June 14th in History

June 14th is the birthday of the Army, created by the Continental Congress on June 14, 1775. The next day, George Washington was elected Commander-in-Chief and soon issued orders that set the tone for the military, including one declaring:

The blessings and protection of Heaven are at all times necessary but especially so in times of public distress and danger. The General hopes and trusts that every officer and man will endeavor so to live and act as becomes a Christian Soldier defending the dearest rights and liberties of his country.

Over the 242 years since its inception, the US Army–and indeed the entire American military–have repeatedly lived up to the high ideals set forth by its first Commander-in-Chief.

Speaking of the Army after the Civil War in 1871, Frederick Douglass reminded the nation:

We must never forget that the loyal soldiers who rest beneath this sod flung themselves between the nation and the nation destroyers. If today we have a country not boiling in an agony of blood (like France)–if now we have a united country, no longer cursed by the hell-black system of human bondage–if the American name is no longer a by-word and a hissing to a mocking earth–if the Star-Spangled Banner floats only over free American citizens in every quarter of the land, and our country has before it a long and glorious career of justice, liberty, and civilization–we are indebted to the unselfish devotion of the noble army who rest in these honored graves all around us.

During WWI, General John Pershing reminded Americans:

Three thousand miles from home, an American army is fighting for you. Everything you hold worthwhile is at stake. Only the hardest blows can win against the enemy we are fighting. Invoking the spirit of our forefathers, the army asks your unflinching support, to the end that the high ideals for which America stands may endure upon the earth.

And in WWII, General George Marshall spoke about the mission of the United States:

We are determined that before the sun sets on this terrible struggle, our flag will be recognized throughout the world as a symbol of freedom on the one hand and of overwhelming force on the other.

By the way, June 14th is also Flag Day, commemorating June 14, 1777, when the Continental Congress passed a resolution “that the flag of the thirteen United States be thirteen stripes, alternate red and white; that the union be thirteen stars, white in a blue field, representing a new constellation.”

Let’s celebrate the flag as well as the Army and American military who so ably defend our God-given freedoms and God-blessed nation!

Fathers & Education

Let’s take a look at some of the men in America’s history–including our Founders, most of whom were fathers. Their writings reveal that they believed a knowledge of and reliance on the Scriptures was an important part of being a father.

In fact, a young Daniel Webster recounted a conversation he had with an elderly Thomas Jefferson on this point. Jefferson told him:

I have always said, and always will say, that the studious perusal of the Sacred Volume will make better citizens, better fathers, and better husbands.

The Founders believed that it was their duty not only to rely on the Bible but also to teach it to their children. For example, John Adams (who spent a good portion of the War for Independence away from his family) outlined to his precious wife, Abigail, the education their children should receive:

The education of our children is never out of my mind. Train them to virtue. Habituate them to industry, activity and spirit. Make them consider every vice as shameful and unmanly. Fire them with ambition to be useful. Make them disdain to be destitute of any useful or ornamental knowledge or accomplishment. Fix their ambition upon great and solid objects, and their contempt upon little, frivolous and useless ones.

John Quincy Adams took the lessons he learned from his own parents to heart and later encouraged his own son to read the Bible for the wisdom and virtue it encourages:

I advise you, my son, in whatever you read, and most of all in reading the Bible, to remember that it is for the purpose of making you wiser and more virtuous. I have myself, for many years, made it a practice to read through the Bible once every year. I have always endeavored to read it with the same spirit and temper of mind, which I now recommend to you: that is, with the intention and desire that it may contribute to my advancement in wisdom and virtue.

And after Thomas Paine penned his Age of Reason attacking Christianity and the Bible, Founding Father Elias Boudinot wrote a book to refute Paine, dedicating that book to his daughter, Susan, telling her:

I was much mortified to find the whole force of this man’s vain genius pointed at the youth of America….This awful consequence created some alarm in my mind lest at any future day you, my beloved child, might take up this plausible address of infidelity….I have endeavored to…show his extreme ignorance of the Divine Scriptures…not knowing that “they are the power of God unto salvation, to everyone that believeth” [Romans 1:16].

Clearly, our Founders who were fathers considered the Bible to be indispensable for their own lives, and strongly inculcated its use in their children. This is an excellent lesson for us to pass on to our children.

Pastors Lead the Charge

March 17 is annually celebrated in Boston as “Evacuation Day,” commemorating the departure of the British from the city1 after an extended eleven month occupation2 at the start of the American War for Independence. That occupation lasted from April 19, 1775, through March 17, 1776, encompassing the Siege of Boston3 and including early notable events of the War, such as the Battles of Lexington and Concord,4 Bunker Hill,5 and George Washington taking command of the American army.6

The occupation started when British leader Thomas Gage led troops into Boston, and then dispatched hundreds to seize or destroy ammunition stored in Concord.7 Riders such as Paul Revere set out to warn local inhabitants,8 and also to alert John Hancock and Samuel Adams (who were under threat of death by the British9) of the approach of the British army.

Hancock and Adams were staying in the home of Lexington Pastor Jonas Clark.10 Pastor Clark and 77 militia from his church11 gathered to meet the approaching British–a skirmish easily won by the 800 British troops.12 (In the WallBuilders library is a sermon preached by Jonas Clark on the one-year anniversary of the Battle of Lexington.13)

After Lexington, the British pressed on to Concord, where they were met by Rev. William Emerson and some 400 Americans.14 After the British suffered casualties in that skirmish, they retreated to Boston,15 and all along the way, British forces were fired upon by American militias from the surrounding countryside, including those led by pastors such as Philips Payson and Benjamin Balch.16 (Many additional preachers also fought in other engagements throughout the War.17)

Evacuation Day is a reminder of the courage and backbone shown by the spiritual leaders of earlier generations–a spiritual leadership still badly needed today!


Endnotes

1 “March 17, 1901: Boston Celebrates First Evacuation Day,” Mass Moments, accessed January 17, 2024.
2 “Siege of Boston,” Massachusetts Historical Society, accessed January 17, 2024.
3 Richard Frothingham, History of the Siege of Boston, and of the Battles of Lexington and Concord, and Bunker Hill (Boston: Charles C. Little and James Brown, 1851), 91-119.
4 “Lexington and Concord,” US History, accessed January 17, 2024.
5 Frothingham, History of the Siege of Boston (1851), 121-132.
6 “Washington takes command of Continental Army in 1775,” US Army, April 15, 2016.
7 Frothingham, History of the Siege of Boston (1851), 55.
8 “The Real Story of Paul Revere’s Ride,” The Paul Revere House, accessed January 17, 2024.
9 “Attempted Capture of John Hancock and Samuel Adams,” WallBuilders.
10 J. T. Headley, The Chaplains and Clergy of the Revolution (NY: Charles Scribner, 1864), 78.
11 Jonas Clark, “Sermon-Battle of Lexington-1776,” WallBuilders.
12 Benson J. Lossing, A History of the United States for Families and Libraries (NY: Mason Brothers, 1860), 232.
13 Jonas Clark, “Sermon-Battle of Lexington-1776,” WallBuilders.
14 Benson J. Lossing, A History of the United States, From the Discovery of the American Continent (Boston: Little, Brown, and Company, 1864), VII:290, 299.
15 Lossing, History of the United States (1864), VII:303-306.
16 Headley, Chaplains and Clergy (1864), 60; Balch Leaflets (Salem, MA: Eben Putnam, 1896-1897), 28.
17 Daniel Dorchester, Christianity in the United States From the First Settlement Down to the Present Time (NY: Hunt & Eaton, 1889), 265.

America’s Founders on Easter

Easter is celebrated across the world as one of the most significant Christian holy days — as a time when we pause to remember the great sacrifice of Jesus on the cross as well as the ultimate triumph of His resurrection. America’s Founding Fathers often commented on Easter.

For example, Charles Carroll, signer of the Declaration of Independence, viewed Easter as the power for salvation, explaining:

The approaching festival of Easter, and the merits and mercies of our Redeemer copiosa assudeum redemptio [with the Lord there is plentiful redemption] have lead me into this chain of meditation and reasoning, and have inspired me with the hope of finding mercy before my Judge, and of being happy in the life to come — a happiness I wish you to participate with me by infusing into your heart a similar hope.

Benjamin Rush, another signer of the Declaration, pointed out how Jesus’ resurrection not only redeemed man to God but also to each other. He noted:

He forgave the crime of murder on His cross; and after His resurrection, He commanded His disciples to preach the gospel of forgiveness, first at Jerusalem, where He well knew His murderers still resided. These striking facts are recorded for our imitation and seem intended to show that the Son of God died, not only to reconcile God to man but to reconcile men to each other.

Easter is indeed a special day, not only from an historical viewpoint but also from a spiritual one. As early American clergyman Phillips Brooks accurately noted, because of Easter “Let every man and woman count himself immortal. Let him catch the revelation of Jesus in His resurrection. Let him say not merely, ‘Christ is risen,’ but ‘I shall rise’.” Indeed! So, from all of us at WallBuilders, Happy Easter!

Jefferson and Library of Congress

Most Americans are very familiar with the Library of Congress and its massive collection of millions of books, documents, recordings, photographs, sheet music, and manuscripts.1 But few know how Thomas Jefferson is connected to the library.

On April 24, 1800, Congress approved moving the federal government to Washington DC and granted resources for a congressional library:

That for the purchase of such books as may be necessary for the use of Congress at the said city of Washington, and for fitting up a suitable apartment for containing them and for placing them therein, the sum of five thousand dollars shall be, and hereby is appropriated.2

The books purchased for that library were originally kept in the Capitol building.3 But when the British invaded and set fire to the Capitol during the War of 1812,4 this collection was destroyed. This is where Jefferson comes in.

