Sermon – Fasting – 1798


John Prince was the pastor of the First Church in Salem (1779-1836), and a witness to the Boston Tea Party. He preached the following sermon on May 9, 1798, the national day of fasting proclaimed by President John Adams.


sermon-fasting-1798-5

A

DISCOURSE,

DELIVERED AT

Salem,

ON THE DAY OF THE

NATIONAL FAST,

MAY 9, 1798;

APPOINTED BY

PRESIDENT ADAMS,

On account of the difficulties subsisting between the United States and France

BY JOHN PRINCE, L.L.D
Minister of the First Congregational Society in Salem

1 Timothy, ii. 1, 2, 3.

I exhort therefore that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men for kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life, in all godliness and honesty. For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour.

St. Paul, in these words, addressed to Timothy, a Christian minister, points out the duty of praying for civil magistrates; exhorts him to teach it to his hearers, and set an example of it in his own public performances. By the words “first of all,” he seems to consider it as an essential duty of Christians to pray “for all men;” and by “giving of thanks,” that Christians should feel interested in the happiness of their fellow men, and bear on their hearts and tongues a thankful remembrance and acknowledgment of God’s favours to them. They should consider mankind in the extensive view of brethren, deriving their existence from one common Parent, enjoying his common blessings, and living under his providential government. Having spoken of the duty generally, he proceeds to a particular description of characters to be prayed for: they should pray “for kings and all that are in authority;” that is for the supreme magistrate, and all inferior and subordinate officers who hole the power and authority of government under him. The whole civil government is to be the subject of prayers, supplications, and intercessions; that it may be justly and wisely administered so that all the people, who live under it, may “lead quiet and peaceable lives, in all godliness and honesty.” Such effects of the administration of government will naturally make it the subject of thanksgiving : for the peaceable enjoyment of life and property, under the protection of good laws, is the greatest temporal blessing mankind can have.

As the gospel is designed to promote the happiness of man, both in this life and that which is to come, it furnishes him with such sentiments, and enjoins such duties on him, as are adapted to his present and future condition. While it teaches a spiritual obedience to Christ, with an ultimate view to his future, glorious kingdom, it also enjoins a temporal obedience to the civil magistrate, and the laws of society, as necessary to the present happiness of mankind.

CHRISTIANITY is friendly to all those social and civil institutions of men, which are calculated to promote their improvement and happiness, notwithstanding all that has been said by its enemies to bring it into disrepute and discredit, by representing it as a system of superstition, inimical to the true enjoyments of life: and I may add, notwithstanding all that has been done, by its mistaken friends, to force it upon unbelievers, by such cruel means as have betrayed the want of that humanity it so strongly recommends. This divine religion breathes the spirit of pure philanthropy, and inculcates the precepts of social life. It forbids no pleasure which can be innocently and safely pursued: it lays no restrictions but what are beneficial to men : and it cultivates to the highest degree that virtuous temper and conduct which are essential to the well being of society. 1

But however excellent this system appears in itself, when examined apart from those absurd dogmas, which have at times been incorporated with its pure and benevolent doctrines, when separated from the erroneous and wicked conduct of some of its professors, it has never the less met with opposition. However well adapted its principles are to the real wants and condition of men, it has always had its enemies, who have opposed its progress in the world. These enemies have either been men who were “too wise in their own conceits” to relish the plainness and simplicity of the gospel; or too ignorant and weak to break over the pale of prejudice, and venture upon a new ground of faith; or such as were too corrupt and vicious to be pleased with the purity of its doctrines and precepts, and to submit to its restriction. Though this light has come into the world, some men love their own darkness rather than this light, because their deeds are evil. And as long as the eyes and actions of men are evil, they will neither look upon Christianity with pleasure, nor love its pure and holy precepts; but they will rather slander this religion, which condemns their principles and conduct.

When the Gospel was first preached by Christ and His apostles, mankind were sunk in the grossest corruption of error and wickedness; as St. Paul informs us in the beginning of his epistle to the Romans. Addressed to such men, it is not surprising that it meant with violent opposition from the prejudices of some and the wickedness of others, that it was early exposed to persecution; ant that attempts were made to crush it in its infancy. The enemies of Christianity have attempted this, by calumniating its doctrines, and charging it with false principles; and by ascribing other views and aims to its teachers than what they avowed. It was declared to be unfriendly to the civil institutions. The zealots of other religions endeavoured to prejudice the civil rulers against it, that they might use their power to destroy it. They insinuated, that its doctrines tended to subvert civil government to weaken the respect of men for their rulers, and sap the foundation of their authority. This art was early practiced by the insidious enemies of the gospel, to create alarms in the government against it, and excite opposition to it, and it has often been used since.

If we look back in the history of Christianity to the life of its blessed founder, the peaceable an pious Jesus, we shall see an artful snare laid by His enemies to betray Him into a treasonable conversation, in order to expose him to the jealousy and power of the Roman government. By the wisdom of his teaching, and the manner of his life, he had attracted the notice of the learned and unlearned of his own nation. The Jewish rulers saw that he was setting himself up as a leader of a new sect; that he supported his doctrines with irresistible arguments; exposed and condemned their errors and vices with boldness, and great plainness of speech. They were alarmed by his discourses, which unveiled to the multitude their corruption, wickedness and hypocrisy; and they sought to ruin him. When he delivered some parables, which the Pharasees supposed to be aimed at them, as a censure upon their profession and conduct they “went and took counsel together how they might entangle him in his talk.” They sent some of their disciples, with the Herodians, to propose such questions to him as might draw something from him that would expose him to the Roman government. These disciples began their attack in an insidious manner. They first paid him some flattering compliments upon his integrity and independence; observing, that he was not afraid to speak the truth, and declare his sentiments boldly. Then they put his question to him : “Tell us, what thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute to Cesar, or not? But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites?” He requested to see the tribute money, and finding upon it the stamp of Cesars image, he said to them, “Render unto Cesar the things which are Cesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s.” By this answer he avoided the snare that was laid for him’ shewed to the people he had no intention of opposing the civil government himself under which he live, or of exciting them to rebellion. On the contrary, he taught them submission in the payment of their taxes; that they ought to do such things as were necessary for the support of government, as well as those which related immediately to God. His enemies were confounded by his answer, and left him. But it shews, that he did not mean to intermeddle with the political affairs of the world at that time, or make any change in them by the exercise of his power, or encourage a spirit of revolt in the Jews. When they would have made him a king, he avoided the intended honour by retiring from them; and when he was requested by one to use his influence to procure the division of an estate, he answered, “Man, who made me a judge or a divider over you?” How false then was the accusation brought against him by his enemies before Pilate! “We found this fellow perverting the nation and forbidding to give tribute to Cesar; saying, that he himself is Christ, a king.” and how can it be said that Christianity is inimical to government, and seeks to establish and exalt itself upon its ruins? An abominable superstition, under its borrowed name may have aimed at this; but not the religion of Jesus Christ. His own preaching and example give the lie to the calumny.

If from the Gospel we turn to the writings of the apostles , we shall find the same disposition manifested with respect to civil government; the same exhortations to a compliance with the duties we owe to it. “let every soul be subject to the higher powers,” says the apostle Paul; “for rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. For he (the ruler) is the minister of God to thee for good.” The apostle seems evidently to speak here of that government which is so constituted and administer as to promote the good of the governed; which is for the praise and encouragement of its good subjects, and the punishment of the bad. “Do that which is good,” says he, “and thou shalt have praise of the power; but if thou do that which is evil, be afraid.” Such “powers are ordained of God.” They are constituted for the happiness of mankind : and to such, Christianity teaches us a dutiful submission. “Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.”

The Gospel was set forth to the Jewish converts to Christianity as a “law of liberty,” because it freed them from the observance of the mosaical institutions, which were burdensome. These converts, or some mistaken men among them, might conclude, that by becoming Christians they were likewise exempt from obedience to the civil magistrate and were bound only by the institutions of Christ. This might occasion the apostles writing so explicitly on the subject of civil obedience. But whatever right they had as men to remonstrate against unjust and oppressive measures of government, or oppose tyranny, Christianity gave them no particular command to refuse obedience in matters merely civil. It forbad a compliance with the institutions respecting idol-worship, because this was incompatible with the worship of the true God: and no civil magistrate had a right to impose on any man the performance of an act so contrary to that religious service he owes to God, as his first duty. But in civil matters the apostles, after the example of their divine Master, often enjoined obedience to the ruling power; and taught Christians, that their coming under the authority of Christ, as their spiritual prince, did not destroy their allegiance to their temporal sovereign, nor cancel their obligations to obey his commands, in anything not contrary to the laws of God, which indeed had a prior claim upon them.

Thus we see that the Gospel of Christ is not the enemy of civil government; neither is it to any of those social institutions which are beneficial to man. It also enjoins the observance of all the social duties of life, which arise out to the relation of husband and wife, parent and child, master and servant, friend and neighbor; extending good will and good offices to all mankind.

I have been led to make these observations to you, my hearers, on Christianity, as it relates to social and civil life; because much has been said to vilify it, and represent it as unfriendly to it. I have noticed the conduct and arts of its enemies in former times, that you may compare them with the conduct of its present virulent opposers, and see their views. Do they tell you it is hostile to the rights of mankind; that it binds them in servitude, and denies them the real enjoyments of life; this is only to apologize for their own libertinism and licentiousness, and to make you as corrupt as themselves. Look to their conduct, and see what that liberty is they propose you should enjoy by its destruction. Look to the liberty which the gospel warrants you to exercise, and see if any thing beyond it can be indulged with safety to the common interest of society, to the virtue and happiness of mankind. Do these opposers of the Christian religion declare that it is inimical to a free and good government; and that it is the aid and engine of tyranny – if they mean by it a system of superstition which has adopted the name of Christianity, but discarded or violated its principles, it is not answerable for the abuse or the wickedness of that superstition. These have arisen from the corrupted heart of man, and not from Christianity, which is designed to correct that corruption – And it may be asked what do the enemies of Christianity propose in its stead, better, or so well, adapted to oppose that corruption, or guard mankind against its effects? Has the experiment, as far as it has been tried hitherto, by those who have discarded it, produced any more virtue, social order, and happiness, than the pure and unadulterated religion of Jesus Christ has, where this has been the rule of sincere faith and practice? I leave its enemies to answer. But whenever they decry this religion as set forth in the new testament by Christ and his apostles, declaring in to be inimical to good government, and the social enjoyments of life, you have, in your own experience, the confutation of the calumny, and just ground to mistrust their apparently good intentions towards you. Do they not mean by such insinuations to delude you with respect to their own political views and conduct – to lessen the energies of religion in support of a free and upright government, that you may not be “subject for conscience sake;” but that you may be more easily brought to submit to their domination; to that system of arbitrary power and universal dominion they are aiming to establish upon the ruins of religion and virtue? For who are the open and avowed opposers of Christianity? Are they not those men who are endeavouring to put down all rule and all authority in every nation, that their will and power alone may govern the world?

Upon this day then of humiliation and prayer let us pray for the preservation and continuance of our religious privileges; that the gospel may remain to us, and its sacred truths be our guide. It may be asked, are we in any danger of losing it? I answer, it has been attacked by men of the above description: And although the gospel has not been put down by absolute authority in the revolutionized countries, the same insidious arts have been used to prejudice mankind against it, as against the ancient government, to work the same ruin. The abuses of Christianity have been brought to criminate the gospel itself; and the sacred scriptures have been treated, not only with contempt, but with the vilest insult. The enemies of Christianity have succeeded too far elsewhere, by their insidious arts, not to create cautionary alarms in us. The means they use, though apparently weak, are powerful when aided by the corruption of the human heart, and the tempting pleasures of sensuality. If any means appear contemptible in a previous view, yet if they prove successful in the experiment, they become important if, the object be important they are used to effect. Ridicule may sometimes effect as much as argument. The habit of seeing any person or thing treated with contempt may reconcile us to more serious operations against it. It is thus the enemies of our government endeavor first to lessen our respect and esteem for our rulers, that they may ultimately, attack the government itself, and by a bolder hand destroy it; and thus they would by artful means weaken our attachments to religion that they may finally succeed in completely overthrowing it. We might be more alarmed if we saw the arm of power stretched forth to prevent the exercise of it: but if it be destroyed by any other means, the consequences may be as injurious to society in a religious view. And he that attempts to undermine the foundation of a beautiful building, and bring it to the ground in ruins, without touching it with his hands, is as much to be feared and guarded against, as he who would pull it to pieces by violence.

From these workers of underplot we are in danger, and we ought seriously to guard against them. We ought earnestly to pray to God, that the designs formed against our religion may not in any degree prevail; but that it may be preserved against insidious attacks, as well as open violence. And let us at the same time give thanks to God, that the light of the gospel still sheds its mild influence on us; that the word of God has free course among us to run and be glorified; that our bibles have not yet been sacrificed on the altars of infidelity nor our religious liberty overawed and restrained by the reign of licentiousness; 2 but that the light of the gospel is still the light of our country to guide our feet in then way of peace and righteousness.

By what has been said, you may see how, as Christians, you are in duty bound to submit to the institution of government, and obey your civil rulers, when that government is so constituted and administered that you may lead quiet and peaceable lives, in all godliness and honesty under it; and that you ought to pray for the continuance and exercise of it. This is the duty of every man who would cherish the hope in himself of entering into the glorious kingdom of Christ. For he that is restless, quarrelsome, and contentious, is not fit for that more perfect state of society, where love is the prevailing motive of action: he has not that peaceable and quiet spirit, which is necessary to make the kingdom of heaven a place of enjoyment an happiness to him.

I shall now endeavor to lay before you some observations, to shew that this duty of obedience to government is founded in the present constitution of things, and the nature of man, as well as in the word of God; that his command of civil obedience is to be read in the book of nature, as well as in that of revelation I shall take some notice of that condition of government which seems best adapted to promote the improvement and happiness of man, as arising out of his condition; and offer some observations on our present political circumstances, and the duty we are called to under them.

