Bibles & Religion Archives - Page 13 of 19

How Does Jeremiah 17:9 Relate to the Constitutional Separation of Powers?

In their public presentations, our WallBuilders speakers frequently provide historical examples of how specific Bible verses impacted particular aspects of American culture. For example, the story of Matthew Maury and his geographical discoveries involves Psalm 8 and Ecclesiastes 1:6; James Kent (“A Father of American Jurisprudence”) cites 1 Samuel 7:15-16 with the formation of circuit courts; Isaiah 33:22 is associated with the three branches of government; and other such examples. ¹

Many audience members, intrigued by how specific Bible verses directly shaped American practices, look up the Bible references that we routinely mention and are immediately impressed with their specificity and obvious applicability. But almost universally when they check John Adams’ mention of Jeremiah 17:9² as the basis of the constitutional separation of powers, they are perplexed and often conclude that our speaker must have used the wrong reference. It doesn’t seem that Jeremiah 17:9 relates to constitutional separation of powers, but it actually does. Allow us to explain, but first let’s lay some groundwork.

When Progressives grasped the reins of common education in the early 1900s, they introduced profound systemic changes, including age-graded education (previously, students were grouped according to knowledge level rather than age level), compulsory education (school attendance had been generally voluntary), extended school years (school was often three months a year, but Progressives made it most of the year), and twelve years of government education (prior to the Progressives, virtually no one went past eight-grade learning levels, after which they would enter college or some trade or profession). ³

These changes were not because previous educational practices had been unsuccessful, for it had been just the opposite. In fact, few college graduates today can master the eighth-grade exit exam given in the early 1900s by most states, ⁴ when school only lasted for a few months a year and for only eight years.

Perhaps the most significant transformation imposed by Progressives was that students were no longer taught how to think, but rather how to learn. Instead of being trained to reason sequentially and study and confirm independent sources, students were now required to listen to what the teacher said and then repeat it back. Thus, true/false, multiple choice, and fill-in-the-blank tests were introduced, ⁵ for they did not require a mastery of subject-matter knowledge but rather only a mastery of whatever the teacher had said.

By this change, the teacher became the small end of the funnel of knowledge – everything flowed through the teacher to the student. To invoke an old proverb, no longer did the student learn how to fish, but rather the teacher now gave them the fish. Because students were no longer trained in critical thinking, widespread indoctrination became the result – whatever the teacher believed was what was communicated to students, which they also came to believe. The warning by Jesus in Luke 6:40 had become reality: “Every student, when he is fully trained, will be like his teacher.”

Progressivism, liberalism, secularism, relativism, socialism, and other isms were now freely communicated to students by academia, and these beliefs have now thoroughly permeated the culture as those students become adults and filled various professions.

One teaching common among Progressives (and now widely believed even by many Christians) is that man is innately good but sometimes does bad things.⁶ But the Bible teaches just the opposite – that man is innately bad but sometimes does good things; and that is only when man’s wicked heart is remade by God.

Under the Progressive belief, if man shoots someone, the problem is with the gun; since man is instinctively good, it can’t be his fault that something bad happened, so we need to regulate the gun, not the man. Or if someone gets drunk and abuses his spouse, it is because man has a medical disease beyond his control – it’s not his fault, for he is inherently good. Or if someone fathers a dozen children out of wedlock, it is because he was not given enough condoms in school. In short, under Progressivism, if man does something bad, there was some outside cause for it, for man is inherently good.

But the Bible says just the opposite. Notice a few verses on this:

Mark 7:21-23 – For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, foolishness. All these evil things come from within. (Matthew 5:19)
Genesis 6:5 & 8:21 – The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
Romans 3:9 – It is written: “None is righteous, no, not one.” (c.f. Psalm 14:1-3, 53:1-3)
Ecclesiastes 9:3 – The hearts of the children of man are full of evil, and madness is in their hearts.
Galatians 5:19-21 – Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like.
Psalm 5:9 – For there is no truth in their mouth; their inmost self is destruction; their throat is an open grave; they flatter with their tongue.

According to the Bible, man will only begin to do what is good when God changes his heart (see, for example Romans 6:6,16-17,19-20, 2 Corinthians 5:17, etc.). Without a life changed by God, mankind is naturally inclined to do what is wrong.

The Founders firmly held this Biblical view. They therefore constructed government fully expecting the worst – expecting that the people leading all three branches would become corrupt. Fifty-five hundred years of recorded history prior to the Founding Fathers had demonstrated that as the pattern of every human government that had ever existed. Understanding this, the Founders made specific plans to help limit the inherent corruption of man and they sought ways to prevent all three branches from becoming wicked at the same time. They wanted a fail-safe so that if one did, then perhaps the other branches could restrain it or drag it back to its limited function. The result was the various clauses providing and enforcing Separation of Powers.

The following excerpt is from the Founders’ Bible and it explains how the truth inherent in Jeremiah 17:9 helped produce the constitutional separation of powers.

Jeremiah 17:9 – The Constitutional Separation of Powers

“The heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked; who can know it?”

The separation of powers and reciprocal checks and balances incorporated throughout the Constitution has been heralded as one of the most important features of American government, enabling it not only to survive but to thrive for over two centuries. History was filled with examples showing that when government power was centralized in one body or leader, that government always became a danger to the rights of individuals and brought that nation to ruin. But the Founding Fathers had not only the examples of history to guide them but especially the teachings of the Bible.

A well-known verse addressing this subject was Jeremiah 17:9: “The heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked; who can know it?” This verse encapsulated what Calvinistic ministers and theologians termed the “depravity of man” or “total depravity” ⁷ (that the natural heart of man easily embraced moral and civil degradation), and it was a frequent topic for sermons in the Founding Era. The Founding Fathers understood the import of this verse and openly cited it – as when John Adams reminded Americans:

Let me conclude by advising all men to look into their own hearts, which they will find to be ‘deceitful above all things and desperately wicked’ [Jeremiah 17:9].⁸

The Biblically illiterate believe in the innate goodness of man – that man will naturally do what is right, but experience regularly affirms the opposite: without a heart regenerated by the power of God, man will routinely do what is wrong. Adams specifically rejected any notion of the innate goodness of man, especially when it came to government:

To expect self-denial from men when they have a majority in their favor, and consequently power to gratify themselves, is to disbelieve all history and universal experience – it is to disbelieve revelation and the Word of God, which informs us ‘the heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked’ [Jeremiah 17:9]. . . . There is no man so blind as not to see that to talk of founding a government upon a supposition that nations and great bodies of men left to themselves will practice a course of self-denial is either to babble like a newborn infant or to deceive like an unprincipled impostor.⁹

And even those who had experienced a regenerated heart through the power of God in Christ and who did not embrace Calvinism nevertheless knew enough about the truth of this verse and the tendencies of the heart to not even fully trust themselves to be above its corrupting influence. As John Quincy Adams explained:

I believe myself sincere; but the heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked [Jeremiah 17:9]. I do not believe the total depravity of man, but I am deeply conscious of the frailty of my own nature.¹⁰

Understanding this principle from Jeremiah 17 – a principle that was accepted by all sides of the theological spectrum – the Founders knew that government would be much safer if all power did not repose in the same authority. Making practical application of this Biblical truth, they therefore divided and checked power between branches so that if one leader or branch went wicked, the other two might still check and stop it. As George Washington explained:

A just estimate of that love of power and proneness to abuse it which predominates in the human heart is sufficient to satisfy us of the truth of this position. The necessity of reciprocal checks in the exercise of political power by dividing and distributing it into different depositories . . . has been evinced [demonstrated] by experiments ancient and modern, some of them in our country and under our own eyes.¹¹

This remarkable feature of American government – the separation of powers and reciprocal checks and balances – can be attributed to the Founders’ understanding of Jeremiah 17:9.

Endnotes

¹ For more information, see The Founders’ Bible (Shiloh Road Publishers, 2012).

² John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston: Charles C. Little and James Brown, 1851), Vol. III, p. 443, “On Private Revenge III,” published in the Boston Gazette, September 5, 1763; John Adams, A Defense of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America (London: John Stockdale, 1794), Vol. III, p. 289, “Letter VI. The Right Constitution of a Commonwealth, examined.”

³ For more information, see “A Short History of United States’ Education 1900 to 2006,” historyliteracy.org (accessed on September 7, 2016); “10 Things You Should Know About the American Founding,” The Catholic World Report, July 3, 2012; “A campus shared by the College, the Academy and the Charity School,” Penn University Archives & Records Center (accessed on September 7, 2016); “John Dewey,” Biography (accessed on September 7, 2016).

⁴ See some examples of 8th grade exit exams in: B. A. Hathaway, 1001 Test Examples in Arithmetic with Answers (Cleveland, OH: Burrows Brothers Company, 1890); Warp’s Review Books (Minden, NE: Warp Publishing Company, 1928), on various subjects; Colorado State Eighth Grade Examination Question Book (Lincoln, NE: Lincoln Supply Co., 1927).

⁵ See, for example, Colorado State Eighth Grade Examination Question Book (Nebraska: 1927), pp. 4, 10, 12, questions from a 1927 Agriculture, Arithmetic, and Civics test; “true-false test,” Merriam-Webster (accessed on September 7, 2016); “multiple-choice,” Merriam-Webster (accessed on September 7, 2016).

⁶ See an example of this philosophy in Theodore Roosevelt, “Who is a Progressive?” Teaching American History, April 1912.

⁷ See, for example, “total depravity,” Merriam-Webster (accessed on September 6, 2016); Herman Hanko, The Five Points of Calvinism (1976), “Chapter 1: Total Depravity.”

⁸ John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston: Charles C. Little and James Brown, 1851), Vol. III, p. 443, “On Private Revenge III,” published in the Boston Gazette, September 5, 1763.

⁹ John Adams, A Defense of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America (London: John Stockdale, 1794), Vol. III, p. 289, “Letter VI. The Right Constitution of a Commonwealth, examined.”

¹⁰ John Quincy Adams, Memoirs of John Quincy Adams, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott & Co, 1876), Vol. XI, p. 270, November 16, 1842.

¹¹ George Washington, Address of George Washington, President of the United States, and Late Commander in Chief of the American Army, to the People of the United States, Preparatory to His Declination (Baltimore: Christopher Jackson, 1796), p. 22.

How to Respond to “Separation of Church and State”

We’ve all heard the phrase “separation of Church and State.” It is one of the best-known but least understood phrases in America today. It expresses the belief that there should be a wall of separation between one’s personal faith and any display of that faith in public. In America we advocate freedom of religion, yet if a teacher places a Bible on her desk,¹ if a student bows his head to pray in school,² or cheerleaders display Bible verses on their posters,³ they are accused of violating separation of church and state – of “subjecting” those around them to their faith.

As Christians, we must know how to respond. Do we know the history behind the phrase? Do we know our rights? Do we know our Founding Fathers’ intentions with the phrase?

Here are some simple ways we can respond so that we do not fall prey to the silencing of freedom of religion in the public square.

1. Where does the phrase “Separation of Church and State” originate?⁴

The concept of separation of Church and state actually originates in the Bible, where God created three institutions. In Genesis, God established the institution of family by creating male and female and placing them together in a lifelong union. Next came the institution of civil government to address our relationship with our fellow man. The final institution addressed our relationship with God, and was the creation of the temple, or the Church.

When God’s people left Egypt, God had them establish their own nation. At that time, God placed Moses over government and civil affairs and Aaron over spiritual ones, thus separating those two roles and jurisdictions. Neither excluded God from its operation, but each was to be headed and run by a different individual and not the same person. Later in the Bible when King Uzziah tried to combine the two institutions and serve as both a King and a Priest, God sovereignly weighed in and made clear that He did not want the same individual running both institutions together.

But in 391 AD, Emperor Theodosius combined both Church and State, and for the next twelve centuries, the State was in charge of the Church. The government decided what the official Church doctrines would be, and it punished violators who disagreed with those positions, not allowing them to practice their faith. There was a state-established Church, with the Church becoming an official arm of the State and with it being run by church officials appointed by the government. In the 1500s during the Reformation, those who followed the Bible began to call for a return to a Biblical separation of Church and State so that the government would no longer control or prohibit religious activities.

The early colonists who came to America brought this view with them, and in America they made sure that the government, or the State, could not control or limit religious beliefs or activities. This was their understanding of the separation of Church and State.

The phrase “separation of Church and State” cannot be found in the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence. In fact, it is not found in any of our nation’s founding documents. Related to government, the phrase first appeared in a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut in 1801.⁵

Thomas Jefferson had worked very hard to separate the Anglican Church from the government in his home state of Virginia so that all other denominations could practice their faith without government penalty or persecution. Jefferson contributed to ending government-run religion in his state, so when he became president of the United States, the Baptists and those from other denominations were his strong supporters because he had fought for their freedom of religion – for their right to be free from state control in matters of faith.

The Danbury Baptists wrote Thomas Jefferson expressing their concern that the government might try to regulate their religious expression. In response, Jefferson wrote his now famous letter, using the phrase “Separation of Church and State” to reassure the Danbury Baptists that the First Amendment prohibited the government from trying to control religious expression. In short, the First Amendment was intended to keep government out of regulating religion, but it did not keep religion out of government or the public square.

2. What Does the Constitution Actually Say?

Today, people believe that “separation of Church and State” is in the First Amendment of the Constitution. But in the First Amendment the Constitution says, “Congress shall make no law…”

First Amendment:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

The famous separation phrase appears nowhere in that Amendment, or in the Constitution.

So we must ask the question: How does a student praying over his lunch mean the same thing as Congress making a law? The answer: it doesn’t. The First Amendment meant Congress is limited from setting up a national denomination and Congress is limited from prohibiting the free exercise of religion. The First Amendment does not limit faith or the people, only the government.

The First Amendment was created by America’s Founders because of their desire to avoid something like the government-run Church of England. In fact, it was not just the government of England they longed to be different from, but they were also striving to be different from the way that churches and government had operated across most of Europe for the previous thousand years, for most nations at that time had state-established and state-controlled churches.

The Pilgrims, Puritans, and others who settled America wanted to return to God’s original plan of separating the church from government control. That long-standing American desire and practice of freedom of religion was specifically written in the First Amendment.

Here is one of the Bibles (dated 1590) that the Pilgrims and Puritan brought to America with them.⁶

how-to-respond-to-separation-of-church-and-state

The notes in this Bible actually discuss having a separation between government and the church. The Pilgrims therefore set up a system where they would have separate elections for both state leaders and church leaders so that the leaders would be different, rather than the same, as was the practice in England.

3. Faith has been part of American public Society for over 180 years.

Students had been praying over their lunches for over 180 years under the Constitution with no problem, as well as doing other religious activities that were always constitutional.

In fact, we actually have several original sermons from a church that Thomas Jefferson helped facilitate. It was a church that met inside the U.S. Capitol,⁷ where services were held in the House Chamber every Sunday. Both as Vice President and as President of the United States, Jefferson faithfully attended those church services inside the US Capitol and saw no constitutional problem with them, for Congress was not controlling religion for the entire nation but rather was only allowing religious expressions to occur, which was their constitutional role.

how-to-respond-to-separation-of-church-and-state-2

These are sermons preached at the Church that met inside the U.S. Capitol. The first one is on “The Public Worship of God,” and the second is on “The Imperishable and Saving Words of Christ.” Both sermons were preached in the Chamber of the U. S. House of Representatives.

how-to-respond-to-separation-of-church-and-state-3

It has only been in recent years that faith has been excluded from public schools, governmental venues, and the public square. Did we just invent separation of church and state? No, the phrase has existed since centuries before Jefferson, but today its meaning has been taken out of context and twisted to mean something entirely different.

This first happened in 1947 when the Supreme Court quoted only one phrase from Jefferson’s short 1801 letter to the Danbury Baptists. The Court claimed that there was to be “a wall of separation between Church and State” and that religious activities could no longer occur in the public square.⁸ They took the intent and clear purpose of Jefferson’s letter completely out of context. They did not show his short letter of only three paragraphs and 233 words which contained all the context and explanation but rather lifted a 8-word phrase out of it and remained silent on the rest.

Next time you hear someone claim religion has no place in public because of the “wall of separation,” I hope you’ll remember a few of the key pieces of history that many today have forgotten.

Endnotes

¹ See, for example Roberts v. Madigan, 702 F. Supp. 1505 (D. Colo. 1989), aff’d, 921 F.2d 1047 (10th Cir. 1990).

² See, for example, Broadus v. Saratoga Springs City School District, 02-cv-0136 (N.D.N.Y. 2002).

³ See, for example, Kountze Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Matthews, No. 09-13- 00251 (Tex. App.— Beaumont 2014).

⁴ See an article on the history of the phrase “Separation of Church and State” here.

⁵ See the text of the Danbury Baptists 1801 letter to Thomas Jefferson, and Jefferson’s 1802 reply here.

⁶ A Geneva Bible from the WallBuilders library, belonging to the Arthur Upton family.

⁷ See David Barton’s article “Church in the U.S. Capitol” for more information.

⁸ Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947).

Biblical Christianity: The Origin of the Rights of Conscience

Overview

Significantly, 1 Timothy 1:5 declares that the goal of the entirety of everything taught in the Scriptures is threefold:

The goal of our instruction is love from a pure heart, and a good conscience, and a sincere faith.

Significantly, the three are inseparable, and without a good conscience, there will not be either a sincere faith or a pure heart. It is therefore not surprising that developing, maintaining, and living according to a good conscience is referenced more than thirty times in the New Testament (cf. Acts 24:16, 1 Timothy 1:19, 3:9, 1 Peter 3:16, 21, Romans 13:5, 2 Corinthians 4:2, etc.).

In fact, 1 Corinthians 8:4-12 flatly states that if a Christian views something as a matter of conscience – if the inner voice that God has placed within him or her tells them that something is sin to them – they are not to violate their conscience; and if anyone makes them do so, then they “sin against Christ.” (This message is repeated in Romans 1:1-23, 1 Corinthians 10:28-32, and elsewhere.) Few subjects in the Bible are stressed as strongly as that of maintaining a pure conscience – of preserving the conviction that one will answer directly to God for what his religious faith requires him to do, or refrain from doing.

Strikingly, only nations who respect Biblical teachings and traditions offer protection for the rights of religious conscience. Secular and non-Biblical nations, and those with state-established churches (such as those that predominated in England and Europe at the time of the American Founding), do not allow rights of conscience but instead demand conformity, which often requires governmental punishment coercion concerning religious beliefs, which violates the Scriptures.