He offered to sell his collection of books (nearly 6,500) to Congress to replace the books that had been burned.5 His offer was accepted and nearly $24,000 (over $300,000 in today’s money) was set aside to purchase his books.6

Unfortunately, almost two-thirds of his collection was destroyed in another fire in 1851,7 but Jefferson’s library was a springboard from which the Library of Congress would continue to grow. Next time you visit the Library of Congress, remember one of the reasons this collection is so impressive is due to Thomas Jefferson’s influence.


Endnotes

1 “Fascinating Facts,” Library of Congress, accessed January 17, 2024.
2 “An Act to make further provision for the removal and accommodation of the Government of the United States,” April 24, 1800, The Public Statutes at Large of the United States of America, ed. Richard Peters (Boston: Charles C. Little and James Brown, 1845), II:56.
3 “History of the Library of Congress,” Library of Congress, accessed January 17, 2024.
4 “A Most Magnificent Ruin: The Burning of the Capitol during the War of 1812,” Architect of the Capitol, August 1, 2023.
5 Thomas Jefferson to Samuel H. Smith, September 21, 1814, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, ed. H.A. Washington (Washington: Taylor & Maury, 1854), VI:383-385; “Sale of Books to the Library of Congress (1815),” Monticello, accessed January 17, 2024.
6 Samuel H. Smith to Thomas Jefferson, February 15, 1815, Founders Online.
7 “Thomas Jefferson: Jefferson’s Library,” Library of Congress, accessed January 17, 2024.

Address – Why Are You A Christian – 1795

John Clarke (1755-1798) biography

Born in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, Clarke grew up in a strongly patriotic family during the American War for Independence. In fact, his uncle, Timothy Pickering, was not only a military general under George Washington and later became Postmaster General, Secretary of War, and Secretary of State under President Washington. Clark graduated from the Boston Public Latin School in 1761, while only six years old. In 1774 at the age of nineteen, he graduated from Harvard. He returned for his Master’s Degree (1777), and then studied theology, receiving his Doctor of Divinity from the University of Edinburgh. He took a job on the staff of First Church of Boston, alongside the great preacher Dr. Charles Chauncy, who himself had been a significant influence in the years leading up to the American War for Independence. When Chauncy died in 1787, Clarke became pastor, where he continued until he suffered a stroke while preaching in 1798, passing away the next day at the age of forty-three. A two-volume set of his sermons were published after his death. The following sermon was the one he preached at the interment of the Rev. Samuel Cooper of Boston on January 2, 1784. (Note: the Rev. Cooper was a highly influential clergyman, identified by Founding Father John Adams as one of the individuals “most conspicuous, the most ardent, and influential” in the “awakening and revival of American principles and feelings” that led to American independence.)


AN

ANSWER

TO THE

QUESTION

WHY ARE YOU A CHRISTIAN?

BY JOHN CLARKE
Minister of a Church in Boston

AN ANSWER TO THE QUESTION, “WHY ARE YOU A CHRISTIAN?”

Not because I was born in a Christian country, and educated in Christian principles; — not because I find the illustrious Bacon, Boyle, Locke, Clarke, and Newton, among the professors and defenders of Christianity; – nor merely because the system itself is so admirably calculated to mend and exalt human nature: but because the evidence accompanying the Gospel, has convinced me of its truth. The secondary causes, assigned by unbelievers, do not, in my judgment, account for the rise, progress, and early triumphs of the Christian religion. Upon the principles of skepticism, I perceive an effect without an adequate cause. I therefore, stand acquitted to my own reason, though I continue to believe and profess the religion of Jesus Christ. Arguing from effects to causes, I think, I have philosophy on my side. And reduced to a choice of difficulties, I encounter not so many, in admitting the miracles ascribed to the Saviour, as in the arbitrary suppositions and conjectures of his enemies.

That there once existed such a person as Jesus Christ; that he appeared in Judea in the reign of Tiberius; that he taught a system of morals, superior to any inculcated in the Jewish schools; that he was crucified at Jerusalem; and that Pontius Pilate was the Roman governor, by whose sentence he was condemned and executed, are facts which no one can reasonably call in question. The most inveterate deists admit them without difficulty. And indeed to dispute these facts would be giving the lie to all history. As well might we deny the existence of Cicero, as that of a person by the name of Jesus Christ. And with equal propriety might we call in question the orations of the former as the discourses of the latter. We are morally certain, that the one entertained the Romans with his eloquence; and the other enlightened the Jews with his wisdom. But it is unnecessary to labor these points, because they are generally conceded. They, who affect to despise the Evangelists and Apostles, profess to reverence Tacitus, Suetonius, and Pliny. And these eminent Romans bear testimony to several particulars, which relate to the person of Jesus Christ, his influence as the founder of a sect, and his crucifixion. From a deference to human authority, all therefore, acknowledge, that the Christian religion derived its name from Jesus Christ. And many are so just to his merits, as to admit that he taught better than Confucius; and practiced better than Socrates or Plato.

But, I confess, my creed embraces many more articles. I believe, that Jesus Christ was not merely a teacher of virtue, but that he had a special commission to teach. I believe, that his doctrines are not the work of human reason, but divine communications to mankind, I believe, that he was authorized by God to proclaim forgiveness to the penitent; and to reveal a state of immortal glory and blessedness to those who fear God, and work righteousness. I believe, in short, the whole evangelic history, and of consequence, the divine original of Christianity, and the sacred authority of the Gospel. Others may reject these things as the fictions of human art or policy. But I assent to them, from a full conviction of their truth. The grounds of this conviction, I shall assign in the course of this work. And I shall undertake to show, why the objections of infidelity, though they have often shocked my feelings have never yet shaken my faith.

To come then to the Question : WHY ARE YOU A CHRISTIAN? I answer, because the Christian religion carries with it internal marks of its truth; because not only without the aid, but in opposition to the civil authority, in opposition to the wit, the argument, and violence of its enemies, it made its way; and gained an establishment in the world: because it exhibits the accomplishment of some prophecies; and presents others, which have been since fulfilled : and because its author displayed an example, and performed works, which bespeak, not merely a superior, but a divine character. Upon these several facts, I ground my belief as a Christian. And, till the evidence on which they rest, can be invalidated by counter evidence, I must retain my principles and my profession.

Section I.
The internal evidence of Christianity.

First—I am a Christian, because the intrinsic excellency of Christianity points it out as a system worthy of my belief; because the laws which it prescribes, the spirit which it breathes and the discoveries which it makes, are so admirably suited to the constitution and circumstances of man, that I cannot reject it. The perceptive part of Christianity has been very generally approved. And how is it possible, that any one should seriously object to laws, which tend to correct the errors, and reform the vices of human nature; and to exalt the character of man to the highest stage of moral perfection? If Christianity prescribed the austerities of the monk, the solitude of the hermit, or the wanderings of the pilgrim; if it even gave countenance to such extravagancies or allowed them the lowest degree of merit, I should esteem it a formidable objection to the system. But nothing of this description can be found in the writings of the Evangelists or Apostles. Those writings pure contempt upon al superstitious practices; and lead us to ascribe no value to any works, but those of true piety and virtue. They teach us to worship God in spirit and in truth; to love him supremely; to be grateful for his favors, and resigned to his dispensations; to trust his mercy, and rejoice in his government. They teach us to love our neighbor as ourselves; to forgive him when he has injured us; to bear with his infirmities, and to excuse his follies; to weep with him in his distresses; when he is in want, to afford him our assistance; and to do to him, as we should think it fit and reasonable, that he should do to us. They teach us to love even our enemies, so far at least, as to abstain from revenge; and to render them offices of kindness, when their circumstances call for commiseration. They teach us to govern our appetites and passions to be chaste, humble, temperate, pure, and as much as possible to be like our father in heaven, whose character is an assemblage of every natural and moral perfection. They teach children to reverence and obey their parents; and parents to love, instruct, and provide for their children. They teach the husband conjugal fidelity and affection; and the wife, the peculiar duties of her station, and the amiable virtues which adorn the sex; and bless the marriage union. They teach masters lenity, and the servants faithfulness. They teach rulers to exercise their authority for the public good; and persons in private life, not to withhold honor and submission from those, under whose wise and just administration, they lead quiet and peaceable lives. I a word, the affluent and the poor, the prosperous and the afflicted the aged and the young, may all find their duty in the sacred books. And the duties, there enjoined, are such as the enlightened reason of every man must approve.

These sublime lessons of morality are found in various parts of the New Testament. They enrich the divine sermon on the mount. And they are contained in the excellent parables delivered by Jesus Christ. I also find them in the discourses of the Apostles, and in their pastoral letters. I may say, wherever I open the Christian volume, I find some direction which if properly observed, would render me a good neighbor, a good member of society, a good friend, and a good man! And it is possible for me to doubt the divine original of a system, which furnishes such rules; and contemplates so glorious an object?

If the prohibitions of Jesus Christ were universally regarded, and his laws obeyed, what blessings would pour in on society? There would be no wars among the nations of the earth. There would be no oppression. There would be neither tyrants nor slaves. Every ruler would be just; every citizen would be honest; every parent would be faithful to his charge; every child would be dutiful; the purest affection would recommend domestic life; and neighbors would be mutual blessings. Under the dominion of Christianity, envy, pride, and jealousy would give way to the most enlarged benevolence. Human nature would recover its dignity. And every man would reap the present reward of his own virtues.

From these facts, others may draw their own conclusions : my inference is, that Christianity is true. I do not believe, that such a system of morals can be the work of human wisdom. That these laws originated with God; and that Jesus Christ was commissioned to promulgate them, appears to me a much more rational supposition. The more I inspect them, the less am I inclined to compliment human ingenuity with so glorious a production. If then, I continue to believe in this age of refinement, and free inquiry, it is because I am unable to resist the evidence arising from the transcendent excellency of the Christian precepts. I think it infinitely more probable, that they should be a communication from God, than that philosophy should justly claim the honor of the invention.