Man, though a rational being, in the rude state in which he is sometimes found, discovers but very little of the exercise of reason. His faculties lie dormant, undeveloped, and unimproved. From the local situation, or low state of society in which he lives, he reaps but a small portion of the advantages of social life. Compare the human being, whom we find in this situation, with one who has enjoyed, and well improved the highest advantages of society; but whose natural powers of mind are not stronger than the others; and how different shall we find them! They scarcely resemble each other except in form. The difference of mind, portrayed in their countenances, and discovered in their conduct, almost marks them as different orders of beings. Such a comparison will shew us the advantages of society, in a refined and improved state, in expanding the human mind, giving dignity to man, and opening the sources of enjoyment and happiness to him. By living in well regulated society, man finds personal protection from the base and selfish principles and passions which are sometimes predominate in the human breast: he finds a stronger stimulus for genius in the greater rewards for his exertions and labour: he finds he may be more happy in himself, by the indulgence of his social affections, and more extensively useful to his fellow men; enjoy more of the bounties of his Creator, and glorify him by more refined sentiments and obedience, than in an uncultivated state of solitude. It is evident from these considerations that man was intended by his Maker to live in a state of society; that it is a duty enjoined on him by the nature of his constitution to associate with his fellow men, and live with them under such laws and regulations as appear best adapted to answer the purposes of his being. He is bound to cultivate the social life, by which his own dignity, usefulness and happiness are increased, and that of his fellow men. It is a duty enjoined upon him by the Author of his being, who requires of him the cultivation of his talents in that manner which will best promote his own interest and happiness, in connection with that of other men. He is not left to his own choice: he cannot follow the bent of his inclinations uncontrolled by reason, uninfluenced by the common good of others, and live by prey and rapine, if he would. The laws of society will bind him to order; and they are the laws of God, who has ordained this order for the benefit of this creature man. We ought to suppose every institution to come from God, either immediately or mediately, which promotes the improvement of man as a rational being, and best increases and secures his happiness.

For the due regulation of social life, and that men may reap the greater advantages from associating together, it is necessary that rules and laws should be formed for the government of the several members of the society; and that they should be such as will best promote the common interest of those who have associated together. This social compact is founded upon the natural right which every man has to preserve his life and property from violence4 and depredation. As all men are not wise, just and benevolent; as all men are not equal in bodily strength, and no individual is capable of resisting the united efforts of many against his life and property, they must associate for mutual protection that the weak, as well as the strong may be secured against the injustice, cruelty, arbitrary will and power of any individual, or any banditti combined to prey upon others, for these purposes of defense and protection, the great body of the people unite themselves in a large society, and create a power, to be exercised for their benefit, which shall be superior to any power that may arise within the society to injure any of its members. A constitution is first formed, the principles of which are founded on the natural rights of man; that is, the right of personal liberty and protection; the rights of conscience in matters of religion; and the right of peaceably enjoying all the temporal blessings of this life, which he can acquire in a state of society without injuring the right of personal liberty and protection; the rights of conscience in matters of religion; and the right of peaceably enjoying all the temporal blessings of this life, which he can acquire in a state of society without injuring the rights of others. To ensure these blessings of a free constitution founded on the condition and necessities of human nature, persons of wisdom and integrity are chosen from among the body of the people to frame such laws and regulations, upon the principles of the constitution, as shall best answer the purposes expressed in it. Persons thus elected are the representative s of the people at large. They are clothed with authority by them, to act in their stead in making laws for the government of the community’ and the people bind themselves to the observance of their institutions. That there may be no abuse of the powers committed to the legislative body, in a wise and well-constructed constitution, this body is divided, and so invested with separate powers as to make each part a check upon the other. Both are chosen by the people, and derive their powers from them. That there may be no coalition between the two branches, to usurp an un-delegated power, and deprive the people of their rights and liberties, it is required then that these legislators should hold a certain property in the community, and be interested in the public welfare; that their power should not be of long duration; that they should be chosen for a short period of time, and then return to the mass of the people again, that they may be equally affected with their constituents by their own laws. As it is impossible that the great body of the people should assemble to make their own laws, so it is that they should see them executed. Other persons are therefore chosen and invested with executive powers to see them faithfully observed and put into execution. Experience has taught mankind, that this executive power is exercised much better, and with more safety to the people, when placed in the hands of an individual, than when committed to several persons. For the man will always feel himself more responsible for the duties of any office committed solely to him, than if others are concerned with him in the exercise of it. That this officer, high in power, may not be tempted to abuse his trust, he is not only subject to the laws himself while he governs the community, but he is appointed for a short period of time only. He then returns and mixes with the mass again, either to enjoy the good, or suffer the evil, consequences of his administration.

Such a system of government cannot be capable of much abuse, or great danger to the liberties of the people. It appears to the most free and perfect system that can be devised for man in this state of his existence; best adapted to the security of his rights, and the enjoyment of the blessings of society. It gives every latitude to man, which he can and ought to possess, considering the rights of others. It secures to him every object he might acquire, even if the disregarded the rights of others, which can contribute to the improvement and happiness of his life, taking the whole of his existence into view. For no man can advance his own happiness, by deviating from that line of conduct God has marked out for him. And as God has so constituted man as to make the greatest improvement in a state of society, he cannot advance his own happiness ultimately, without respecting the rights of others, as well as his own; without living in the observance of those laws which are appointed for the protection and benefit of all. We often see many inconveniences, and much unhappiness, arising to those who violate the trust reposed in them in the offices of government. And it is certain, that usurpers lose more in the end than they can gain by usurpation and the abuse of power.

A good and righteous government, founded in equity and administered with justice and impartiality, is one of the greatest blessings of human life, and without it few of them can be enjoyed by the community at large.

From what has been said on the nature and condition of man and his improvement, it is evident he was made for social life; and that state of society will best advance his improvement and happiness, which affords the best security to life and property, the best means of expanding his faculties, and the best encouragement is to industry, by securing to him the fruits of his labour. To such a government every man, who is so fortunate as to live under it, is indispensably bound to yield obedience; to respect the sovereign power of it, and submit to its lawful authority and commands.

“As society, by the dispensation of God’s providence is necessary to mankind, and government is necessary for the preservation of society; so is sovereign power necessary to support government; and therefore sovereign power is established by the general providence of God; consequently submission to it is enjoined by the same providence. Obedience then to sovereign human civil or temporal power or authority, is commanded by God, and becomes of course a conscientious duty of man. There is no express command or precept of god to vest it in any particular person or persons; but the existence of civil authority, and consequently the conscientious obligation of submitting to it, when lawfully exercised, is substantially, and in effect enjoined by those general laws, which God has instituted for the preservation of the moral order of mankind, and which are therefore indispensably and uniformly binding upon every human individual, whatever be his station in the community of which he is a member.

“It was but in the special instance of the Jewish nation, that God selected a particular or chosen people or community, to whom he gave particular laws and particular rules. This formed a theocracy, or a form of government immediately appointed by God; and it lasted for a limited period. All the rest of mankind were left to their free liberty, to form themselves into whatever communities or societies they chose, and to delegate the sovereignty of human or temporal power and authority to whomsoever, and in whatever manner, they should find it reasonable and agreeable. Hence has arisen the endless variety of forms and modes of government through the succession of all ages to the present.” 3 Some nations have chosen that of monarchy, in which the sovereign power is made hereditary; and others, that of republicanism, in which the sovereignty is often changed, and passes into different hands at short periods of time.

Without going into the merits or demerits of the former, let it be observed, that the government under which we live is of the latter kind. It is republicanism. It is a government we have chosen ourselves and is that above describe. It is formed upon the broad basis of civil and religious liberty, in which a man may enjoy all those blessings which a state of society can give; all that freedom of action which is consistent with the laws of God and the rights of others. The laws by which we are governed may be said to have originated from ourselves; for we choose the makers of them. The sovereign power for their execution is delegated to the chief magistrate by ourselves. He is chosen from among the people, and we declare in the constitution how we will be governed by him. Can anything be more free than such a government as this? Can any better protect the rights and liberty of the subject? Or could one more democratic have any energy at all? The people at large have chosen this government after deliberate consideration, it has become binding upon them, and their duty and interest go together. In a comparative view with other governments, we are a fortunate, a happy people. For no government on earth is so free, and well calculated to make wise and virtuous men happy; and no people ever enjoyed so much freedom, prosperity and happiness, in so short a period of time, as we have since its establishment. But let it be remembered, that knowledge and virtue in the people are absolutely necessary to the existence of a government so free as our own.

As it was originally founded upon the theory of human nature and civil society, and the experience drawn from other nations and governments, so the practice of it has justified the choice, and shewn it to be a wise and valuable institution. Having been adopted by us, and put into exercise, it has become, in one sense, the law and institution of God; and every individual of the community is conscientiously bound to obey it. Every wise and virtuous man will prize it as one of the most valuable gifts of God, and offer up his supplications, prayers and intercessions, with thanksgiving, for it; for its chief magistrate, and all who are in authority in this government; “that we may lead quiet and peaceable lives in all godliness and honesty.” Under their administration of it. the great end and object of government is, that men may lead quiet and peaceable lives in all godliness; that is in the exercise of religious and pious duties, undisturbed by the persecutions of wicked men: and in all honesty; that is in the exercise of integrity and justice, reciprocally performed towards each other. For such a government every man should pray; and, in the possession and enjoyment of it give thanks.

From the several recommendations in scripture, by our Saviour and his apostles, of submission to temporal government, the doctrine of passive obedience and nonresistance to any government, however corrupt, iniquitous and oppressive, however established by usurpation and tyrannical means, has been held up and taught by some Christians to its fullest extent.

We cannot go into the full consideration of this doctrine at present. Suffice to say, that god ordained government for the good of mankind, to prevent the evils of anarchy, the evils of uncontrolled passions; to protect the live and prosperity of mankind, and promote their rational improvement and happiness. But when, through the corruption of rulers, and their abuse of constitutional powers, the government is changed, and these benefits cease to result from their administration; the people at large are debased and rendered miserable; their lives insecure, their religious rights of conscience invaded, their property torn from them till they are reduced to poverty, to pamper corruption, and promote and extend vice, can it be said that this the ordinance of God? – the government to which he commands his rational creatures to submit? – in which neither godliness or honesty is seen among the rulers? – and in which there is no such ting as enjoying a quiet and peaceable life? Can it be a question, whether in this case the body of the people have a right to say to such corrupt, unfaithful men, “We will not have you any longer to rule over us?” They undoubtedly have a right to say it. The only difficulty lies in exercising that right in such a cool, deliberate and wise manner as shall remove the evils they suffer; with that wisdom and discretion which shall regain the blessings they have lost, or have a right to enjoy; which shall guard against the evils of anarchy, and a mere change of matters without any relief from suffering; and shall establish them in freedom, and the enjoyment of the privileges and blessings of social life.

The revolutions in government which have recently taken place, and are now in motion, in the European world, hitherto afford melancholy proofs, that the great body of the people who do not always gain the end at which they aim by them. We have hitherto seen little more than a change of men, without any change of measures beneficial to the people at large. They still groan under burdens and oppressions; and are not allowed to complain under their present rulers, any more than when they were under the power of those who were formerly denominated their tyrants. The rights of conscience are not better respected; their lives and property are not more secure. If they suffered before under military despotism, they do not appear to suffer less under the new-formed governments, which are evidently controlled by military force. If the former constitutions were arbitrary and tyrannical, what benefits of freedom have hitherto resulted from exercise of those set up in their stead? If their former rulers abused their powers, and, being armed with military strength, committed acts of despotism on their subjects; if they seized, imprisoned and banished with trial, not merely the private citizen, but the public officers when in the exercise of their constitutional duty, have not the present rulers done as much, in some nations, which have been revolutionized, in violation of the freedom of the subject, and the new constitutions? And if the revolutionary rulers of the great nation in Europe, which began the reform of government, have shewn no more respect for the rights of their own people, could it be supposed they would respect the rights of foreign nations where they have sent their armies to carry on the work of political reformation? Have they done it, even to nations at peace with them? But supposing they had given freedom to their own nation, and that the people of France were now in the full exercise of those privileges named in the constitution they have adopted, where is the spirit of universal philanthropy with which they set out to meliorate the condition of other nations? Has it evaporated in experiment! Or is it smothered by success, and stifled by the lust of power, ambition and avarice? Or did it never exist! Was it the mere art of delusion which spoke to the oppressed nations this language of philanthropy and freedom? – “People of Italy, the French army comes to break your chains; the French people are the friends of all people: come with confidence to them; your property, religion, and customs, shall be respected. We make war as generous enemies and wish only to make war against the tyrants who oppress you.”4 This was the language held out to the oppressed by these deliverers of mankind! Compare this language with their conduct when conquerors; and look at the situation of the people they had addressed with so much comparison, after their old chains were broken, and their masters subdued. Has not the whole mass of the people been included in the fruits of the conquest? – severe requisitions and contributions levied upon them at large, and collected at the point of the bayonet? Have their “property, religion, and customs been respected: by the “generous enemy?” How have the conquerors then their friendship? What has been done to beget “confidence in them?” What is their language to the same people they pitied so much before, when they had conquered “the tyrants who oppressed” them? “Remember,” says the “generous enemy,” you are altogether a conquered country; I am here the legislative power, and your heads shall fall at the least trouble or disorder of which you shall be the authors.” 5 And have they not been as vindictive in punishing any provoked offences, or oppression that has been made to their arbitrary mandates, as any despot against whom they so loudly exclaim? Have they not made as many exactions from the people whom they came to deliver, as their former masters ever did? Have they in any instance, after crushing the former government, generously withdrawn their military force, and left the people at liberty to establish a free constitution by themselves? Have they not dictated in every government, and controlled the wishes of every people, where the ancient order of things has been destroyed? Have not the rulers of the “friendly nation” sold a whole people whom they first delivered from their ancient tyrants, to a despot, against whose arbitrary power they have said so much; whose arms they have so long opposed in the “cause of freedom,” as they term their own? Yet, to accommodate their own convenience (not from necessity) have not they, who style themselves “the friends of all people,” sacrificed the rights of a neutral nation, and delivered this people over, without their consent, into the hands of a despot, to use them as he pleases? I s it thus they give liberty and free government to other nations? If this has been the conduct of the “friendly nation,” what does it in fact differ from the former despotism? How is the condition of the people meliorated by the change? How have the conquerors proved the truth of this friendly declaration, with infatuated and lulled the people as a charm? – “We war not against you, but against the tyrants who oppress you!” And is it not a fact, that while this republic has expressed such pointed disapprobation of kings and despots, she has overturned the governments of most of the republics where she came; but has allowed the hereditary sovereigns (tyrants, as she styles kings and princes) to remain – permitted them to purchase a continuance of their power, and a license to oppress, if she may share in the profits of the oppression? For the price of toleration for all the thrones which remain in the conquered countries must ultimately be paid by the people. Consequently the people are not only burdened to support their former masters, but to pay for their masters’ privilege of keeping them in subjection. And as it was under the ancient conquerors, when the sovereigns of the countries they subdued were obliged to oppress their subjects more heavily to pay the exactions of their conquerors, so it is now; and the new republic seems to be expressing her friendship to the nations she has conquered by the largeness of her requisitions. Are then the supreme rulers of this republic so inimical to kings as to their people? Do they not assume as much haughtiness as any despot? Do they not use as high-swelling language in speaking of their own power, and dictating the submission of all others to it, as any monarch? 6 And do not the rulers of this republic already claim homage from other independent nations – insult and treat with contempt their sovereignty – trample upon their rights, and evidently aim at universal power and dominion? Where then is the difference between the ancient and former state of things, as it respects the liberty and enjoyments of mankind, in any government they have changed? Is there any difference, except in name, between the power which now oppresses the people, and did then? The only discernible difference is, the greater extension of this power in its oppressive effects; in calling tyranny by another name, and decoying mankind within its grasp by the specious pretension to philanthropy. But where the government is tyrannical, whether it be monarchical or republican, it is never worthwhile to quarrel about names. Mankind cannot always be deceived by them, and put up with the imposition of tyranny under the name of liberty. Their eyes begin to be opened. And where this subtle serpent has entwined itself, the people feel the baneful influence of its poison, and lament its depredations. But unhappily they at first allowed its charm to prevail, and lull them in security, till it got them within its folds; and now it has inserted its fangs so deeply, they cannot escape from its fatal embrace.