Christ Himself established religious non-coercion as the standard. His approach was so voluntary that He even directed His disciples that when they presented the Gospel to others, if someone was interested, then they could stay and share the message with them; but if someone did not want to hear, then they were to leave the area and not force the issue (Luke 10:8-12). There was absolutely no coercion. It was also this way with Paul and the other Apostles: in every case; hearers then chose whether or not to follow Christianity; there was never any penalty, pressure, or force levied against them.

As John Quincy Adams noted, 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 Two generations later, legal writer Stephen Cowell (1800-1872) similarly avowed:

Nonconformity, dissent, free inquiry, individual conviction, mental independence, are forever consecrated by the religion of the New Testament as the breath of its own life – the conditions of its own existence on the earth. The book is a direct transfer of human allegiance in things spiritual from the civil and ecclesiastical powers to the judgment and conscience of the individual.²

And several generations after that, President Franklin D. Roosevelt continued to affirm the same truth, noting: “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

From the beginning, America faithfully observed these principles, refusing to apply government coercion or conformity to the religious beliefs and practices of individuals. But today, this is dramatically and rapidly changing, with government routinely requiring people of faith to violate their religious conscience, particularly on social issues such as those surrounding aspects of sexuality, whether the taking of unborn human life, contraception, or requiring participation in homosexual nuptials, affirmation of transgenderism, and other major sexual elements of the LGBT agenda.

The American Experience on Religious Conscience

Colonial Era

Many of the early colonists who came to America were familiar with the Bible teachings on conscience and brought them to America, where they took root and grew to maturity at a rapid rate, having been planted in virgin soil completely uncontaminated by the religious apostasy and routine violations of the rights of conscience that had characterized the previous millennia. Hence, Christianity as practiced in America became the world’s single greatest historical force in securing non-coercion, religious toleration, and the rights of conscience.

For example, in 1640, the Rev. Roger Williams established Providence (the city that became the center of the Rhode Island colony), declaring:

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

Similar language and protections were also included in subsequent American documents, including 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 the 1682 frame of government for Pennsylvania,¹² and many others. As John Quincy Adams affirmed, “The transcendent and overruling principle of the first settlers of New England was conscience.”¹³

Revolutionary Era

In 1775 (a year before our official separation from Great Britain), Commander-in-Chief George Washington addressed Continental soldiers and from the beginning charged them:

While we are contending for our own liberty, we should be very cautious of violating the rights of conscience in others, ever considering that God alone is the judge of the hearts of men and to Him only in this case they are answerable.¹⁴

With America’s official break from Great Britain in 1776, the states created their very first state constitutions and specifically secured the religious toleration, non-coercion, and the rights of conscience. For example, the 1776 constitution of Virginia declared:

[R]eligion . . . can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force and violence; and therefore all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion according to the dictates of conscience.¹⁵

The 1776 Constitution of New Jersey similarly protected the rights of conscience,¹⁶ causing Governor William Livingston (a signer of the U. S. Constitution) to happily proclaim:

Consciences of men are not the objects of human legislation. . . . In contrast with this spiritual tyranny, how beautiful appears our catholic [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 – and his own self-directed intercourse with the Father of Spirits!¹⁷

When New York’s first constitution (1777) likewise protected the rights of conscience,⁸¹ Governor John Jay (an author of the Federalist Papers and the original Chief Justice of the U. S. Supreme Court) similarly rejoiced that:

Adequate security [under our constitution] is also 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. Every man is permitted to consider, to adore, and to worship his Creator in the manner most agreeable to his conscience.¹⁹

Similar clauses securing the rights of religious conscience also appeared in many other early state constitutions, including that of Delaware (1776),²⁰ North Carolina (1776),²¹ Pennsylvania (1776),²² Vermont (1777),²³ South Carolina (1778),²⁴ Massachusetts (1780),²⁵ New Hampshire (1784),²⁶ etc. Today, the safeguards for the rights of conscience explicitly appear in forty-five state constitutions, and by inference in the other five.²⁷

Federal Era

In 1788 following the ratification of the federal Constitution, six states submitted proposals for a Bill of Rights,²⁸ with several specifically recommending national language that “all men have an equal, natural, and unalienable right to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience.”²⁹ Although the word “conscience” did not ultimately appear in the final language of the religion clauses of the First Amendment, those who framed that Amendment believed that by preventing the government from establishing a national religion and by guaranteeing to the people their “free exercise of religion,” that the rights of conscience had been fully secured³⁰ – a fact affirmed by President Thomas Jefferson when he penned his famous letter to the Danbury Baptists assuring them that the First Amendment was an “expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience.”³¹ Subsequent constitutional commentaries reiterated that the First Amendment did indeed protect the rights of conscience.³²

Founding Fathers

In addition to the several Founders already mentioned, here are a few more unequivocal declarations regarding the constitutional duty of official to protect and defend the rights of religious conscience:

Government is instituted to protect property of every sort. . . . Conscience is the most sacred of all property.³³ JAMES MADISON

No provision in our Constitution ought to be dearer to man than that which protects the rights of conscience against the enterprises of the civil authority.³⁴ It behooves every man who values liberty of conscience for himself to resist invasions of it in the case of others, or their case may, by change of circumstances, become his own.³⁵ Our rulers can have no authority over such natural rights only as we have submitted to them. The rights of conscience we never submitted – we could not submit. We are answerable for them to our God.³⁶ THOMAS JEFFERSON

[T]he consciences of men are not the objects of human legislation. . . . For what business, in the name of common sense, has the magistrate (distinctly and singly appointed for our political and temporal happiness) with our religion, which is to secure our happiness spiritual and eternal? . . . [T]he state [does not] have any concern in the matter. For in what manner doth it affect society . . . in what outward form we think it best to pay our adoration to God?³⁷ WILLIAM LIVINGSTON, SIGNER OF THE CONSTITUTION

Modern Era

As a result of the conscience protections long provided in American history and law, government exemptions are routinely granted to those whose religious faith requires them to participate in, or refrain from activities that violate their religious conscience. For example:

Pacifists and conscientious objectors are not forced to fight in wars;³⁸
Jehovah’s Witnesses are not required to say the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools;³⁹
The Amish are not required to complete the standard compulsory twelve years of education;⁴⁰
Christian Scientists are not forced to have their children vaccinated or undergo medical procedures often required by state laws;⁴¹
Muslim and Jewish men are not required to shave their beards in jobs that otherwise require employees to be clean-shaven;⁴²
Seventh-Day Adventists cannot be penalized for refusing to work at their jobs on Saturday;⁴³

and there are additional examples.

Conclusion

Clearly, protection for the inalienable rights of religious conscience is deeply embedded into the fabric of American governmental policy. But as currently demonstrated in countless nations around the world, and now in America, when secularism or any other non-Biblical philosophy becomes dominant in its culture, a loss of legal protections for religious rights is usually one of the first casualties of the change.

Today in America, to seek to provide protection for the traditional rights of religious conscience is now regularly denounced as discriminatory.⁴⁴ The LGBT movement, and those in government aligned with it, disdain the rights of religious conscience and instead use the power, penalties, and full force of the law to coerce all others to embrace and participate in affirming their views, including Christian bakers,⁴⁵ florists,⁴⁶ photographers,⁴⁷ churches,⁴⁸ homeowners,⁴⁹ pastors,⁵⁰ clerks,⁵¹ business owners,⁵² officials,⁵³ religious schools,⁵⁴ military personnel,⁵⁵ sportscasters,⁵⁶ and others.⁵⁷

Our Framers recognized that if religious liberties and our civil liberties were inseparable – that if our religious liberties were diminished, our civil liberties would soon follow. As Joseph Story (a “Father of American Jurisprudence,” placed on the Supreme Court by President James Madison) pointed out:

There is not a truth to be gathered from history more certain or more momentous than this: that civil liberty cannot long be separated from religious liberty without danger, and ultimately without destruction to both. Wherever religious liberty exists, it will, first or last, bring in and establish political liberty.⁵⁸

Signer of the Declaration John Witherspoon concurred:

There is not a single instance in history in which civil liberty was lost and religious liberty preserved entire. . . . God grant that in America true religion and civil liberty may be inseparable and that the unjust attempts to destroy the one may in the issue tend to the support and establishment of both.⁵⁹

And Jedidiah Morse (a pastor, educator, and historian of the American Revolution, appointed by the federal government to document the condition of Indian affairs) agreed:

All efforts made to destroy the foundations of our Holy Religion ultimately tend to the subversion also of our political freedom and happiness. In proportion as the genuine effects of Christianity are diminished in any nation . . . in the same proportion will the people of that nation recede from the blessings of genuine freedom.⁶⁰

Secularism produces an antipathy toward religion and religious rights, when ultimately diminish our civil rights. In fact, after President Obama announced that America no longer should be viewed as a Christian nation,⁶¹ he then announced that he was rescinding the traditional religious rights of conscience for those working in the medical profession.⁶² Historically, governmental protection for religious rights is the only sure indicator of protection for other non-religious civil rights.

Endnotes

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

² Stephen Colwell, Politics for American Christians: A Word upon our Example as a Nation, our Labour, our Trade, Elections, Education, and Congressional Legislation (Philadelphia: Lippincott, Grambo & Co. 1852), 82, Tait’s Edinburgh Magazine, for 1844 (Edinburgh: William Tait, 1844), 752, “The Politics of the New Testament,” December 1844.

³ “Franklin D. Roosevelt, “Christmas Greeting to the Nation,” The American Presidency Project, December 24, 1940.

⁴ The Federal and State Constitutions, Colonial Charters and Other Organic Laws, ed. Francis Newton Thorpe (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1909), VI:3205-3207, “Plantation Agreement at Providence – August 27-September 6, 1640.”

⁵ William MacDonald, Select Charters and Other Documents Illustrative of American History 1606-1775 (New York: MacMillan Company, 1899), 104-106, “Maryland Toleration Act,” April 1649.

⁶ <a href=”https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015001567794;view=1up;seq=27″ target=”“blank”” rel=”noopener”>Federal and State Constitutions, ed. Thorpe (1909), VI:3211, “Charter of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations-1663.”

⁷ Federal and State Constitutions, ed. Thorpe (1909), V:2537, “The Concession and Agreement of the Lords Proprietors of the Province of New Caesarea, or New Jersey, 1664.”

⁸ Federal and State Constitutions, ed. Thorpe (1909), V:2771, “Charter of Carolina – 1665.”

⁹ Federal and State Constitutions, ed. Thorpe (1909), V:2785, “The Fundamental Constitutions of Carolina – 1669.”

¹⁰ Federal and State Constitutions, ed. Thorpe (1909), V:2549, “The Charter or Fundamental Laws of West New Jersey, Agreed Upon – 1676.”

¹¹ Federal and State Constitutions, ed. Thorpe (1909), I:558, “Charter of Delaware – 1701.”

¹² Federal and State Constitutions, ed. Thorpe (1909), V:3063, “Frame of Government of Pennsylvania, May 5, 1682.”

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

¹⁴ George Washington, The Writings of George Washington, ed. John C. Fitzpatrick (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1931), 3:492, to Benedict Arnold, September 14, 1775.

¹⁵ 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, 1835), 180, 1776 Constitution: Bill of Rights, No. 16.

¹⁶ Federal and State Constitutions, ed. Thorpe (1909), V:2597, “Constitution of New Jersey – 1776.”

¹⁷ William Livingston, The Papers of William Livingston, ed. Carl E. Prince (Trenton: New Jersey Historical Commission, 1980), 2:235, 237, article under the name “Cato,” originally published in the New Jersey Gazette on February 18, 1778.

¹⁸ Federal and State Constitutions, ed. Thorpe (1909), V:2636-2637, “Constitution of New York – 1777.”

¹⁹ William Jay, The Life of John Jay (New York: J. & J. Harper, 1833), I:82, John Jay’s charge to the grand jury during the first term of the New York state Supreme Court.

²⁰ Constitutions of the Several Independent States of America (New York: E. Oswald, 1786), 129.

²¹ Constitutions (1786), 185.

²² Constitutions (1786), 109.

²³ Federal and State Constitutions, ed. Thorpe (1909), VI:3740.

²⁴ Constitutions (1786), 215.

²⁵ Constitutions (1786), 11-12.

²⁶ Constitutions (1786), 4.

²⁷ Forty-five state constitutions contain explicit language specifically singling out the rights of conscience. Five other states – Alaska, Hawaii, Louisiana, Montana, and South Carolina – use similar language to the U.S. Constitution (“make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”). As is seen in the subsequent section, the Founding Fathers believed that this language provided specific protection for the rights of conscience.

²⁸ Those states initially included Massachusetts, South Carolina, New Hampshire, Virginia, New York, and North Carolina; two years later in 1790, Rhode Island submitted its proposals. See Jonathan Elliot, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution (Washington: 1836), I:322-333.

²⁹ Anson Phelps Stokes, Church and State in the United States (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1950), 1:600-610. New Hampshire recommended an amendment stating that “Congress shall make no law touching religion, or to infringe the rights of conscience.”

³⁰ The Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States, ed. Joseph Gales (Washington: Gales and Seaton, 1834), I:757-796, August 15, 1789 to August 21, 1789.

³¹ Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, ed. H. A. Washington (Washington D.C.: Taylor & Maury, 1854), VIII:113, “Messrs. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, and Stephen S. Nelson, A Committee of the Danbury Baptist Association, in the State of Connecticut,” January 1, 1802.

³² See, for example, Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (Boston: Hilliard, Gray, and Company, 1833), I:701, § 990-991:

The rights of conscience are, indeed, beyond the just reach of any human power. They are given by God, and cannot be encroached upon by human authority, without a criminal disobedience of the precepts of natural, as well as revealed religion. The real object of the amendment was, not to countenance, much less to advance Mahometanism, or Judaism, or infidelity, by prostrating Christianity; but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects, and to prevent any national ecclesiastical establishment, which should give to an hierarchy the exclusive patronage of the national government. It thus sought to cut off the means of religious persecution, (the vice and pest of former ages,) and the power of subverting the rights of conscience in matters of religion, which had been trampled upon almost from the days of the Apostles to the present age.

St. George Tucker, Blackstone’s Commentaries: with Notes of Reference, to the Constitution and Laws, of the Federal Government of the United States; and of the Commonwealth of Virginia (Philadelphia: William Young Birch and Abraham Small: 1803), I:489, “Appendix: Note G. Of the Right of Conscience; and Of the Freedom of Speech and Of The Press”:

Liberty of conscience in matters of religion consists in the absolute and unrestrained exercise of our religious opinion, and duties, in that mode which our own reason and conviction dictate, without the control or intervention of any human power or authority whatsoever. This liberty though made a part of our constitution, and interwoven in the nature of man by his Creator, so far as the arts of fraud and terrors of violence have been capable of abridging it, hath been the subject of coercion by human laws in all ages and in all countries as far as the annals of mankind extend.

James Wilson, Thomas McKean [Wilson and McKean both signed the Declaration of Independence, and Wilson was a signer of the Constitution and an original Justice on the U. S. Supreme Court], Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States of America (London: 1791), II:61:

In the third place we are told, that there is no security for the rights of conscience. I ask the honorable gentleman, what part of this system puts it in the power of Congress to attack those rights? When there is no power to attack, it is idle to prepare the means of defense.

And others.

³³ James Madison, The Writings of James Madison, ed. Gaillard Hunt (New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1906), VI:102, “Property,” originally published in The National Gazette on March 29, 1792.

³⁴ Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, ed. H. A. Washington (New York: Biker, Thorne, & Co., 1854), VIII:147, to the Society of the Methodist Episcopal Church at New London, CT on February 4, 1809.

³⁵ Thomas Jefferson, Memoir, Correspondence, and Miscellanies, ed. Thomas Jefferson Randolph (Charlottesville: F. Carr, an Co., 1829), III:507, to Benjamin Rush on April 21, 1803.

³⁶ Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia (London: John Stockdale, 1787), 265, “Query XVII: The different religions received into that state?”

³⁷ William Livingston, Papers, ed. Prince (1980), 2:235, 237, article under the name “Cato,” originally published in the New Jersey Gazette on February 18, 1778; Hezekiah Niles, Principles and Acts of the Revolution in America: Or, An Attempt to Collect and Preserve Some of the Speeches, Orations, & Proceedings (Baltimore: William Ogden Niles, 1822), 306-307, “Remarks on liberty of conscience, ascribed to his excellency William Livingston, governor of New Jersey, 1778”; B. 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), 162-163, from William Livingston.

³⁸ United States v. Seeger, 380 U.S. 163 (1965).

³⁹ West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943).

⁴⁰ Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972).

⁴¹ See, for example, “Parents claim religion to avoid vaccines for kids,” NBCNews, October 17, 2007; “Vaccination Exemptions,” College of Physicians of Philadelphia (accessed on May 9, 2016).

⁴² Potter v. District of Columbia, Civil Action No. 01-1189 (D.D.C. Sept. 28, 2007).

⁴³ Hobbie v. Unemployment Appeals Commission of Florida, 480 U.S. 136 (1987); Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398, 409 (1963).

⁴⁴ See, for example, Adam Serwer, “Arizona passes law allowing discrimination,” MSNBC, February 21, 2014; Paresh Dave, “Miss. governor signs religious freedom bill; civil rights groups dismayed,” Los Angeles Times, April 4, 2014; Chris Johnson, “Georgia Senate passes religious discrimination bill,” Washington Blade, March 5, 2015; Tony Cook, “Gov. Mike Pence signs ‘religious freedom’ bill in private,” IndyStar, April 2, 2015; Monica Davey, “Indiana and Arkansas Revise Rights Bills, Seeking to Remove Divisive Parts,” The New York Times, April 2, 2015; Timothy Holbrook, “Georgia, North Carolina bills are about LGBT discrimination. Period,” CNN, March 28, 2016; Marina Fang, “Tennessee Legislature Resurrects Discriminatory Transgender Bathroom Bill,” Huffington Post, April 6, 2016.

⁴⁵ See, for example, Ken Klukowski, “Baker Faces Prison for Refusing to Bake Same-Sex Wedding Cake,” Breitbart, December 12, 2013; Chris Enloe, “‘Sweet Cakes’ Owners’ Bank Accounts Seized as Damages for Refusing to Bake Wedding Cake for Lesbian Couple,” The Blaze, December 29, 2015.