The doctrines of the Christian religion furnish an additional argument in its favor. They are such as appear worthy of God and answerable to the natural expectations of men. The perfections of the Deity, his agency in the creation and government of the world, the conditions of his approbation, the consequences, and a future state of existence, are points, respecting which every reasonable being would wish for information. And it is a fact, that the New Testament throws divine light on all these articles. It informs us, that there is One God; that he is infinitely holy, wise, benevolent, and just; that he is self-existent and independent; that his power is irresistible, and his presence universal; that he made and upholds all worlds; that he created the human species, and every inferior being; that he is moreover, their preserver and benefactor; that he exercises a moral government over man; that he requires obedience to his laws, and consequently, resents their infraction; that forgiveness is possible, and repentance and reformation the conditions; that death is not utter destruction; that all who die, will live again; that all who are raised, will be judged; and that there is a future state, in which virtue will shine with unfading luster, and receive an everlasting reward. These are not useless speculation, but doctrines of infinite moment. They interest as well the heart, as the understanding. And their influence extends both to our actions and our enjoyments.

It would be easy to produce the various passages, in which these points are maintained. But it is unnecessary; as everyone will allow them to be doctrines of Christianity. Whether the system be true or not, it certainly contains these articles. I would now put the question to every sober Theist, whether I must renounce either my understanding, or my creed? Is there anything incredible in this representation of God and man, of the demands of the one, and the destination of the other? Must I offer an affront to my reason, if I believe in one God, exercising the authority; and possessed of all the glorious attributes, ascribed to him in the Christian writings? Does my understanding revolt at the evangelical account of his providence and moral government? That I should make it my study to obey him; when guilty of disobedience, that I should repent and reform; and that, as I behave so I may expect to be treated; is there anything irrational in these doctrines? We read of a mediator, and a rich variety of blessings dispensed through him; and is not this agreeable to the established constitution of things in the world? Do not temporal mercies often flow to us through the mediation of others? And may not many instances be produced, in which the political redemption of a nation has been accomplished by the labors; or purchased by the blood of some virtuous patriot? Is common sense insulted by the doctrine of a resurrection? This has been asserted; but with what reason, I never could conceive. When I examine the power and wisdom of God, they do not appear incompetent to such an affect. When I consider the divine goodness, I see nothing in the resurrection of man irreconcilable with that perfection. And when I reflect, that God formed the human body; and inspired the breath of life, I can easily believe, that he is able to raise us up at the last day. Before I can reject the resurrection of mankind, it must therefore be demonstrated that the terms imply a contradiction.

As to a future state of retribution, I would ask, what presumption there is against it. We find, that we have already experienced great changes. Since our first introduction to this world, our active and intellectual powers have gained strength, as we have advanced towards maturity. And why may we not hereafter possess them in higher perfection? Why may we not move, not merely in a new, but in a nobler sphere? And as a moral government is evidently begun in this state, why may it not be completed in another? In these expectations, I think we are supported by the analogy of nature. As we have already existed in different states, new scenes may be in reserve for us; and new capacities of action, enjoyment, and suffering may await us beyond the grave.

Combining the doctrines and precepts of Christianity, I am led then to infer from them the truth of the system. Because the former are so important, and the latter so beneficial; because the doctrines of Christ tend to make us so wise, and hiss laws so good, I am , in a manner, compelled to receive them as divine. Such is their supreme excellence, that I must ascend to heaven for an adequate cause. I assent therefore, most unfeignedly to those words of our savior, “my doctrine is not mine, but his who sent me.” And I do Assert, were there no other evidence that our religion is from God, it would be more reasonable to admit its claims to a divine original, than to reject them.

Section II.
Evidence arising from the early triumphs of Christianity.

But my faith, as a Christian, does not rest on this single foundation. I have other reasons for believing the Gospel. The early triumphs of Christianity furnish a Second, and in my view, a most weighty argument in support of my religion. And my conviction of its truth gains strength every time I examine its introduction, progress, and establishment in the world. Recurring to the period of its infancy, I find, that it made its way not only without the aid, but in opposition to the civil authority. I observe, that it rose superior to the wit, the argument, and the violence of its enemies. I perceive, that it baffled the arts of the Jewish priests and rulers; and supported itself against the rage of the multitude. When Heathens become its enemies and persecutors, I find their opposition as ineffectual as that of the Jews. Though it was the contempt and derision of the more leading characters in society, yet I take notice, that it gained a wonderful ascendency over the human mind; and at length became the religion of the Roman world. These are facts : and how am I to account for them, if Christianity be a mere fable?

I can easily believe, that an imposture may succeed, if it have the public prejudices, the learning, wealth, and influence of the country, or the sword of the magistrate on its side. I never wondered that the attempts of Mahomet to establish his religion, were crowned with successes. When I peruse the Koran, and examine the materials of which it is composed; —when I observe how much art the whole is accommodated to the opinions and habits of Jews, Christians, and Pagans; —when I consider what indulgences it grants, and what future scenes it unfolds; —when I advert to the peculiar circumstances of the times, when its author formed the vast design of assuming the royal and prophetic character; —and more than all, when I contemplate the reformer at the head of a conquering army, the Koran in one hand, and in the other, a sword, — I cannot be surprised at the civil and religious revolution which has immortalized his name. With his advantages, how could he fail of success? Everything favored the enterprise. The nations beheld a military apostle. And they, who were unconvinced by his arguments, trembled at his sword.

But did Jesus Christ have recourse to such measures in order to establish his religion? Was he a general, or his apostles soldiers? In proof of his divine mission, did he affront the reason of mankind, by appealing to the sword? Did the learning of the age come to his assistance? Di genius and eloquence plead his cause? Were the principles of his religion such as would easily captivate persons of figure and fashion? Would wealth be partial to them? It is granted, that the laws of Christianity are perfectly accommodated to the reasonable, and moral nature of man; but did the habits of the age, in which they were promulgated, predispose the public mind to receive those laws? An were the doctrines of the gosp0el consonant to prevailing and popular opinions? There is not a man, who has examined the life, the actions, and the religion of Jesus Christ, Who will answer one of these queries in the affirmative.

In the whole compass of history, no fact is better established than the pacific character of our great master, and the inoffensive measures by which he prosecuted his cause. He proclaimed the truths; and inculcated the duties of his religion; but he used no violence to make men believe the one, or practice the other. He addressed himself to the reason of mankind; and then let them to make up their own judgment. At length he suffered; and his cause developed upon certain persons who had attended upon his ministry, and been witnesses of his actions. These persons, called apostles, went forth into the world; and taught the same truths, which they had learned from their master, and which he had sealed with his blood. In imitation of their great pattern, they likewise applied, not to the passions, but to the reason of the age. With the Jews, they argued on their own principles. And for the conviction of Gentile, they appealed to facts. Not one of their enemies ever pretended, that more formidable weapons were employed by the apostles in the Christian Cause. How then shall we account for their success? What induced several thousands of the Jewish nation to embrace Christianity? And why did such multitudes of the Gentile world forsake their superstitions; and receive the religion of the Gospel?

Was Christianity a popular system? None could be less so. Did it open the way to a seat in the Sanhedrim, to the honors of the priesthood, or to an office under the Roman government? I never heard the insinuation. Was it an introduction to wealth or power? It was the very reverse. Did it flatter any of the ruling passion of the human heart, or permit their gratification? Every one, who has examined it, knows the contrary. If then, as the terms are generally understood, it was neither honorable, profitable, nor popular; — if it was the derision of philosophy, and the contempt of learning; — if the wit of the age was exerted against it, — if the priesthood hated, and the magistrate persecuted it, to what cause am I to ascribe the prevalence of Christianity? Under all these disadvantages, what enabled it to keep its ground? Upon one principle only, can I account for this fact to my own satisfaction, and that is the truth of the system, and the patronage of heaven. I can believe, that truth may triumph over the most formidable opposition; and that God is able to defend his own cause.

For every phenomenon in nature, there must be a sufficient reason. This is a doctrine of philosophy; and not only so, but a dictate of common sense. Taking this principle for granted, I therefore, endeavor to account for the existence of Christianity. I find, that the religion of Jesus is not coeval with many events preserved in history. By means of various records, which have escaped the ravages of time, I perceive, that less than eighteen centuries will carry me back to the age, in which this religion was first proposed to the world. By the confession of its enemies, it derived no support from the family connections, outward circumstances, or fate of its author. So far from it, all these things operated against it. Jesus Christ, though a very excellent, was in the estimation of the world, a very obscure person. His family though once exalted, had fallen into decay. And his fate was as infamous as it was unmerited. His followers likewise, and those with whom he left his cause, were generally as obscure as their master, they had not wealth, to give them importance. They were not men in power. Nor were their natural abilities, or literary attainments so great, as to give them a decided superiority over their enemies. It is certain therefore, that Christianity did not woe its successes to anything dazzling in the personal accomplishments or circumstances of its first preachers.

Where then, shall I look for the cause? The religion of Christ did prevail; though to persons of figure and influence, its author was an object of contempt; and though his fate was that of the vilest malefactor. It did make its way; though its ministers were the farthest possible from that description of men, who take the lead in society; whose example it is their ambition to follow. It did succeed; though it bore an uniform testimony against all the impiety and immorality practiced in the world. Without flattering one disorderly passion of the human hart, without accommodating itself to one corrupt habit, it triumphed over the prejudices of multitudes. And whilst its profession was attended with every temporal discouragement, not only the provinces, but the very city of Rome, abounded with Christians! I ask the question once more, if Christianity be a fable how am I to account for this revolution?