Let their fate be a warning to others, and their sufferings a stimulus to guard those, who are not yet in its power, against the danger of its fascination, which prepares the way for inevitable destruction.

I have been led to make the foregoing observations on the necessity, nature and end of government, and upon the principles of our own, that seeing it is calculated to promote our improvement and happiness, and is therefore become the ordinance of God to us, we may, from a sense of duty to him, and benefit to ourselves, feel our obligations to obey it; that upon this day, set apart by civil authority to humble ourselves before God, and implore his blessing upon our government, we may recollect our situation, and our duty, as good subjects; recognize the blessings we enjoy under our happy constitution with thankful hearts, and offer up our prayers to God for their continuance.

Let us contrast our misconduct with the blessings we have enjoyed, that the sense of our unworthiness and ingratitude may impress deeper humiliation. May a sense of the dangers which hang over us lead us to repentance, and fervent prayer, that God may turn from us these tokens of his anger, and cause us more highly to esteem and improve, in future, his spiritual and temporal blessings.

And let us pray, that God will continue to us our freedom and our constitutions of government; as well that of the state as that of the union; preserve them in purity, both in their principles and administration; and that all who are called into public office may be men of religion and virtue, of true patriotism and inflexible integrity.

Let us comply with the exhortation in the text, to pray for all that are in authority, and for the prosperity of our government. A sense of our obligations to do this, as Christians, will make the duty of obedience more binding upon us. Our sincere and earnest prayers, “that we may lead quiet and peaceable lives in all godliness and honesty,” under it, will lead us to attend to those things, which will preserve peace and quietness among ourselves: the greatest requisites to which are, reverence for God, and love for our fellow men; the exercise of pious duties, and the practice of that “righteousness which exalteth a nation.”

By praying for our rulers, we shall cultivate a due reverence and regard for them. They are called to the arduous task of conducting the affairs of our government : and while they are found faithfully in the administration, in governing according to the principles of the constitution, and the laws enacted under it, they highly merit our esteem, our approbation and praise. In such a government as this, where the power primarily resides in the people, and is delegated to the officers of government only for a short time, a cheerful assent to the measures which their wisdom shall direct, confidence in their integrity, a unity of sentiment among ourselves, and co-operation with them, are absolutely necessary to give strength and energy to the government, force to its laws, and respect to its administration. This countenance and support we must give to it, if we expect it to answer the design of its institution, in protecting our lives, liberty and property, and securing to us the blessings of civil society.

In this discourse I have also been led to the painful task of calling your attention, my hearers, to the great and important revolutions in governments which have recently taken place in other nations, and which are now in operation in the European world; because from our connection with some of those nations we are in danger of suffering by the violence of their agitations. Painful indeed has the task been to me to call up to your view the errors, or misconduct, of that nation which began so well the work of political reformation, and which set out with such philanthropic principles to benefit mankind. While those principles appeared to govern, and those virtuous and patriotic men conducted the business, who first undertook it, every true patriot, every lover of mankind, might wish them Godspeed; and the inhabitants of this country rejoiced in their success. But when we see those men driven from the stage of action, or destroyed by the violence of others, who have abandoned those first principles, and assumed a different conduct; when we see that the benefits expected do not result from the revolution; the liberties of other nations attacked, and our own menaced, is it not the duty which every man owes to his country, to point out the danger arising from such conduct, and call the attention of his fellow citizens to it? The warning voice has reached our ears from the seat of government. OUR CHIEF MAGISTRATE has called us to consider our danger and our duty; declaring that we are “placed in a hazardous and afflictive situation, by the unfriendly disposition, conduct and demands of a foreign power, evinced by repeated refusals to receive our messengers of reconciliation and peace, by depredations on our commerce, and infliction of injuries on very many of our fellow citizens.” We have seen the ground on which this danger is stated to us by the Executive. We see, in part, the evil designs which that foreign power has formed against us, in the dispatches from our Envoys, and on what it builds its prospect of success. It is on its “diplomatic skill” in sowing the seeds of discord among us, and dividing the people from their rulers; by creating jealousies and mistrust in our minds, and thereby weakening the energies of our government, and rendering us defenseless against their bolder attacks. Thus they would prepare us for the same impositions they have laid on other neutral nations. They wish to conquer us by their arts, as they have others by their arms; that our government may be under their control, and our property under their requisition. This they have done to others, and thus they threaten us. It is only as a warning against their evil designs I have called up their conduct towards other nations to your view, that their example may be a beacon to us. We must be on the watch against this evil, to prevent its nearer approaches: for it has already come too nigh to us for our quietude and safety. We must be firmly united among ourselves, to prevent its stealing further upon us: for it comes in an insidious way; and, if we are not well guarded, it will seize us before we are aware of it. It has not, till lately, approached us with the bold menace of an enemy; but has been stealing upon our hearts with the kisses of an Absalom, who weaned the affections of his father’s subjects from him and excited them to rebellion against him, by making unjust representations of his government, and pretending to be their better friend.

But while we have the privilege of choosing our own rulers, and changing them at short periods, we cannot be in danger of tyranny from them, if we adhere to the rules of our constitution. While we choose them from among the most wise and virtuous of our citizens, we ought to believe them capable of conducting our political affairs aright; and not be jealous of them, and mistrust their wisdom and integrity, without any good evidence of their folly and unfaithfulness in the administration of government. While they govern according to the rules of our constitution, they merit our confidence, and are entitled to our obedience and support; and it is the duty of every man to give it to them.

We ought also to consider how great the task of government is, to those men who are placed in the first offices of it; that the pecuniary rewards in our government are small, compared with the labour and anxiety they undergo; and that they deserve our commendation, and not our censure, when they do well. And we ought to consider them as doing well, when they adhere to the rules of the constitution; and when we prosper under their administration, unless our prosperity be in interrupted by others, over whom they have no control; which can be no fault of our rulers. It is discouraging to able and virtuous men, to undertake the administration of our government – men who could live more at their ease, or gain greater pecuniary rewards for their labour, in private life, without the hazard of reputation, if they must be exposed to unjust censure an calumny; be traduced in their characters, as guilty of hypocrisy; of entertaining the vilest views of ambition, and sacrificing the honour and interest of the community to personal emolument, without foundation. When they have had repeated and continual, slander thrown upon them, in some public papers, but have been able to vindicate their administration by the rules of the constitution, and justify their measures by circumstances existing at the time, notwithstanding which there is no relaxation of abuse, and some of it of the meanest and vilest kind; should we not mistrust the purity of the fountain from whence it flows, and the patriotic intentions of those who make such free use of it Some men, through ignorance, or mistaken zeal, may be honest in their intentions, and think they are doing “God service” by it. But those political intriguers, who have long since discarded a belief of His agency in the affairs of this world, well know how to make use of that zeal and political ignorance to carry on their views against the government. They know, that the power of republican governments resides in the people. To destroy that government, they must weaken the power by dividing the people. And they have spared no pains, and left no measures untried, to do it. But when such men as a WASHINGTON and an ADAMS cannot be trusted with the limited powers of our constitution, and escape censure and calumny – men, who had been so long and faithfully tried in the cause of our country, previous to their appointment to the office of chief magistrate, who had given such evidence of their wisdom, integrity and patriotism, where shall we find men whom we can trust, and who will not be slandered? – where shall we look among all our citizens for characters of more integrity and wisdom? – who can have higher pretensions to our confidence, can give better security for a faithful administration of government, or whose real merit can better turn aside the shafts of calumny, and prevent its malignity on the government? If such men be not worthy of your confidence, we are hopeless indeed. And when we become so corrupt, or so much the dupes of artifice, as to discard and change these for their opposers, we may expect our constitution will be changed also. Or, one which we have as an example before our eyes, it may exist in name, but will not protect us from confiscations and banishment without trial by Jury – that boasted of right freemen, that palladium of liberty. Then we may expect to see in the administration, a chief magistrate who will address us in such language as this: “I leave you the liberty of your republic,” but “I will compose for you a legislative body of wise and honest men!!” 7

To such a construction of liberty, who of us will consent? And if the same be meant by wise and honest men, under such a free government who of us would choose to live, while we can enjoy our own? That we may continue to enjoy it, let us guard against every art and design formed against it; adhere to its principles, and live in the practice of all social and political virtue, and in the exercise of all pious and moral duties. Then may we put our trust in God, and look to him for deliverance in all times of danger. And we have reason, from our past experience, to put our trust in him. How often has he delivered us when in imminent danger? In the early stage of our struggle for liberty, when the enemy bore down all opposition, and spread himself like a torrent through the country; when despair was in almost every countenance, how did he inspire the illustrious WASHINGTON to attempt the scene at Trenton, and turn the scale of victory in our favour, with a few men; – like Jonathan, who, with his armor bearer, smote the host of the Philistines, because the hand of the Lord was with him! When an army from the north poured in upon us, and threatened our destruction, and we saw no adequate means of stopping its progress, how did he put his hook into the nose of this enemy, and deliver him into our hands, in a very unexpected manner! When the treachery of an Arnold endangered our country, and the capture of our military chief, in what a remarkable manner was that conspiracy detected and defeated! The atheist may look to natural causes for these events, and rest in them. I do not presume to say, they were effected by miracles. We saw the natural means which were used to produce them. But who could foresee, or did, that such means were adequate to such effects? The wisest atheist, and the profoundest politician, could not have conjectured that some of these events could have been brought about by such means. They were like the arrow from the bow drawn at a venture; which was directed by the HAND OF PROVIDENCE through the joints of the harness, to effect the death of the king of Israel, according to prophesy. God often effected great things for us by small mean in the course of our revolution. He has done much to shew us (if we had not been convicted before) that an INTELLIGENT BEING governs the world; – “that the MOST HIGH rules in the kingdoms of men.” And what he has done for us is sufficient to confirm our trust in him, and lead us still to hope in his goodness. Let us be humble, repent, and be virtuous, and we may rely on his protection; that he will preserve us as an Independent people. As we see how he formerly rescued us when in imminent danger, so we may consider the discoveries made at this critical period, of the “unfriendly disposition” of the rulers of that nation with whom we have been so intimately connected, in some measure, as the act of His Providence; and that he means to save us.

But we must still work by the means he has given us. We must have confidence in our own rulers, and use our own strength for defense. By trusting to their wisdom and information, and putting confidence in them, we shall have nothing to fear from the foreign influence of the rulers of any nation who may wish to convert us to their own use. By unanimity among ourselves, in the determination to support our own government, we need not fear the success of any foreign power against us. Let us avoid all party spirit and contention; treat each other with mildness in the discussion; and be of one mind with regard to our government, THAT WE WILL OPPOSE ALL FOREIGN INFLUENCE AND INNOVATION IN IT. Let us not be actuated by the spirit of jealousy. In whatever instances our own public interest coincides with that of any other nation, let us not think that our rulers are governed by an undue partiality to that nation, to the prejudice of any other, because they pursue those measures which will promote our own. But rather let us think they are faithful to the4 trust reposed in them, and act wisely; that they act upon better information than we have, are the best judges of what ought to be done, and what will best secure our rights and privileges, and promote our national prosperity and happiness. With this confidence in them, and unanimity among ourselves, let us earnestly pray for the government of our own nation, and of all others, that they may be so formed and administered, that all men “may lead quiet and peaceable lives” under their administration, “in all godliness and honesty: for” such effusions of the heart, accompanied with corresponding actions, are “good and acceptable in the sight of God our savior.”

AMEN

 


Endnotes

1 This and a few other paragraphs were not delivered from the pulpit; but it has been desired the whole might be printed.

2 We have an account, in the relation of the siege of Lyons, that a large concourse of people on the Lord’s day suspended the old and new testament to the tail of an ass; and forming a mock procession, led him through the streets to a square, where they threw the bible into the fire prepared for the purpose, and made the ass drink out of the sacramental cup, in derision of Christianity.

