, James K. Paulding, A Life of Washington (Alberdeen: George Clark and Son, 1848), 41-42.
2 Ramsay, Life of Washington (1832), 13-14; Abbott, American Pioneers (1875), 85-86; Paulding, Life of Washington (1848), 43-44.
3 Ramsay,Life of Washington (1832), 14-15; Abbott, American Pioneers (1875), 91-93, Paulding, Life of Washington (1848), 44-45.
4 George Washington Parke Custis, Recollections and Private Memoirs of Washington by His Adopted Son (New York: Derby & Jackson, 1860), 375; Eugene Parsons, Great Americans of History George Washington: A Character Sketch (Milwaukee, WI: H.G. Campbell Publishing Company, 1898), 30-31, Washington Irving, Life of George Washington (New York: G. P. Putnam & Co., 1856), I:368.
5 Custis, Recollections (1860), 375; Irving, Life of Washington (1856), I:368; Parsons, Great Americans of History (1898), 31.
6 See for example, Jared Sparks, The Life of George Washington (Boston: Ferdinand Andrews, 1839) 205-217; Hon. J. T. Headley, The Illustrated Life of Washington (New York: G. & F. Bill, 1859) 214-216.
7 James Grant Wilson and John Fiske, Appletons’ Cyclopedia of American Biography (New York: D. Appleton and Company, 1889), 6, “Washington, George.”
8 See for example, George Washington, A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents, ed. James D. Richardson (New York: Bureau of National Literature, Inc., 1897), I:179, Reply of the President to an Address of the Senate, December 12, 1795.
9 See for example, George Washington, Messages and Papers of the Presidents, ed. Richardson (1897), I:44., First Inaugural Address in the City of New York, April 30, 1789.
10Washington’s Farewell Address,” Library of Congress: Religion and the Founding of the American Republic, (July 23, 2012); “February 22, 1862: Washington’s Farewell Address,” United States Senate.
11 See for example, James Madison, The Writings of James Madison, Letter to Thomas Jefferson, February 8, 1825.
12 Eulogies and Orations on the Life and Death of General George Washington, First President of the United States of America (Boston: Manning & Loring, 1800), 17, “Funeral Oration on the Death of General Washington. Delivered at the Request of Congress, Dec. 26, 1799. By Major-General Henry Lee.”

Dr. Benjamin Rush


Take the Benjamin Rush Quiz!

  1. Which two former Presidents did Benjamin Rush help reconcile?
  2. What was the name of the society that Benjamin Rush helped form to start Sunday Schools?
  3. What other Founding Father helped Benjamin Rush found America’s first anti-slavery society?
  4. How many colleges and universities did Benjamin Rush help establish?
  5. What was the name of the colonial law requiring children to know how to read, and establishing public schools for that purpose?

Dr. Benjamin Rush, a signer of the Declaration of Independence, was considered by John Adams to be one of America’s three most notable Founding Fathers, ranking alongside George Washington and Benjamin Franklin. 1 But his contributions to America were not purely political, even though those were very significant. 2

Rush is also known as the “Father of American Medicine.” 3 He was a founding member of America’s first Bible Society 4 and is credited with helping begin the American Sunday School movement. 5  He helped organize America’s first Anti-Slavery society 6 and was a leader in the national abolition movement. 7 He held multiple university professorships, 8 and is properly titled “The Father of Public Schools Under the Constitution,” being an advocate for free public schools for all youth. 9

As families across the nation send millions of children back to school 10 each year, it is a good time to review the intent behind America’s original educational system: for students to receive a sound academic education based on God’s Word. 11

In fact, in 1791, Dr. Rush wrote a lengthy piece providing a dozen or so reasons why America would continue teaching the Bible in our public schools. (To see a portion of the letter as it was printed by the American Tract society in 1830, visit our website.)


See How you did!