I well know the solution which modern ingenuity has proposed. Gibbon’s secondary causes I have repeatedly examined; I would hope, with impartiality: I certainly have done it with attention. But they never gave me satisfaction; and for a reason, which the great Sir Isaac Newton shall assign. He says, that a cause must be known to exist; and that it must be adequate to an effect, before it can be admitted into sound philosophy; and before such effect can with propriety, be referred to it. But the causes, assigned by those who reject the Christian religion, appear to want both these conditions. We have no proof that many of them ever existed. And united, they seem utterly inadequate to explain the various appearances; and account for the phenomena, to which they have been applied. I am therefore a Christian, because the early conquests of Christianity will not suffer me to reject it as a fable.

Section III.
Evidence arising from the completion of prophecy.

But though conclusive, yet these are not the only arguments which give authority to the Gospel. The completion of prophecy furnishes a Third reason for that reverence, which I feel for Christianity; and for my assent to it as a divine religion. In perusing the Jewish and Christian writings, I find several predictions. Some of these preceded the savior; and others were uttered by him. Some were accomplished in him; and others in events, which took place after his appearing. Examples of each I shall first exhibit; and then show, why they determine me to be a Christian.

It was predicted that the Messiah should come, “before the scepter departed from Judah.” And does not history confirm this prediction? Did not Jesus Christ appear and suffer, before the Jewish government was subverted by the Romans? It was predicted, that “he should come whilst the second temple was standing” and that the house should derive glory from the occasional visits of so great a character. And was not this prophecy fulfilled? It was predicted, that he should come “in four hundred and ninety years,” from the time in which the city of the Jews should recover from the disgrace, under which it had lain during the captivity; that he should “be cut off;” and that “Jerusalem and the temple should be afterwards made desolate.” And did not these things happen in the order, and at the period here described? It was predicted, that in that age of the Messiah many astonishing works should be performed. And were not such works performed by Jesus Christ? At least, is it not an article in his history, that through his benevolent interposition, and in consequence of his supernatural powers, the blind received their sight, the lame walked, the deaf heard, the dumb spake, the sick recovered, and the dead revived? Finally, it was predicted, that “he should enter the holy city in triumph;” that his enemies should conspire against him; that “he should be sold for thirty pieces of silver;” that “he should be scourged,” and treated with every species of contempt; that his persecutors should “spit upon him;” that they should “pierce his hands and feet;” that the spectators of his crucifixion should mock him; that “the soldiers should draw lots for his garment;” that he should be numbered with transgressors; that “gall and vinegar” should be presented to him, when in his last agonies; and that he should “make his grave with the rich.” And in the history of Christ, have we not the completion of these prophecies? Comparing the predictions and the events, can we deny, that the latter are a perfect counterpart to the former?

But the person, whose fate was so particularly foretold, was himself a prophet. On various occasions, he declared to his followers, that he should suffer a violent death. He predicted, that his own countrymen would condemn him; and the Gentiles execute the sentence. He foretold the cowardice of Peter, the treachery of Judas, the terror and flight of all his disciples, when he should be arrested, his resurrection from the grave, the effusion of the holy spirit, the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple, with all the horrors attending it the dispersion of the Jews, the persecutions of his followers, and the success of the Gospel, notwithstanding the opposition, which would be made by its enemies.

And, according to the records of that age, did not all these things come to pass? Have we not the highest evidence, which history can afford, that Jesus Christ both suffered, and triumphed in the manner, which he had before described? Were not his disciples hated of all men? Were not the most wanton cruelties exercised upon them? And did not the time come, when their extermination from the earth was contemplated as a sacrifice, which the honor of God, the interests of truth, and the good of society required? Was not Jerusalem destroyed by the Romans? And as to the temple, did the resentment of the conquering army leave one stone of that magnificent building on another? Before their reduction, were not the sufferings of the Jews such as no other people had ever experienced? And after that event, were they not dispersed among all nations? Does not their dispersion still continue? And are they not, at this very moment, a standing proof of his veracity, who predicted their ruin? When I compare the denunciations of Jesus Christ with the fate of the Jews, I am unable to account for their conformity, if I reject his divine inspiration? The history of Josephus, who beheld the ruin of his country, comes in aid of the evangelists. And I feel the same confidence, that Christ foretold, as that the historian related, this terrible event.

After a cool and impartial examination of these facts, can it be strange that I should profess myself a Christian? How can I resist the evidence arising from the completion of prophecy? I find many predictions of prophecy? I find many predictions accomplished in Jesus Christ. And many, which were uttered by him, I find incontestably verified by succeeding events. Will it satisfy my reason, to insinuate that this may be the work of chance? Will it be sufficient to say, that the author of our religion, and certain persons, who assumed the name of prophets, happened to guess right? To those, who have any acquaintance with the doctrine of chances, this insinuation will appear both impertinent and absurd. That there could not have been such a series of fortunate guesses, is a point capable of arithmetical demonstration.

The man who can persuade himself to admit this supposition, must, with a very ill grace, object to the miracles, wonders, and signs, ascribed to Jesus Christ. And of all persons, he ought to be the last to charge others with credulity. As to myself, I cannot believe, that some hundreds of years before the savior appeared, the peculiar circumstances of his life and death were guessed by some imposing diviner. I cannot be reconciled to the supposition, that one by mere accident, guessed that he would enter Jerusalem, riding on an ass, and be there sold for thirty pieces of silver; another, that his enemies would pierce his hands, and his feet, would mock his agonies, and cast lots for his garment; a third, that he would be numbered with transgressors, and be laid in the tomb of a rich man. Such a wonderful resemblance of mere conjecture and fact would exceed any prodigy recorded in the sacred volume.

And the same observation will apply to the predictions of Jesus Christ; whether they relate to his own sufferings, or those of his devoted country. It is impossible that he should have described them with so much precision, unless his mind had been divinely illuminated. The success of modern conjectures is well known and if Jesus Christ be degraded to the rank of those, who have been most expert at guessing, I must say, their talents will admit of no comparison with his. The art, if it was only an art, makes no figure at the present age. I must therefore, conclude, that real predictions were uttered and accomplished. And I must draw from them the inference, that the system is divine, in support of which they have been urged. I have no other alternative, than either to admit this conclusion, or the most extravagant suppositions that ever disgraced the human kind.

Section IV.
Evidence arising from the character and miracles of Christ.

But I have a Fourth reason for my belief and principles as a Christian : and that is, that the author of my religion displayed an example: and performed works, which proclaim, not merely a superior, but a divine character. No human language can do justice to the temper and morals of Jesus Christ. The excellency of the one, and the purity of the other, render him an object worthy of our highest admiration. In ho wonderful a manner did he exemplify his own moral lessons? And how divinely did he support his character, as the friend of mankind? With what exquisite tenderness did he conduct towards the miserable? And what patience did he display, under every species of provocation? How condescending was he to the weak, how humble, how just, how ready to forgive his enemies, how benevolent to all? What a sublime devotion possessed his heart? And in scenes of the deepest distress, how perfect was his resignation? How amiably did he converse? How unblamably did he live? How nobly did he die? And can I reconcile the appearance of such virtue with the mean and interested views of an ambitious impostor? Is it credible, that such pure streams should proceed from a corrupt fountain?

Many, who reject the claims, and deny the miracles of Jesus Christ, admit the moral excellency of his character. A greater inconsistency cannot be conceived! What, is it no offence against the laws of morality to appeal to works never performed; and to pretend to the exercise of powers, which never existed? Are deliberate falsehood, imposition, and hypocrisy, to be crafted from the catalog of crimes? Is impiety no stain? And to die with an obstinate and inflexible adherence to false pretensions, is there nothing immoral in such behavior? I confess, I have very different views of right and wrong. And I feel a strong conviction, that falsehood and deceit, for whatever purpose they may be employed; and to whatever end they may be directed, are to the last degree, criminal and disgraceful.

Yet this accusation must be brought against Jesus Christ, if he did no miracle; and was only a self commissioned reformer. He certainly did profess to work miracles; and he did appeal to them, as divine attestations to his sacred character. If he insisted, that he was sent of God to enlighten and save mankind, he was careful to add, “The works, which I do, they bear witness of me.” I must therefore, deny that he was that excellent person, which some modern unbeliever profess to esteem him. Or, I must admit the reality of those miracles, to which he so often, and with so much solemnity, appealed. There is no other alternative. It cannot be, that he was a splendid pattern of pure and sublime morality; whilst his mission, and supernatural powers, were an artful pretence.

Reduced then, to the necessity either of admitting, together with the moral excellencies, the miracles of Jesus, or of rejecting both, I can, without difficulty, make up my judgment. However unphilosophical it may be thought, I am persuaded that he “did such works as no man could perform, unless God were with him.” Yes, notwithstanding the metaphysics of some and the sneers of others, I do believe that he appealed to facts, when he said, “The blind see; the lame walk; the lepers are cleansed; the deaf hear; and the dead are raised.” God who ordained the laws of nature, can certainly control or suspend them. Nor is there anything absurd in the supposition, that occasions may offer, on which such an application of almighty power may be worthy of God; and reflect honor on his wisdom and benevolence.

It is true, such interruptions of the general course of nature are not visible at the present age. Our eyes have never been gratified with the sight of a miracle. But this is no proof that they eyes of other men in other ages, have imposed upon their understandings. The king of Siam, because he had never seen ice, denied the possibility of its existence. His narrow experience, under a burning sun, was opposed to the testimony of a credible witness. If this prince had been a metaphysician, with what a multiplicity of arguments, would he have encountered and overwhelmed the European, who related the effects of cold upon the waters of his country? If he had been a philosopher, how learnedly would he have reasoned upon the elementary particles of fluids; and from their spherical form, how easily would he have demonstrated the impossibility of congelation? But what is logic, when opposed to fact?