3 Plowden’s Church and State, p. 24.

4 See Buonaparte’s speech to his army before Milan, April 26, 1796.

5 Buonaparte’s answer to the deputation of Milan.

6 The monarch may gather his pride or haughtiness from the greatness of the nation over which he reigns; but perhaps it may be said, that the rulers of this republic only assume a tone of language, which becomes the dignity of the great people over whom they preside. But republicans should not find fault with the haughtiness of monarchs, and assume as much themselves. If it be improper in the former, it does not better become the republican character. If haughtiness be the evidence of a little mind in an individual, it never can add to the dignity of the rulers of a great nation. Such language is too often the effusion of the heart; and, where it is indulged, is very apt to cherish and encourage impositions in arbitrary and tyrannical actions.

7 See Buonaparte’s speech to the deputation of the city of Milan.

Sermon – The Voice of Warning to Christians


John Mitchell Mason (1770-1829) was a minister from New York. He received a doctor of divinity degree from Princeton University in 1794 and was a pastor of two churches in New York City during his lifetime. Mason founded the first seminary of the Associate Reformed Church, in New York City (1804), was president of Dickinson College (1821-1824), and was a trustee (1795-1811) and provost of Columbia College (1811-1816).

Rev. Mason, a close friend of Alexander Hamilton who attended Hamilton at his death, preached the following sermon in 1800 in opposition of the idea of Thomas Jefferson being elected President. (Read more about clergy opposition to Thomas Jefferson, along with other issues, in The Jefferson Lies.)


sermon-the-voice-of-warning-to-christians-1800

THE

VOICE OF WARNING

TO

CHRISTIANS,

ON

THE ENSUING ELECTION

OF

A PRESIDENT

OF

THE UNITED STATES.

Blow the trumpet in Zion – Who is on the Lord’s side?

TO CHRISTIANS,
Who price a good conscience, a consistent character, and the honor of their Redeemer, above all personal and political attachments;
THE FOLLOWING PAMPHLET
IS DEDICATED:
With the single request, that, laying aside passion, they will give it such a calm, serious, and considerate perusal, as they owe to an argument relative to the best interests of themselves, their families, their country, and the Church of God.

-N. York, September 30, 1800.

THE
VOICE OF WARNING, &c.

If a manly attempt to avert national ruin, by exposing a favorite error, should excite no resentment, nor draw any obloquy upon its author, there would certainly be a new thing under the sun. Men can seldom bear contradiction. They bear it least when they are most demonstrably wrong; because, having surrendered their judgment to prejudice, or their conscience to design, they must take refuge in obstinacy from the attacks of reason. The bad, dreading nothing so much as the prevalence of pure principle and virtuous habit, will ever be industrious in counteracting it; and the more candid, rational and convincing the means employed in its behalf, the louder will be their clamor, and the fiercer their opposition. On the other hand, good men are often led insensibly astray, and their very honesty becomes the guarantee of their delusion. Unaware, at first, of their inconsistency, they afterwards shrink from the test of their own profession. Startled by remonstrance, but unprepared to recede; checked by the misgivings of their own minds, yet urged on by their previous purpose and connection, the conflict renders them irritable, and they mark as their enemy whoever tells them the truth. From the coincidence of such a bias with the views of the profligate and daring, results incalculable mischief. The sympathy of a common cause unites the persons engaged in it; the shades of exterior character gradually disappear; Virtue sinks from her glory; Vice emerges from her infamy; the best and the basest appear nearly on a level; while the most atrocious principles either lose their horror, or have a veil thrown over them: and the man who endeavors to arrest their course, is singled out as a victim to revenge and madness. Such, from the beginning, has been the course of the world. None of its benefactors have escaped its calumnies and persecutions: not prophets, not apostles, not the Son of God himself. To this treatment, therefore, must everyone be reconciled, who labors to promote the best interests of his country. He must stake his popularity against his integrity; he must encounter a policy which will be contented with nothing short of his ruin; and if it may not spill his blood, will strive to overwhelm him with public execration. That this is the spirit which has pursued a writer, the purity of whose views is equaled only by their importance – I mean the author of “Serious Considerations on the Election of a President,” I need not inform any who inspect the gazettes. To lay before the people of the United States, proofs that a candidate for the office of their first magistrate, is an unbeliever in the scriptures; and that to confer such a distinction upon an open enemy to their religion, their Redeemer, and their hope, would be mischief to themselves and sin against God, is a crime never to be forgiven by a class of men too numerous for our peace or prosperity. The infidels have risen en masse, and it is not through their moderation that he retains any portion of his respectability or his usefulness. But in their wrath there is nothing to deprecate; nor does he deserve the name of a Christian, who, in order to avoid it, would deviate a hair’s breadth from his duty. For them I write not. Impenetrable by serious principle, they are not objects of expostulation, but of compassion; nor shall I stoop to any solicitude about their censure or applause.

But do I represent as infidels all who befriend Mr. Jefferson’s election? God forbid that I should so “lie against the truth.” If I thought so, I should mourn in silence: my pen should slumber forever. That a majority of them profess, and that multitudes of them really love, the religion of Jesus, while it is my terror, is also my hope. Terror, because I believe them to be under a fatal mistake; hope, because they, if any, are within the reach of conviction. I address myself to them. The latter, especially, are my brothers, by dearer ties and higher interests than can be created or destroyed by any political connection. And if it be asked, why mingle religion with questions of policy? Why irritate by opposition? Why risk the excitement of passions which may disserve, but cannot aid, the common Christianity? Why not maintain a prudent reserve, and permit matters of State to take their own course? I answer, because Christians are deeply engaged already: because the principles of the gospel are to regulate their political, as well as their other, conduct: because their Christian character, profession and prosperity are involved in the issue. This is no hour to temporize. I abhor that coward spirit which vaunts when gliding down the tide of opinion, but shrinks from the returning current, and calls the treason prudence. It is the voice of God’s providence not less than of his word, “Cry aloud, spare not; lift up thy voice “like a trumpet, and show my people their transgression, and the house of Jacob their sins.” With Christians, therefore, I must expostulate; and may not refrain. However they may be displeased, or threaten, I will say, with the Athenian chief, “Strike, but hear me.”

Fellow Christians,

A crisis of no common magnitude awaits our country. The approaching election of a President is to decide a quest5ion not merely of preference to an eminent individual, or particular views of policy, but, what is infinitely more, of national regard or disregard to the religion of Jesus Christ. Had the choice been between two infidels or two professed Christians, the point of politics would be untouched by me. Nor, though opposed to Mr. Jefferson, am I to be regarded as a partisan; since the principles which I am about to develop, will be equally unacceptable to many on both sides of the question. I dread the election of Mr. Jefferson, because I believe him to be a confirmed infidel: you desire it, because, while he is politically acceptable, you either doubt this fact, or do not consider it essential. Let us, like brethren, reason this matter.

The general opinion rarely, if ever, mistakes a character which private pursuits and public functions have placed in different attitudes; yet it is frequently formed upon circumstances which elude the grasp of argument even while they make a powerful and just impression. Notwithstanding, therefore, the belief of Mr. Jefferson’s infidelity, which has for years been uniform and strong, wherever his character has been a subject of speculation – although that infidelity has been boasted by some, lamented by many, and undisputed by all, yet as it is now denied by his friends, the charge, unsupported by other proof, could hardly be pursued to conviction. Happily for truth and for us, Mr. Jefferson has written; he has printed. While I shall not decline auxiliary testimony, I appeal to what he never retracted, and will not deny, his Notes on Virginia.1

In their war upon revelation, infidels have leveled their batteries against the miraculous facts of the scripture: well knowing that if its historical truth can be overturned, there is an end of its claim to inspiration. But God has protected his word. Particularly the universal deluge, the most stupendous miracle of the Old Testament, is fortified with impregnable evidence. The globe teems with demonstrations of it. Every mountain and hill and valley lifts up its voice to confirm the narrative of Moses. The very researches and discoveries of infidels themselves, contrary to their intentions, their wishes and their hopes, are here compelled to range behind the banner of the Bible. To attack, therefore, the scriptural account of the deluge, belongs only to the most desperate infidelity. Now, what will you think of Mr. Jefferson’s Christianity, if he has advanced positions which strike directly at the truth of God’s word concerning that wonderful event? Let him speak for himself: “It is said that shells are found in the Andes, in South America, fifteen thousand feet above the level of the ocean. This is considered by many, both of the learned and unlearned, as a proof of a universal deluge. But to the many considerations opposing this opinion, the following may be added: The atmosphere and all its contents, whether of water, air, or other matters, gravitate to the earth; that is to say, they have weight. Experience tells us, that the weight of all these columns together, never exceeds that of a column of mercury of 31 inches high. If the whole contents of the atmosphere then were water, instead of what they are, it would cover the globe but 35 feet deep: but, as these waters as they fell, would run into the seas, the superficial measure of which is to that of the dry parts of the globe, as two to one, the seas would be raised only 52 ½ feet above their present level, and of course would overflow the land to that height only. In Virginia this would be a very small proportion even of the champagne country, the banks of our tide-waters being frequently, if not generally, of a greater height. Deluges beyond this extent then, as for instance, to the North mountain or to Kentucky, seem out of the laws of Nature. But within it they may have taken place to a greater or less degree, in proportion to the combination of natural causes which may be supposed to have produced them. But such deluges as these, will not account for the shells found in the higher lands. A second opinion has been entertained, which is, that in times anterior to the records either of history or tradition, the bed of the ocean, the principal residence of the shelled tribe, has, by some great convulsion of nature, been heaved to the heights at which we now find shells and other remains of marine animals. The favorers of this opinion do well to suppose the great events on which it rests to have taken place beyond all the eras of history; for within these certainly none such can be found; and we may venture to say further, that no fact has taken place either in our own days, or in the thousands of years recorded in history, which proves the existence of any natural agents within or without the bowels of the earth, of force sufficient to heave to the height of 15,000 feet, such masses as the Andes.”2 After mentioning another opinion proposed y Voltaire, Mr. J. proceeds, “There is a wonder somewhere. Is it greatest on this branch of the dilemma; on that which supposes the existence of a power of which we have no evidence in any other case; or on the first which requires us to believe the creation of a body of water and its subsequent annihilation? Rejecting the whim of Voltaire, he concludes, that “three hypotheses are equally unsatisfactory, and we must be contented to acknowledge, that this great phenomenon is, as yet, unsolved.”3

On these extracts, I cannot suppress the following reflections.

1. Mr. Jefferson disbelieves the existence of a universal deluge. “There are many considerations, says he, “opposing this opinion.” The Bible says expressly, “The waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth, and all the high hills that were under the whole heaven were covered.”4Mr. Jefferson enters into a philosophical argument to prove the fact impossible; that is, he argues in the very face of God’s word, and, as far as his reasoning goes, endeavors to convict it of falsehood.

2. Mr. Jefferson’s concession of the probability of deluges within certain limits, does not rank him with those great men who have supposed the deluge to be partial, because his argument concludes directly against the scriptural narrative, even upon that supposition. He will not admit his partial deluges to rise above 52 ½ feet above the level of the ocean. Whereas the scripture, circumscribe its deluge as you will, asserts that the waters were fifteen cubits (27 ½ feet nearly) above the mountains.5

3. Not satisfied with his argument, Mr. Jefferson sneers at the scripture itself, and at the credulity of those who, relying upon its testimony, believe “that the bed of the ocean has by some great convulsion of nature, been heaved to the heights at which we now find shells and other remains of marine animals.” “They do well,” says he, “to suppose the great events on which it rests to have taken place beyond all the eras of history; for within these none such are to be found.” Indeed! And so our faith in God’s word is to dwindle, at the touch of a profane philosopher, into an “opinion,” unsupported by either “history or tradition!” All the fountains of the great deep, says the scripture, were broken up.6 Was this no “great convulsion of nature?” Could not this “heave the bed of the ocean to the height at “which we now find shells?” But the favorers of this opinion suppose the great events on which it rests to have taken place beyond all the eras of history. And they do well, says Mr. Jefferson: the plain meaning which is, that their error would certainly be detected if they did not retreat into the darkness of fable. Malignant sarcasm! And who are “the favorers of “this opinion?” At least all who embrace the holy scriptures. These do declare most unequivocally, that there was such a “great convulsion of nature” as produced a deluge infinitely more formidable than Mr. Jefferson’s philosophy can digest. But he will not so much as allow them to be history: he degrades them even below tradition. We talk of times for our flood, he tells us, “anterior to the records either of history or tradition.” Nor will it mend the matter, to urge that he alludes only to a profane history. The fact could not be more dubious or less deserving a place in the systems of philosophy from the attestation of infallible truth. And is this truth to be spurned as no history; not even tradition? It is thus, Christians, that a man whom you are expected to elevate to the chief magistracy, insults yourselves and your Bible.7

4. Mr. Jefferson’s argument against the flood is, in substance, the very argument by which infidels have attacked the credibility of the Mosaic history. They have always objected the insufficiency of water to effect such a deluge as that describes. Mr. J. knew this. Yet he adopts and repeats it. He does not deign so much as to mention Moses: while through the sides of one of his hypotheses, he strikes at the scriptural history, he winds up with pronouncing all the three to be “equally unsatisfactory.” Thus reducing the holy volume to a level with the dreams of Voltaire! Let me now ask any Christian, would you dare to express yourself in a similar manner upon a subject which has received the decision of the living God? Would you patiently hear one of your neighbors speak so irreverently of his oracles? Could you venture to speculate on the deluge without resorting to them? Would you not shudder at the thought to them? Would you not shudder at the thought of using, in support of a philosophical opinion, the arguments which infidels bring against that WORD which is the source of all your consolation; much more to use them without a lisp of respect for it, or of caution against mistake? Can he believe the Bible who does all this? Can an infidel do more without directly assailing it? What then must you think of Mr. Jefferson?