  1. Which two former Presidents did Benjamin Rush help reconcile?
    John Adams and Thomas Jefferson (To see the story behind the reconciliation, read this article.)
  2. What was the name of the society that Benjamin Rush helped form to start Sunday Schools?
    First Day Schools
  3. What other Founding Father helped Benjamin Rush found America’s first anti-slavery society?
    Benjamin Franklin (To see what the Founding Fathers thought of slavery, see here.)
  4. How many colleges and universities did Benjamin Rush help establish?
    Five (The College of Philadelphia, the University of the State of Pennsylvania, the Young Ladies’ Academy of Philadelphia, Dickinson College, and Franklin College)
  5. What was the name of the colonial law requiring children to know how to read, and establishing public schools for that purpose?
    The Old Deluder Satan Act (For additional information, check out Four Centuries of American Education.)

Endnotes

1 John Adams to Richard Rush, May 5, 1813, National Archives. See also, John Sanderson, Biography of the Signers to the Declaration of Independence (Philadelphia: R. W. Pomeroy, 1823), IV:285; John Adams to Richard Rush, May 5, 1813, L. H. Butterfield, “The Reputation of Benjamin Rush,” Pennsylvania History, January 1950, XVII:1:9.
2 For example, Dr. Rush pushed for the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, as well as adoption of the 1790 Pennsylvania State Constitution. He was appointed Treasurer of the U.S. Mint by President John Adams, a position which he held under Presidents Thomas Jefferson and James Madison.
3 Thomas D. Mitchell, The Character of Rush (Philadelphia: Published by the Class, John H. Gihon, Printer, 1848), 4.
4 The First Report of the Bible Society Established at Philadelphia; Read before the Society at their Annual Meeting, May 1, 1809 (Philadelphia: Printed by Order of the Society; Fry and Kammerer, Printers, 1809); “Rush, Benjamin,” Dictionary of American Biography.
5 Edwin Wilber Rice, The Sunday-School Movement and the American Sunday-School Union (Philadelphia: American Sunday School Union, 1917 ), 44-45.
6 Constitution of the Pennsylvania Society for Promoting the Abolition of Slavery, and the Relief of Free Negroes, Unlawfully Held in Bondage. Begun in the Year 1774, and Enlarged on the 23rd of April, 1787. (Philadelphia: Francis Bailey, 1788), 8; “Rush, Benjamin,” Dictionary of American Biography; Thomas Clarkson, Abolition of the African Slave-Trade, by the British Parliament (Augusta: P.A. Brinsmade, 1830), 1:66-69.
7 Centennial Anniversary of the Pennsylvania Society, for Promoting the Abolition of Slavery, the Relief of Free Negroes Unlawfully Held in Bondage, and for Improving the Condition of the African Race (Philadelphia: Grant, Faires, & Rodgers, 1875), 15.
8Benjamin Rush,” University of Pennsylvania, accessed October 26, 2023.
9 David Ramsay, An Eulogium upon Benjamin Rush, M. D. (Philadelphia: Bradford and Inskeep, 1813), 107; Benjamin Rush, “Of the Mode of Education Proper in a Republic,” Essays, Literary, Moral and Philosophical (Philadelphia: Thomas and Samuel F. Bradford, 1798), 6-20.
10Public and private elementary and secondary teachers, enrollment, and pupil/teacher ratios: Selected years, fall 1955 through fall 2021,” National Center for Education Statistics, accessed October 26, 2023.
11 Alexis de Tocqueville, The Republic of the United States of America and Its Political Institutions, Reviewed and Examined, trans., Henry Reeves (Garden City, NY: A. S. Barnes & Co., 1851), 41; Edward Kendall, Travels through the Northern Parts of the United States, in the Years 1807 and 1808 (New York: I. Riley, 1809), I:270-271.

The Barbary Powers Wars

What important American victory in the Barbary Powers Wars occurred on this date in 1801?

(*See below for the answer.)