The miracles ascribed to Jesus Christ, and the apostles, rest upon the same foundation with other articles, which we find in the narratives of his life. They have not come down to us through the channel of tradition; but by means of a formal record, made by persons, who declare themselves witnesses of the scenes which they describe. Nor are they introduced into these records merely by way of ornament; or to animate a dull narration: they are an essential part of the work. In the same page, we find the miracles and moral lessons of Jesus Christ. In the same artless manner, they are both related. For which reason, I feel myself unable to draw the line, where truth ends; and fiction begins. All my information concerning Jesus Christ, is derived from the same source. Where testimony is so explicit and circumstantial, I must therefore, admit the whole; or reject the whole. I mention this, because some have professed to believe the history of our Lord’s discourses, whilst they denied that of his miracles. But these articles are so connected, that there can be no discrimination. If an evangelist deserves credit, when he solemnly declares the things which he heard; why not, when he as solemnly declares the facts which he saw? Why should I ascribe more veracity to his ears, than to his eyes?

That the miracles of Jesus sand as fairly recorded as his moral instruction, is not however, my only reason for believing them. Certain events which took place at the memorable period, when these miracles are said to have been exhibited, are a demonstration of their reality. I find, that multitudes, who had the best means of informing their minds on this subject; and who could have detected the imposition, if any had been practiced, were fully persuaded; that supernatural powers had been exercised by Christ and his apostles. So strong was their conviction, that it overcame early habits; and induced them to embrace the religious system, which appealed to this evidence. Nor was this all : it overcame the apprehensions of contempt, of worldly losses, of every species of injury, and of a cruel and infamous death. Upon the principle of miracles, it is easy to account for this magnanimity. But, if the Christian record of miracles be a mere fable, how came the conviction of their reality to take possession of so many fair and honest minds; and to produce such astonishing effects? Why did they believe, who were placed beyond the reach of imposition; and who could have no motive assent to the powers, claimed by the founder, and first preachers of religion, but the certainty that they existed? I am free to confess, that the faith of multitudes, situated as they were, has great influence in confirming my own.

But to pursue the argument : I believe the miracles recorded in the New Testament, because they were not called in question by early infidels. The Jews were compelled to won, that the powers, occasionally exercised by Jesus Christ, were supernatural. “This man doeth many miracles,” was the confession even of the priests and Pharisees. And the modern Jews do not pretend to deny, that the founder of the Christian sect performed many things, which no man could do, unless he were assisted by invisible agents. But, to avoid the consequences of such a concession, they both ascribe his miracles to an infernal cause. Succeeding unbelievers were likewise as well convinced of this part of our Lord’s history. Julian acknowledges, that Christ opened the eyes of the blind; restored limbs to the lame; and recovered demoniacs of their malady. But he intimates, that these are no very extraordinary feats. And Celsus, another violent enemy to Christianity, not presuming to deny the mighty works of Jesus endeavors to depreciate them, by pretending that he learned magic in Egypt. Besides, it is well known, that because the miracles of Christ could not be denied, attempts were made to eclipse their glory. Appollonius Tyanaeus was brought into public view by two unbelievers, as a person whose powers exceeded those of Jesus. The concessions of Julian and Celsus, and this attempt to set up a rival to the savior, may be easily accounted for, if we admit that signs were displayed; and miracles performed by him. But if his supernatural powers were an artful pretence, why did not these adversaries publish the imposition? They did not want sagacity to detect any unfair dealing. And such a discovery would have given the triumph to their cause. That early unbelievers, and some of them persons of the most extensive information; that a Julian and a Celsus did not deny the miracles of Chris, is with me a very strong argument in favor of those miracles. And combined with other evidence, this circumstance is sufficient for my conviction.

Finally, the lying wonders, and pretended miracles of impostors, are a proof that supernatural powers have been employed for religious purposes. This appears to be the just conclusion from these facts. Impostors would not have had recourse to such arts, if they had not known the success of real miracles. Would counterfeits have found their way into circulation, if there never had been genuine coin? Did not the latter unquestionably suggest the former? We may be assured, that pretended miracles would never have enriched the legend of a faint, if real miracles had never attracted the attention of mankind. Supernatural powers have been feigned tin later times, because, in the primitive ages, such powers really existed. And lying wonders, at the tomb of the Abbe DeParis, cam in aid of his doubtful reputastion, because the tomb of Christ was the scene of wonders and sign, which gave immortal spendor to his character; and ensured the final triumphs of his cause.

I have now assigned the various reasons, on which I ground my assent to the miracles, which stand recorded in the Christian volume. I believe them, because they rest on the same historic evidence, with the moral instruction, and common facts contained in that book. I believe them, because co-temporary and subsequent events were such as might have been expected from the operation of miracles on the human mind. I believe them, because the early opposers of Christianity did not call them in question. And I believe them, because their reality appears to me, to be a fair deduction from many unsuccessful attempts to imitate, and to rival them. Thus convinced of the supernatural powers of Jesus Christ and the apostles, I am persuaded that they spake by authority; and consequently, that the religious system, church derives its name from the former, is not only superior to all others, but that it is DIVINE.

With such force, do these arguments operate on my understanding, that I feel an increasing confidence in my principles as a Christian. The more I examine the evidences of my religion, the more am I convinced, that it will not be overthrown by the weapons usually employed against it. The foundation which supports it, is not to be weakened by the shafts of wit; or blown down by the breath of ridicule. I am sensible, that there is no subject which may not be placed in a ludicrous point of light; as there is no character which may not be vilified. Religion, patriotism, chastity, and almost every moral and social virtue, have, in their turn, been so exposed as to invite contempt. Soame Jeyns has discharged all wit upon the rights of man, and the leading principles of a free government. If ridicule were the test of truth, his book would be unanswerable. But though it abounds with wit, it contains one argument. And for this reason, the cause of civil freedom has suffered no injury from such an assailant. Though republican principles be the butt of his ridicule, yet they command the highest respect, wherever they are seriously examined. And the same observation may be applied to the subject of religion. To overthrow the faith of one, who has studied its evidence, arguments must be employed, and not the false colorings of wit. Facts must be fairly and clearly disproved. Otherwise, the Christian will retain his reverence for religion; and thoughts ashamed of the disingenuity of an opposer, he will not be ashamed of the Gospel.

But from the wit exerted upon Christianity, I proceed to more sober objections. And I must say, that however plausible they may seem at first, they do not, by any means, invalidate its evidence. Many of them are impertinent; because they are leveled, not against the Christian religion, but against its corruptions. And many more are sufficiently answered by an appeal to the constitution of nature; and the degree of evidence upon which we act in general concerns. Some objections, if admitted, would overthrow the credit of all history. And others, when pursued to their just consequences, would not only subvert the religion of Christ, but would bury natural religion in its ruins.

In vain then, are objections of this kind urged against Christianity. In vain am I reminded that the Gospel was first preached to the multitude; and not to the learned wise. I know that there is as much fairness of mind in the former, as in the latter; and, in regard to matters of fact, that they are as competent judges. In vain am I called to reflect, that false pretences to inspiration, and lying wonders, have, in all ages, been employed for political purposes. The fact I do not dispute; but I deny the conclusion. Falsehoods are daily uttered; but does it follow, that the truth is never spoken? Because many counterfeits are in circulation, is there no unadulterated coin? As I have before had occasion to observe, the various arts of religious imposition take their origin from real miracles, and a real inspiration. In vain am I told, that the Christian system is not universal; and of consequence, cannot proceed from the common parent of mankind. I know that reason is imparted in various degrees; that the means of improvement, civil liberty, and all the outward blessings of life, are bestowed in different measures on different objects : and yet, I am persuaded, that they all come from God. In vain is my attention called to the angry disputes of Christians, respecting the doctrines of the Gospel I am convinced that such is the weakness of the human mind, disputes may arise on any subject. I hear men dispute on the principles of government, the rights of citizens, and the nature and extent of civil liberty : and yet, I doubt not, that these rights, and this liberty, have a real foundation; and that the end of government is their security. Why then, should the disputes of Christians discredit the Gospel? In vain is my faith insulted with the mortifying insinuation, that professors do not exemplify the virtues of their religion; that their principles and practice are often at variance. I am sensible that Christians are rational agents; and that the influence of their religion is not compulsory, but moral. Why then, should I be more surprised that the laws of the Gospel should be occasionally disregarded, than that the dictates of conscience, or the laws written on the heart, should not always maintain their authority? In vain will any urge, to the prejudice of Christianity, the ambition of a priesthood; and the various steps, by which the ministers of religion ascended from the condition of instructors, to that of oppressors. The Gospel I am certain, gives no countenance to such abuses. So far from it spiritual pride, and spiritual tyranny, are objects of its execration. I might go on to enumerate other popular objections against the system; but he who has formed his ideas of Christianity from the writings of the apostles and evangelists, will be certain that its credit is not injured by them.

As there is not any subject, which may not be turned into ridicule, neither is there any historical fact against which many plausible objections may not be raised. Considering his power, influence and popularity, the destruction of Cesar, by the Roman senators, may be opposed with great ingenuity; and many arguments may be brought to fix a suspicion on this part of ancient history. The execution of Charles the first, and the triumphs of Cromwell, are likewise articles which a logician might assail with many objections. And if a skeptic were so disposed, now easily might he refute (as the term is sometimes understood) the American history of independence4? He might contrast the naval and military strength, the riches, and the population of Britain, with the poverty and weakness of the colonies: —he might also expatiate on the different principles, habits, interfering interests, and jealousies of the colonists; — and subjoining the fears of some, and the strong attachment of others to their political parent, he might, from the whole, show the incredibility of our revolution. Still, the glorious fact is a refutation of such reasonings. And I must observe, that in regard to historical relations, the testimony of one credible witness will outweigh millions of such objections, as a fruitful imagination may easily invent.