But it was not enough for this gentleman to discredit the story of the deluge. He has advanced a step farther, and has indicated, too plainly, his disbelief in the common origin of mankind. The scriptures teach that all nations are the offspring of the first and single pair, Adam and Eve, whom God created and placed in paradise. This fact, interwoven with all the relations and all the doctrines of the Bible, is alike essential to its historical and religious truth. Now what says the candidate for the chair of your president? After an ingenious, lengthy, and elaborate argument to prove that the blacks are naturally and morally inferior both to white and red men; and that “their inferiority is not the effect merely of their condition of life,”8 he observes, “I advance it therefore as a suspicion only, that the blacks, whether originally a distinct race, or made distinct by time and circumstances, are inferior to the whites in the endowments both of body and mind.”9 He had therefore asserted, that “besides those of color, figure, and hair, there are other physical distinctions, proving a difference of race.10 He does, indeed, discover some compunction in reflecting on the consequences of his philosophy. For to several reasons why his opinion “must be hazarded with great diffidence,” he adds “as a circumstance of great tenderness,” that the “conclusion” to which his observations lead, “would degrade a whole race of men from the rank in the scale of beings which their Creator may perhaps have given them.”11 Much pains have been taken to persuade the public that Mr. Jefferson by “distinct race” and “difference of race,” means nothing more than that the negroes are only a branch of the great family of man, without impeaching the identity of their origin. This construction, though it may satisfy many, is unfounded, absurd, and contradicted by Mr. Jefferson himself. Unfounded: For when Philosophers treat of man as a “subject of natural history,” they use the term “race,” to express the stock from which the particular families spring, and not, as in the popular sense, the families themselves, without regard to their original. A single example, embracing the opinions of two philosophers, of whom the one, M. de Buffon, maintained, and the other, Lord Kames, denied the common origin of mankind, will prove my assertion.

“M. Buffon, from the rule, that animals which can procreate together, and whose progeny can also procreate, are of one species, concludes that all men are of one race or species.”12 Mr. Jefferson, writing on the same subject with these authors, and arguing on the same side with one of them, undoubtedly uses the term “race” in the same sense. And as the other construction is unfounded, it is also absurd. For it represents him as laboring through nearly a dozen pages to prove what no man ever thought of doubting, and what a glance of the eye sufficiently ascertains, viz. that the blacks and whites are different branches of a common family. Mr. Jefferson is not such a trifler; he fills his pages with more important matter, and with deeper sense. And by expressions which cut off evasion, contradicts the meaning which his friends have invented for him. He enumerates a variety of “distinctions which prove a difference of race.” These distinctions he alleges are not accidental, but “physical,” i.e. founded in nature. True, alarmed at the boldness of his own doctrine, he retreats a little. His proofs evaporate into a suspicion; but that suspicion is at a loss to suspect, whether the inferiority of the blacks (Mark it well, reader!) is owing to their being “originally Branches of the same stock originally distinct, is a contradiction. Mr. Jefferson therefore means, by different races, men descended from different stocks. His very “tenderness” is tinctured with an infidel hue. A conclusion corresponding with his speculations, affects him, because it “would degrade a whole race of men from the rank in the scale of beings which their Creator may perhaps have given them.” So then; the secret is out! What rank in the scale of beings have we, obeying the scripture, been accustomed to assign to the injured blacks? The very same with ourselves, viz. that of children of one common father. But if Mr. Jefferson’s notions be just, he says they will be degraded from that rank; i.e. will appear not to be children of the same father with us, but of another and inferior stock. But though he will not speak peremptorily, he strongly insinuates that he does not adopt, as an article of his philosophy, the descent of the blacks as well as the whites from that pair which came immediately from the hands of God. He is not sure. At best it is a doubt with him – “the rank which their Creator may perhaps have given them!” Now how will all this accord with revealed truth? God, says the Apostle Paul, “Hath made of one blood all nations of “men, for to dwell on all the face of the earth.”13 Perhaps it may be so, replies Mr. Jefferson; but there are, notwithstanding, physical distinctions proving a difference of race. I cannot repress my indignation! That a miserable, sinful worm, like myself, should proudly set up his “proofs” against the truth of my God and your God, and scout his veracity with a skeptical perhaps! I entreat Christians to consider the sweeping extent of this infidel doctrine of “different races.” If it be true, the history of the Bible, which knows of but one, is a string of falsehoods from the book of Genesis to that of the Revelation; and the whole system of redemption, predicated on the unity of the human race, is a cruel fiction. I ask Christians again, whether they would dare to speak and write on this subject in the style of Mr. Jefferson? Whether any believer in the word of the Lord Jesus, who is their hope, could entertain such doubts? Whether a writer, acute, cautious, and profound, like Mr. Jefferson, could as he had before done in the case of the deluge, pursue a train of argument, which he knew infidels before him had used to discredit revelation, and on which they still have great reliance – Whether, instead of vindicating the honor of the scripture, he could, in such circumstances, be as mute as death on this point; countenancing infidels by enforcing their sentiments; and yet be a Christian? The thing is impossible! And were any other than Mr. Jefferson to be guilty of the same disrespect to God’s word, you would not hesitate one moment in pronouncing him an infidel.

It is not only with his philosophical disquisitions hat Mr. Jefferson mingles opinions irreconcilable with the scriptures. He even goes out of his way for the sake of a fling at them. “Those,” says he, “who labor in the earth, are the chosen people of God, if ever he had a chosen people, whose breasts he has made his peculiar deposit for substantial and genuine virtue.”14

How does a Christian ear relish this “profane babbling?” In the first place, Mr. Jefferson doubts if ever God had a chosen people. In the second place, if he had, he insists they are no other than those who labor in the earth. At any rate, he denies his privilege to the seed of Abraham; and equally denies your being his people, unless you follow the scythe and the plow. Now, whether this be not the lie direct to the whole testimony of the Bible from the beginning to the end, judge ye.15

After these affronts to the oracles of God, you have no right to be surprised if Mr. Jefferson should preach the innocence of error, or even of Atheism. What do I say! He does preach it. “The legitimate powers of government,” they are his own words, “extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbors to say there are twenty Gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.”16

Ponder well this paragraph. Ten thousand impieties and mischief’s lurk in its womb. Mr. Jefferson maintains not only the inviolability of opinion, but of opinion, propagated. And that no class or character of abomination might be excluded from the sanctuary of such laws as he wishes to see established, he pleads for the impunity of published error in its most dangerous and execrable form. Polytheism or atheism, “twenty gods or no god,” is perfectly indifferent in Mr. Jefferson’s good citizen. A wretch may trumpet atheism from New Hampshire to Georgia; may laugh at all the realities of futurity; may scoff and teach others to scoff at their accountability; it is no matter, says Mr. Jefferson, “it neither picks my pocket, nor breaks my leg.” This is nothing less than representing civil society as founded in atheism. For there can be no religion without God. And if it does me or my neighbor no injury, to subvert the very foundation of religion by denying the being of God, then religion is not one of the constituent principles of society, and consequently society is perfect without it; that is, is perfect in atheism. Christians! What think you of this doctrine? Have you so learned Christ or truth? Is Atheism indeed no injury to society? Is it no injury to untie all the cords which bind you to the God of Heaven, and your deeds to his throne of judgment; which form the strength of personal virtue, give energy to the duties, and infuse sweetness into the charities, of human life? Is it indeed no injury to you, or to those around you, that your neighbor buries his conscience and all his sense of moral obligation in the gulf of atheism? Is it no injury to you, that the oath ceases to be sacred? That the eye of the Omniscient no more pervades the abode of crime? That you have no hold on your dearest friend, farther than the law is able to reach his person? Have you yet to learn that the peace and happiness of society depend upon things which the laws of men can never embrace? And whence, I pray you, are righteous laws to emanate, if rulers, by adopting atheism, be freed from the coercion of future retribution? Would you not rather be scourged with sword and famine and pestilence, than see your country converted into a den of atheism? Yet, says Mr. Jefferson, it is a harmless thing. “It does me no injury; it neither picks my pocket, nor breaks my leg.” This is perfectly of a piece with his favorite wish to see a government administered without any religious principle among either rulers or ruled. Pardon me, Christian: this is the morality of devils, which would break in an instant every link in the chain of human friendship, and transform the globe into one equal scene of desolation and horror, where fiend would prowl with fiend for plunder and blood – yet atheism “neither picks my pocket, nor breaks my leg.” I will not abuse you by asking, whether the author of such an opinion can be a Christian? Or whether he has any regard for the scriptures which confines all wisdom and blessedness and glory, both personal and social, to the fear and the favor of God?

The reader will observe, that in his sentiments on these four points, the deluge; the origin of nations; the chosen people of God; and Atheism, Mr. Jefferson has comprised the radical principles of infidelity in its utmost latitude. Accede to his positions on these, and he will compel you to grant the rest. There is hardly a single truth of revelation which would not fall before one or other of them. If the deluge be abandoned, you can defend neither the miracles, nor inspiration of the scripture. If men are not descendants of one common stock, the doctrine of salvation is convicted of essential error. If God never had any chosen people but the cultivators of the soil, the fabric of the New Testament falls to the ground; for its foundation in the choice of Israel to be his peculiar people, is swept away. And if the Atheism of one man be not injurious to another, society could easily dispense not only with his word but with his worship.

Conformable with the infidelity of his book, is an expression of Mr. Jefferson contained in a paragraph which I transcribe from the pamphlet entitled “Serious Considerations,”&c.

“When the late Rev. Dr. John B. Smith resided in Virginia, the famous Mazzei happened one night to be his guest. Dr. Smith having, as usual, assembled his family for their evening devotions, the circumstance occasioned some discourse on religion, in which the Italian made no secret of his infidel principles. In the course of conversation, he remarked to Dr. Smith, “Why your great philosopher and statesman, Mr. Jefferson, is rather farther gone in infidelity than I am;” and related, in confirmation, the following anecdote: That as he was once riding with Mr. Jefferson, he expressed his “surprise that the people of this country take no better care of their public buildings.” “What buildings?” exclaimed Mr. Jefferson, “Is not that a church?” replied he, pointing to a decayed edifice. “Yes,” answered Mr. Jefferson. “I am astonished,” said the other, “that they permit it to be in so ruinous a condition.” “It is good enough,” rejoined Mr. Jefferson, for him that was born in a manger!!” “Such a contemptuous fling at the blessed Jesus, could issue from the lips of no other than a deadly foe to his name and his cause.”17

Some of Mr. Jefferson’s friends have been desperate enough to challenge this anecdote as a calumny fabricated for electioneering purposes. But whatever they pretend, it is incontestably true, that the story was told, as here repeated, by Dr. Smith. I, as well as the author of “Serious Considerations,” and several others, heard it from the lips of Dr. Smith years ago, and more than once. The calumny, if any, lies either with those who impeach the veracity of a number of respectable witnesses, or with Mazzei himself. And there are not wanting, among the followers of Mr. Jefferson, advocates for this latter opinion. He must have been a wretch indeed, to blacken his brother-philosopher, by trumping up a deliberate lie in order to excuse his own impiety in the presence of a minister of Christ! If such was Mazzei, the philosopher, it is our wisdom to think, and think again, before we heap our largest honors upon the head of his bosom-friend.

Christian reader, the facts and reasoning which I have laid before you, produce in my mind an irresistible conviction, that Mr. Jefferson is a confirmed infidel; and I cannot see how they should have a less effect on yours. But when to these you add his solicitude for wresting the Bible from the hands of your children – his notoriously unchristian character – his disregard to all the ordinances of divine worship – his utter and open contempt of the Lord’s day, insomuch as to receive on it a public entertainment;+ every trace of doubt must vanish. What is a man who writes against the truths of God’s word? Who makes no even a profession of Christianity? Who is without Sabbaths; without the sanctuary; without so much as a decent external respect for the faith and the worship of Christians? What is he, what can he be, but a decided, a hardened infidel?

Several feeble and fruitless attempts have been made to fritter down and dissipate this mass of evidence. In vain are we told that Mr. Jefferson’s conduct is modest, moral, exemplary. I ask no odious questions. A man must be an adept in the higher orders of profligacy, if neither literary occupation, nor the influence of the surrounding gospel, can form or control his habits. Though infidelity and licentiousness are twin sisters, they are not compelled to be always in company; that I am not a debauchee, will therefore be hardly admitted as proof that I am not an infidel. In vain are we reminded, that the “Notes on Virginia” contain familiar mention, and respectful acknowledgment, of the being and attributes of God. Though infidelity leads to Atheism, a man may be an infidel without being an Atheist. Some have even pretended, that anxiety for the honor of God, prompted them to fix the brand of imposture upon the scripture! But where has Mr. Jefferson, when stating his private opinions, betrayed the least regard for the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ? In vain is it proclaimed, that he maintains a Christian minister at his own expense. I shall not enquire whether that maintenance does or does not arise from the product of glebe lands attached to many southern estates. Taking the fact to be simply as related, I will enquire whether prudent and political men never contribute to the support of Christianity from other motives than a belief of its truth? Mr. Jefferson may do all this and yet be an infidel. Voltaire, the vile, the blasphemous Voltaire, was building churches, and assisting at the mass, while he was writing to his philosophical confidants, concerning your divine Savior, Crush the wretch! In vain is the “Act for establishing religious freedom,” which flowed from the pen of Mr. Jefferson, and passed in the Assembly of Virginia, in 1786, paraded as the triumph of his Christian creed. I protest against the credibility of the witness! That act, I know, recognizes “the Holy Author of our religion,” as “Lord both of body and mind,” and possessing “Almighty power;” and by censuring “fallible and uninspired men,” tacitly acknowledges both the inspiration and infallibility of the sacred writers. But Mr. Jefferson is not here declaring his private opinions: for these we must look to his Notes, which were published a year after, and abound with ideas which contradict the authority of the scriptures. He speaks, in that act, as the organ of an Assembly professing Christianity; and it would not only have been a monstrous absurdity, but more than his credit and the Assembly’s too, was worth, to have been disrespectful, in an official deed, to that Redeemer whose name they owned, and who was precious to many of their constituents. Such Christianity is common with the bitterest enemies of Christ. Herbert, Hobbes, Blount, Toland, Tindal, Bolingbroke, Hume, Voltaire, Gibbon, at the very moment when they were laboring to argue or to laugh the gospel out of the world, affected great regard for our “holy religion” and its divine author. There is an edict of Frederic the II, of Prussia, on the subject of religious toleration, couched in terms of the utmost reverence for the Christian religion, and yet this same Frederic was one of the know of conspirators, who, with Voltaire at their head, plotted the extermination of Christianity: and whenever they spoke of its “Holy Author,” echoed to each other, Crush the wretch! This act, therefore proves nothing but that, at the time of its passing (we hope it is so still) there was religion enough in Virginia, to curb the proud spirit of infidelity.