⁴⁶ See, for example, Danny Burk, “A florist loses religious freedom, and much more,” CNN, February 20, 2015.

⁴⁷ See, for example, Ken Klukowski, “New Mexico Court: Christian Photographer Cannot Refuse Gay-Marriage Ceremony,” Breitbart, August 22, 2013; Kristine Marsh, “Gays Force San Francisco Wedding Photographers to Close Shop,” MRC NewsBusters, November 21, 2014; Samuel Smith, “Christian Videographer Faces Legal Action After Refusing to Work Lesbian Wedding, Says It’s Against Her Biblical Beliefs,” Christian Post, March 18, 2015.

⁴⁸ See, for example, Molly Montag, “Group asks IRS to investigate Cornerstone Church,” Sioux City Journal, October 1, 2010; “Southern Baptists draw distance from harsh anti-gay rhetoric, yet hold to convictions,” Baptist Press, May 24, 2012.

⁴⁹ See, for example, Andrea Peyser, “Couple fined for refusing to host same-sex wedding on their farm,” New York Post, November 10, 2014.

⁵⁰ See, for example, Todd Starnes, “Fired for preaching: Georgia dumps doctor over church sermons,” Fox News, April 20, 2016; Natalie Jennings, “Louie Giglio pulls out of inauguration over anti-gay comments,” The Washington Post, January 10, 2013.

⁵¹ See, for example, Allan Smith, “Anti-gay-marriage Kentucky clerk jailed for refusing to issue same-sex marriage licenses,” Business Insider, September 3, 2015; Jim Douglas, “Hood County is focal point of same-sex debate,” WFAA, July 1, 2015.

⁵² See, for example, Katie Zezima, “Couple Sues a Vermont Inn for Rejecting Gay Wedding,” The New York Times, July 19, 2011; Billy Hallowell, “Lesbian Couple Wins Discrimination Lawsuit Against Religious Bed and Breakfast Owner Who Denied Them a Room,” The Blaze, April 16, 2013; Justin Moyer, “Kentucky T-shirt printer that wouldn’t make gay pride shirts vindicated by court,” The Washington Post, April 28, 2015; Charlie Butts, “Iowa couple fined for refusing gay wedding: ‘We are still here’,” OneNewsNow, June 3, 2015.

⁵³ See, for example, Kathleen Gilbert, “San Diego firefighters victorious in suit against forced participation in gay pride parade,” Life Site News, January 28, 2011; Eryn Sun, “Court Affirms CDC’s Firing of Counselor Over Same-Sex Advice,” Christian Post, February 8, 2012; Ryan T. Anderson, “Atlanta Fire Chief Fired for Expressing Christian Beliefs,” The Daily Signal, January 8, 2015; “Utah officer who objected to role in gay pride parade says he was unfairly labeled a bigot,” Fox News, February 25, 2015; Randy Ludlow, “Ohio judges who perform weddings must marry same-sex couples,” The Columbus Dispatch, August 11, 2015.

⁵⁴ See, for example, “Evangelical College Gay Rights Stand Causes Uproar,” NewsMax, November 2, 2014; “Gay Teacher Files Sex Discrimination Claim Against Georgia School,” NPR, July 9, 2014; “Lesbian teacher who was fired for becoming pregnant sues Catholic school for discrimination,” Daily Mail, August 22, 2014.

⁵⁵ See, for example, Todd Starnes, “Fox Exclusive: Airman Faces Punishment for her Religious Beliefs,” Fox News, August 6, 2013; Kirsten Anderson, “Air Force Sergeant claims he was fired for refusing to endorse gay ‘marriage’: faces court martial,” Life Site News, September 10, 2013; “Navy Threatens To End 19-Year Career Of Decorated Chaplain Who Served Navy SEAL Teams, According To Liberty Institute,” PR Newswire, March 9, 2015.

⁵⁶ See, for example, Melissa Barnhart, “Fox Sports Southwest Charged With Discrimination for Firing Craig James Over Homosexuality Remarks,” Christian Post, March 7, 2014; Ahiza Garcia, “‘I’m not transphobic,’ says ex-ESPN analyst Curt Schilling,” CNN Money, April 22, 2016.

⁵⁷ See, for example, “Missouri school sued by student who refused to support gay adoptions,” USA Today, November 2, 2006; Paul Strand, “University Employee Punished over Marriage Petition,” CBN News, October 18, 2012; Billy Hallowell, “Christian Product Engineer Claims Ford Motor Fired Him for Voicing His Bible-Based Opposition to the Company’s Promotion of ‘Pro-Homosexual Ideas’ — Now He’s Fighting Back,” The Blaze, January 28, 2015.

⁵⁸ Joseph Story, A Discourse Pronounced at the Request of the Essex Historical Society, on the 18th of September, 1828, in Commemoration of the First Settlement of Salem, in the State of Massachusetts (Boston: Hilliard, Gray, Little, and Wilkins, 1828), 46.

⁵⁹ John Witherspoon, The Dominion of Providence over the Passions of Men. A Sermon, Preached at Princeton, on the 17th of May, 1776. Being the General Fast appointed by the Congress through the United Colonies (Philadelphia: 1777), 27-28, 38.

⁶⁰ Jedidiah Morse, A Sermon, Exhibiting the Present Dangers and Consequent Duties of the Citizens of the United States of America. Delivered at Charlestown. April 25, 1799, The Day of the National Fast (MA: Printed by Samuel Etheridge, 1799), 9.

⁶¹ Aaron Klein, “Obama: America is ‘no longer Christian’,” WorldNetDaily, June 22, 2008. See also David Brody, The Brody File, “Exclusive: Barack Obama E-mails the Brody File,” CBN News, July 29, 2007; “Obama says U.S., Turkey can be model for world,” CNN, April 6, 2009.

⁶² See, for example, Rob Stein, “Obama Plans to Roll Back ‘Conscience’ Rule Protecting Health Workers Who Object to Some Types of Care,” The Washington Post, February 28, 2009; Saundra Young, “White House set to reverse health care conscience clause,” CNN, February 27, 2009; Rob Stein, “Obama administration replaces controversial ‘conscience’ regulation for health-care workers,” The Washington Post, February 18, 2011.

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

Is America a Christian Nation?

Modern claims that America is not a Christian nation are rarely noticed or refuted today because of the nation’s widespread lack of knowledge about America’s history and foundation. To help provide the missing historical knowledge necessary to combat today’s post-modern revisionism, presented below will be some statements by previous presidents, legislatures, and courts (as well as by current national Jewish spokesmen) about America being a Christian nation. These declarations from all three branches of government are representative of scores of others and therefore comprise only the proverbial “tip of the iceberg.”

Defining a Christian Nation

Contemporary critics who assert that America is not a Christian nation always refrain from offering any definition of what the term “Christian nation” means. So what is an accurate definition of that term as demonstrated by the American experience?

Contrary to what critics imply, a Christian nation is not one in which all citizens are Christians, or the laws require everyone to adhere to Christian theology, or all leaders are Christians, or any other such superficial measurement. As Supreme Court Justice David Brewer (1837-1910) explained:

[I]n what sense can [America] be called a Christian nation? Not in the sense that Christianity is the established religion or that the people are in any manner compelled to support it. On the contrary, the Constitution specifically provides that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Neither is it Christian in the sense that all its citizens are either in fact or name Christians. On the contrary, all religions have free scope within our borders. Numbers of our people profess other religions, and many reject all. Nor is it Christian in the sense that a profession of Christianity is a condition of holding office or otherwise engaging in public service, or essential to recognition either politically or socially. In fact, the government as a legal organization is independent of all religions. Nevertheless, we constantly speak of this republic as a Christian nation – in fact, as the leading Christian nation of the world.¹

So, if being a Christian nation is not based on any of the above criterion, then what makes America a Christian nation? According to Justice Brewer, America was “of all the nations in the world . . . most justly called a Christian nation” because Christianity “has so largely shaped and molded it.”²

Constitutional law professor Edward Mansfield (1801-1880) similarly acknowledged:

In every country, the morals of a people – whatever they may be – take their form and spirit from their religion. For example, the marriage of brothers and sisters was permitted among the Egyptians because such had been the precedent set by their gods, Isis and Osiris. So, too, the classic nations celebrated the drunken rites of Bacchus. Thus, too, the Turk has become lazy and inert because dependent upon Fate, as taught by the Koran. And when in recent times there arose a nation [i.e., France] whose philosophers [e.g. Voltaire, Rousseau, Diderot, Helvetius, etc.] discovered there was no God and no religion, the nation was thrown into that dismal case in which there was no law and no morals. . . . In the United States, Christianity is the original, spontaneous, and national religion.³

Founding Father and U. S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall agreed:

[W]ith us, Christianity and religion are identified. It would be strange, indeed, if with such a people our institutions did not presuppose Christianity and did not often refer to it and exhibit relations with it.⁴

Christianity is the religion that shaped America and made her what she is today. In fact, historically speaking, it can be irrefutably demonstrated that Biblical Christianity in America produced many of the cherished traditions still enjoyed today, including:

A republican rather than a theocratic form of government;
The institutional separation of church and state (as opposed to today’s enforced institutional secularization of church and state);
Protection for religious toleration and the rights of conscience;
A distinction between theology and behavior, thus allowing the incorporation into public policy of religious principles that promote good behavior but which do not enforce theological tenets (examples of this would include religious teachings such as the Good Samaritan, The Golden Rule, the Ten Commandments, the Sermon on the Mount, etc., all of which promote positive civil behavior but do not impose ecclesiastical rites); and
A free-market approach to religion, thus ensuring religious diversity and security for the rights of religious conscience.

Consequently, a Christian nation as demonstrated by the American experience is a nation founded upon Christian and Biblical principles, whose values, society, and institutions have largely been shaped by those principles. This definition was reaffirmed by American legal scholars and historians for generations⁵ but is widely ignored by today’s revisionists.

American Presidents Affirm that America is a Christian Nation

President Barack Obama is the first American president to deny that America is a Christian nation.⁶ Notice a few representative statements on this subject by some of the forty-three previous presidents:

The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were. . . . the general principles of Christianity.⁷ JOHN ADAMS
[T]he teachings of the Bible are so interwoven and entwined with our whole civic and social life that it would be literally….impossible for us to figure to ourselves what that life would be if these teaching were removed.⁸ TEDDY ROOSEVELT
America was born a Christian nation – America was born to exemplify that devotion to the elements of righteousness which are derived from the revelations of Holy Scripture.⁹ WOODROW WILSON
American life is builded, and can alone survive, upon . . . [the] fundamental philosophy announced by the Savior nineteen centuries ago.¹⁰ HERBERT HOOVER
This is a Christian Nation.¹¹ HARRY TRUMAN
Let us remember that as a Christian nation . . . we have a charge and a destiny.¹² RICHARD NIXON

There are many additional examples, including even that of Thomas Jefferson.¹³

Significantly, Jefferson was instrumental in establishing weekly Sunday worship services at the U. S. Capitol (a practice that continued through the 19th century) and was himself a regular and faithful attendant at those church services,¹⁴ not even allowing inclement weather to dissuade his weekly horseback travel to the Capitol church.¹⁵

(The fact that the U. S. Capitol building was available for church on Sundays was due to the Art. I, Sec. 7 constitutional requirement that forbade federal lawmaking on Sundays; and this recognition of a Christian Sabbath in the U. S. Constitution was cited by federal courts as proof of the Christian nature of America.¹⁶ While not every Christian observes a Sunday Sabbath, no other religion in the world honors Sunday except Christianity. As one court noted, the various Sabbaths were “the Friday of the Mohammedan, the Saturday of the Israelite, or the Sunday of the Christian.”¹⁷)
Why was Jefferson a faithful attendant at the Sunday church at the Capitol? He once explained to a friend while they were walking to church together:

No nation has ever existed or been governed without religion. Nor can be. The Christian religion is the best religion that has been given to man and I, as Chief Magistrate of this nation, am bound to give it the sanction of my example.¹⁸

The U. S. Congress Affirms that America is a Christian Nation

Declarations from the Legislative Branch affirming America as a Christian nation are abundant. For example, in 1852-1853 when some citizens sought a complete secularization of the public square and a cessation of all religious activities by the government, Congress responded with unambiguous declarations about America as a Christian nation:

HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: Had the people, during the Revolution, had a suspicion of any attempt to war against Christianity, that Revolution would have been strangled in its cradle. At the time of the adoption of the Constitution and the amendments, the universal sentiment was that Christianity should be encouraged, not any one sect [denomination]. Any attempt to level and discard all religion would have been viewed with universal indignation. . . . In this age there can be no substitute for Christianity; that, in its general principles, is the great conservative element on which we must rely for the purity and permanence of free institutions.¹⁹
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: We are Christians, not because the law demands it, not to gain exclusive benefits or to avoid legal disabilities, but from choice and education; and in a land thus universally Christian, what is to be expected, what desired, but that we shall pay a due regard to Christianity?²⁰

In 1856, the House of Representatives also declared:

[T]he great vital and conservative element in our system is the belief of our people in the pure doctrines and divine truths of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.²¹

On March 3, 1863 while in the midst of the Civil War, the U. S. Senate requested President Abraham Lincoln to “designate and set apart a day for national prayer and humiliation”²² because:

[S]incerely believing that no people, however great in numbers and resources or however strong in the justice of their cause, can prosper without His favor; and at the same time deploring the national offences which have provoked His righteous judgment, yet encouraged in this day of trouble by the assurances of His word to seek Him for succor according to His appointed way through Jesus Christ, the Senate of the United States do hereby request the President of the United States, by his proclamation, to designate and set apart a day for national prayer and humiliation.²³ (emphasis added)

President Lincoln quickly complied with that request,²⁴ and issued what today has become one of the most famous and quoted proclamations in America’s history.²⁵

Across the generations, our national reliance on God, the Bible, and Christianity has been repeatedly reaffirmed. In fact, consider five representative images produced by the U. S. Government. The first three are from World War II: one shows the Nazis as the enemy because they want to attack the Bible, and the other two encourage Americans to buy War Bonds by pointing to Christian images. The fourth and fifth images are from the Department of Agriculture in the 1960s, using the Bible and even Smokey Bear in prayer as symbols to encourage Americans to be conscious of fire safety and to help preserve and conserve nature.

There are scores of other official actions by the U. S. Congress over the past two centuries affirming that America is a Christian nation.

The Judicial Branch Affirms that America is a Christian Nation

From the Judicial Branch, consider first some declarations of prominent U. S. Supreme Court Justices regarding America as a Christian nation.

Justice Joseph Story (1779-1845) was appointed to the Court by President James Madison. Story is considered the founder of Harvard Law School and authored the three-volume classic Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (1833). In his 34 years on the Court, Story authored opinions in 286 cases, of which 269 were reported as the majority opinion or the opinion of the Court²⁶ and his many contributions to American law have caused him to be called a “Father of American Jurisprudence.” Justice Story openly declared:

One of the beautiful boasts of our municipal jurisprudence is that Christianity is a part of the Common Law. . . . There never has been a period in which the Common Law did not recognize Christianity as lying at its foundations. . . . I verily believe Christianity necessary to the support of civil society.²⁷

His conclusion about America and Christianity was straightforward:

In [our] republic, there would seem to be a peculiar propriety in viewing the Christian religion as the great basis on which it must rest for its support and permanence.²⁸

Justice John McLean (1785-1861) was appointed to the Court by President Andrew Jackson. McLean served in the U. S. Congress, as a judge on the Ohio Supreme Court, and then held cabinet positions under two U. S. Presidents. His view on the importance of Christianity to American government and its institutions was unambiguous:

For many years, my hope for the perpetuity of our institutions has rested upon Bible morality and the general dissemination of Christian principles. This is an element which did not exist in the ancient republics. It is a basis on which free governments may be maintained through all time. . . . Free government is not a self-moving machine. . . . Our mission of freedom is not carried out by brute force, by canon law, or any other law except the moral law and those Christian principles which are found in the Scriptures.²⁹

Already mentioned at the beginning was Justice David Brewer (1837-1910), appointed to the Court by President Benjamin Harrison. Brewer held several judgeships in Kansas and served on a federal circuit court before his appointment to the Supreme Court. In addition to his already noted statements, Justice Brewer also declared:

We constantly speak of this republic as a Christian nation – in fact, as the leading Christian nation of the world.³⁰

Brewer then chronicled the types of descriptions applied to nations:

We classify nations in various ways: as, for instance, by their form of government. One is a kingdom, another an empire, and still another a republic. Also by race. Great Britain is an Anglo-Saxon nation, France a Gallio, Germany a Teutonic, Russia a Slav. And still again by religion. One is a Mohammedan nation, others are heathen, and still others are Christian nations. This republic is classified among the Christian nations of the world. It was so formally declared by the Supreme Court of the United States. In the case of Holy Trinity Church vs. United States, 143 U.S. 471, that Court, after mentioning various circumstances, added, “these and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation.”³¹

Brewer did not believe that calling America a Christian nation was a hollow appellation; in fact, he penned an entire book setting forth the evidence that America was a Christian nation.³² He concluded:

[I] have said enough to show that Christianity came to this country with the first colonists; has been powerfully identified with its rapid development, colonial and national, and today exists as a mighty factor in the life of the republic. This is a Christian nation. . . . [T]he calling of this republic a Christian nation is not a mere pretence, but a recognition of an historical, legal, and social truth.³³

Justice Earl Warren (1891-1974) agreed with his predecessors. Before being appointed as Chief Justice of the U. S. Supreme Court by President Dwight D. Eisenhower, Warren had been the Attorney General of California. Warren declared:

I believe the entire Bill of Rights came into being because of the knowledge our forefathers had of the Bible and their belief in it: freedom of belief, of expression, of assembly, of petition, the dignity of the individual, the sanctity of the home, equal justice under law, and the reservation of powers to the people. . . . I like to believe we are living today in the spirit of the Christian religion. I like also to believe that as long as we do so, no great harm can come to our country.³⁴

There are many similar declarations by other Supreme Court Justices, but in addition to the declarations of individual judges, the federal courts have repeatedly affirmed America to be a Christian nation – including the U. S. Supreme Court, which declared that America was “a Christian country,”³⁵ filled with “Christian people,”³⁶ and was indeed “a Christian nation.”³⁷ Dozens of other courts past and present have repeated these pronouncements³⁸ but so,
too, have American Presidents – as in 1947 when President Harry Truman quoted the Supreme Court, declaring:

This is a Christian Nation. More than a half century ago that declaration was written into the decrees of the highest court in this land [in an 1892 decision].³⁹

American Jewish Leaders Agree with History

Jewish leaders, although firmly committed to their own faith, understand that by defending Christianity they are defending what has provided them their own religious liberty in America. For example, Jeff Jacoby, a Jewish columnist at the Boston Globe explains:

This is a Christian country – it was founded by Christians and built on broad Christian principles. Threatening? Far from it. It is in precisely this Christian country that Jews have known the most peaceful, prosperous, and successful existence in their long history.⁴⁰

Aaron Zelman (a Jewish author and head of a civil rights organization) similarly declares:

[C]hristian America is the best home our people have found in 2,000 years. . . . [T]his remains the most tolerant, prosperous, and safest home we could be blessed with.⁴¹

Dennis Prager, a Jewish national columnist and popular talkshow host, warns:

If America abandons its Judeo-Christian values basis and the central role of the Jewish and Christian Bibles (its Founders’ guiding text), we are all in big trouble, including, most especially, America’s non-Christians. Just ask the Jews of secular Europe.⁴²

Prager further explained:

I believe that it is good that America is a Christian nation. . . . I have had the privilege of speaking in nearly every Jewish community in America over the last 30 years, and I have frequently argued in favor of this view. Recently, I spoke to the Jewish community of a small North Carolina city. When some in the audience mentioned their fear of rising religiosity among Christians, I asked these audience-members if they loved living in their city. All of them said they did. Is it a coincidence, I then asked, that the city you so love (for its wonderful people, its safety for your children, its fine schools, and its values that enable you to raise your children with confidence) is a highly Christian city? Too many Americans do not appreciate the connection between American greatness and American Christianity.⁴³

Don Feder, a Jewish columnist and long time writer for the Boston Herald, similarly acknowledges:

Clearly this nation was established by Christians. . . . As a Jew, I’m entirely comfortable with the concept of the Christian America.⁴⁴ The choice isn’t Christian America or nothing, but Christian America or a neo-pagan, hedonistic, rights-without-responsibilities, anti-family, culture-of-death America. As an American Jew. . . . [I] feel very much at home here.⁴⁵

In fact, Feder calls on Jews to defend the truth that America is a Christian Nation:

Jews – as Jews – must oppose revisionist efforts to deny our nation’s Christian heritage, must stand against the drive to decouple our laws from Judeo-Christian ethics, and must counter attacks on public expressions of the religion of most Americans – Christianity. Jews are safer in a Christian America than in a secular America.⁴⁶

Michael Medved, a Jewish national talkshow host and columnist, agrees that America is indeed a Christian nation:

The framers may not have mentioned Christianity in the Constitution but they clearly intended that charter of liberty to govern a society of fervent faith, freely encouraged by government for the benefit of all. Their noble and unprecedented experiment never involved a religion-free or faithless state but did indeed presuppose America’s unequivocal identity as a Christian nation.⁴⁷

Burt Prelutsky, a Jewish columnist for the Los Angeles Times (and a freelance writer for the New York Times, Washington Times, Sports Illustrated, and other national publications) and a patriotic Jewish American, gladly embraces America as a Christian nation and even resents the secularist post-modern attack on national Christian celebrations such as Christmas:

I never thought I’d live to see the day that Christmas would become a dirty word. . . .How is it, one well might ask, that in a Christian nation this is happening? And in case you find that designation objectionable, would you deny that India is a Hindu country, that Turkey is Muslim, that Poland is Catholic? That doesn’t mean those nations are theocracies. But when the overwhelming majority of a country’s population is of one religion, and most Americans happen to be one sort of Christian or another, only a darn fool would deny the obvious. . . . This is a Christian nation, my friends. And all of us are fortunate it is one, and that so many millions of Americans have seen fit to live up to the highest precepts of their religion. It should never be forgotten that, in the main, it was Christian soldiers who fought and died to defeat Nazi Germany and who liberated the concentration camps. Speaking as a member of a minority group – and one of the smaller ones at that – I say it behooves those of us who don’t accept Jesus Christ as our savior to show some gratitude to those who do, and to start respecting the values and traditions of the overwhelming majority of our fellow citizens, just as we keep insisting that they respect ours. Merry Christmas, my friends.⁴⁸

Orthodox Rabbi Daniel Lapin of the Jewish Policy Center unequivocally declares

[I] understand that I live . . . in a Christian nation, albeit one where I can follow my faith as long as it doesn’t conflict with the nation’s principles. The same option is open to all Americans and will be available only as long as this nation’s Christian roots are acknowledged and honored.⁴⁹

In fact, with foreboding he warns:

Without a vibrant and vital Christianity, America is doomed, and without America, the west is doomed. Which is why I, an Orthodox Jewish rabbi, devoted to Jewish survival, the Torah, and Israel am so terrified of American Christianity caving in.⁵⁰ God help Jews if America ever becomes a post-Christian society! Just think of Europe!⁵¹

— — — ◊ ◊ ◊ — — —There is much additional evidence, and it unequivocally demonstrates that any claim that America was not a Christian nation is an unabashed attempt at historical revisionism. Of such efforts, former Chief Justice William Rehnquist wisely observed, “no amount of repetition of historical errors . . . can make the errors true.”⁵²

Endnotes

¹ David J. Brewer, The United States: A Christian Nation (Philadelphia: John C. Winston Company, 1905), 12.

² Brewer, A Christian Nation (1905), 57.

³ Edward Mansfield, American Education, Its Principle and Elements (New York: A. S. Barnes & Co., 1851), 43.

⁴ John Marshall to Rev. Jasper Adams, May 9, 1833, The Papers of John Marshall, ed. Charles Hobson (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2006), XII:278.

⁵ Stephen Cowell, The Position of Christianity in the United States in its Relations with our Political Institutions (Philadelphia: Lippincott, Grambio & Co., 1854), 11-12; Joseph Story, A Familiar Exposition of the Constitution of the United States (Boston: Marsh, Capen, Lyon, and Webb, 1840), 260.

⁶ See, for example, “Obama says U.S., Turkey can be model for world,” CNN, April 6, 2009; David Brody, The Brody File, “Exclusive: Barack Obama E-mails the Brody File,” CBN News, July 29, 2007; Aaron Klein, “Obama: America is ‘no longer Christian’,” WorldNetDaily, June 22, 2008; and so forth.

⁷ John Adams to Thomas Jefferson, June 28, 1813, The Works of John Adams, ed. Charles Francis Adams (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1856), X:45-46.

⁸ Ferdinand Cowle Iglehart, D.D., Theodore Roosevelt, The Man As I Knew Him (New York: The Christian Herald, 1919), 307.

⁹ Paul M. Pearson and Philip M. Hicks, Extemporaneous Speaking (New York: Hinds, Noble & Eldredge, 1912), 177, printing Woodrow Wilson, “The Bible and Progress;” The Homiletic Review: An International Monthly Magazine of Current Religious Thought, Sermonic Literature and Discussion of Practical Issues (New York: Funk and Wagnalls Company, 1911), LXII:238, printing Woodrow Wilson, “The Bible and Progress,” May 7, 1911.

¹⁰ Herbert Hoover, “Radio Address to the Nation on Unemployment Relief,” American Presidency Project, October 18, 1931.

¹¹ Harry S. Truman, “Exchange of Messages With Pope Pius XII,” American Presidency Project, August 28, 1947.

¹² Richard Nixon, “Remarks at the National Prayer Breakfast,” American Presidency Project, February 1st, 1972.

¹³ Thomas Jefferson to Gouverneur Morris, November 1, 1801, The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, ed. Barbara Oberg (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2008), 30:545.

¹⁴ See, for example, Bishop Claggett’s (Episcopal Bishop of Maryland) letter of February 18, 1801, available in the Maryland Diocesan Archives; The First Forty Years of Washington Society, ed. Galliard Hunt (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1906), 13; William Parker Cutler and Julia Perkins Cutler, Life, Journal, and Correspondence of Rev. Manasseh Cutler (Cincinnati: Colin Robert Clarke & Co., 1888), II:119, to Joseph Torrey, January 3, 1803 & 113, entry of December 12, 1802; James Hutson, Religion and the Founding of the American Republic (Washington, D. C.: Library of Congress, 1998), 84.

¹⁵ Cutler and Cutler, Life, Journal, and Correspondence (1888), II:119, to Dr. Joseph Torrey, January 3, 1803; entry of December 26, 1802 (II:114).

¹⁶ See, for example, Church of the Holy Trinity v. U. S., 143 U.S. 457, 465, 470-471 (1892); City Council of Charleston v. S.A. Benjamin, 2 Strob. 508, 518-520 (S.C. 1846); State v. Ambs, 20 Mo. 214, 1854 WL 4543 (Mo. 1854); Neal v. Crew, 12 Ga. 93, 1852 WL 1390 (1852); Doremus v. Bd. of Educ., 71 A.2d 732, 7 N.J. Super. 442 (1950); State v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co., 143 S.W. 785, 803 (Mo. 1912); and many others.

¹⁷ Ex parte Newman, 9 Cal. 502, 509 (1858).

¹⁸ Hutson, Religion, 96, quoting from a handwritten history in possession of the Library of Congress, “Washington Parish, Washington City,” by Rev. Ethan Allen.

¹⁹ “Rep. No. 24: Chaplains in Congress and in the Army and Navy,” March 27, 1854, Reports of Committees of the House of Representatives Made During the First Session of the Thirty-Third Congress (Washington: A. O. P. Nicholson, 1854), 6, 8.

²⁰ “Rep. Com. No. 36: Report,” January 19, 1853, The Reports of Committees of the Senate of the United States for the Second Session of the Thirty-Second Congress, 1852-53 (Washington: Robert Armstrong, 1853), 3.

²¹ January 23, 1856, Journal of the House of Representatives of the United States: Being the First Session of the Thirty-Fourth Congress (Washington: Cornelius Wendell, 1855), 354.

²² March 2, 1863, Journal of the Senate of the United States of America Being the Third Session of the Thirty-Seventh Congress (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1863), 379.

²³ March 2, 1863, Journal of the Senate…Third Session of the Thirty-Seventh Congress (1863), 378-379.

²⁴ Abraham Lincoln, Proclamation Appointing a National Fast Day (March 30, 1863), WallBuilders.

²⁵ A May 2016 Bing search for this proclamation resulted in 400,000+ hits.

²⁶ “Story, Joseph,” Dictionary of American Biography, ed. Dumas Malone (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1936), 18:106.

²⁷ Joseph Story, Life and Letters of Joseph Story, ed. William W. Story (Boston: Charles C. Little and James Brown, 1851), II:8, 92.

²⁸ Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (Boston: Hillard, Gray, and Company, 1833), III:724.

²⁹ B. F. Morris, Christian Life and Character of the Civil Institutions of the United States (Philadelphia: George W. Childs, 1864), 639.

³⁰ Brewer, A Christian Nation (1905), 12.

³¹ Brewer, A Christian Nation (1905), 11.

³² Brewer, A Christian Nation (1905).

³³ Brewer, A Christian Nation (1905), 40, 46.

³⁴ “Breakfast in Washington,” Time, February 15, 1954.

³⁵ Vidal v. Girard’s Executors, 43 U. S. 126, 198 (1844).

³⁶ U.S. v. Macintosh, 283 U.S. 605, 625 (1931).

³⁷ Church of the Holy Trinity v. U. S., 143 U. S. 457, 465, 470-471 (1892).

³⁸ See for example, Warren v. U.S., 177 F.2d 596 (10th Cir. 1949); U.S. v. Girouard, 149 F.2d 760 (1st Cir.1945); Steiner v. Darby, Parker v. Los Angeles County, 199 P.2d 429 (Cal. App. 2d Dist 1948); Vogel v. County of Los Angeles, 434 P.2d 961 (1967).

³⁹ Harry S. Truman, “Exchange of Messages with Pope Pius XII,” American Presidency Project, August 6, 1947.

⁴⁰ Jeff Jacoby, “The freedom not to say ‘amen’,” Jewish World Review, February 1, 2001.

⁴¹ Aaron Zelman, “An open letter to my Christian friends,” Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership.

⁴² Dennis Prager, “America founded to be free, not secular,” Townhall.com, January 3, 2007.

⁴³ Dennis Prager, “Books, Arts & Manners: God & His Enemies – Review,” BNet, March 22, 1999.

⁴⁴ Don Feder, A Jewish Conservative Looks at Pagan America (Lafayette: Huntington House Publishers, 1993), 59-60.

⁴⁵ Don Feder, “Yes – Once and For All – American is a Christian Nation,” DonFeder.com, February 16, 2005.

⁴⁶ Don Feder, “The Jewish Case for Merry Christmas,” Front Page Magazine, December 7, 2006.

⁴⁷ Michael Medved, “The Founders Intended a Christian, not Secular, Society,” Townhall.com, October 3, 2007.

⁴⁸ Burt Prelutsky, “The Jewish grinch who stole Christmas,” Townhall.com, December 11, 2006.

⁴⁹ Daniel Lapin, America’s Real War (Oregon: Multnomah Publishers, 1999), p. 116.

⁵⁰ Rabbi Daniel Lapin, “A Rabbi’s Call to American Christians – Wake Up! You’re Under Attack,” End Time Prophetic Division, January 19, 2007.

⁵¹ Rabbi Daniel Lapin, “Which Jews does the ADL really represent?” WorldNetDaily, August 25, 2006.

⁵² Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U. S. 38, 106-107 (1984), Rehnquist, J. (dissenting).

The Founders As Christians

Note: this is a representative list only, there are many other quotes that could be listed.

Samuel Adams
Father of the American Revolution, Signer of the Declaration of Independence

I . . . recommend my Soul to that Almighty Being who gave it, and my body I commit to the dust, relying upon the merits of Jesus Christ for a pardon of all my sins.

(Will of Samuel Adams)

Charles Carroll
Signer of the Declaration of Independence

On the mercy of my Redeemer I rely for salvation and on His merits; not on the works I have done in obedience to His precepts.

(From an autographed letter in our possession written by Charles Carroll to Charles W. Wharton, Esq., on September 27, 1825.)

William Cushing
First Associate Justice Appointed by George Washington to the Supreme Court

Sensible of my mortality, but being of sound mind, after recommending my soul to Almighty God through the merits of my Redeemer and my body to the earth.

(Will of William Cushing)

John Dickinson
Signer of the Constitution

Rendering thanks to my Creator for my existence and station among His works, for my birth in a country enlightened by the Gospel and enjoying freedom, and for all His other kindnesses, to Him I resign myself, humbly confiding in His goodness and in His mercy through Jesus Christ for the events of eternity.

(Will of John Dickinson)

John Hancock
Signer of the Declaration of Independence

I John Hancock, . . . being advanced in years and being of perfect mind and memory-thanks be given to God-therefore calling to mind the mortality of my body and knowing it is appointed for all men once to die [Hebrews 9:27], do make and ordain this my last will and testament…Principally and first of all, I give and recommend my soul into the hands of God that gave it: and my body I recommend to the earth . . . nothing doubting but at the general resurrection I shall receive the same again by the mercy and power of God.

(Will of John Hancock)

Patrick Henry
Governor of Virginia, Patriot

This is all the inheritance I can give to my dear family. The religion of Christ can give them one which will make them rich indeed.

(Will of Patrick Henry)

John Jay
First Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court

Unto Him who is the author and giver of all good, I render sincere and humble thanks for His manifold and unmerited blessings, and especially for our redemption and salvation by His beloved son. He has been pleased to bless me with excellent parents, with a virtuous wife, and with worthy children. His protection has companied me through many eventful years, faithfully employed in the service of my country; His providence has not only conducted me to this tranquil situation but also given me abundant reason to be contented and thankful. Blessed be His holy name!

(Will of John Jay)

Daniel St. Thomas Jenifer
Signer of the Constitution

In the name of God, Amen. I, Daniel of Saint Thomas Jenifer . . . of dispossing mind and memory, commend my soul to my blessed Redeemer. . .

(Will of Daniel St. Thomas Jenifer)

Henry Knox
Revolutionary War General, Secretary of War

First, I think it proper to express my unshaken opinion of the immortality of my soul or mind; and to dedicate and devote the same to the supreme head of the Universe – to that great and tremendous Jehovah, – Who created the universal frame of nature, worlds, and systems in number infinite . . . To this awfully sublime Being do I resign my spirit with unlimited confidence of His mercy and protection.

(Will of Henry Knox)

John Langdon
Signer of the Constitution

In the name of God, Amen. I, John Langdon, . . . considering the uncertainty of life and that it is appointed unto all men once to die [Hebrews 9:27], do make, ordain and publish this my last will and testament in manner following, that is to say-First: I commend my soul to the infinite mercies of God in Christ Jesus, the beloved Son of the Father, who died and rose again that He might be the Lord of the dead and of the living . . . professing to believe and hope in the joyful Scripture doctrine of a resurrection to eternal life.

(Will of John Langdon)

John Morton
Signer of the Declaration of Independence

With an awful reverence to the great Almighty God, Creator of all mankind, I, John Morton . . . being sick and weak in body but of sound mind and memory-thanks be given to Almighty God for the same, for all His mercies and favors-and considering the certainty of death and the uncertainty of the times thereof, do, for the settling of such temporal estate as it hath pleased God to bless me with in this life . . .

(Will of John Morton)

Robert Treat Paine
Signer of the Declaration of Independence

I desire to bless and praise the name of God most high for appointing me my birth in a land of Gospel Light where the glorious tidings of a Savior and of pardon and salvation through Him have been continually sounding in mine ears.

(Robert Treat Paine, The Papers of Robert Treat Paine, eds. Stephen Riley & Edward Hanson (Boston: Massachusetts Historical Society, 1992), I:48.)

[W]hen I consider that this instrument contemplates my departure from this life and all earthly enjoyments and my entrance on another state of existence, I am constrained to express my adoration of the Supreme Being, the Author of my existence, in full belief of his providential goodness and his forgiving mercy revealed to the world through Jesus Christ, through whom I hope for never ending happiness in a future state, acknowledging with grateful remembrance the happiness I have enjoyed in my passage through a long life.