This conviction never fails to accompany me, when I repair to the sacred oracles. In the New Testament, I find a detail of instructions given, of wonders performed, and of futurities revealed. I am also entertained with a particular account of the sufferings, death resurrection, and ascension of Jesus Christ. Other astonishing events likewise, as circumstantially related. And the history containing these things appears to be as fairly written; and to carry with it as substantial proofs of its authenticity, as any history which has gained credit in the world. Do any ask, why I believe the antiquity of the Christian records? I answer, for the same reason that I believe the antiquity of Virgil’s Poems, Cesar’s Commentaries, or Sallust’s Narrations: and that is, the concurring testimony of all intervening ages. Do any ask, why I believe, that the several books were written by the persons whose names they bear? I answer, for the same reason that I believe the Georgics to be the production of Virgil; — Jerusalem Delivered, that of Tasso; — Paradise Lost, that of Milton; —an Essay, upon the subject of Miracles to be the work of Hume; —and a Refutation of that Essay the performance of Campbell. Do any inquire, whether the sacred pages have not been greatly corrupted? I answer, they have not been greatly corrupted; as appears by a collation of the earliest manuscripts, and an appeal to the earliest versions, and ancient fathers. So many corroborating circumstances plead in favor of the Gospel, that I must either distrust all records; or continue to admit the authenticity of those, which display the duty and hopes of a Christian.

To conclude: the religion of Jesus Christ does not decline a fair examination. It consents to meet opposition; but in the character of its opponent, it requires certain qualifications, which have not always appeared in the contest. It requires a large acquaintance with the system itself, an acquaintance formed, not through the medium of human creeds, but by a direct application to the evangelic records. And it requires an extensive knowledge of the peculiar language, in which those records were originally composed, of the various readings grounded on different manuscripts of Heathen and Jewish testimonies, of the customs and moral state of those countries where Christianity was first published, of the concessions and objections of the earliest unbelievers, and of the general history of the church. Thus furnished, several have attacked this religion; but the contest has generally terminated in their conviction. I know many instances, where men have opened the history of Christ with the disrespect of unbelievers; and closed it with the reverence of Christians.

The prevailing sentiments of Americans will be naturally on the side of that religion, which has been the subject of this work. Its influence in the first settlement of the country, will not be soon effaced from their minds. Their political principles will inspire a reverence for a system, which admits of no respect of persons; but inspire a reverence for a system, which admits of no respect of persons; but enjoins the same duties on all; and opens to all, the same prospects of glory, honor, and immortality. Its benevolent tendency, conspiring with its evidence, must ensure to it a fair examination. And those, who thus examine, even if they remain unconvinced will consent, that others should cultivate its temper; and follow its rules. They will not be displeased at seeing the virtue of their neighbors, directed and invigorated by Christian principles. And though they may not see fit to adopt their language yet they will impute no uncommon weakness, credulity, or fanaticism to those, who say with apostle, “LORD TO WHOM SHALL WE GO? THOU HAST THE WORDS OF ETERNAL LIFE.”

Franklin’s Appeal for Prayer at the Constitutional Convention

The Constitutional Convention

Although authorized by the Congress of the Confederation, the Constitutional Convention of 1787 was nevertheless cloaked with secrecy and confidentiality. The official papers of the Convention sat in the Department of State, untouched, until 1818. Yet in retrospect, the gathering reveals both the men and the issues they faced during the founding era. Through analysis of both the Philadelphia debates and the various ratification conventions, we realize the concerns and needs of a developing nation.

Men of means and education pursued a limited, federal government capable of providing political and economic stability in a land of diverse sectional interests. The fight for freedom had been experiential; much of the struggle for structure and unity would be theoretical. The doctrines of scholars would meet with the practical necessities of an emerging nation, resulting in a balanced blend of pragmatism and principle, the Constitution of the United States of America.

However, one of the most controversial issues, State’s representation, could have nullified the entire process. Tempers flared and interests clashed as the delegates sought their respective goals. It was within this quagmire of divisiveness that the elder statesman, Benjamin Franklin, offered his famous appeal for harmony and conciliation, an appeal for God’s intervention.

His solicitation seems almost out of character with our current understanding of the man. Wasn’t he a deist, believing in the clockmaker God who stepped back to watch the hands of time move toward eternity? Could God govern in the affairs of men, or nations, from such a distance? Perhaps Franklin’s appeal for prayer was out of despair and desperation; perhaps he was senile as some suggest; or perhaps we have misunderstood Franklin’s deism, misreading the man in the coonskin cap.

William Steele’s Account

Confusion still surrounds Franklin’s efforts, however. The primary source of this confusion appears to be a letter from William Steele to his son, Jonathan. Written in September 1825, the letter contained William’s recollection of a conversation with General Jonathan Dayton. (Dayton was a member of the Constitutional Convention and afterwards Speaker of the House of Representatives). This account also found its way into at least one national periodical, the National Intelligencer, and other sources as well. As Steele tells it, Dayton offered this account of Franklin’s words:

We have arrived, Mr. President . . . at a very momentous and interesting crisis in our deliberations. Hitherto our views have been as harmonious, and our progress as great as could reasonably have been expected. But now an unlooked for and formidable obstacle is thrown in our way, which threatens to arrest our course, and, if not skillfully removed, to render all our fond hopes of a constitution abortive.

It is, however, to be feared that the members of this Convention are not in a temper, at this moment, to approach the subject in which we differ, in this spirit. I would, therefore, propose, Mr. President, that, without proceeding further in this business at this time, the Convention shall adjourn for three days, in order to let the present ferment pass off, and to afford time for a more full, free, and dispassionate investigation of the subject; and I would earnestly recommend to the members of this Convention, that they spend the time of this recess, not in associating with their own party, and devising new arguments to fortify themselves in their old opinions, but that they mix with members of opposite sentiments, lend a patient ear to their reasonings, and candidly allow them all the weight to which they may be entitled; and when we assemble again, I hope it will be with a determination to form a constitution, if not such an one as we can individually, and in all respects, approve, yet the best, which, under existing circumstances, can be obtained.

(Here the countenance of Washington brightened, and a cheering ray seemed to break in upon the gloom which had recently covered our political horizon.) The doctor continued:

Before I sit down, Mr. President, I will suggest another matter; and I am really surprised that it has not been proposed by some other member at an earlier period of our deliberations. I will suggest, Mr. President, that propriety of nominating and appointing, before we separate, a chaplain to this Convention, whose duty it shall be uniformly to assemble with us, and introduce the business of each day by and address to the Creator of the universe, and the Governor of all nations, beseeching Him to preside in our council, enlighten our minds with a portion of heavenly wisdom, influence our hearts with a love of truth and justice, and crown our labors with complete and abundant success!

The doctor sat down, and never did I [General Dayton] behold a countenance at once so dignified and delighted as was that of Washington, at the close of the address! Nor were the members of the Convention, generally less affected. The words of the venerable Franklin fell upon our ears with a weight and authority, even greater than we may suppose an oracle to have had in a Roman Senate! A silent admiration superseded, for a moment, the expression of that assent and approbation which was strongly marked on almost every countenance.

The Recess

According to Steele, Dayton then recalled Alexander Hamilton’s protest and sarcastic refusal to accept “foreign aid.” And then he continued:

Washington fixed his eye upon the speaker [Hamilton], with a mixture of surprise and indignation, while he uttered this impertinent and impious speech, and then looked around to ascertain in what manner it affected others. They did not leave him a moment to doubt; no one deigned to reply, or take the smallest notice of the speaker, but the motion for appointing a chaplain was instantly seconded and carried; whether under the silent disapprobation of Mr. H___, or his solitary negative, I do not recollect. The motion for an adjournment was then put and carried unanimously, and the Convention adjourned accordingly.

The three days of recess were spent in the manner advised by Doctor Franklin. The opposite parties mixed with each other, and a free and frank interchange of sentiments took place. On the fourth day we assembled again, and if great additional light had not been thrown on the subject, every unfriendly feeling had been expelled; and a spirit of conciliation had been cultivated, which promised, at least, a calm and dispassionate reconsideration of the subject [state’s representation].

William Steele closed the letter confident he had “faithfully stated the facts” motivated by a desire to “perpetuate the facts.” From this source, and others, one might easily draw the conclusion that Franklin’s efforts brought a harmonious reconciliation to the Convention.

James Madison’s Letter

James Madison, however, in a letter to Jared Sparks on April 8, 1831, referred to this account as “erroneously given, with every semblance of authenticity.” And then in another letter to Thomas S. Grimke (January 6, 1834), Madison went further in his clarification concerning the “proposition of Doctor Franklin in favor of a religious service in the Federal Convention.” He said:

The proposition was received and treated with the respect due to it; but the lapse of time which had preceded, with consternations growing out of it, had the effect of limiting what was done, to a reference of the proposition to a highly respectable Committee.

He then continued:

That the communication [Steele’s account of Dayton’s testimony] was erroneous is certain; whether from misapprehension or misrecollection, uncertain.

Journal of the Constitutional Convention

Madison’s Journal originally contained a summary of Franklin’s words. However, in a later revision, he inserted the speech as written in Franklin’s own handwriting. It is the authoritative source concerning the Convention.

Mr. President

The small progress we have made after 4 or five weeks close attendance & continual reasonings with each other,”our different sentiments on almost every question, several of the last producing as many noes and ays, is methinks a melancholy proof of the imperfection of the Human Understanding. We indeed seem to feel our own want of political wisdom, some we have been running about in search of it. We have gone back to ancient history for models of Government, and examined the different forms of those Republics which having been formed with the seeds of their own dissolution now no longer exist. And we have viewed Modern States all round Europe, but find none of their Constitutions suitable to our circumstances.