The Barbary Powers Wars were the first wars officially declared against America following our victory in the War for Independence. 1 Muslim terrorists from five different Islamic nations (Turkey, Tunis, Morocco, Algiers, and Tripoli) were making indiscriminate attacks against the property and interests of what they claimed to be “Christian” nations (America, England, France, Spain, Portugal, Denmark, Sweden, etc.). 2 These Muslim terrorists (called Barbary, that is, barbaric “pirates” by most Americans) attacked American civilian and commercial merchant ships wherever they found them, seizing the cargo and enslaving the crew. 3

In 1784, Congress dispatched three diplomats – John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, and Thomas Jefferson – to negotiate with these Muslim nations and end the unprovoked attacks. 4 They found this to be a difficult task, for the attacking of ships and the taking of Christians by Muslims had been a widespread problem for centuries. 5

The Muslims found they could finance their wars and terror operations by enslaving and then selling captured seamen. (The Muslims took 1.25 million captive slaves in that period. 6) Because this was such a widespread and recurring problem, other Christian nations formed standing organizations to raise money to purchase enslaved seamen. As Jefferson explained:

There is here an order of priests called the Mathurins, the object of whose institutions is the begging of alms for the redemption of captives. About eighteen months ago, they redeemed three hundred, which cost them about fifteen hundred livres [$1,500] apiece. They have agents residing in the Barbary States, who are constantly employed in searching and contracting for the captives of their nation, and they redeem at a lower price than any other people can. 7

Ransoming Americans was no less expensive, and therefore was a very profitable trade for the Muslim terrorists. 8 Additionally, the Muslim nations would sign treaties with the attacked nations, including America, providing that for an annual “tribute” (perhaps $1 million a year, along with the “gift” of several frigates), that they would perhaps refrain from further attacks. By 1795, such “peace” payments to Muslim terrorists comprised a full sixteen percent of the entire federal budget!  9

Among the many treaties signed with Muslim nations during this period was the famous 1797 treaty with Tripoli. It was one of the many treaties in which each country officially recognized the religion of the other in an attempt to prevent further escalation into a “Holy War” 10 such as had existed between Christians and Muslims in the Middle Ages.

The Muslims considered that all Christian nations were like those of the Crusades, when Christians fought Muslims simply because they were Muslims. 11  However, America was definitely not like the European Christian nations from medieval times, for we did not kill Muslims, Jews, or any one else for their faith. In fact, many Founding Fathers talked about how different America as a Christian nation was from the European Christian nations; 12 and the American treaties, including the Treaty of Tripoli, made this very point.

Significantly, secularists regularly cite one clause from that treaty in devious attempts to make it appear that the Founding Fathers emphatically avowed that America was not a Christian nation. They thus quote from that treaty the line declaring “The government of the United States is in no sense founded on the Christian religion . . . ” This declaration certainly seems to be straightforward – until you discover that the critics only used part of the quote. Notice what the full, unedited clause states:

As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen [Muslims]. and as the said States [America] have never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries. 13 (emphasis added)

This clause from the Treaty of Tripoli simply affirms that America was not one of the European Christian nations with an inherent hostility toward Muslims, and that America had never been part of arbitrary wars against Muslims such as had characterized the Crusades. This clause definitely does not deny or undermine America’s strong Christian heritage – unless you wrongly place a period in the middle of the sentence, as secularist critics do.
When Thomas Jefferson became president in 1801, he decided that it was time to take military action to end the two-decades-old unprovoked Muslim terrorist attacks against Americans. 14 Using the brand new American Navy to transport the U. S. Marines overseas (President George Washington had called for the construction of a navy in 1795, and President John Adams had overseen its construction 15), General William Eaton took the American military and proceeded to the same region of the world where Americans are still being attacked today. He then led a successful five-year campaign to free captured Americans and crush Muslim terrorist forces. 16 Tripoli (now called Libya) finally capitulated and signed a treaty on America’s terms in 1805, thus ending their aggressions – at least for a while. 17