(Will of Robert Treat Paine)

Charles Cotesworth Pinckney
Signer of the Constitution

To the eternal, immutable, and only true God be all honor and glory, now and forever, Amen!

(Will of Charles Cotesworth Pinckney)

Rufus Putnam

Revolutionary War General, First Surveyor General of the United States

[F]irst, I give my soul to a holy, sovereign God Who gave it in humble hope of a blessed immortality through the atonement and righteousness of Jesus Christ and the sanctifying grace of the Holy Spirit. My body I commit to the earth to be buried in a decent Christian manner. I fully believe that this body shall, by the mighty power of God, be raised to life at the last day; ‘for this corruptable (sic) must put on incorruption and this mortal must put on immortality.’ [I Corinthians 15:53]

(Will of Rufus Putnam)

Benjamin Rush
Signer of the Declaration of Independence

My only hope of salvation is in the infinite, transcendent love of God manifested to the world by the death of His Son upon the cross. Nothing but His blood will wash away my sins. I rely exclusively upon it. Come, Lord Jesus! Come quickly!

(Benjamin Rush, The Autobiography of Benjamin Rush, ed. George Corner (Princeton: Princeton University Press for the American Philosophical Society, 1948), 166.)

Roger Sherman
Signer of the Declaration of Independence, Signer of the Constitution

I believe that there is one only living and true God, existing in three persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. . . . that the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are a revelation from God. . . . that God did send His own Son to become man, die in the room and stead of sinners, and thus to lay a foundation for the offer of pardon and salvation to all mankind so as all may be saved who are willing to accept the Gospel offer.

(Lewis Henry Boutell, The Life of Roger Sherman (Chicago: A. C. McClurg and Company, 1896), 272-273.)

Richard Stockton
Signer of the Declaration of Independence

I think it proper here not only to subscribe to the entire belief of the great and leading doctrines of the Christian religion, such as the Being of God, the universal defection and depravity of human nature, the divinity of the person and the completeness of the redemption purchased by the blessed Savior, the necessity of the operations of the Divine Spirit, of Divine Faith, accompanied with an habitual virtuous life, and the universality of the divine Providence, but also . . . that the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom; that the way of life held up in the Christian system is calculated for the most complete happiness that can be enjoyed in this mortal state; that all occasions of vice and immorality is injurious either immediately or consequentially, even in this life; that as Almighty God hath not been pleased in the Holy Scriptures to prescribe any precise mode in which He is to be publicly worshiped, all contention about it generally arises from want of knowledge or want of virtue.

(Will of Richard Stockton)

Jonathan Trumbull Sr.
Governor of Connecticut, Patriot

Principally and first of all, I bequeath my soul to God the Creator and Giver thereof, and body to the Earth . . . nothing doubting but that I shall receive the same again at the General Resurrection thro the power of Almighty God; believing and hoping for eternal life thro the merits of my dear, exalted Redeemer Jesus Christ.

(Will of Jonathan Trumbull)

John Witherspoon
Signer of the Declaration of Independence

I entreat you in the most earnest manner to believe in Jesus Christ, for there is no salvation in any other [Acts 4:12]. . . . [I]f you are not reconciled to God through Jesus Christ, if you are not clothed with the spotless robe of His righteousness, you must forever perish.

(John Witherspoon, “The Absolute Necessity of Salvation Through Christ,” January 2, 1758, The Works of John Witherspoon (Edinburgh: J. Ogle, 1815), V:276, 278.)

Benjamin Franklin’s letter to Thomas Paine

Benjamin Franklin (1706-90) was a printer, author, inventor, scientist, philanthropist, statesman, diplomat, and public official. He was the first president of the Pennsylvania Society for Promoting the Abolition of Slavery (1774); a member of the Continental Congress (1775-76) where he signed the Declaration of Independence (1776); a negotiator and signer of the final treaty of peace with Great Britain (1783); and a delegate to the Constitutional Convention where he signed the federal Constitution (1787); Franklin was one of only six men who signed both the Declaration and the Constitution. He wrote his own epitaph, which declared: “The body of Benjamin Franklin, printer, like the cover of an old book, its contents torn out, stripped of its lettering, and guilding, lies here, food for worms. But the work shall not be lost; for it will, as he believed, appear once more in a new and more elegant edition, revised and corrected by the Author.”

Benjamin Franklin was frequently consulted by Thomas Paine for advice and suggestions regarding his political writings, and Franklin assisted Paine with some of his famous essays. This letter¹ is Franklin’s response to a manuscript Paine sent him that advocated against the concept of a providential God.

TO THOMAS PAINE.
[Date uncertain.]
DEAR SIR,
I have read your manuscript with some attention. By the argument it contains against a particular Providence, though you allow a general Providence, you strike at the foundations of all religion. For without the belief of a Providence, that takes cognizance of, guards, and guides, and may favor particular persons, there is no motive to worship a Deity, to fear his displeasure, or to pray for his protection. I will not enter into any discussion of your principles, though you seem to desire it. At present I shall only give you my opinion, that, though your reasonings are subtile and may prevail with some readers, you will not succeed so as to change the general sentiments of mankind on that subject, and the consequence of printing this piece will be, a great deal of odium drawn upon yourself, mischief to you, and no benefit to others. He that spits against the wind, spits in his own face.
But, were you to succeed, do you imagine any good would be done by it? You yourself may find it easy to live a virtuous life, without the assistance afforded by religion; you having a clear perception of the advantages of virtue, and the disadvantages of vice, and possessing a strength of resolution sufficient to enable you to resist common temptations. But think how great a portion of mankind consists of weak and ignorant men and women, and of inexperienced, inconsiderate youth of both sexes, who have need of the motives of religion to restrain them from vice, to support their virtue, and retain them in the practice of it till it becomes habitual, which is the great point for its security. And perhaps you are indebted to her originally, that is, to your religious education, for the habits of virtue upon which you now justly value yourself. You might easily display your excellent talents of reasoning upon a less hazardous subject, and thereby obtain a rank with our most distinguished authors. For among us it is not necessary, as among the Hottentots, that a youth, to be raised into the company of men, should prove his manhood by beating his mother.
I would advise you, therefore, not to attempt unchaining the tiger, but to burn this piece before it is seen by any other person; whereby you will save yourself a great deal of mortification by the enemies it may raise against you, and perhaps a good deal of regret and repentance. If men are so wicked with religion, what would they be if without it. I intend this letter itself as a proof of my friendship, and therefore add no professions to it; but subscribe simply yours,
B. Franklin

Paine later published his Age of Reason, which infuriated many of the Founding Fathers. John Adams wrote, “The Christian religion is, above all the religions that ever prevailed or existed in ancient or modern times, the religion of wisdom, virtue, equity and humanity, let the Blackguard [scoundrel, rogue] Paine say what he will.”²

Samuel Adams wrote Paine a stiff rebuke, telling him, “[W]hen I heard you had turned your mind to a defence of infidelity, I felt myself much astonished and more grieved that you had attempted a measure so injurious to the feelings and so repugnant to the true interest of so great a part of the citizens of the United States.”³

Benjamin Rush, signer of the Declaration, wrote to his friend and signer of the Constitution John Dickinson that Paine’s Age of Reason was “absurd and impious”;⁴ Charles Carroll, a signer of the Declaration, described Paine’s work as “blasphemous writings against the Christian religion”;⁵ John Witherspoon said that Paine was “ignorant of human nature as well as an enemy to the Christian faith”;⁶ and Elias Boudinot, President of Congress, even published the Age of Revelation—a full-length rebuttal to Paine’s work.⁷ Patrick Henry, too, wrote a refutation of Paine’s work which he described as “the puny efforts of Paine.”⁸

When William Paterson, signer of the Constitution and a Justice on the U. S. Supreme Court, learned that some Americans seemed to agree with Paine’s work, he thundered, “Infatuated Americans, why renounce your country, your religion, and your God?”⁹ Zephaniah Swift, author of America’s first law book, noted, “He has the impudence and effrontery [shameless boldness] to address to the citizens of the United States of America a paltry performance which is intended to shake their faith in the religion of their fathers.”¹⁰ John Jay, an author of the Federalist Papers and the original Chief-Justice of the U. S. Supreme Court, was comforted by the fact that Christianity would prevail despite Paine’s attack, “I have long been of the opinion that the evidence of the truth of Christianity requires only to be carefully examined to produce conviction in candid minds.”¹¹ In fact, Paine’s views caused such vehement public opposition that he spent his last years in New York as “an outcast” in “social ostracism” and was buried in a farm field because no American cemetery would accept his remains.¹²

Endnotes

¹ Benjamin Franklin to [Thomas Paine], undated, The Private Correspondence of Benjamin Franklin, ed. William Temple Franklin (London: Henry Colburn, 1818), I:274-275.

² John Adams diary entry for July 26, 1796, The Works of John Adams, ed. Charles Francis Adams (Boston: Charles Little and James Brown, 1841), III:421.

³ Samuel Adams to Thomas Paine, November 30, 1802, William V. Wells, The Life and Public Services of Samuel Adams (Boston: Little, Brown, and Company, 1865), III:372-373.

⁴ Benjamin Rush to John Dickinson, February 16, 1796, Letters of Benjamin Rush, ed. L. H. Butterfield (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1951), II:770.

⁵ Joseph Gurn, Charles Carroll of Carrollton (New York: P. J. Kennedy & Sons, 1932), 203.

⁶ John Witherspoon, “The Dominion of Providence over the Passions of Men,” May 17, 1776, The Works of the Reverend John Witherspoon (Philadelphia: William W. Woodward, 1802), III:24,n. 2.

⁷ Elias Boudinot to his daughter, The Age of Revelation (Philadelphia: Asbury Dickins, 1801), xii-xiv.

⁸ Patrick Henry to his daughter Betsy, August 20, 1796, S. G. Arnold, The Life of Patrick Henry of Virginia (Auburn and Buffalo: Miller, Orton and Mulligan, 1854), 250; George Morgan, Patrick Henry (Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott Company, 1929), 366 n; Bishop William Meade, Old Churches, Ministers, and Families of Virginia (Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott Company, 1857), II:12.

⁹ John E. O’Conner, William Paterson: Lawyer and Statesman (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1979), 244, from a Fourth of July Oration in 1798.

¹⁰ Zephaniah Swift, A System of Laws of the State of Connecticut (Windham: John Byrne, 1796), II:323-324.

¹¹ John Jay to Rev. Uzal Ogden, February 14, 1796, William Jay, The Life of John Jay (New York: J. & J. Harper, 1833), II:266.

¹² “Paine, Thoams,” Dictionary of American Biography.

Should Christians – Or Ministers – Run For Office?

Today’s critics assert that Christians should not be involved with politics or government, and especially that ministers should not be involved. Such opposition is not new. In fact, two centuries ago, Founding Father John Witherspoon delivered a sagacious rebuttal to these same objections.

John Witherspoon (1723-1794) was a distinguished Founding Father – the president of Princeton University, a signer of the Declaration of Independence, and a ratifier of the U.S. Constitution. He served on over 100 committees in Congress and was head of the Board of War (essentially, he was the congressional “boss” for Commander-in-Chief George Washington). But John Witherspoon was also a minister of the Gospel, he was the Rev. Dr. John Witherspoon! In fact, Dr. Witherspoon was the Billy Graham of his day, one of the most famous American ministers of that era, with volumes of published Gospel sermons.

A provision in the 1777 Georgia constitution reflected the belief that ministers should not be involved in politics. Supporters of this provision asserted the ministry of the Gospel was so important that ministers should not be distracted from their duty. (For example, the 1777 New York Constitution explained, “Whereas ministers of the Gospel are, by their profession, dedicated to the service of God and the care of souls and ought not to be diverted from the great duties of their function; therefore, no minister of the gospel . . . shall be eligible to . . . any civil office within this State.”) Following this same logic, the Georgia constitution declared, “No clergyman of any denomination shall be allowed a seat in the legislature.”

When Dr. Witherspoon learned of this prohibition, he penned the following tongue-in-cheek piece exposing the absurdity of that position. Interestingly, when Georgia wrote its third Constitution in 1798, a strong declaration of the rights of religious persons was inserted – a vast change from its first Constitution.

Following is Dr. Witherspoon’s writing on why ministers should be able to serve in State legislatures:

Sir,
In your paper of Saturday last, you have given us the new Constitution of Georgia, in which I find the following resolution, “No clergyman of any denomination shall be a member of the General Assembly.” I would be very well satisfied that some of the gentlemen who have made that an essential article of this constitution, or who have inserted and approve it in other constitutions, would be pleased to explain a little the principles, as well as to ascertain the meaning of it.
Perhaps we understand pretty generally, what is meant by a clergyman, viz. a person regularly called and set apart to the ministry of the gospel, and authorized to preach and administer the sacraments of the Christian religion. Now suffer me to ask this question: Before any man among us was ordained a minister, was he not a citizen of the United States, and if being in Georgia, a citizen of the state of Georgia? Had he not then a right to be elected a member of the assembly, if qualified in point of property? How then has he lost, or why is he deprived of this right? Is it by offence or disqualification? Is it a sin against the public to become a minister? Does it merit that the person, who is guilty of it should be immediately deprived of one of his most important rights as a citizen? Is not this inflicting a penalty which always supposes an offence? Is a minister then disqualified for the office of a senator or representative? Does this calling and profession render him stupid or ignorant? I am inclined to form a very high opinion of the natural understanding of the freemen and freeholders of the state of Georgia, as well as of their improvement and culture by education, and yet I am not able to conceive, but that some of those equally qualified, may enter into the clerical order: and then it must not be unfitness, but some other reason that produces the exclusion. Perhaps it may be thought that they are excluded from civil authority, that they may be more fully and constantly employed in their spiritual functions. If this had been the ground of it, how much more properly would it have appeared, as an order of an ecclesiastical body with respect to their own members. In that case I should not only have forgiven but approved and justified it; but in the way in which it now stands, it is evidently a punishment by loss of privilege, inflicted on those, who go into the office of the ministry; for which, perhaps, the gentlemen of Georgia may have good reasons, though I have not been able to discover them.
But besides the uncertainty of the principle on which this resolution is founded, there seems to me much uncertainty as to the meaning of it. How are we to determine who is or is not a clergyman? Is he only a clergyman who has received ordination from those who have derived the right by an uninterrupted succession from the apostles? Or is he also a clergyman, who is set apart by the imposition of hands of a body of other clergymen, by joint authority? Or is he also a clergyman who is set a part by the church members of his own society, without any imposition of hands at all? Or is he also a clergyman who has exhorted in a Methodist society, or spoken in a Quaker meeting, or any other religious assembly met for public worship? There are still greater difficulties behind: Is the clerical character indelible? There are some who have been ordained who occasionally perform some clerical functions, but have no pastoral charge at all. There are some who finding public speaking injurious to health, or from other reasons easily conceived, have resigned their pastoral charge, and wholly discontinued all acts and exercises of that kind; and there are some, particularly in New England, who having exercised the clerical office some time, and finding it less suitable to their talents than they apprehended, have voluntarily relinquished it, and taken to some other profession, as law, physic, or merchandize[sic]–Do these all continue clergymen, or do they cease to be clergymen, and by that cessation return to, or recover the honorable privileges of laymen?
I cannot help thinking that these difficulties are very considerable, and may occasion much litigation, if the article of the constitution stands in the loose, ambiguous form in which it now appears; and therefore I would recommend the following alterations, which I think will make every thing definite and unexceptionable.
“No clergyman, of any denomination, shall be capable of being elected a member of the Senate or House of Representatives, because {here insert the grounds of offensive disqualification, which I have not been able to discover} Provided always, and it is the true intent and meaning of this part of the constitution, that if at any time he shall be completely deprived of the clerical character by those by whom he was invested with it, as by deposition for cursing and swearing, drunkenness or uncleanness, he shall then be fully restored to all the privileges of a free citizen; his offence shall no more be remembered against him; but he may be chosen either to the Senate or House of Representatives, and shall be treated with all the respect due to his brethren, the other members of Assembly.”

(Source: John Witherspoon, The Works of John Witherspoon, (Edinburgh: J. Ogle, Parliament-Square, 1815), Vol. IX, pp 220-223.)

Letters Between the Danbury Baptists and Thomas Jefferson

(For the FBI forensic research on Thomas Jefferson’s letter click here. For an analysis of the context of this exchange between the Danbury Baptists and Jefferson, see Daniel Dreisbach’s “‘Sowing Useful Truths and Principles’: The Danbury Baptists, Thomas Jefferson, and the ‘Wall of Separation'” in the Journal of Church and State, Vol. 39, Summer 1997; or see David Barton’s article “The Separation of Church and State“)

Letter from the Danbury Baptists:

The address of the Danbury Baptist Association in the State of Connecticut, assembled October 7, 1801.
To Thomas Jefferson, Esq., President of the United States of America
Sir,
Among the many millions in America and Europe who rejoice in your election to office, we embrace the first opportunity which we have enjoyed in our collective capacity, since your inauguration , to express our great satisfaction in your appointment to the Chief Magistracy in the Unite States. And though the mode of expression may be less courtly and pompous than what many others clothe their addresses with, we beg you, sir, to believe, that none is more sincere.
Our sentiments are uniformly on the side of religious liberty: that Religion is at all times and places a matter between God and individuals, that no man ought to suffer in name, person, or effects on account of his religious opinions, [and] that the legitimate power of civil government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbor. But sir, our constitution of government is not specific. Our ancient charter, together with the laws made coincident therewith, were adapted as the basis of our government at the time of our revolution. And such has been our laws and usages, and such still are, [so] that Religion is considered as the first object of Legislation, and therefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the State) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights. And these favors we receive at the expense of such degrading acknowledgments, as are inconsistent with the rights of freemen. It is not to be wondered at therefore, if those who seek after power and gain, under the pretense of government and Religion, should reproach their fellow men, [or] should reproach their Chief Magistrate, as an enemy of religion, law, and good order, because he will not, dares not, assume the prerogative of Jehovah and make laws to govern the Kingdom of Christ.
Sir, we are sensible that the President of the United States is not the National Legislator and also sensible that the national government cannot destroy the laws of each State, but our hopes are strong that the sentiment of our beloved President, which have had such genial effect already, like the radiant beams of the sun, will shine and prevail through all these States–and all the world–until hierarchy and tyranny be destroyed from the earth. Sir, when we reflect on your past services, and see a glow of philanthropy and goodwill shining forth in a course of more than thirty years, we have reason to believe that America’s God has raised you up to fill the Chair of State out of that goodwill which he bears to the millions which you preside over. May God strengthen you for the arduous task which providence and the voice of the people have called you–to sustain and support you and your Administration against all the predetermined opposition of those who wish to rise to wealth and importance on the poverty and subjection of the people.
And may the Lord preserve you safe from every evil and bring you at last to his Heavenly Kingdom through Jesus Christ our Glorious Mediator.
Signed in behalf of the Association,
Neh,h Dodge }
Eph’m Robbins } The Committee
Stephen S. Nelson }

*A cite for this letter could read:

Letter of Oct. 7, 1801 from Danbury (CT) Baptist Assoc. to Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, Manuscript Division, Library of Congress, Wash. D.C.