In this situation of this Assembly, groping as it were in the dark to find political truth, and scarce able to distinguish it when presented to us, how has it happened, Sir, that we have not hitherto once thought of humbly applying to the Father of lights to illuminate our understandings? In the beginning of the Contest with G. Britain, when we were sensible of danger we had daily prayer in this room for the divine protection. ”Our prayers, Sir, were heard, and they were graciously answered. All of us who were engaged in the struggle must have observed frequent instances of a Superintending providence in our favor. To that kind providence we owe this happy opportunity of consulting in peace on the means of establishing our future national felicity. And have we now forgotten that powerful friend? I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth- that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the sacred writings, that “except the Lord build the House they labour in vain that build it.” I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without his concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better than the Builders of Babel: We shall be divided by our little partial local interests; our projects will be confounded, and we ourselves shall become a reproach and byword down to future ages. And what is worse, mankind may hereafter from this unfortunate instance, despair of establishing Governments be Human Wisdom and leave it to chance, war and conquest.

I therefore beg leave to move, that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations, be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more of the Clergy of the City be requested to officiate in that service.

Mr. Sherman (from Connecticut) seconded the motion.

Mr. Hamilton and several others expressed their apprehensions that however proper such a resolution might have been at the beginning of the convention, it might at this late day, 1, bring on it some disagreeable animadversions [criticisms], and 2, lead the public to believe that the embarrassments and dissensions within the Convention, had suggested this measure. It was answered by [Dr. Franklin], Mr. Sherman and others, that the past omission of a duty could not justify a further omission, that the rejection of such a proposition would expose the Convention to more unpleasant animadversions than the adoption of it: and that the alarm out of doors that might be excited for the state of things within, would at least be as likely to good as ill.

Mr. Williamson, observed that the true cause of the omission could not be mistaken. The Convention had no funds.

Mr. Randolph proposed in order to give a favorable aspect to the measure, that a sermon be preached at the request of the convention on the 4th of July, the anniversary of Independence; and thenceforward prayers be used in the Convention every morning. Dr. Franklin seconded this motion. After several unsuccessful attempts for silently postponing the matter by adjourning was at length carried, without any vote on the motion.

Franklin’s Account

But the final word in this discussion comes from Franklin’s own pen. In John Bigelow’s, The Works of Benjamin Franklin, a footnote (pg. 378) referring to Franklin’s speech states:

To the original draft of this speech there is the following note appended in the handwriting of Dr. Franklin: “The convention, except three or four persons, thought prayer unnecessary.” [This same notation is given as a footnote on page 452 of Max Farrand’s Records of the Federal Convention.]

Bigelow continues by saying “the time which had elapsed without prayers in the convention, sufficiently explains the failures of Franklin’s motions.”

Analysis of the Accounts

The response to Franklin’s motion should not be viewed as an atheistic or deistic expression from the delegates. In their view, prayer was an official ceremony. It required ordained clergy to “officiate,” (as Franklin noted) and the funds to pay them (as Williamson observed). It was not as simple as asking “Brother George” to ask God’s blessings on their deliberations. This was not the general approach to religion during this time in history. Orthodox formality was the preferable style and manner, at least in official settings. For example, when Rev. Duche offered the first prayer in the Continental Congress, he appeared “with his clerk and in his pontificals, and read several prayers in the established form.” Granted, he also unexpectedly “struck out into an extemporary prayer,” but the point is made: religious formality was the order of the day.

Those orders were followed a few days later at the Reformed Calvinist Lutheran Church. In response to Franklin’s appeal, Virginia’s Mr. Randolph offered a counter proposal. He recommended that a “sermon be preached at the request of the convention on the 4th of July, the anniversary of Independence, & thence forward prayers be used in ye Convention every morning.” One report has Washington leading most of the Convention delegates to the church, where James Campbell preached a sermon trusting in the wisdom of the delegates to establish a “free and vigorous government.”

As it turns out, after the Convention, and nine days after the first Constitutional Congress convened with a quorum (April 9, 1789), they implemented Franklin’s recommendation. Two chaplains of different denominations were appointed, one to the House and one to the Senate, with a salary of $500 each. This practice continues today, posing no threat to the First Amendment. How could it? The men who authorized the chaplains wrote the Amendment.

Conclusion

The real strength of Franklin’s motion, from the conservative viewpoint, is as an example of his supposed “deism,” which is a far cry from what some would make it out to be. Franklin obviously felt that God governed in the affairs of men, not exactly the general understanding of today’s deism. But many people attempt to anachronously impose today’s definition upon Franklin, Jefferson, and others, implying they had nothing whatsoever to do with religion. This is usually done to support a broad, separationist approach to religion and government, which is inconsistent with the words and deeds of those who created America’s political system.

Franklin, as well as all of the Framers of the Constitution, realized the value of religion in society. And they realized the value of prayer in the weightier matters of politics. As it turns out, Dr. Franklin was not senile at all; he was simply asking for divine assistance in what proved to be the formation of our American system. Perhaps there were no “official” prayers during the Convention, but denying that the delegates wanted God’s blessing and direction, now that would be senility.

Summary

  • An 1825 letter gave an erroneous account of Franklin’s appeal.
  • Various periodicals circulated the story, assuming it to be correct.
  • Numerous others have presented the inaccurate details.
  • Madison’s 1831 letter called the account erroneous.
  • Madison’s 1834 letter clarified:

The proposition was received and treated with the respect due to it; but the lapse of time which had preceded, with consternations growing out of it, had the effect of limiting what was done, to a reference of the proposition to a highly respectable Committee.

  • Franklin drafted his appeal, and Madison included the written speech in his revised Journal.
  • Franklin offers the final say on the matter:

The convention, except three or four persons, thought prayer unnecessary.

  • However, Virginia’s Mr. Randolph offered a counter proposal: a July Fourth Sermon at the Convention’s request, followed by morning prayers. Washington led most of the delegates to hear the sermon and enjoy the festivities.
  • Although they did not bring in Chaplains, the first Congress instituted a Chaplaincy program that exists to this day.

Sermon – Eulogy on John Quincy Adams

John Quincy Adams’ Death
Joshua Bates (1776-1854) Biography:

Born the same year that Congress penned the Declaration of Independence, Bates grew up helping with the family farm and serving as a clerk in the family store. Self-taught, he was able to enter Harvard in 1797 as a sophomore, and after three years he graduated with honors. He then took a teaching position at Philips Andover Academy, which is how he earned his living while studying theology. Ordained in 1803, he became pastor of the Congregational Church in Dedham, Massachusetts, until 1818, when he became President of Middlebury College, a position he held until 1839. After retiring from Middlebury, Bates served as the chaplain of the United States House of Representatives from 1839-1840. Former President John Quincy Adams was a member of the House during the time he was chaplain, and when Adams died eight years later in 1848 (following seventy years of public service in America’s behalf), Bates delivered the following sermon eulogizing Adams.


A DISCOURSE

ON

THE CHARACTER, PUBLIC SERVICES, AND DEATH,

OF

JOHN QUINCY ADAMS.

 

BY JOSHUA BATES.

 

WORCHESTER:

PRINTED BY SAMUEL CHISM.

218 Main Street.

 

 

DISCOURSE.

Know ye not that there is a prince and a great man fallen this day in Israel.

2 Sam. Iii. 38.

            “Know ye not that there is a great man fallen?”  This inquiry, or rather announcement, made in Judea, three thousand years ago, might, with great propriety, have been made in our country, when recently John Quincy Adams, under the sudden stroke of disease, sunk down in his seat in the Congress, and soon after died, still within the walls of the Capitol of the United States.[i]  Indeed, the announcement was made, in language scarcely less forcible and impressive, not only at Washington, but, through the whole land; was made and sent abroad with lightning speed, with telegraphic dispatch.  And everywhere, as the tidings spread, the involved sentiment seems to have met a ready response, and been echoed back, in soft and solemn tones, – “A great man is fallen.”

            Nor should we, my hearers, though far removed from the exciting scene of his death, and dwelling in a retired village, suffer the announcement of the solemn fact to pass by us, or the recollection of it to escape from our minds, without some special notice of the event itself, and some practical application of the instructions which it brings along with it.  I repeat the language of the text to-day,[ii] therefore, not for the purpose of comparing the event, to which I apply it, with that to which it was originally applied by David, the king and sweet Psalmist of Israel; nor for the purpose of tracing analogies and running a parallel between the great man of old, whose death David announced to the children of Israel, and him, whose death, at Washington, has been recently announced to us.  I adopt the language of the text, merely as a suitable and striking introduction to a discourse, on the character, public services, and death of this great man of Massachusetts, of New England, of the United States of America, of the world; who has thus fallen, full of years and crowned with honors.  Accordingly, I shall endeavor to delineate a few of the most prominent features of his character, and speak of some of the most striking occurrences and actions of his life, which conspired to constitute him “a great man.”  And I intend to intersperse the whole with such reflections and practical remarks, as seem adapted to the condition and claims of our country; and as are calculated to remind us of our obligations, and prompt us to the faithful discharge of duty, as members of civil society and citizens of a great republic.

            With this view I must detain you a little while, with the definition of terms; and occupy a few moments in showing what are the elements of greatness in human character – what constitutes a great man.

            Clearly all that is sometimes called great, is not truly great.  Greatness in man, evidently does not depend on position in society, on place and power, on office and rank, on pedigree and primogeniture; on the ten thousand nominal and factitious distinctions which have been arbitrarily made in society.  For the most elevated rank and the most honorable titles are often assumed by men of the lowest minds and vilest character; and not unfrequently the highest civil offices are conferred on the weak and the wicked.  In hereditary governments, the chances are, at least equal, that his will be the fact; whenever an heir-apparent ascends the throne; because he ascends, of course, without regard to character or qualifications.  And even in elective states, want of judgment in the electors, deception practiced by selfish aspirants, and the blinding influence of party spirit, too often produce the same results.  Thus the high places in civil society are sometimes filled by men of little minds, and destitute of all moral and religious principles.  And the ultimate consequence is, that the wicked walk on every side, when the vilest men are thus exalted.  Then vice and iniquity every where abound, drawing down upon the country the judgments of Heaven.