(By the way, it was from the Marine’s role in that first War on Terror from 1801-1805 that the U. S. Marines derive part of the opening line of their hymn: “From the halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli . . .”)
Shortly after President James Madison took office, he became engulfed in the War of 1812. With America preoccupied in a second war against the British, Algerian Muslim terrorists again began attacking Americans. But upon concluding the war with the British, President James Madison dispatched the American military and warships against three Muslim nations: Algiers, Tunis, and Tripoli. 18 America (with the assistance of Great Britain and the Netherlands) subdued those Muslim nations and brought them to the peace table, where they freed all the enslaved Christians. 19

*On this date in history, the U.S.S. Enterprise captured the Trioplitan ship known as the Tripoli. While the terrorists sustained heavy losses, the Americans did not lose a single man in the battle. 20


Endnotes

1 Thomas Clark, Naval History of the United States, from the Commencement of the Revolutionary War to the Present Time (Philadelphia: M. Stiles, 1814), 1:140; James H. Morgan, Register of the Military Order of Foreign wars of the United States (New York: The National Commandery, 1900), 11-19.
2 Richard O’Brian to Thomas Jefferson, June 8, 1786, Naval Documents Related  to the United States Wars with the Barbary Powers, ed. Claude A. Swanson (Washington: United States Government Printing Office, 1939), 1:1-6; A General View of the Rise, Progress, and Brilliant Achievements of the American Navy Down to the Present Time, (Brooklyn: 1828) 70-71;  “Barbary Pirates,” The Encyclopedia Britannica, ed. Hugh Chisholm (New York: The Encyclopedia Britannica Company, 1910), 383.
3 Julian Hawthorne et. al., United States from the Discovery of the North American Continent up to the Present Time (New York: James Schouler, 1894), 3:17-20; Forward written by President Franklin D. Roosevelt, December 30, 1958, Naval Documents, ed. Swanson (1939), 1; Theodore Lyman, The Diplomacy of the United States (Boston: Wells and Lilly, 1828), 2:338-342.
4 Thomas Jefferson to William Carmichael, November 4, 1785, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, ed. Andrew A. Lipscomb (Washington, D. C.: The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1903), V:195; Garner W. Allen, Our Navy and the Barbary Corsairs (Boston: Houghton, Mifflin, and Company, 1905) 28.
5 “Barbary Pirates,” The Encyclopedia Britannica, ed. Hugh Chisholm (New York: The Encyclopedia Britannica Company, 1910), 383.
6 Robert Davis, Christian Slaves, Muslim Masters: White Slavery in the Mediterranean, the Barbary Coast and Italy, 1500-1800 (Palgrave Macmillan, 2004).
7 Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, January 11, 1787, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, ed. Andrew A. Lipscomb (Washington, D. C.: The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1903), VI:47-48.
8 No. 43: Prisoners at Algiers, American State Papers: Documents, Legislative and Executive, of the Congress of the United States (Washington: Gales and Seaton), 1:100-101.
9 The federal budget was $6,115,000 in 1795; a payment of nearly $1 million was given that year to Algiers alone, not including what was given to the other Barbary Powers.  See U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Historical Statistics of the United States (White Plains, NY: Kraus International Publications, 1989), 1106; George Washington to the Secretary of the Treasury, May 29, 1794, The Writings of George Washington, ed. John C Fitzpatrick (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1940), 33:385.
10 See, for example, the 1786 Treaty with Morocco: Articles 10, 11, 17 and 24; the 1795 Treaty with Algiers: Article 17; the 1815 Treaty with Algiers: Article 13; the 1816 Treaty with Algiers: Articles 14 and 15; the 1796 Treaty with Tripoli: Article 11; the 1805 Treaty with Tripoli: Article 14; and the 1797 Treaty with Tunis: Forward.
11 Thomas Edward Watson, The Life and Times of Thomas Jefferson (New York: D. Appleton and Company, 1903), 247-249.