President Jefferson’s Reply:

Messrs. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, and Stephen S. Nelson
A Committee of the Danbury Baptist Association, in the State of Connecticut.
Washington, January 1, 1802
Gentlemen,–The affectionate sentiment of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist Association, give me the highest satisfaction. My duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature would “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.
I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and Creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect and esteem.
Th Jefferson
Jan. 1. 1802

* A cite for this letter could read: Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, ed. Albert E. Bergh (Washington, DC: The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association of the United States, 1904), XVI:281-282.

Sermon – Ordination – 1779

The following sermon was preached by Samuel Williams at the ordination of John Prince. This sermon uses Luke 2:14 for a basis.

The Influence of Christianity on Civil Society,

Represented In A

DISCOURSE

Delivered November 10, 1779,

At The

ORDINATION

Of The Reverend

Mr. JOHN PRINCE,

To the Pastoral Care of the First Church in
S A L E M

BY
SAMUEL WILLIAMS, A. M.
Pastor of the First Church in Bradford.

LUKE II. 14.GLORY to GOD in the highest, and on earth peace, good will towards men.

Most of those great events that have nearly concerned the interests of mankind have been ushered into the world in such a manner, as made manifest the interposition of divine providence. This was the case with regard to the appearance of our Redeemer. On the earth everything was prepared for this great event. War had ceased, and universal peace took place among the nations of the earth. The age was distinguished by wisdom, science, and literary pursuits. The Roman empire was in its full glory: And the minds of men throughout the East Were in expectation of some better instruction than they had ever had in religious matters. In such an age, and when the affairs and minds of men were in such a state, the Son of God appeared.

And so great were the blessings he came to impart to men, that the blessed inhabitants of the heavenly world were themselves moved with joy on the great occasion. “There were in the same country,” saith the sacred historian, “shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flocks by night. And lo the angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them: and they were sore afraid. And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for behold I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. For unto you is born this day in the city of David, a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord. And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host, praising God, and saying, Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will towards men.” ¹

Such was the manner in which Christianity was introduced into the world. And the design of it was worthy its heavenly original. Its aim is not only to make men blessed and happy in the world which is to come, but to promote their purity and felicity in that which now is. This is what the text holds out to our view. Nor can there be a more just or comprehensive account of the nature, de4sign and tendency of our holy religion than this, It is adapted and designed to bring glory to God in the heavens, and to advance the interests of peace and happiness among men while they continue on the earth.

In this view, I shall consider the words. And at a time when the minds of men are deeply engaged in attending to that wonderful preparation of circumstances, and singular combination of causes, by which the Ruler of the world is raising up a mighty and extensive Empire in this land; it may be a useful subject to remind men of the advantages they may derive from Religion, and what a happy tendency Christianity has to promote the interests of civil society.

And,

1. In the first place, The religion of Jesus Christ is well adapted to promote peace on earth and happiness to men, by its influence on the Minds and Manners of Men. All the blessings of which mankind are capable in their present and in their future state of existence, are very nearly connected with their governing tempers, habits, and manners. Pardon of sin, acceptance with their Maker now, justification at the last day, and an immortal state of life and glory, do all suppose a holy character in those who are made partakers of these blessings. And of all blessings the greatest and most important, is to be interested in the favour of God unto eternal life. If God be for us, who can be against us? And if he shall condemn, who is he that can justify? There is no superior tribunal to reverse his decrees: No higher power to alter his purpose: And no good thing can be wanting to those whom the Almighty shall delight to bless.

The same temper and conduct that qualifies men for these spiritual and future blessings, is that which alone can make them capable of a proper enjoyment and improvement of those which are of a civil and temporal nature. Established habits of vice, in their consequences and operations, will always render men incapable of freedom, government, and a proper regard to the public good. No virtuous attempts, no public measures, no useful institutions will succeed when the minds, habits, and morals of a people are become generally vicious and corrupt. The foundation therefore for all the blessings of religion, and for all the blessings of society must be laid in the dispositions, habits, and morals of men. And of consequence it must be one great and primary end of religion to form the hearts and lives of men to virtue; to root out the habits and practice of vice; and to introduce right tempers, views and pursuits: that is, to establish and keep up a permanent dominion over the minds and conduct of men. The Law-givers of all ages and countries have been fully sensible of this: And while they have tried the power of education, and the strength of laws, they have never failed to call in the aid of Religion; well knowing they could manage to advantage all the affairs of Society, if they could but give a right direction to the minds, the views, and the pursuits of mankind.

And here the religion of Jesus Christ will be found to be well adapted to do the most essential service to Civil Society. Its doctrines are a complete system of moral truth, teaching us all that is necessary to be known of our Maker and of ourselves. Its precepts are a pure system of morals, holding out our duty, and directing us how to conduct in all cases. It gives us the best helps and assistances that human nature has ever had. It holds out those prospects and promises to form us to virtue, of which mankind had no certainty before. And the threatenings to deter men from vice are taken from the most powerful of all considerations, those of eternal and never ending existence. “It gives to virtue its sweetest hopes, to impenitent vice its greatest fears, and to true penitence its best consolations.” ² And what more can religion do to influence the minds and the conduct of men? Or which among all the religions that have ever been believed, is so well adapted to this end? Thus in respect to that which is the foundation of all present and of all future blessings, influencing the hearts and lives of men, Christianity is adapted to promote peace on earth, good will and happiness to men.

2. Another important blessing in respect to which the religion of Jesus is adapted to bring peace and happiness to men while they are on the earth, is, by its tendency and influence to promote their Freedom. While mankind have been looking for another and for a better state of existence, they have been anxious to enjoy the blessings their Creator designed for them in the present state: To have their rights, properties, possessions, and lives, in freedom; and to be secured from injustice, violence, and oppression. This has every where been found to be the genuine desire of Nature, and what all her children have been thirsting for. And it is a desire every way rational, and just; and one that is planted deep in the human mind by our great Creator. But although the sovereign Ruler of the world meant the heavenly gift for all his children, there have been but few ages and nations but what have sooner or later been deprived of this invaluable blessing. The evils and miseries that have succeeded the loss of it, in many places have been without number and without end. They that would have a particular account of them, must read the histories of mankind; and they will find that the relations of despotism, oppression, persecution, violence, and cruelty make much the largest part. Every consideration therefore of prudence, interest, and safety, require that a people who are growing up to a great and mighty empire, guard as much as possible against the most dreadful of all temporal calamities, the loss of their Freedom.

And this depends not a little on the nature and tendency of their religion. By introducing a religion which claimed a divine right to make its way by the sword, and to cut off all its opposers; and whose main aim was to establish the doctrine of unavoidable necessity and fate, Mahomet took a very sure step to establish the despotism that has ever since prevailed in his empire. In all those countries in which the dreadful tribunal of the inquisition has been established, and the clergy armed with a power of delivering over to the flames all they shall declare to be heretics, religion has served to destroy every idea of liberty in the minds of men. In all those formidable attacks that have been made on the liberties of England, it has been the constant practice of the court to engage the clergy to preach the doctrines of passive obedience and non-resistance, that the religion of the state might serve to enslave the nation. And wheresoever religion teaches abject submission to the vices of rulers, or serves to oppress and impoverish the people, or puts into the hands of the church the power of life and death, it will prove greatly unfriendly to the liberties of mankind. A religion that teaches the unlawfulness of self-defence, that fills the minds of men with superstitious fears and terrors, or that diverts them from truth and morals, to the useless severities of corporal sufferings, will naturally tend to sink the minds of men into the lowest submission and abasement; and to destroy that activity, spirit, courage, firmness, and magnanimity which lead a people to empire and to liberty.

God be thanked there is nothing of this nature in the religion of Jesus. With a spirit and tendency altogether the reverse, it recommends freedom of thought and enquiry, in every thing that concerns mankind. It teaches men to pursue their interest. It directs them to attend to the things that make for their happiness in every state of their existence. It requires them to oppose every thing that would bring them into bondage. And above all it inspires them with that grandeur and elevation of mind, that sublimity of sentiment, that conscious dignity of human nature, and that unconquerable regard to human happiness, which will ever be pushing them forward to the attainment and security of that liberty with which God has made them free. Thus in conformity to the doctrine of our Lord and his apostles, when men “know the truth, the truth will make them free.” John. 8:32. And “where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.” 2 Cor. 3:17. For it is the nature, genius, and tendency of his religion to produce and preserve it. Again,

3. The religion of Jesus Christ is adapted to promote peace on earth, good will and happiness to men, by its salutary influence on their Government. We know of no way in which the rights, properties, liberties and lives of men can be secured from violence and oppression, but by establishing some form of civil government among themselves. And wheresoever a community have established among themselves the dominion of equal laws, made by common consent, as the basis of their government, they have taken the surest step that human wisdom has yet discovered to secure to themselves the blessings of society. Such a government does not tend to infringe the liberties of mankind, but to preserve them: It does not take away any of the rights of human nature, but protects and confirms hem. “It does not even create any new subordinations of particular men to one another, but only gives security in those several stations, whether of authority and pre-eminence, or of subordination and dependence, which nature has established, and which must have arisen among mankind whether civil government had been instituted or not. The superiorities and distinctions arising from the relation of parents to their children; from the differences in the personal qualities and abilities of men; and from servitudes founded on voluntary compacts, must have existed in a state of nature, and would now take place were all men so virtuous as to leave no occasion for civil government.” ³ A government which is thus consistent with the natural equality of men, and which gives full scope for the exertion of all the rational powers, activity, and vigour of mankind, while it protects them at the same time from violence and injustice, is to be esteemed one of the greatest temporal blessings we are capable of receiving.

A rising empire cannot be too careful to obtain to invaluable a blessing, and to have it carefully preserved. And here a free state may derive much assistance from the religion of Jesus Christ. The mildness of its genius and precepts, is incompatible with despotic power, and lawless violence. The purity of its nature, institutions, and laws, is inconsistent with anarchy, confusion, and disorder. It gives to rulers such representations of their character and duty, and such rules of conduct, as apply with singular propriety to the important office that man bears in society, who is appointed to be a minister of God to us for good; who beareth not the sword in vain; who is an avenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil; a terror not to good works but to the evil. Rom. 13: 3, 4, 5. It directs and requires the people to be subject (not indeed to lawless violence) but to all lawful authority not only for wrath, but for conscience sake; to submit to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake; I Pet. 2:13. and to render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, as well as unto God the things that are God’s. Matt. 22:21. And it gives to all, the most solemn and awful threatenings against that impiety which undermines the main pillars of society; against vice which more openly attacks it; and the spirit of contention, party and faction, which tends with still greater force to pull down the whole fabric. “How admirable the religion, which, while it seems only to have in view the felicity of the other life, constitutes the happiness of this.” ⁴ A free and equal government cannot have any support on which it may with more certainty rely, than what it will find in the genius, spirit, doctrines, and laws, of so pure, mile, and benevolent a religion. To this we may add,

4. The religion of Jesus Christ is also adapted to promote peace on earth, good will and happiness to men, by its happy tendency to promote everything that tends to the growth, progress, and improvement of civil Society. Such is the imperfection of human knowledge, and the mutable state of all human affairs, that it becomes us to speak with great modesty and caution as to the events of futurity. And yet if we may be allowed to reason from the preparations and tendencies of nature and providence, from the great principles of God’s moral government, or the operation and influence of natural causes, we cannot but conclude that an empire like that established among us, founded in freedom and virtue, must, in the progressive improvements of human affairs, exceed anything that has ever yet taken place among mankind. ⁵

It would tend much to promote this if more of the spirit of Christianity should be introduced into the nature of civil Policy than has ever yet been done. Integrity, equity and good faith, are allowed by all to be of the greatest necessity and utility in the concerns of individuals. It is a reproach to mankind that what is universally allowed to be so necessary in private life, should have been so little practiced in the administration of public affairs. There is no room to doubt but hat religion would essentially benefit civil society in this respect. An empire that shall firmly adopt and steadily adhere to the great principles of equity, righteousness, and public faith, will derive innumerable advantages from their public faith and virtue; which the deceitfulness of unrighteousness, with whatever subtlety it may be managed, will never secure.

And blessed will be that country that shall teach the nations of the earth to make more use of the religion of Jesus in the Wars that may yet take place. This dreadful evil is too often carried on with the most tragical scenes of undistinguished plunder, destruction and carnage. It is to be hoped the time will come when the religion of Jesus will introduce a greater regard to humanity: When it will teach monarchs to reverence the laws of nature and nations; and make the soldier feel a horror at the shedding of innocent blood. ⁶

Happy for men instead of being designed to destroy men’s lives, the religion of our Lord is adapted to enlarge their Numbers, and to promote their Increase. There have been times and places, in which the religion of a country has served to destroy its inhabitants. This is the case where persons fit for all the duties of life are encouraged to separate themselves from society, and to shut themselves up in the dust and silence of a cloister: And in the highest degree where celibacy, persecution, human sacrifices, and the more infernal butcheries of the inquisition have been enjoined. Institutions so unfriendly to the increase of mankind are as contrary to the nature of true religion, as they are to the good of society.—With a spirit and tendency entirely different, the religion of Christ aims to enlarge society by the most natural and virtuous union. It teaches families the most sober sense of virtue and duty. It requires diligence, industry, and honesty, in all the concerns of life. It makes the marriage union honorable in all. It requires its ministers and professors to be useful members of the state. It grants liberty of conscience, and requires brotherly love of all. A people possessed of all the advantages that arise from freedom, situation, climate, and soil, will find such a religion favorable to the most rapid increase.

The same benign tendency will be found in Christianity if we look forward to Improvements in social happiness. There are many things which conduce to the good of society, which we have reason to think may be carried to a much greater perfection than they have ever yet been. The full force of education has never yet been tried; and we have reason to believe that great improvements may be made in the means and methods of it. Observation, industry, and genius, may greatly enlarge the boundaries of science; and give to men much more extensive views in every branch of knowledge. All those various arts by which business is transacted, and nations lead to greatness, may be carried to a degree of perfection of which we have no conception at present. And what new remedies may be found against those evils which the vices of men are constantly producing; or whether, time, discipline, and experience, may not suggest some further methods to produce greater equality, friendship, virtue and happiness among men, is more than we can say.

But of this we are certain—Our blessed religion is every way calculated to assist the human mind in such enquiries. The freedom it gives to thought and enquiry, the blessings it promises to those who do good to mankind, and above all the amiable example of its divine Author who went about doing good, suggest the strongest motives to encourage and to provoke one another to such good works.

Thus in every view in which the interests of society are considered, it will be found that the religion we profess, the religion of Jesus Christ is adapted in all its parts to promote the good of the State: Or in the language of the text, The nature, genius, design, and spirit of it, is to do honor to God in the highest; and to promote peace on earth, and good will to men.

As a natural remark upon what has been said we may infer, That it is the indispensable duty of Society to encourage and promote religion. That the religion of the Gospel is founded in Truth, may be fairly inferred from its Utility. In all the sciences with which we are acquainted, whatever is true in practice, whatever succeeds in repeated experiments, we conclude is true in theory. The same methods of reasoning may be applied to moral subjects. And it is the conclusion of reason that that religion which is calculated to do the greatest good, has most of the spirit of truth, and is the most acceptable to God. ⁷ — And hence it is plainly our duty to take every lawful and prudent method in our power to promote the religion of God our Saviour. Youth should be trained up to reverence and regard the religion of their country. Seminaries of learning should explain and teach the great principles and doctrines of Nature and Grace. The ministers of religion should “preach, warning every man, and teaching every man in all wisdom; that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus.” Col. 1:28. The Christian magistrate should encourage this religion by his example, and protect the ministers and professors of it by law.

It has been made a question whether the civil magistrate, as such, ever ought to concern himself in matters of religion. So far as religion is a private thing, it ought to be viewed as a personal transaction between God and a devout soul. And in this respect society can have nothing to do with it. Of this nature is the right and exercise of private judgment and free enquiry, articles of faith, sentiments about discipline, ceremonies, forms, modes, and all matters that belong to the jurisdiction of conscience. Such things are and will be personal concerns: And the civil magistrate is not appointed or qualified, to judge or to act in them, for anybody but himself.—But religion is also a public concern. And so far as it is of a public nature, the State never was or can be without it; and therefore must unavoidably be concerned in it. A reverence to the Deity, public worship, and morality, are necessary to the existence and preservation of civil government. And hence an order of men will exist in every state, as public teachers of the people, and ministers of religion; whose conduct will greatly affect society: And the lowest light in which government can ever consider them is that of Custodes Morum, keepers of the morals of the people. And as to the support, restraint, or regulation that shall be necessary on their account, government must in all cases do what the public good requires. — I am sensible an endless scene of controversy may be raised about these matters by men whose business it is to defend their own interest and party. But in all such debates the only question that concerns the public, is What is right and best for society? And this ought always be determined, not by the narrow views, private interests, and intolerant spirit of religious parties, but by the general nature of Religion and Society.

The subject we have been considering may also serve to point out the wisdom and goodness of god in appointing the ministry of the gospel. That glorious Being who make known the most excellent religion, has also made provision that men may enjoy the blessings of it from one generation to another. With this view our Lord appointed pastors and teachers in his church to explain his religion, and to persuade men to embrace it. And no institution could be more necessary or beneficial to the interests of mankind. We cannot conceive how a church or a religion can exist without it. The body of mankind will always be in such a state, as to need constant instruction and persuasion in the things of religion. And nothing can be better suited to promote the interests of truth and virtue, than to have men trained up and devoted to their service. Men of serious minds and good abilities may be of great advantage to their brethren this way.