Christians! Lay these things together: compare them; examine them separately, and collectively: ponder; pause; lay your hands upon your hearts; lift up your hearts to heaven, and pronounce on Mr. Jefferson’s Christianity. You cannot stifle your emotions; nor forbear uttering your indignant sentence – INFIDEL!!

This point being settled, one would think that you could have no difficulty about the rest, and would instantly and firmly conclude, “Such a man ought not, and as far as depends on me, shall not, be President of the United States! But I calculate too confidently. I have the humiliation to hear this inference controverted even by those whose “good confession” was a pledge that they are feelingly alive to the honor of their Redeemer. No, I am not deceived: they are Christian lips which plead that “Religion has nothing to do with politics” – that to refuse our suffrages on account of religious principles, would be an interference with the rights of conscience – that there is little hope of procuring a real believer, and we had better choose an infidel than a hypocrite.

That religion has, in fact, nothing to do with the politics of many who profess it, is a melancholy truth. But that it has, of right, no concern with political transactions, is quite a new discovery. If such opinions, however, prevail, there is no longer any mystery in the character of those whose who conduct, in political matters, violates every precept, and slanders every principle, of the religion of Christ. But what is politics? Is it not the science and the exercise of civil rights and civil duties? And what is religion? Is it not an obligation to the service of God, founded on his authority, and extending to all our relations personal and social? Yet religion has nothing to do with politics! Where did you learn this maxim? The Bible is full of directions for your behavior as citizens. It is plain, pointed, awful in its injunctions on rulers and ruled as such: yet religion has nothing to do with politics. You are commanded “in ALL your ways acknowledge him.”18 IN EVERYTHING, by prayer and supplication, with thanksgiving, to let your requests be made known unto God,”19And WHATSOEVER YE DO, IN WORD OR DEED, to do ALL IN THE NAME of the Lord Jesus.20 Yet, religion has nothing to do with politics! Most astonishing! And is there any part of your conduct in which you are, or wish to be, without law to God, and not under the law of Christ? Can you persuade yourselves that political men and measures are to undergo no review in the judgment to come? That all the passion and violence, the fraud and falsehood, and corruption which pervade the systems of party, and burst out like a flood at the public elections, are to be blotted from the catalogue of unchristian deeds, because they are politics? Or that a minister of the gospel may see his people, in their political career, bid defiance to their God in breaking through every moral restraint, and keep a guiltless silence because religion has nothing to do with politics? I forbear to press the argument farther; observing only, that many of our difficulties and sins may be traced to this pernicious notion. Yes, if our religion had had more to do with politics, if, in the pride of our citizenship, we had not forgotten our Christianity: if we had prayed more and wrangled less about the affairs of our country, it would have been infinitely better for us at this day.

But you are afraid that to refuse a man your suffrages because he is an infidel, would interfere with the rights of conscience. This is a most singular scruple, and proves how wild are the opinions of men on the subject of liberty. Conscience is God’s officer in the human breast, and its rights are defined by his law. The right of conscience to trample on his authority is the right of a rebel, which entitles him to nothing but condign punishment. You are afraid of being unkind to the conscience of an infidel. Dismiss your fears. It is the last grievance of which he will complaint. How far do you suppose Mr. Jefferson consulted his conscience when he was vilifying the divine word, and preaching insurrection against God, by preaching the harmlessness of Atheism? But supposing Mr. Jefferson to be conscientiously impious, this would only be a stronger reason for our opposition. For the more conscientious a man is, the more persevering will he be in his views, and the more anxious for their propagation. If he be fixed, then, in dangerous error, faithfulness to God and truth requires us to resist him and his conscience too; and to keep from him the means of doing mischief. If a man thought himself bound in conscience, whenever he should be able, to banish God’s Sabbath, burn his churches, and hang his worshippers, would you entrust him with power out of respect to conscience? I trust not. And why you should judge differently in the case of an infidel who spurns at what is dearer to you than life, I cannot conceive. But in your solicitude for the conscience of Mr. Jefferson, have you considered, in the mean time, what becomes of your own conscience? Has it no rights? No voice? No influence? Are you not to keep it void of offense towards God? Can you do this in elevating his open enemies to the highest dignity of your country? Beware, therefore, lest an ill-directed care for the conscience of another, bring your own under the lashes of remorse. Keep this clear, by the word of God, and there is little hazard of injuring your neighbor’s. But how can you interfere with any man’s conscience by refusing him a political office? You do not invade the sanctuary of his bosom: you impose on him no creed: you simply tell him you do not like him, or that you prefer another to him. Do you injure him by this? Do you not merely exercise the right of a citizen and a Christian? It belongs essentially to the freedom of election, to refuse my vote to any candidate for reasons of conscience, of state, of predilection, or for no reason at all but my own choice. The rights of conscience, on his part, are out of the question. He proposes himself for my approbation. If I approve, I give him my support. If not, I withhold it. His conscience has nothing to do with my motives; but to my own conscience they are serious things. If he be an infidel, I will not compel him to profess Christianity. Let him retain his infidelity, enjoy all its comforts, and meet all its consequences. But I have an unquestionable right to say, “I cannot trust a man of such principles: on what grounds he has adopted them is not my concern; nor will his personal sincerity alter their tendency. While he is an infidel, he shall never have my countenance. Let him stay where he is: and let his conscience be its own reward.” I could not blame another for such conduct to me; for he only makes an independent use of his privilege, which does me no injury: nor am I to be blamed for such conduct to another, for I only make the same use of my privilege, which is no injury to him. Mr. Jefferson’s conscience cannot, therefore, be wronged if you exclude him from the presidency because he is an infidel; and your own, by an act of such Christian magnanimity, may escape hereafter many a bitter pang. For if you elect Mr. Jefferson, though an infidel, from a regard to what you consider the rights of conscience, you must, in order to be consistent, carry your principle through. If infidelity is not a valid objection to a candidate for the presidency, it cannot be so to a candidate for any other office. You must never again say, “We will not vote for such a man because he is an infidel.” The evil brotherhood will turn upon you with your own doctrine of the “rights of conscience.,” You must then either retract, or be content to see every office filled with infidels. How horrible, in such an event, would be the situation of your country! How deep your agony under the torments of self-reproach!

But there is no prospect, you say, of obtaining a real Christian, and we had better choose an infidel than a hypocrite. By no means. Supposing that a man professes Christianity, and evinces in his general deportment a regard for its doctrines, its worship, and its laws; though he be rotten at heart, he is infinitely preferable to a known infidel. His hypocrisy is before God. It may ruin his own soul; but, while it is without detection, can do no hurt to men. We have a hold of him which it is impossible to get of an infidel. His reputation, his habits, his interests, depending upon the belief of his Christianity, are sureties for his behavior to which we vainly look for a counterbalance in an infidel; and they are, next to religion itself, the strongest sureties of man to man. His very hypocrisy is homage to the gospel. The whole weight of his example is on the side of Christianity, while that of an open infidel lies wholly against it. It is well known that the attendance of your Washington, and of President Adams upon public worship, gave the ordinances of the gospel a respectability in the eyes of many which otherwise they would not have had: brought a train of thoughtless people within the reach of the means of salvation: and thus strengthened the opposition of Christians to the progress of infidelity. You can never forget the honorable testimony which Mr. Adams bore, in one of his proclamations, to a number of the most precious truths of Revelation; nor how he was abused and ridiculed for it, by not a few of those very persons who now strive to persuade you that Mr. Jefferson is a Christian. In short, your President, if an open infidel, will be a center of contagion to the whole continent: If a professed Christian, he will honor the institutions of God; and though his hypocrisy, should he prove a hypocrite, may be a fire to consume his own vitals, it cannot become a wide-spreading conflagration.

Can you still hesitate? Perhaps you may. I therefore bespeak your attention to a few plain and cogent reasons, why you cannot, without violating your plighted faith, and trampling on your most sacred duties, place an infidel at the head of your government.

1. The civil magistrate is God’s officer. He is the minister of God, says Paul, to thee for good.21 Consequently his first and highest obligation, is to cherish in his mind, and express in his conduct, his sense of obedience to the Governor of the Universe. He that rules over men must be just, ruling in THE FEAR OF GOD.22 The scriptures have left you this and similar declarations, to direct you in the choice of your magistrates. And you are bound, upon your allegiance to the God of the scriptures, to look out for such men as answer he description; and if, unhappily, they are not to be had, for such as come nearest to it. The good man, he who shall “dwell in God’s holy hill,” is one “in whose eyes “a vile person is contemned; but he who honors “them that fear the Lord.”23 But can you pretend to regard this principle, when you desire to raise an infidel to the most important post in your country? Do you call this honoring them that fear God? Nay, it is honoring them who do not fear God: that is, according o the scriptural contrast, honoring a vile person, whom as Christians, you ought to contemn. And have you the smallest expectation that one who despises the word and worship of God; who has openly taught the harmlessness of rebellion against his government and being, by teaching that Atheism is no injury to society, will nevertheless, rule in his fear? Will it show any reverence or love to your Father in Heaven, to put a distinguishing mark of your confidence upon his sworn foe? Or will it be an affront to his majesty?

2. The civil magistrate is, by divine appointment, the guardian of the Sabbath. In it thou shall not do any work; thou, nor thy son, &c. nor THE STRANGER THAT IS WITHIN THY GATES.24 “Gates,” is a scriptural term for public authority; and that it is so to be understood in this commandment, is evident from its connection with “stranger.” God says that even the stranger shall not be allowed to profane his Sabbath. But the stranger can be controlled only by the civil magistrate who “sitteth in the gate.”25I therefore belong to his office, to enforce, by lawful means, the sanctification of the Sabbath, as the fundamental institute of religion and morals, and the social expression of homage to that God under whom he acts. The least which can be accepted from him, is to recommend it by personal observance. How do you suppose Mr. Jefferson will perform this part of his duty? Or how can you deposit in his hands a rust, which you cannot but think he will betray; and in betraying which, he will not only sacrifice some of your most invaluable interests, but as your organ and in your name, lift up his heel against the God of Heaven? In different states, you have made, not long since, spirited exertions to hinder the profanation of your Lord’s day. For this purpose many of you endeavored to procure religious magistrates for this City, and religious representatives in the councils of the State. You well remember how you were mocked, traduced, execrated, especially by the infidel tribe. But what is now become of your zeal and your consistency? I can read in the list of delegates to the Legislature, the names of men who have been an ornament to the gospel, and acquitted themselves like Christians in that noble struggle, and yet are expected to ballot for electors, whose votes shall be given to an infidel President. Who has bewitched you, Christians? Or, what do you mean by siding with the infidels to lift into the chair of State, a man more eminent for nothing than for his scorn of the day, the ordinances, and the worship of your Redeemer; and who did not blush to make it, in the face of the sun, a season of frolic and revel?26 Is this your kindness to your friend?

3. The church of God has ever accounted it a great mercy to have civil rulers professing his name. Rather than yield it, thousands of your fathers have poured out their blood. This privilege is now in your hands: and it is the chief circumstance which makes the freedom of election worth a Christian’s care. Will you, dare you, abuse it by prostituting it to the aggrandizement of an enemy to your Lord and to his Christ? If you do, will it not be a righteous thing with God to take the privilege from you altogether; and, in his wrath, to subject you, and your children, to such rulers as you have, by your own deed, preferred?

4. You are commanded to pray for your rulers: it is your custom to pray, that they may be men fearing God and hating covetousness. You entreat him to fulfill his promise, that kings shall be to his church nursing-fathers and queens her nursing mothers.27 With what conscience can you lift up your hands in such supplication, when you are exerting yourselves to procure a President, who you know does not fear God; i. e. one exactly the reverse of the man whom you ask him to bestow? And when, by this act, you do all in your power to defeat the promise of which you affect to wish the fulfillment? Do you think that the church of Christ is to be nurtured by the dragon’s milk of infidelity? Or that the contradiction between your prayers and your practice does not mock the holy God?

5. There are circumstances in the state of your country which impart to these reflections, applicable in their spirit to all Christians, a double emphasis in their application to you.

The Federal Constitution makes no acknowledgement of that God who gave us our national existence, and saved us from anarchy and internal war. This neglect has excited in many of its best friends, more alarm than all other difficulties. The only way to wipe off the reproach of irreligion, and to avert the descending vengeance, is to prove, by our national acts, that the Constitution has not, in this instance, done justice to the public sentiment. But if you appoint an infidel for your President, and such an infidel as Mr. Jefferson, you will sanction that neglect, you will declare, by a solemn national act, that there is no more religion in your collective character, than in your written constitution: you will put a national indignity upon the God of your mercies; and provoke him, it may be, to send over your land that deluge of judgments which his forbearance has hitherto suspended.