12 See for example, John Jay, “Address to the Annual Meeting of the American Bible Society,” May 8, 1823, Correspondence and Public Papers of John Jay, ed. Henry Johnston (New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1893), IV:491; John Quincy Adams, An Oration Delivered Before the Inhabitants of the Town of Newburyport at Their Request on the Sixty-First Anniversary of the Declaration of Independence (Newburyport: Charles Whipple, 1837), 17; John Adams in a speech to both  houses of Congress, November 23, 1797, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, ed. Charles Francis Adams (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1854), IX:121; Noah Webster, History of the United States (New Haven: Durrie & Peck, 1832), 339, “Advice to the Young”; Daniel Webster, Mr. Webster’s Speech in Defence of the Christian Ministry and In Favor of the Religious Instruction of the Young. Delivered in the Supreme Court of the United States, February 10, 1844, in the Case of Stephen Girard’s Will (Washington, DC: Gales and Seaton, 1844), 12-13.
13 Acts Passed at the First Session of the Fifth Congress of the United States of America (Philadelphia: William Ross, 1797), 43-44.
14 Thomas Jefferson, “Second Annual Message,” December 15, 1802, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson (Washington, D.C.: Taylor & Maury, 1854), 8:17; Thomas Jefferson, “Autobiography,” 1821, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, ed. Paul Leicester Ford (New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1892), I:91-93; Elizabeth Huff, “The First Barbary War,” Monticello, accessed December 1, 2023.
15 “The Reestablishment of the Navy, 1787-1801,” Naval History Bibliography, accessed July 29, 2013.
16  William Grimshaw, The History of the United States, From Their First Settlement as Colonies to the Cession of Florida, in Eighteen Hundred and Twenty-One, (Philadelphia: Benjamin Warner, 1821), 194-195; Charles Prentiss, The Life of the Late Gen. William Eaton; Several Years an Officer in the United States’ Army, Consul at the Regency of Tunis on the Coast of Barbary, and Commander of the Christian and Other Forces That Marched from Egypt Through the Desert of Barca, in 1805, and Conquered the City of Derne, Which Led to the Treaty of Peace Between the United States and the Regency of Tripoli; Principally Collected from His Correspondence and Other Manuscripts (Brookfield: E. Merriam & Co., 1813).
17 “The Barbary Wars, 1801-1805,” The Mariners’ Museum: Birth of the U.S. Navy (2000).
18 John Quincy Adams, The Lives of James Madison and James Monroe (Buffalo: Geo. H. Derby and Co., 1850), 93; “Barbary Wars, 1801-1805 and 1815-1816,” U.S. Department of State: Office of the Historian, accessed July 25, 2013.
19  James Madison, “Seventh Annual Message,” December 5, 1815, The Writings of James Madison, ed. Gaillard Hunt (United States: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1908), VIII:33; Perceval Barton Lord, Algiers, with Notices of the Neighbouring States of Barbary, (London: Whittaker & Co., 1835), 50-60.
20 Garner W. Allen, Our Navy and the Barbary Corsairs (Boston: Houghton, Mifflin, and Company, 1905), 96; Naval Documents, ed. Swanson (1939), 1:538-540.

Noah Webster

As the school year comes to a close, this is a good time to remember a man who had a profound impact on America’s educational system: Noah Webster.

Noah was born on October 16, 1758 in Hartford, Connecticut 1 and had four brothers and sisters. 2 At the age of sixteen, he went off to Yale, 3 where he was twice called to go out as a soldier in the American Revolution. 4

After completing college, he became a schoolteacher. 5 Recognizing the importance of providing an American rather than a British education, Noah began writing distinctly American books 6 that taught children Americanized spellings, readings, and pronunciations as well as American history. 7 Noah was adamant that just as America had worked hard to become an independent Nation, she also needed a uniform language. 8 His profound influence in shaping America’s educational system earned him the title “Schoolmaster to America.” 9