We rejoice My Brother, that you are found willing to devote yourself to this sacred office. A more useful one you could not have chosen. God grant it may be a happy one to you, and to your people. — Was there nothing more in the religion you are to teach than that it was designed to produce the greatest happiness among men on the earth, in this view it would be worthy of all acceptation. But you are sensible it has a greater and nobler object in view than this. The happiness, the blessedness it means to establish is a blessedness that will be imperfect and perpetual. Man is made for Immortality: His existence will reach out to futurity: It will take in, it will comprehend everlasting ages. And we are informed by unerring wisdom and truth, that our future state of existence will be happy or wretched according to our characters here. So that the great end and design of the religion of Jesus, is the greatest possible good an immortal creature is capable of receiving; —Perfect blessedness in that world and state where all will be eternal. And of this religion you are now to be a minister.

We doubt not, Sir, but that you find in your own heart such a regard to the religion of your Lord as that you can devote yourself to his service with great sincerity. But no good man will rest in any present attainments. The more you attain of the spirit of Christianity, the more you experience of the power of divine truth on your own heart, the more you resemble your great Lord and Master, the more pleasant you ministry will be to yourself, and the more profitable to your people.

You will be particularly careful that the doctrines you preach be the true doctrines of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. I do not mean to dictate to you on this point. I could easily give you an account of my own sentiments; and tell you what I believe to be the most important doctrines of the Gospel. But I never wish to see you pay an undue regard to the opinions of men. It has always been my advice that you should examine with caution indeed and with modesty, but with the greatest freedom in all religious matters. The cause of truth can never suffer by the most free enquiry. Let it therefore be your daily and your serious employment to study the holy Scriptures: And the doctrines which you there find, let these be the doctrines which you preach to others.

The success of your ministry, under God, will very much depend upon your conduct if you go before your people as an example to the believer in all the graces and duties of Christianity, the serious and sensible cannot but esteem you a good minister of Jesus Christ. But the want of seriousness, prudence, and steadiness, argues such a defect of judgment or lightness of character as nothing can excuse. Above all things be faithful to your God, to yourself, and to this people, that you may both save yourself and them that hear thee.

You must expect to meet with many difficulties and trials. Everything great and excellent will be attended with opposition. But you have many things to encourage and animate you. Your Lord has promised that he will be with you. And you are to labor in the best of all causes, that of truth and virtue. An ardor to promote this, distinguished those wise and great men in the heathen world, whose names have been handed down to us, attended with the ornaments of fame and glory. In this, Patriarchs and Prophets exerted themselves in the several periods of ancient time. This was the cause in which the Apostles of our Lord spent their days and their lives. In this the Angels of God have been employed : Yea and what is more, for this end the Son of God himself came down from heaven. — In such a cause what can be wanting to give firmness and to give dignity to the mind?

We ardently wish you the blessing of heaven in the whole course of your ministry. May you long go before this people as an example to the believer, their steady friend, and faithful minister. Be thou faithful unto death, and whatever may be your success, yet shall you be glorious in the eyes of the Lord, and your God shall be your strength.

Brethren of this Church and Society, we are now going at your request to ordain to the ministry a person who we trust will recommend himself more and more to your esteem. You must hear him with candor; you must encourage him with kindness; and have him highly in love for his works sake. The best way to profit by his ministry, is to keep up a serious sense of religion in your own hearts. No church can be under stronger obligations than you are to preserve the religion of Jesus pure and undefiled. Here those good men who came into this part of America for the sake of religion formed the first church. We reverence their memories: And when we look to their days, we cannot but admire the faith, virtue, and magnanimity, with which they were governed. It was their joy to see a church of Christ gathered in this land. But little did they imagine they were laying the foundation for a great and mighty empire: Or that the providence of God from so small beginnings would produce such important events as have already taken place. There is no instance in the history of mankind in which a regard to religion has produced such great and mighty effects: The grand errand into America ought never to be forgot. And you are distinguished among the churches of Christ in this land by the length of days, may you also be distinguished by the piety, the simplicity, the brotherly love, and the public spirit of ancient times.

We rejoice with you in your present prospects. May you and your minister prove mutual blessings here. And when your course shall be finished on the earth may you meet each other in that state where the good men of all ages shall be gathered, and where the spirits of the just shall be made perfect.

Permit me now, My Friends of this Assembly, to address you all on the things of you peace. There are times in which it may be expected that the minds of men should be roused up to attention to great and important objects. Such a time is present. God in his holy providence is now working wonders in the views of all mankind; and bringing about events which greatly concern our temporal interests. Every man ought to bear in mind that he is born to scenes infinitely greater, and more important than any you now behold. Yet a little while and the whole scene of temporal things will be no more. You will all be translated to another country; and you will enter upon an unchangeable state of existence. It is a matter of great moment whether you shall be poor or rich on the earth, in freedom or in bondage? And is it a matter of less concern whether you shalt be heirs of everlasting shame or glory? Is your state on the earth for a few fleeting years of such importance? And is it of less importance what shall be your state through endless ages?

Wherefore, my Hearers, as the ministry of reconciliation is committed to us, we beseech you in the most earnest manner, that you would attend in this your day to the things of your salvation. The only religion that will prove saving to you, is a believing, penitent, obedient submission to the Lord Jesus Christ. All that is sacred in religion, all that is valuable in nature, all that is eternal in duration should lead you to this. “For there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.” Acts 4. 12. — Be persuaded then, Brethren, to make a proper improvement of all the advantages you now enjoy. By attending to your duty to God, you will most effectually discharge your duty to yourselves, to your families, and to your country. It is from the men of principle and virtue that we must look for peace and happiness on the earth : and it is such only that will be received to glory another day. God of his infinite mercy grant that this may be the case with each one of you through Jesus Christ our Lord.

The CHARGE, by the Rev. Mr. Diman.As you Sir are, by the providence of God, called to the important work of the Ministry, and have signified your ready compliance with this call : We, as ministers of Christ, do now, in his name, solemnly separate and ordain you to the great work to which you are called. And we in a particular manner commit to your pastoral care the flock of Christ which usually meets in this house for divine worship.

And we solemnly charge you, before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, the great Shepherd and Bishop of souls, that you use your utmost endeavors faithfully to perform the duties of your office, and fully to discharge the important trust reposed in you. And that in order hereto, you give yourself to reading, meditation and prayer; that you study the holy scripture, and make them your rule — preach the word, not the doctrines and commandments of men. Be instant in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke and exhort with all long-suffering and doctrine. Study to shew yourself approved of God; a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

Administer the sacraments, baptism and the Lord’s supper to proper subjects. And dispense the discipline of the church according to Christ’s appointment, with prudence and impartiality fearing the face of no man; nor having any man’s peron in admiration because of advantage.

Finally we exhort and charge you to set a good example before your hearers : Pray and strive that the same mind may be in you that was in Christ. Follow his example, that your people may safely follow yours.

Thus we give you charge in the fight of god, and of Christ Jesus, who before Pontius Pilate, witnessed a good confession, that you keep this commandment without spot, unbreakable until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ.

And now Rev. and dear Sir, though we sincerely congratulate you on your being so happy as to have the unanimous suffrage of this people, in your present settlement with them; yet we thing it proper to caution you against depending too much on the long continuance of their esteem and affection. Many have had the same hopeful prospect that you now have, and have been disappointed. If some of those who now appear to be your warmest friends, should hereafter prove your worst enemies, it would be no more than what has happened in many instances, with respect to others. Not only common ministers, but inspired apostles have experienced this. The apostle Paul at his first preaching among the Galatians, was so greatly admired and beloved by them, that they would if it had been possible, have pulled out their eyes and given to him; yet their hearts were soon alienated from him, yea, and set against him; which caused him to expostulate with them saying, “Where is the blessedness which ye spake of? Am I become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?” Nay further, our blessed Saviour himself experienced it. They who seemed most joyfully to welcome him to Jerusalem, crying “hosanna to the son of David, blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord,” a few days after cryed out “crucify him, crucify him.”

If you dear Sir, should hereafter experience any treatment of this kind, thing not that some strange thing has happened to you. Be prepared for the worst: Arm yourself with fortitude and resolution: Fear God rather than man: Keep a good conscience, by keeping close to your duty: And if you thus secure the friendship of God, you need not fear what men can do to you. Their abuse of you will turn to your advantage. If you suffer with Christ, you will also be glorified with him.

Let not my Brethren of this flock of Christ, think that what I have now said, hath proceeded from any suspicion in me that they would be more likely than others, to treat their minister ill. This was far from my thoughts: I had in view the people at large, at this time of great degeneracy and wickedness. Now iniquity so greatly abounds, and the love of many is waxed so very cold: Now the Lord’s day is so shamefully profaned, and the ordinances of the Gospel neglected: Now the ministers of Christ, in general, are slighted, and many of them treated with cruel injustice, by being denied that support which was promised them, and to which they are entitled by the sacred law of God. By this means, some have been reduced to a state of poverty and distress, and then perhaps treated with still greater contempt, for their poverty, even by those who have brought it upon them. Some are treated ill by their hearers, as St. Paul was, because they tell them the truth; because they put them in mind of their wickedness and danger, and exhort them to repent and reform. Some prejudice their children and others against their ministers, not only by their hard speeches against them, but by refusing to attend their public performances; pretending that they can improve their time better at home. But alas, how do they improve it! How do they spend that precious time, which God, in mercy to us, hath set apart for those religious exercises whereby we may be trained up for another and better world? Perhaps in idleness or worldly business, and too often in that which is in itself sinful.

These I look upon to be some of the crying sins of the land, and what have a threatening aspect upon this people, and have therefore thought it a duty, on this occasion, to bear this public testimony against them. ⁸ If wickedness should increase much longer, as it has done a few years past, what shall we come to! Religion will be at an end, and consequently the well-being of this people: We can then expect nothing but destruction. My Brethren in the ministry, let us cry aloud and not spare: Let us shew the people their transgressions and sins—warn them of their danger, and exhort them to repent and reform, whether they will hear, or whether they will forbear. And if Israel be not gathered, and however ill we may be treated by wicked men, we shall be glorious in the eyes of the Lord.

My Brethren of this society, behold the man who, at your desire, hath now been solemnly set apart to the work of the ministry among you. You have manifested great regard for him; let not trifles—mere human infirmities abate it. Still esteem him highly in love for his work’s sake. Do all in your power to encourage his heart and strengthen his hands. Give him a sufficient support, that he may be as free as possible from all worldly cares: That he may give himself wholly to the work of the ministry, which we trust he is sincerely desirous to do. And may the Lord bless both him and you, and make you great mutual blessings. May you live in love and peace here, and at last meet and be happy together forever in God’s kingdom above. Amen.

The RIGHT HAND of FELLOWSHIP,
by the Rev. Mr. Barnard of Salem.MY KINGDOM IS NOT OF THIS WORLD, said Jesus the divine Author of Christianity. It is founded upon a nobler basis, and is indebted for its support, to worthier measures.

Interest, a rapacious thirst for conquest and extensive dominion have been in general, the governing principle of political bodies: Ever intent upon these favorite objects, their declarations of amity, and most applauded acts of kindness, have been but a mere disguise, which at the instant they could seize them, has been thrown aside. Sad has been the consequence! War attended with base violations of faith, and wanton acts of cruelty, has almost continually subsisted between them, and when peace has been established, even peace, has been but the prelude of renewed contention and calamity.

But the nobler principle, which the Prince of peace meant should actuate his body the Church, is Love—that gentleness of foul which soothes every turbulent passion, and generous sympathy with others, which influences us to do them the kindest services. How happy would have been the Christian community, had its members uniformly proved themselves the disciples of Jesus, by loving one another!

But alas! the spirit of this world has entered this sacred enclosure, and as its influence is ever the same, it has here produced the same unhappy effects. The Church of Christ has divided into sects, and with ungodly and inhuman zeal have the different parties aimed at the preeminence. Instead of uniting to maintain peace and love, amidst variety of sentiments, and to promote unfeigned piety and virtue, the grand design of its institution, their zeal has been spent about trifles in comparison: They have traduced, anathematized, and butchered each other for the sake of speculative principles, uninfluential upon practice, and forms and ceremonies, which can never make men like to God.

The Right Hand of Fellowship, on such occasions as the present, I suppose was designed as evidential of a temper, opposite to that of party and private interest, and disposed to encourage every good man who takes upon himself the office of a Christian minister: This part of the solemnity of the day has been devolved upon me, by the council now convened.

I do therefore, DEAR BROTHER, give you this RIGHT HAND, in their name, as a testimony of our unfeigned friendship for you, and readiness to serve you, as a minister of Jesus. This HAND is given you not as a deceitful compliment according to the spirit of this world. But in sincerity and truth, which are the glory of the Christian character. This act you may esteem a most solemn declaration on our part, that you shall have a place near our hearts, and that we will improve every opportunity to serve you, while you, endeavor on yours, to promote the great interests of mankind by your Christian doctrines and example, which is the great end of your office; while you keep yourself distant from the spirit of party, and aim not by mean and ungodly arts to build up your own interest with the consistency and dignity of a good man and a Christian, we wish you, BROTHER, the best of divine blessings. May you in this state, in every thing respectable whom you succeed in this desk: And in that which is coming may you receive the plaudit of your Judge, and a crown of immortal glory.

My brethren of this Church, I feel happy this day, that as God in his wise providence, has seen fit to deprive you of the labors of your late Pastor, who was uncommonly dear to you: He has also seen fit so intimately to connect you with a person of Mr. Prince’s fine temper and respectable abilities. But I feel peculiarly so, when I consider, that this event unites our Churches together, which were originally of the same body in every Christian office of love and friendship.

May this divine temper be cherished by us with constant care, and diffuse itself through all our churches, that this town may be eminently a City of peace and love.

Endnotes

1 Verse 8, 9, 10, 11, and 13.

2 Littleton.

3 Dr. Price.

4 Montesquieu.

5 “Every thing tends to this point: The progress of good in the new hemisphere, and the progress of evil in the old. In proportion as our people are weakened, and resign themselves to each other’s dominion, population and agriculture will flourish in America; and the arts make a rapid progress: And that country rising out of nothing, will be fired with the ambition of appearing with glory in its turn on the face of the globe. O posterity! Ye peradventure will be more happy than your unfortunate and contemptible ancestors.” Abbe Raynal.

6 Let us set before our eyes, on the one hand, the continual massacres of the kings and generals of the Greeks and Romans; and, on the other, the destruction of people and cities by those famous conquerors—who ravaged Asia and we shall see, that we owe to Christianity, in government , a certain political law; and in war, a certain law of nations; benefits which human nature can never sufficiently acknowledge.” Montesquieu.

7 “Haec est Christianismi regula, haec illius exacta defer itio, hic vertex supra omnia eminens, publicae utilitati consulere.” Chrysostom.

8 What did our Saviour mention, in his lamentation over Jerusalem, as the grand procuring cause of their approaching destruction, but their ill treatment of the ministers of religion? Mat. 23: 37. O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, &c.

Sermon – Liberty – 1775

The Rev. Jacob Duche´ (1737-98) was born in Pennsylvania, a descendant of Huguenots who immigrated to America with William Penn. He attended the College of Philadelphia (graduated in 1757) and the University of Cambridge in England. He was made rector of Christ Church in Philadelphia in 1775. Rev. Duche´ was the minister who prayed the famous First Prayer for the 1st Congress in September of 1774, a prayer that deeply impacted those present, including John Adams. While strongly supportive of liberty at the beginning of the Revolutionary War (he even served as Chaplain of Congress), Duche´ gave up hope for the patriot cause after Philadelphia was lost to the British. He brought great dishonor upon himself by sending a letter to George Washington in 1777 urging that the Declaration of Independence be rescinded, which eventually resulted in him being declared a traitor. Even though Rev. Duche´ was later disgraced, his message in this sermon is a powerful and compelling presentation of the liberty Christ provides His people, and the clear application of that liberty to the civil arena.

The Duty of Standing Fast
In Our Spiritual and Temporal
LIBERTIES,

A
SERMON,
Preached in Christ-Church,
July 7th, 1775.

Before the First Battalion of the City
and Liberties of Philadelphia;

And now published at their Request.

By the Reverend
Jacob Duche´, M. A.

Galatians, Chap. 5 Part of First Verse. Stand fast, therefore, in the Liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free.

Gentlemen of the First Battalion of the City and Liberties of Philadelphia,

Though I readily accepted of the invitation, with which you were pleased to honor me, and am fully satisfied that there can be no impropriety in complying with your request, yet I confess, that I now feel such an uncommon degree of diffidence, as nothing but a sense of duty, and a sincere sympathy with you in your present trying circumstances could enable me to overcome. The occasion is of the first importance: the subject in a great measure new to me – Throwing myself, therefore, upon your candor and indulgence, considering myself under the twofold character of a minister of Jesus Christ, and a fellow-citizen of the same state, and involved in the same public calamity with yourselves; and looking up for counsel and direction to the source of all wisdom, “who giveth liberally to those that ask it” – I have made choice of a passage of scripture, which will give me an opportunity of addressing myself to you as freemen, both in the spiritual and temporal sense of the word, and of suggesting to you such a mode of conduct, as will be most likely, under the blessing of Heaven, to ensure to you the enjoyment of these two kinds of liberty. Stand fast, therefore, in the liberty, wherewith Christ hath made us free.

The inspired Author of this excellent admonition was so sensible of the invaluable blessings and comforts that resulted from that free spirit, with which Jesus Christ through His ministry, had established his Galatian converts, that he was jealous of the least attempt to destroy or even obstruct in them its life-giving operation. He could not brook the narrow spirit of those Judaizing Christians, who, from the most selfish and illiberal motives, sought to force a yoke upon the necks of their Gentile brethren, which neither they themselves nor their fathers had been able to bear. These Gentiles too he severely reproves for not maintaining their ground, and asserting their Gospel freedom against the insidious devices of their brethren who only wanted to bring them into servitude, “that they might glory in their flesh.” – “O foolish Galatians! Who hath bewitched you?” He ascribes their blindness and infatuation to some diabolical charm, which had locked up the powers of their free-born spirits, and made them tamely submit to slavish, carnal ordinances, which the Gospel of Jesus had entirely exploded and abolished. He reminds them, by a spirited explication of a most striking allegory, that they were not “Children of the bond-woman, but of the free;” that their observance of the ceremonial law was a tribute, which they were not bound to pay; or, if they should be so weak as to submit to it, that it could not emancipate them from the bondage of earth and hell; but that their real freedom, their full and complete justification, their happiness temporal and eternal were only to be acquired by a vigorous exertion of those spiritual powers within themselves, which, through the riches of God’s free grace in Christ Jesus, had been communicated to their souls. He concludes this part of his address with the truly noble and apostolical precept of my text: Stand fast, therefore, in the liberty, wherewith Christ hath made us free.