Add to this the consideration, that infidelity has awfully increased. The time was, and that within your own recollection, when the term infidelity was almost a stranger to our ears, and an open infidel an object of abhorrence. But now the term has become familiar, and infidels hardly disgust. Our youth, our hope and our pride, are poisoned with the accursed leaven. The vain title of “philosopher,” has turned their giddy heads, and, what is worse, corrupted their untutored hearts. It is now a mark of sense, the proof of an enlarged and liberal mind, to scoff at all the truths of inspiration, and to cover with ridicule the hope of a Christian; those truths and that hope which are the richest boon of divine benignity; which calm the perturbed conscience, and heal the wounded spirit; which sweeten every comfort, and soothe every sorrow; which give strong consolation in the arrest of death, and shed the light of immortality on the gloom of the grave. All, all are become the sneer of the buffoon, and the song of the drunkard. These things, Christians, you deplore. You feel indignant, as well as discouraged, at the inroads of infidel principle and profligate manners. You declaim against them. You caution your children against their infection. And yet, with such facts before your eyes, and such lessons in your mouths, you are on the point of undoing whatever you have done; and annihilating, at one blow, the effect of all your profession, instruction, and example. By giving your support to Mr. Jefferson, you are about to strip infidelity of its ignominy; array it in honors; and hold it up with éclat to the view of the rising generation. By this act, you will proclaim to the whole world that it is not so detestable a thing as you pretended; that you do not believe it subversive of moral obligation and social purity: that a man may revile your religion and blaspheme your Savior; and yet command your highest confidence. This amounts to nothing less than a deliberate surrender of the cause of Jesus Christ into the hands of his enemies. By this single act – my flesh trembles, my blood chills at the thought! By this single act you will do more to destroy a regard for the gospel of Jesus, than the whole fraternity of infidels with all their arts, their industry and their intrigues. You will stamp credit upon principles, the native tendency of which is to ruin your children in this world, and damn them in the world to come. O God! “The ox knows his owner, and the ass his master’s crib: but thy people do not know, and Israel does not consider.”28

With these serious reflections, let me connect a fact equally serious: The whole strength of open and active infidelity is on the side of Mr. Jefferson. You may well start! But the observation and experience of the Continent is one long and loud attestation to the truth of my assertion. I say open and active infidelity. You can scarcely find one exception among all who preach infidel tenets among the people. Did it never occur to you, that such men would not be so zealous for Mr. Jefferson if they were not well assured of his being one of themselves – that they would cordially hate him if they supposed him to be a Christian – or that they have the most sanguine hope that his election to the Presidency will promote their cause? I know, that to serve the purpose of the moment =, those very presses which teemed with abuse of your Redeemer, are now affecting to offer incense to his religion; and that Deists themselves are laboring to convince you that Mr. Jefferson is a Christian; and yet have the effrontery to talk of other men’s hypocrisy! Can you be the dupes of such an artifice? Do you not see in it a proof that there is no reliance to be placed on an infidel conscience? Do you need to be reminded that these infidels who now court you, are the very men who, four years ago, insulted your faith and your Lord with every expression of ridicule and contempt? That these very men circulated, with unremitting assiduity, that execrable book of Boulanger, entitled Christianity Unveiled; and that equally execrable abortion of Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason? That, in order to get them (especially the latter) into the hands of the common people, they sold them at a very low rate; gave them away where they could not sell them; and slipped them into the pockets of numbers who refused to accept them? Do you know that some of these infidels were at the trouble of translating from the French, and printing, for the benefit of Americans, a work of downright, undisguised Atheism, with the imposing title of Common Sense? That it was openly advertised, and extracts, or an extract, published to help the sale?29 Do you know that some of the same brotherhood are secretly handing about, I need not say where, a book, written by Charles Pigott, an Englishman, entitled A Political Dictionary? Take the following example of its impiety: (my hair stiffens while I transcribe it) “Religion – a superstition invented by the arch-bishop of hell, and propagated by his faithful diocesans the clergy, to keep the people in ignorance and darkness, that they may not see the work of iniquity that is going on,” &c.30

Such are the men with whom professors of the name of our Lord Jesus Christ are concerting the election of an infidel to the Presidency of the United States of America. Hear the word of the Lord. “What fellowship has righteousness with unrighteousness? And what communion has light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? And what part has he that believes with an infidel?”31 Yet Christians are uniting with infidels in exalting an infidel to the chief magistracy! If he succeed, Christians must bear the blame. Numerous as the infidels are, they are not yet able, adored be God, to seize up on our “high places.” Christians must help them, or they set not their feet on the threshold of power. If, therefore, an infidel preside over our country, it will be YOUR fault, Christians; and YOUR act; and YOU shall answer it? And for aiding and abetting such a design, I charge upon your consciences the sin of striking hands in a covenant of friendship with the enemies of your master’s glory. Ah, what will be your compunction, when these same infidels, victorious through your assistance, will “tread you down as the mire in the streets,” and exult in their triumph over bigots and bigotry.

Sit down, now, and interrogate your own hearts, whether you can, with a “pure conscience,” befriend Mr. Jefferson’s election? Whether you can do it in the name of the Lord Jesus? Whether you can lift up your heads and tell him that the choice of this infidel is for his honor, and that you promote it in the faith of his approbation? Whether, in the event of success, you have a right to look for his blessing in the enjoyment of your President? Whether, having preferred the talents of a man before the religion of Jesus, you ought not to fear that God will blast these talents; abandon your President to infatuated counsels; and yourselves to the plague of your own folly? Whether it would not be just to remove the restraints of his good providence, and scourge you with that very infidelity which you did not scruple to countenance? Whether you can, without some guilty misgivings, pray for the spirit of Christ upon a President whom you choose in spite of every demonstration of his hatred to Christ? Those who, to keep their consciences clean, oppose Mr. Jefferson, may pray for him, in this manner, with a full and fervent heart. But to you, God may administer this dread rebuke: “You chose an infidel: keep him as ye chose him: walk in the sparks that ye have kindled.” Whether the threats of God are not pointed against such a magistrate and such a people? “Be wise, O ye kings,” is his commandment; be instructed ye judges of the earth: serve the Lord with fear and rejoice with trembling; KISS THE SON, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way when his anger is kindled but a little.”32 What then is in store for a magistrate who is so far from kissing the son,” that he hates and opposes him? “The wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that forget God.”33 And who forgets him, if not a nation which, though called by his name, nevertheless caresses, honors, rewards his enemies? The Lord hath sworn to strike through Kings in the day of his wrath.34 Woe then, to those governments which are wielded by infidels, when he arises to judgment; and woe to those who have contributed to establish them! To whatever influence they owe their determinations and their measures, it is not to the “Spirit of understanding and of the fear of the Lord.” Do I speak these things as a man; or says not the scripture the same also? “Woe to the rebellious children, says the Lord, that take counsel, but not of me, and that cover with a covering, but not of my Spirit, that they may add sin to sin. That walk to go down into Egypt (and have not asked at my mouth) to strengthen themselves in the strength of Pharaoh, and to trust in the shadow of Egypt. Therefore the strength of Egypt shall be your shame, and the trust in the shadow of Egypt your CONFUSION.”35 This is the light in which God considers your confidence in his enemies. And the issue for which you ought to be prepared.

I have done; and do not flatter myself that I shall escape the censure of many professed, and of some real, Christians. The style of this pamphlet is calculated to conciliate nothing but conscience. I desire to conciliate nothing else. “If I pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.” I do not expect, nor wish, to fare better than the apostle of the Gentiles, who became the enemy of not a few professors, because he told them the truth.36 But the Bible speaks of “children that will not hear the law of the Lord – which say to the seers, See not: and to the prophets, Prophesy not unto us right things: speak unto us smooth things: Prophesy deceits.” Here is the truth, “Whether you will hear, or whether you will forbear.” If you are resolved to persevere in elevating an infidel to the chair of your President, I pray God not to “choose your delusions” – but cannot dissemble that “my flesh trembles for fear of his judgments.” It is my consolation that my feeble voice has been lifted up for his name. I have addressed you as one who believes, and I beseech you to act as those who believe, “That we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ.” Whatever be the result, you shall not plead that you were not warned. If, notwithstanding, you call to govern you an enemy to my Lord and your Lord; in the face of earth and heaven, and in the audience of your own consciences, I record my protest, and wash my hands of your guilt.37

ARISE, O LORD, AND LET NOT MAN PREVAIL!


Endnotes

1 The edition which I use is the second American edition, published at Philadelphia, by Matthew Carey, 1794.

2 Jefferson’s Notes on Virginia, p. 39-41.

3 Jefferson’s Notes on Virginia, p. 42.

4 Gen. vii. 19.

5 ib. v. 20.

6 Gen. vii. 11.

7 Nay, as it is only the scripture which authenticates the popular belief of an universal deluge, Mr. Jefferson’s insinuation can hardly have any meaning, if it be not an oblique stroke at the Bible itself. Nothing can be more silly than the pretext that he shows the insufficiency of natural causes to effect the deluge, with a view of supporting the credit of the miracle. His difficulty is not to account for the deluge: he denies that; but for the shells on the top of the Andes. If he believed in the deluge, natural or miraculous, the difficulty would cease: he would say at once, The flood threw them there. But as he tells us, “this great phenomenon is, as yet, unsolved,” it is clear that he does not believe in the deluge at all; for this “solves” his “phenomenon” most effectually. And for whom does Mr. J. write? For Christians? None of them ever dreamed that the deluge was caused by anthing else than a miracle. For infidels? Why then of this “great phenomenon?” The plain matter of fact is, that he writes like all other infidels, who admit nothing for which they cannot find adequate “natural agents;” and when these fail them, instead of resorting to the divine word, which would often satisfy a modest enquirer, by revealing the “arm of Jehovah,” they shrug up their shoulders, and cry, “Ignorance is preferable to error.”+
+Notes on Virginia, p. 42.

8 Notes on Virginia, p. 205.

9 ib. 209.

10 ib. 201.

11 ib. 203.

12 Kame’s Sketches, vol. i. p. 24.

13 Acts xvii. 26.

14 Notes on Virginia, p. 240.

15 Some have been vain enough to suppose that they destroy this proof of Mr. J’s infidelity, by representing his expression “the chosen people of God, if ever he had a chosen people,” as synonymous with the following: “A.B. is an honest man, if ever there was an honest man,” which so far from doubting the existence of honest men, that it founds, in the certainty of this fact, the assertion of A.B.’s honesty. On this wretched sophism, unworthy of good sense, and more unworthy of candor, I remark,
1. That the expressions are by no means similar. The whole world admits that there are honest men, which makes the proposition, “A.B. is an honest man, if ever there was an honest man,” a strong assertion of A.B.’s honesty. But the hundredth part of the world does not admit that God had a chosen people, and therefore the proposition that “those who labor in the earth are the chosen people of God, if ever he had a chosen people,” is, upon this construction, no assertion at all that the cultivators of the soil are his people, because there are millions who do not believe the fact on which it must be founded: viz. that he had a chosen people.
2. That if the expressions were parallel, Mr. J. would still be left in the lurch, because the first asserts A.B. to be as much an honest man as any man that ever lived; and so Mr. J. asserts “those who labor in the earth” to be as much the “chosen people of God,” as any people that ever lived. This is still the lie direct to the whole Bible, and the inventors of this lucky shift, must set their wits at work to invent another..

16 Notes on Virginia, p. 231.

17 Serious Considerations, p. 16, 17.

18 Prov. iii. 3.

19 Phil. iv. 6.

20 Col. iii. 17.

21 Rom. Xiii. 4.

22 Ps. Xv. 4.

23 2 Sam. Xxiii. 3.

24 Ex. Xx. 10.

25 Dan. ii. 49.

26 The Fredericks feast, given on the Sabbath, to MR. J. 1798.

27 Is. xlix. 23.

28 Is. i. 3.

29 The title is a trick, designed to entrap the unwary, by palming it on them through the popularity of Paine’s tracts under the same name. The title in the original, is Le on Sens, Good Sense. It was printed, I believe, in Philadelphia; but the Printer was ashamed or afraid to own it.

30 Pigott’s Political Dictionary, p. 132. This work was originally printed in England; but having been suppressed there, the whole or, nearly the whole, impression was sent over to America, and distributed among the people. But in what manner, and by what means, there are some who can tell better than the writer of this pamphlet. It was thought, however, to be so useful, as to merit the American press. For the copy which I possess, is one of an edition printed at New York, for Thomas Greenleaf, late editor of the Argus: 1796.

31 2. Cor. V. 14, 15.

32 Ps. ii. 10-12 .

33 Ps. ix. 17.

34 Ps. cx. 5.

35 Is. xxx. 1-3.

36 Gal. iv 16.

37 Is. xxx. 9, 10.

Washington Reading Prayers in His Camp

The title of this picture is “Washington Reading Prayers in His Camp.” Even though the picture below may not be of a specific instance, there is documentation (located below the picture) to show that George Washington encouraged prayer amongst the troops and friendly Indian tribes.


 washington-reading-prayers-in-his-camp-1

William Fairfax, Washington’s paternal adviser, had recently counseled him by letter, to have public prayers in his camp;1 especially when there were Indian families there; this was accordingly done at the encampment in the Great Meadows and it certainly was not one of the least striking pictures presented in this wild campaign—the youthful commander, presiding with calm seriousness of a motley assemblage of half-equipped soldiery leather-clad hunters and woodsmen, and painted savages with their wives and children, and uniting them all in solemn devotion by his own example and demeanor.2

The first decisive indication of his principles on this subject, with which we are acquainted, appeared during the encampment at the Great Meadows, in the year 1754. While occupying Fort Necessity, it was his practice to have the troops assembled for public worship. This we learn from the following note, by the publisher of his writings. “While Washington was encamped at the Great Meadows, Mr. Fairfax wrote to him; ‘I will not doubt your having public prayers in the camp, especially when the Indian families are your guests, that they, seeing your plain manner of worship, may have their curiosity excited to be informed why we do not use the ceremonies of the French, which being well explained to their understandings, will more and more dispose them to receive our baptism, and unite in strict bonds of cordial friendship.’”
“It may be added, that it was Washington’s custom to have prayers in the camp while he was at Fort Necessity.”3


Endnotes

1 William Fairfax to George Washington, July 10, 1754, National Archives.
2 Washington Irving, Life of George Washington (New York: G. P. Putnam & Co., 1856), I:116.
3 E. C. M’Guire, The Religious Opinions and Character of Washington (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1836), 136, quoting: Jared Sparks, The Writings of George Washington (Boston: Russell, Odiorne, & Metcalf, 1834), 2:54.