Among his many remarkable achievements, the one for which he is probably most widely known today is his Webster’s Dictionary. In 1806, he produced an early small dictionary that provided proper spellings and meanings of words. 10 But he followed that with years of learning some twenty different languages so that he could trace the origins of English words back to their original roots in various languages, and then create a definition for the words based on those translations. 11 As he explained, “I spent ten years in making a Synopsis of twenty languages, viz.,  the Chaldaic, Syriac, Hebrew, Samaritan, Arabic, Ethiopic, and Persian; the Hiberno Celtic or native Irish; the Anglo-Saxon, German, Dutch, Swedish, Danish; Greek, Latin, Italian, Spanish, French, Russian, and English, to which may be added the Armoric and Welsh.” 12 In 1828, his massive dictionary was finally finished, containing some 70,000 words.

Strikingly, his strong Biblical faith is evident throughout the dictionary, and he frequently used Scriptures to help illustrate the meanings of words. (See, for example, the graphic of the word “wisdom” to the left.)
Five years later, taking what he had learned from his extensive work on the dictionary, Noah published an updated version of the King James Bible, replacing outdated ancient words with their more modern meanings. For example, he replaced the King James word “kine” with its modern equivalent, “cow or cattle.” Noah believed strongly in the inerrancy of God’s Word, so wanting to ensure that he had changed none of the doctrinal meanings of the Scriptures with his word changes, in the preface to his Bible he listed all the specific words that he had updated so that people would know and could investigate for themselves exactly what he had and had not changed. This 1833 Bible is considered the first “modern” language American translation.13 While preparing both his Dictionary and the Bible, Noah wrote many letters that reveal his deep love for God and the Scriptures. (We have posted some of those original letters which we own on our WallBuilders website.)

Another example of Noah’s strong Christian faith is found in a letter that he wrote in 1809. This letter was so well received that it was later printed in a magazine as a stand-alone article (The Peculiar Doctrines of the Gospel Explained and Defended).

Having spent his life working to improve educational content and make the Word of God more readable for the common man, Noah Webster died 170 years ago on May 28, 1843. 14


Endnotes

1 Horace E. Scudder, American Men of Letters, Noah Webster (Boston: Houghton Mifflin and Company, 1882), 2.
2 Emily Ellsworth Fowler Ford, Notes on the Life of Noah Webster, ed. Emily Ellsworth Ford Skeel (New York: Privately printed, 1912), I:15; Scudder, American Men of Letters (1882), 3.
3 Scudder, American Men of Letters (1882), 4; Ford, Notes on the Life of Noah Webster, ed. Skeel (1912), I:14-15.
4 Henry Phelps Johnston, Yale and Her Honor Roll in the American Revolution (New York: Privately Printed, 1888), 11-14,77-78, 341; Scudder, American Men of Letters (1882), 5-7.
5 Scudder, American Men of Letters (1882), 8-9.
6 Scudder, American Men of Letters (1882) 33-35.
7 Scudder, American Men of Letters (1882) 34-38, 277-278.
8 Scudder, American Men of Letters (1882) 242-243, 277.
9 Harry R. Warfeel, Noah Webster: Schoolmaster to America (New York: The MacMillan Company, 1936); see also reprints of Webster’s works such as William Webster, A Sequel to Webster’s Elementary Spelling Book (Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott Company, 1845).
10  Scudder, American Men of Letters (1882) 216.
11 Noah Webster, An American Dictionary of the English Language (New York: S. Converse, 1828), 1:Preface; Scudder, American Men of Letters (1882) 236.
12 Noah Webster to Samuel Lathan Mitchell, December 12, 1823, Letters of Noah Webster, ed. Harry R. Warfel (New York: Library Publishers, 1953), 410.
13 The Holy Bible, Containing the Old and New Testaments in the Common Version, ed. Noah Webster (New Haven: Durrie & Peck, 1833), Preface.
14 Scudder, American Men of Letters (1882) 279.