Having thus briefly opened the occasion and meaning of the words, I shall proceed to show, in the first place, what we are to understand by that spiritual liberty, “wherewith Christ hat made us free,” and what kind of conduct that must be, which is here expressed by the words “stand fast.”

I. However sever, my dear brethren, the loss of our temporal liberties may be, there is certainly a bondage far more severe than this, yea, far more cruel, than that of Israel under their Egyptian task-masters. A bondage, not only to men, but to the fallen spirits of darkness, seeking to exercise over us a joint power and dominion with our own irregular and corrupt passions. A bondage universal, from which no son of Adam hat ever been exempt; a tyranny, whose baleful influences have been felt from the fall of man down to this very day. It has seized not only upon the body, but upon the soul. It has erected its throne in the heart, and from thence imposes its arbitrary decrees. It is confined to no age or sex, no state or condition of human life. High and low, learned and unlearned, the savage and the sage, are alike the victims of this despotic power, alike slaves by nature under this bondage of corruption.

It is perpetually manifesting itself under a variety of forms, according to our prevailing desires and pursuits. It follows us into the Sanctuary of God. It steals into our private devotions. It gives a pharisaical tincture to our best good works. It reigns as a matter and absolute sovereign in the wicked and unregenerate. Yea, it frequently enters the most spiritual and regenerate hearts in hostile form, and seeks to shake their confidence in the goodness of their true and rightful Sovereign, and their humble hope of deliverance through the redeeming power of His ever blessed Son.

Now, who would not wish to be delivered from such a bondage as this? And yet, my brethren, such a wish cannot be formed, ’till, by divine grace, the freeborn powers of the soul are brought to be sensible of their burden, and to groan beneath the weight of oppression. “The whole (or they that think themselves whole) need not a physician, but they that are sick.” The madman hugs his chains, as if they were ensigns of royalty. Insensible of his calamity, he cannot even wish for relief.

But no sooner does the child of grace, the offspring of Heaven come to feel the bondage of the infernal usurper; no sooner does he find himself harassed and oppressed by the obedience which he exacts to his unrighteous laws; no sooner is he convinced, that such an obedience must terminate in ever-lasting slavery and wretchedness, than he awakens from his sleep of security, and turns to and avails himself of that light, and strength, and spiritual courage and constancy, which his Redeemer is ever at hand to impart, and without which he feels himself absolutely unequal to the conflict, and incapable of extricating himself from the ignoble servitude.

From hence then it appears, that the liberty, with which Christ hath made us free, is nothing less than such a release from the arbitrary power of sin, such an enlargement of the soul by the efficacy of divine grace, and such a total surrender of the will and affections, to the influence and guidance of the divine Spirit, (“for we are made a willing people in the day of God’s power”) as will enable us to live in the habitual cheerful practice of every grace and virtue here, and qualify us for the free, full and uninterrupted enjoyment of heavenly life and liberty hereafter.

These glorious privileges being once obtained, the sinner being once justified, and adopted into the family of God, and having received the seal of his heavenly citizenship, the conduct recommended to him in my text as the most effectual for the preservation of these privileges, is here expressed by the words “stand fast:” that is to say:

“Maintain, firm and unshaken, the ground which Christ hath given you. Be ever vigilant and prepared against the open or insidious attacks of your adversary.”

He is not commanded to march upon the Devil’s ground, to seek out the tempter or the temptation, in order to make a trial of his strength, or merely that he may have the honor of a victory: But only to “stand fast,’ to act upon the defensive, and armed at all points with a celestial panoply, to be ready to resist and repel the most daring attempts of his perfidious foe: As well knowing, that if he suffers himself to be taken captive, slavery and woe must be his everlasting portion; but, if he comes off conqueror from the conflict, that the life, liberty and joys of Heaven will be his everlasting reward.

Thus far have I traveled in a well known path, and spoken a language familiar to most of you, and which you have long been accustomed to hear from this pulpit.

II. I am now to strike into another path, which, though it may not always terminate in such glorious sense of never-ending felicity as the former, yet, if steadfastly pursued, will conduct the sons of men to an happiness, of an inferior kind indeed, but highly necessary to their present temporary state of existence in this world.

If spiritual liberty calls upon its pious votaries to extend their views far forward to a glorious hereafter, civil liberty must at least be allowed to secure, in a considerable degree, our well-being here. And I believe it will be no difficult matter to prove, that the latter is as much the gift of God in Christ Jesus as the former, and consequently, that we are bound to stand fast in our civil as well as our spiritual freedom.

From what hath been said under my first head of discourse, I think it must appear, that liberty, traced to her true source, is of heavenly extraction, that divine Virtue is her illustrious parent, that from eternity to eternity they have been and must be inseparable companions, and that the hearts of all intelligent beings are the living temples, in which they ought to be jointly worshipped.

We have the authority of divine Revelation to assert, that this globe of earth was once the favored spot, on which she was sent to reside, and that the first man felt and enjoyed her divine influence within and around him. But the same Revelation tells us, what our own experience cannot but confirm, that when man lost his virtue, he lost his liberty too; and from that fatal period, became subject to the bondage of corruption, the slave of irregular passions, at war with himself and his own species, an alien form his native country, a sorrowful stranger and a weary pilgrim in this world of woe.

It was not only to put him into a capacity of regaining his forfeited heavenly bliss, but to mitigate, likewise, the sorrows of his earthly sojourn, that he everlasting Jesus, in and by whom God originally created man, vouchsafed to communicate to him, when fallen, a ray of hope, a spark of heavenly light, wisdom, power and goodness, by which, through the effectual workings of his grace, he might, in future time, inspire him and his hapless posterity with such principles as would lead them to know, contend for and enjoy liberty in its largest, noblest extent.

Whatever of order, truth, equity and good government is to be found among the sons of men, they are solely indebted for to this everlasting Counselor, This Prince of Peace. By nature surrounded with innumerable wants, which his own single unassisted hand could by no means supply, exposed to innumerable dangers, which his utmost strength and sharpest foresight could not possibly ward off, it must surely have been this wisdom of the Father, that first taught man, by social compact, to secure to himself the possession of those necessaries and comforts, which are so dear and valuable to his natural life. And though no particular mode of government is pointed out to us in his holy gospel, yet the benevolent spirit of that gospel is directly opposed to every other form, than such as his the common good of mankind for its end and aim.

Now this common good is matter of common feeling. And hence it is, that our best writers, moral and political, as well clergy as laity, have asserted, that true government can have no other foundation than common consent. ‘Tis the power, the wisdom, the majesty of the people committed to one, to a few, or to many – yea, in some hitherto favored states, the one, the few, and the many, have been entrusted together, that they might mutually control and be controlled by each other.

Inasmuch, therefore, as this solemn delegation was intended for the good of the whole; inasmuch as all rulers are in fact the servants of the public, and appointed for no other purpose than to be “a terror to evil-doers, and a praise to them that do well, whenever this divine order is inverted, whenever these rulers abuse their sacred trust, by unrighteous attempts to injure, oppress, and enslave those very persons, from whom alone, under God, their power is derived – does not humanity, does not reason, does not scripture call upon the man, the citizen, the Christian of a community to “stand fast in that liberty wherewith Christ (in their very birth, as well as by succeeding appointments of His providence) hath made them free?”

The Apostle enjoins us to “submit to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake.” But surely a submission to the unrighteous ordinances of unrighteous men, cannot be “For the Lord’s sake: For “he loveth righteousness, and His countenance beholds the things that are just.”

Possessed, therefore, of these principles – principles, upon which the present constitution of Britain was happily settled at one of her most glorious and memorable areas, and upon which alone it can still be supported – Possessed of these principles, I trust it will be no difficult matter to satisfy your consciences with respect to the righteousness of the cause, in which you are now engaged.

The struggle, ’tis true, is an unnatural one. The hard necessity of standing upon our defense against our brethren, children of the same family, educated in the same manners, the same religion with ourselves, bound together by a long reciprocation of endearing offices, by a long participation of common blessings, and of common dangers and distresses, mutually protecting and protected by each other. – The had necessity, I say, of defending ourselves, our just and undoubted rights against such unnatural adversaries, (though sadly to be lamented, as one of the heaviest judgments with which Heaven could visit us for our iniquities) ought not, however, to make us surrender a discretion, or discourage us from “standing fast in that liberty, wherewith Christ (as the great providential Governor of the world) hath made us free.”

We venerate the parent land from whence our progenitors came. We wish to look up to her as the guardian, not the invader of her children’s rights. We glory in the name of children – And children too, that have arrived at years of discretion.

But, if we are to judge from the late ungenerous and ill-digested plans of policy, which have been adopted by those whom she hath entrusted with the powers of administration, we cannot but think, that they began to be jealous of our rising glory, and, from an ill-grounded apprehension of our aiming at independency, were desirous of checking our growth.

Yet why this unseasonable and unrighteous jealousy? – We wish not to interfere with that commercial system, which they have hitherto pursued. We have not even stretched our expectations beyond the line, which they themselves had drawn. We wish not to possess the golden groves of Asia, to sparkle in the public eye with jewels torn from the brows of weeping Nabobs, or to riot on the spoils of plundered provinces ¹

We rather tremble for the parent state, and would fain keep off from our own borders, those luxuries, which may perhaps already have impaired her constitutional vigor. We only wish, that what we have, we may be able to call our own; that those fruits of honest industry, which our ancestors had acquired, or those which have been, or may be added to them by the sweat of our own brows, should not be wrested from us by the hand of violence, but left to our own free disposal’ satisfied as we are in our consciences, that when constitutionally called upon, we shall not give “grudgingly of necessity”, but cheerfully and liberally.

And as to any pretensions to, or even desire of independency, have we not openly disavowed them in all our petitions, representations and remonstrances? Have we not repeatedly and solemnly professed an inviolable loyalty to the person, power and dignity of our sovereign, and unanimously declared, that it is not with him we contend, but with an envious cloud of false witnesses, that surround his throne, and intercept the sunshine of his favor from our oppressed land?

If, notwithstanding all this, Britain or rather some degenerate sons of Britain, and enemies to our common liberty, still persist in embracing a delusion, and believing a lie – if the sword is still unsheathed against us, and submit or perish is the sanguinary decree – why then ––––––––––––––– I cannot close the sentence – Indulge a minster of Jesus! – My soul shrinks back with horror from the tragic scene of fraternal slaughter – and the free spirit of the citizen is arrester by the tenderness of gospel love – Gracious God! stop the precious effusion of British and American blood – too precious to be spare in any other cause than the joint interest of both against a common foe!

Pained, as I am at this melancholy prospect, I mean not, however, to decline addressing you in your military capacity, and suggesting such a conduct for the preservation of your temporal rights, as by the blessing of Heaven, will be most likely to ensure your success.

“STAND FAST” then

I. “Stand Fast” by a strong faith and dependence upon Jesus Christ, the great Captain of your salvation. Enlist under the banner of His cross. And let this motto be written upon your hearts, IN HOC SIGNO VINCES, “UNDER THIS STANDARD THOU SHALT OVERCOME.”

II. “Stand Fast” by a virtuous and unshaken unanimity. Of such an unanimity, you have a most striking example now before your eyes – three millions of people, or a vast majority of them, bound by no other ties than those of honor and public virtue, voluntarily submitting to the wise political determinations of an honorable Council of Delegates assembled by their own free and unbiased choice. Avail yourselves of this illustrious example. Be unanimous in your particular department. And as one refractory spirit may defeat the best-devised plan of operations, and throw your whole corps into confusion, see that this unanimity be productive of a just and becoming subordination.

Remember, the gentlemen who command you are your neighbors, friends and fellow-citizens, who have their ALL at stake as well as you. Their authority has not been imposed upon you. They were invested with it by yourselves. ‘Tis surely your part then to support them in the just execution of it; not doubting, but that on their part they will always consider, that they are not called to lord it over mercenaries, but affectionately to command freemen and fellow-sufferers. Accustom yourselves, therefore, to discipline now; or else, when the day of trial comes, (which Heaven avert!) you will too late lament your unhappy neglect.

III. “Stand Fast” by an undaunted courage and magnanimity. And here give me leave to remind you, that there is a kind of courage, which seems to be merely animal or constitutional. – This may stand a soldier in good stead perhaps for a few moments amid the heat of battle, when his blood and spirits are set on fire by the warlike sound of drums and trumpets. But I would have you possessed of more than this, even a courage that will prove you to be good Christians, as well as soldiers, a firm invincible fortitude of soul, founded upon religion, and the glorious hope of a better world; a courage, that will enable you not only to withstand an armed phalanx, to pierce a squadron, or force an entrenchment, when the cause of virtue and your country calls you to such a service, but will support you, likewise, against the principalities and powers of darkness, will stand by you under to assaults of pain and sickness, and give you firmness and consolation amid all the horrors of a death-bed scene.

Such a courage as this too will always be tempered with prudence, humanity, and greatness of soul. It will never degenerate into savage cruelty and barbarity. If to spread undistinguishing ruin and devastation through a country; if with more than Gothic rage, to break into the sweet retreats of domestic felicity and drive the aged and the helpless from their once quiet habitations ––– O my God! If this be heroism, if this be military virtue – suffer not our people to learn the destructive art. Let them rather continue to be injured and oppressed themselves, than taught thus wantonly to injure and oppress others. This caution, however, is unnecessary to you. Permit me, then only to observe, that in our present circumstances, we contend not for victory, but for liberty and peace.

Nor let me dismiss this head of advice without reminding you of the glorious stand that hath been already made for us by our northern brethren, and calling upon you to thank Heaven for his great and gracious interposition. Surely “the Lord of Hosts was with them” – surely “the God of Jacob was their refuge.” –––– Drop a pious tear to the memory of the illustrious slain – and let them yet live in the annals of American freedom.

Lastly, “Stand Fast” by a steady constancy and perseverance. Difficulties unlooked for may yet arise, and trials present themselves sufficient to shake the utmost firmness of human fortitude. Be prepared, therefore, for the worst. Suffer not your spirits to evaporate by too violent an ebullition now. Be not too eager to bring matters to an extremity; lest you should be wearied out by a continued exertion, and your constancy should fail you at the most important crisis. Coolly and deliberately wait for those events which are in the hands of providence, and depend upon him alone for strength and expedients suited to your necessities.

In a word, my brethren – though the worst should come – though we should be deprived of all the conveniences and elegancies of life – though we should be cut off from all our usual sources of commerce, and constrained, as many of our poor brethren have already been, to abandon our present comfortable habitations – let us, nevertheless, “Stand Fast” as the guardians of liberty – And though we should not be able to entertain the Heaven-born maid, with such affluence and splendor, as we have hitherto done, let us still keep close to her side, as our inseparable companion, preserve her from the violence of her adversaries, and, if at last necessary, be content to retire with her to those peaceful, though homely retreats of rural life, in which she was first entertained by our venerable ancestors – determined to contend to the very last for such an illustrious prize, and never to part with her, but for the more sure and complete enjoyment of her blessings in a world of glory.

“NOW, THEREFORE, BE STRONG, O ZERUBBABEL, AND BE STRONG, O JOSHUA, THE SON OF JOSEDECH THE HIGH-PRIEST, AND BE STRONG, O YE Counselors, Generals, and PEOPLE OF THE LAND; FOR I AM WITH YOU, SAITH THE LORD OF HOSTS. —LOOK YE UNTO ME, AND BE SAVED, ALL YE ENDS OF THE EARTH!” Even so, grant, thou great and glorious God, that to thee only we may look, and from thee experience that deliverance, which we ask, not for any merits of our own, but for the sake and through the merits of the dear Son of thy love CHRIST JESUS our Lord! To whom, with thee, O FATHER, and thee O BLESSED SPIRIT! Three persons in one eternal God, be ascribed all honor, praise and dominion now, henceforth, and forever!

F I N I S

NOTES

[1]
Here perhaps it may be objected, that the Americans do with a very ill grace censure their English brethren, either for their iniquitous conquests in Asia, or for the luxuries thereby introduced among them, whilst they themselves are rioting upon the labor of thousands of their own species, torn away from their native retreats, from their dearest relations and friends, and doomed to a most abject and perpetual slavery –

In answer to this objection it may be asked – Where did this infamous commerce originate? And where is it still carried on with all the eagerness which avarice can inspire? Where, but in England? – By what means can it be abolished? Surely by that power alone, which America acknowledges the parent state may justly exercise over all her dominions, viz. the power of regulating their trade? –

Is it not well known, that the legislatures of some of the colonies have done what they could to put a stop to the importation of African slaves, by loading it with the heaviest duties? And that others have attempted the total abolition of it, by acts of assembly, which their Governor refused to pass, have then petitioned the parent state for new instructions to their Governors on this head, and after all, have failed of success?

It is however, devoutly to be wished, that when a happy reconciliation once takes place, this poisonous branch may entirely be shut out, before our great commercial stream becomes so infected by the contagion, as to endanger the health and security of the whole empire.

Explore

Engage

Initiatives

Jeremiah 17:9 – The Constitutional Separation of Powers

Endnotes

1. Where does the phrase “Separation of Church and State” originate?4

2. What Does the Constitution Actually Say?

3. Faith has been part of American public Society for over 180 years.

Endnotes

Overview

The American Experience on Religious Conscience

Colonial Era

Revolutionary Era

Federal Era

Founding Fathers

Modern Era

Conclusion

Endnotes

Defining a Christian Nation

American Presidents Affirm that America is a Christian Nation

The U. S. Congress Affirms that America is a Christian Nation

The Judicial Branch Affirms that America is a Christian Nation

American Jewish Leaders Agree with History

Endnotes

Endnotes

QUICK LINKS

OTHER LINKS

SOCIAL LINKS

Explore

Engage

Initiatives

1. Where does the phrase “Separation of Church and State” originate?⁴