The Death of General Braddock

Edward Braddock, the commander of the British forces who was killed in the Battle of Monongahela was hastily buried as the British retreated before the French and Indian army. George Washington, having been General Braddock’s Aid-De-Camp, filled in for the wounded chaplain and read the funeral prayers over General Braddock’s body.


the-death-of-general-braddock-1

The litter on which he lay was set down, and his remaining officers gathered sadly around it. As a last token of gratitude to his young volunteer aid, for his noble devotion and heroism, he gave him a splendid charger and his own body servant. A brief farewell—a faint gasp—a weak struggle—and Braddock lay a corpse in the forest. A grave was hastily dug in the center of the road, to conceal it from the Indians, into which, with his sword lain across his breast, he was lowered. Young Washington read the funeral service by torchlight over him, the deep tones of his voice interrupted only by the solemn ‘amen’ of the surrounding officers—the open grave, and beside it the pale face of the sleeper, combined to form a scene at once picturesque and most solemn. A mark was left to designate the spot, and the army again defiled though the wilderness.1

For additional information about the Battle of Monongahela, check out The Bulletproof George Washington


Endnotes

1 Hon. J. T. Headley, The Illustrated Life of Washington (New York: G. & F. Bill, 1859), 60. See also, Washington Irving, Life of George Washington (New York: G. P. Putnam & Co., 1856), I:201.

Harvard College Charter

Harvard University was founded in 1636 and was incorporated in May 1650. Many signers of the Declaration of Independence graduated from Harvard, including: John Adams, Samuel Adams, John Hancock, and others. As did several national leaders, such as Joseph Story and John Quincy Adams.

Below is a 1650 incorporation charter for Harvard College from the WallBuilders library. Below is the transcript with corrected spelling and expanded abbreviations:

At the General Court held at Boston in the year. 1642

Whereas through the good hand of God upon us, there is a College founded in Cambridge in the County of Middlesex, called Harvard College, for the Encouragement whereof this Court has given the Sun of £400, and also the Revenue of the Ferry between Boston and Charleston, and that the well ordering and Managing of the said College is of great concernment.

It is therefore ordered by this court and the authority thereof that the Governor and Deputy Governor, for the time being, and all the Magistrates of the Jurisdiction, together with the teaching Elders of the Six next adjoining towns viz. Cambridge, Watertown, Charleston, Boston, Roxbury and Dorchester, and the President of the said College, for the time being shall from time to time have full power and authority, to make and establish all such orders, statutes, and constitutions, as they shall see necessary, for the instituting, guiding and furthering of the said College and the several members thereof from time to time in Piety, Morality, and Learning as also to dispose order and manage to the use of the said College and the members thereof, all Gifts, Legacies, Bequests, Revenues, Lands, and Donations, as either have been, are or shall be conferred, bestowed or any ways shall fall or come to the said College,

And whereas it may come to pass, that many of the said magistrates and said Elders may be absent, or otherwise employed about other weighty affairs when the said College may need their present Help and Counsel,

It is therefore ordered that the greater a Number of the Magistrates and Elders which shall be present with the President shall have the Power of the whole, provided that if any Constitution, or disposed orders by them made, shall be found hurtful to the said College or members thereof, or to the Wealth-Public, then upon the appeal of the Party or Parties grieved unto the Company of overseers first mentioned, they shall repeal the said order or orders (if they shall see cause) at the next meeting or stand accountable thereof to the next General Court.

For the further encouragement and promoting the Weal and Government of the Students in the College, the General Court held at Boston the 30th of May, 1650, made and granted under the Seal of the Colony, this following Charter.

Whereas through the good hand of God many devoted Persons have been and daily are moved and stirred up to give and bestow, sundry Gifts, Legacies, Lands, and Revenues for the advancement of all good Literature, Arts, and Sciences in Harvard College in Cambridge in the county of Middlesex and to the Maintenance of the President and Fellows, and for all accommodations of Building and all of the necessary Provisions that may Conduce to the Education of the English and Indian Youth of the County in Knowledge and Godliness.

It is therefore ordered and enacted by the Court and the Authority thereof, that for the furthering of so good a Work and for the proposed aforesaid, that from hence forth that the said College in Cambridge in Middlesex aforesaid, in New England shall be a Corporation consisting of Seven Persons, viz. a President, five Fellows, and a Treasurer or Purse, and that Henry Dunster shall be the first President. Samuel Mather, Samuel Danforth, Master of Art, Jonathan Mitchell, Comfort Star, and Samuel Eaton, Bachelor of Art, shall be the five fellows, and Thomas Danforth to be present Treasurer all of the time being Inhabitants in the Bay and shall be the first Seven Person of which the said Corporation shall consist and the said Seven persons or the greater Number of them procuring the presence of the Overseers of the College and by their Counsel and Consent shall have power, and are hereby Authorized at any time or times to Elect a new President, Fellows, and Treasurer, so oft from time to time as any of the said Person or Persons, shall die or be Removed which said President and Fellows for the time being, what power here after in Name and Fact become body Politic and Corporate in Law to all Intents and Purposes, and shall have perpetual secession and shall be called by the name of President and Fellows of Harvard College, and from time to time be eligible as aforesaid, and by the name they and their Successors shall and may purchase and acquire to themselves or take and receive upon, free Gifts and Donations, and Land Tenements and Hereditaments within this Jurisdiction of Massachusetts not exceeding the value of £500 per annum, or any goods and sums of money…. [end of manuscript, to read full charter see here]

 


Front Page
Back Page

Benjamin Rush Personal Bible Study

Founding Father Benjamin Rush’s handwritten personal Bible study booklet entitled “References to Texts of Scriptures Related to Each Other Upon Particular Subjects.” In it he listed scriptures under various topics and wrote his own notes on those scriptures. We have included excerpts of the booklet below.


 

benjamin-rush-personal-bible-study-1
Booklet Cover

 

benjamin-rush-personal-bible-study-2 benjamin-rush-personal-bible-study-3

Rush recorded three pages of scriptures and notes regarding
“Atonement”


 

benjamin-rush-personal-bible-study-4
“Universal Salvation”

Rush cataloged scriptures such as Exodus 32:11-12; Romans
5:3-4; Isaiah 49:6,8-9; Matthew 15:13; etc. under the title “Universal Salvation”


 

benjamin-rush-personal-bible-study-5
“Objects of Prayer” & “Influences
of Religion on Family Prosperity”

Rush’s notes on scripture passages related to prayer and
God’s blessings
(Note: nail used in book seam)


 

benjamin-rush-personal-bible-study-6
“Kindness to Strangers”

Rush lists Leviticus 19:33, Exodus 12:49, Deuteronomy 23:7
and other verses under the heading “Kindness to Strangers”


 

benjamin-rush-personal-bible-study-7
“Efficacy of Prayer”

Rush’s scriptures on the effectiveness of prayer include
Genesis chapter 18 and 21:17 & 21.

 


Benjamin Rush

(1745-1813) Rush was a physician, educator, philanthropist, and statesman. He graduated from Princeton (1760) and then studied medicine in Philadelphia, Edinburgh, London, and Paris. He served in the Continental Congress (1776-77) and signed the Declaration of Independence (1776). Rush also: suggested to Thomas Paine that he write Common Sense (1776) and supplied the title for it as well as helped publish it; was Surgeon-General of the Continental Army (1777-78); and was one of the founders of Dickinson College (1783). He was an influential delegate to the State ratification convention for the federal Constitution (1787), and along with James Wilson, one of the principal coauthors of the Pennsylvania constitution (1789-90). Rush served as Treasurer of the U. S. Mint under Presidents John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison (1797-1813). He mediated a reconciliation between long time political rivals John Adams and Thomas Jefferson; was a founder of the Pennsylvania Society for Promoting the Abolition of Slavery (1774) and its president; founder and Vice-president of the Philadelphia Bible Society (1808-13); member of the First Day Society of Philadelphia (1790); and a member of the Abolition Society (1794-97). Benjamin Rush is called the “Father of American Medicine” for his numerous medical discoveries.

John Adams Letter to Benjamin Rush

The following is the original December 21, 1809 letter by John Adams to Benjamin Rush, followed by the transcription. The transcript has been modified from the original to include modern grammar and spelling.



Quincy December 21, 1809

My dear Sir

I thank you for the pleasing account of your family in your favor of the 5th as I have a lively interest in their prosperity and felicity, your relation of it gave me great pleasure. We have letters from our colony navigating the Baltic, dated at Christiansand. They had been so far as prosperous and healthy and happy as such travelers could expect to be.

Pope said of my friend General Oglethorpe.
Some driven by strong benevolence of soul shall fly like Oglethorpe from pole to pole. But what was a trip to Georgia in comparison with the journeys and voyages that J.Q. Adams has performed? I do not believe that Admiral Nelson ever ran greater risks at Sea.

Tell Richard that I hope Mrs. Rush will soon present him with a son that will do him as much honor in proportion as the first born of his genius has already done him in the opinion of the world. W.S.S. our guardian of the Athenaum has obtained it and proclaims it loudly everywhere the best pamphlet that will be read. Be sure you do not hint this to Mrs. Rush Junr. It would alarm her delivery.

I really do not know whether I do not envy your city of Philadelphia for its reputation for science, arts, and letters and especially its medical professor. I know not, neither whether I do not envy you your genius and inspiration. Why have I not some fancy? Some invention? Some ingenuity? Some discursive faculty? Why has all my life been consumed in searching for facts and principles and proofs and reasons to support them? Your dreams and fables have more genius in them than all my life. Your Fable of Dorcas would make a good chapter or a good appendix to the Tale of a Tub.

But my friend there is something very serious in this business. The Holy Ghost carries on the whole Christian system in this Earth. Not a baptism, not a marriage, not a Sacrament can be administered but by the Holy Ghost, who is transmitted from age to age by laying the hands of the Bishop on the heads of candidates for the Ministry. In the same manner as the Holy Ghost is transmitted from monarch to monarch by the holy oil in the vial at Rheims which was brought down from Heaven by a dove and by that other phial [vial] which I have seen in the Tower of London. There is no authority civil or religious: There can be no legitimate government but that which is administered by this Holy Ghost. There can be no salvation without it. All without it is rebellion and perdition, or in more orthodox words damnation. Although this is all artifice and cunning in the sacred original in the heart, yet they all believe it so sincerely that they would lay down their lives under the ax or the fiery fagot [bundle of wood used for burning individuals at the stake] for it. Alas, the poor weak ignorant dupe human nature. There is so much king craft, priest craft, gentlemen’s craft, people’s craft, doctors craft, lawyers craft, merchants craft, tradesmen’s craft, laborers craft and Devil’s craft in the world that it seems a desperate [hopeless] and impractical project to undeceive it.

Do you wonder that Voltaire and Paine have made proselytes [converts]? Yet there [is] near as much subtlety, craft and hypocrisy in Voltaire and Paine and more too than in Ignatious Loyola [a Spanish knight who was a founder of the Jesuits].

This letter is so much in the tone of my friend the Abbe Raynal [a French writer] and the grumblers of the last age, that I pray you to burn it. I cannot copy it.

Your prophecy, my dear friend, has not become history as yet. I have no resentment of animosity against the gentleman and abhor the idea of blackening his character or transmitting him in odious colors to posterity. But I write with difficulty and am afraid of diffusing myself in too many correspondences. If I should receive a letter from him however I should not fail to acknowledge and answer it.

The Auroras you lent me for which I thank you are full of momentous matter.

I am dear sir with every friendly sentiment yours, J. Adams.

Dr. Rush

*WallBuilders has an article about the dream of Benjamin Rush (which this Adams letter is in response to) and the reconciliation of Adams and Jefferson in 1812. To read this article click here.

Philadelphia Bible Society Constitution

The Philadelphia Bible Society, America’s first Bible society, was officially organized on December 12, 1808. Rev. Dr. William White was president of the society and Declaration signer Benjamin Rush was a vice president. By 1816, 121 more Bible societies had been started across the nation.

Below, from WallBuilders’ Collection, is the Philadelphia Bible Society constitution, published in 1809. See also this title page from the first Bible printed by the Philadelphia Bible Society.


philadelphia-bible-society-constitution-1
philadelphia-bible-society-constitution-2

philadelphia-bible-society-constitution-3

Thomas Jefferson Document


Following is an original document in our possession, signed by Thomas Jefferson on September 24, 1807. This document is permission for a ship called the Herschel to proceed on its journey to the port of London. The interesting characteristic of this document is the use of the phrase “in the year of our Lord Christ.” Many official documents say “in the year of our Lord,” but we have found very few that include the word “Christ.” However, this is the explicitly Christian language that President Thomas Jefferson chose to use in official public presidential documents.


thomas-jefferson-document

Benjamin Rush Letter to Elisha Boudinot

Below is a letter that WallBuilders came across from Benjamin Rush (Declaration signer) to Elisha Boudinot, brother of Founding Father Elias Boudinot. Rush wrote this letter on September 8, 1797 in condolence for the loss of Elisha’s wife. Notice the specifically religious content in this letter.


benjamin-rush-letter-to-elisha-boudinot-1

 

benjamin-rush-letter-to-elisha-boudinot-2

Philad. September 8th. 1797.

My dear Sir:


Permit me to join in the general sympathy your late bereavement has excited in the breasts of all your friends. “Is Dr. Mather still in the land of the living” said one of his friends who inquired after him at his door in his last illness. “No (said the aged saint who overheard the inquiry) he is in the land of the dead, but he is going to the land of the living.” Yes – my dear friend, we live among the dead; and in a valley of human bones. Every newspaper we pick up is an obituary of departed friends, or fellow citizens. At the present awful moment, the passing hearse, the shut up houses, and the silent streets of our city, all proclaim that we are made of the dust, & that we are doomed to return to it. But let us not complain as those who have no hope. The grave shall ere long be robbed of its prey. Even Hell itself shall give up its prisoners. The Conquests & Grace of Jesus Christ extend to the utmost limits of fire & misery, & all all shall in due time be made to partake of the benefits of this infinite Atonement. Your late excellent consort will I doubt not be among the first fruits of his glorious resurrection. Let those considerations comfort you under your present affliction. My dear Mrs. Rush shares deeply in your grief, and joins with me in respectful & affectionate [comforts] to your aged and afflicted parents Mr. & Mrs. Smith. She joins likewise in love to all the children with my Dr Sir your sincere friend.

Benjm Rush


PS: The fever increases, but it is confined chiefly to one part of the city. I have hitherto been preserved, except from a light attack of it, which confined me but one day. “Brethren pray for us.” – Mrs. Bradford continues to mend but slowly.