            Nor will the possession and development of some one high quality alone, make a great man.  A man may be a great mathematician or a great poet, a great general or a great politician, and yet be destitute of that, which is absolutely necessary to constitute a great man.  Yes, even the best moral qualities may be seen in connection with much intellectual deficiency; such weakness of judgment, wildness of imagination, or instability of purpose in a man, as to forbid the application of the epithet great to him as a man; however, charity may wink at his errors, smile at his foibles, pity his misfortune, and yet praise him for his good intentions.

            But we may remark positively, that great intellectual faculties and high moral powers, fully developed, properly directed, and actively employed, are all requisite to make a truly great man.  Or, to express the same thing in different language, we may say, a great man must possess, at once, symmetry and elevation of character.  His original powers of mind and susceptibilities of heart must be of a high order, cultivated with care, drawn out and kept in such just proportion and steady equilibrium, as to produce a finished character – firm and elevated, beautiful and sublime.  Or better still, perhaps, we may say: a great man must show his greatness, by standing on high ground, where his light may shine and he may be seen; and by there exhibiting those excellencies which are involved in a faithful and diligent discharge of the duties, growing out of all the relations of life and immortality.

            He must, therefore, be a man of firmness of purpose and decision of character; of self-possession, self-culture, and self-control; and all these qualities he must possess in such measure, as not only to secure his own happiness, but to be able, most effectually, to promote the happiness of others – of all others, who are dependent on him and connected with him.  He must be prepared to discharge faithfully and successfully all the duties which his social and civil relations impose upon him; prepared for the service of his country and generation; prepared, especially, for the service of his God and the enjoyment of his favor forever.

            Hence, though there may be degrees of greatness in character, and, of course, different classes of great men, yet the number of those who are truly eminent, and are entitled to the high distinction denoted by the epithet, is, in every age and country, comparatively small.  For, as we have said, no one can be truly great, without possessing great original powers of mind; nor unless these great powers are fully developed, carefully cultivated, properly directed, and faithfully employed.

            These cultivated and well-directed powers, I repeat, may exist in different degrees and various proportions, in different men; but in whatever degree or proportion they are possessed by any one, and in whatever relation or office he may be placed, if truly a great man, he will be found always prepared to meet the calls of duty with promptitude and decision, and to pursue the path of duty with untiring assiduity and never-yielding perseverance.

            Especially, let it be remembered, the religious element is indispensable to constitute greatness of character in man.  All other powers and qualities, however exalted and apportioned, will fail to produce true greatness, without the combining and controlling influence of this high quality.  To render them subservient to the purpose for which they were bestowed, or even to secure their salutary tendency, they must be sanctified by religious sentiment, and exercised and employed under the direction of religious principle.

            This element of greatness in character, has, indeed, been generally overlooked or forgotten.  Hence, talents of the most brilliant order have been wasted; genius permitted to run wild, and scatter abroad the seeds of death; and knowledge, though extensive and powerful, suffered to lie dormant, or become merely the power of producing mischief and misery in the world.  Hence the great general (so-called) has sometimes become a cruel murderer, destroying without mercy and almost without thought, the innocent and defenseless.  Hence the great poet (so-called) has sometimes become a trifler, a madman, a corrupter of youth, diffusing everywhere a mortal pestilence – error, ice, and wretchedness.  Hence, too, the great statesman and politician (so-called) has sometimes become a selfish demagogue, a fraudulent diplomatist, a cunning aspirant for power, and a cruel oppressor when in power.  Thus greatness (so-called – falsely so-called) sinks into littleness, into meanness even when separated from goodness.  Yes; all talents, however brilliant; all knowledge, however extensive; all developments of mental power, however mighty; all acquisitions of science and learning, however comprehensive; all natural sympathy and even moral sensibility, however exquisite; unsanctified by religious truth and uncontrolled by religious principle, will forever fail to  produce true greatness of character, or render any one truly a great man.  They need one essential ingredient to form the compound.  They want the combining and conservative element, the purifying and controlling power; that, which alone can give consistency, permanency and excellence; unity, beauty and sublimity, to human character; or render a man of great powers and acquisitions, truly a great man.

            Yet, as few as men of greatness of character are – here and there one in an age, like light-houses scattered along the sea coast, to guide the bewildered mariner – our country has produced her full proportion; and John Quincy Adams was decidedly one of the number.  Yes; he possessed all the elements of greatness, and most of them developed in a high degree, harmoniously combined, well balanced, and steadily employed, under the direction of enlightened conscience and fixed religious principle.

His native powers of mind seem to have been of a high order.  It may, perhaps, be thought by some, that his great attainments in literature and science, depended more upon his superior advantages for improvement, than on native vigor of intellect. It must indeed, be admitted, that his advantages were uncommonly great, and eminently calculated to develop his original powers of mind, and urge them forward to maturity.  Born at a most interesting period in the history of the country,[iii]  just as she was entering into her mighty struggle for independence, of parents deeply involved in the counsels and measures which led to that struggle and carried it through with success; rocked in the cradle of liberty and science, and nursed in the arms of piety and patriotism, his first impressions and earliest developments were unquestionably favorable to energy of character, enterprise of spirit, and that greatness to which he ultimately rose.  Especially was the influence of his excellent mother manifest in giving direction to his high pursuits and forming his elevated character, both intellectual and moral.  Under her superintendence his literary career, as well as his moral.  Under her superintendence his literary career, as well as his moral and religious training, was commenced.[iv]  And, even when withdrawn from her personal influence, by his residence with his father and others in Europe, he failed not to receive her high counsels through the medium of those excellent letters which are already before the public.

At the age of eleven years, he began to study foreign languages, both ancient and modern, in a foreign country; and, before he had reached the age of twenty, he had completed a course of liberal education, having pursued his studies at two universities,[v]  besides receiving the best tuition at home and abroad; and, at the same time, enjoying the advantages of travel and extended observation, in daily communion with some of the greatest minds and ripest scholars of the age.

But, while all this is admitted, it must be seen in the result, that the mind which could appreciate these advantages, meet their high claims on his energy and diligence, improve them all without distraction or weariness, and grow to maturity under their pressure and multiplied appliances, must have been a great mind; must have possessed happy tendencies and strong capabilities.  I am not, however, anxious to settle this metaphysical question, and balance the weight of evidence between the claims of original talents and a judicious, energetic, and persevering improvement of facilities and favorable opportunities.  It is enough for our purpose, that we are able to affirm and prove, that he possessed great powers of intellect, fully developed and completely disciplined; a mind of enlarged capacity, and well furnished with the richest stores of learning.

His opportunities for observation and the various circumstances of his early life, were surely favorable for the acquisition of knowledge.  But still, his perceptive faculties must have been acute, and his powers of attention and abstraction must have been great, or these opportunities and favoring circumstances would have availed him little; certainly would not have made him the ripe and universal scholar that he was.  Similar advantages have been enjoyed and abused by thousands.  Thousands, like him; have traveled in foreign lands, conversed with great minds and learned men, and received instruction in the best schools, who, nevertheless, wanted the capacity or energy of mind requisite for scholarship; for high attainments in literature and science; – not unfrequently have they come out  from the university “graduated dunces,” or returned from abroad, “traveled fools.”  He had the opportunities for improvement, it is true; and he improved them; because he possessed the capacity to receive and retain, and the energy to pursue and acquire knowledge.

We may, at least, affirm without the fear of contradiction, that his memory was extraordinary, perhaps unequalled.  I discover, however, nothing in his course of education peculiarly calculated to form such a memory; nothing but what is common to the discipline of a liberal education, with a steady exercise of the faculty, and a practical application of the knowledge acquired.  I know not, that he adopted any rules of arbitrary association, in order to strengthen his powers of retention and recollection; that he took any special pains to commit to memory, for the purpose of exercise and discipline; or that he reviewed what he read more frequently than other sound and finished scholars.  I see nothing, indeed, connected with his mental habits, peculiarly favorable to the improvement and enlargement of this intellectual faculty, except his early and continued practice of committing to writing, every day, the most important occurrences of the day, with his own views and reflections.  But this practice can scarcely be said to be peculiar to him.  Others have done the same thing; and some, perhaps; with equal care and particularity.  And yet his memory was certainly extraordinary; perhaps unparalleled, both as to its extend, retention, and readiness.  He seems to have taken notice of whatever occurred within the sphere of his observation; to have read whatever came to his hand, worthy of being read; and to have retained, and kept in a state of readiness for use, whatever of knowledge he had acquired, both by reading and observation.

It has been said, that readiness and retentiveness of memory are qualities inconsistent with each other, and not to be found in the same person; because they depend on antagonistic habits of association – the one belonging to the philosophic mind, and the other to the practical man of business.  But in him we have an example of their perfect consistency and complete union.  His memory was both philosophical and particular; both a retentive and a ready memory.  What he had once learned, as we said, he seems to have retained always; and what he thus knew, he had always at command, and ready for immediate and appropriate use.

The consequence of his great powers of memory, happily directed by the course of his education, and faithfully applied by his great industry and persevering energy of research, was, as already intimated, the acquisition of extensive and various knowledge – knowledge laid by in store, and yet held ready for use, whenever occasion called.

He was more or less acquainted with many of the modern languages of Europe; and several of them he could speak and write with readiness and accuracy.[vi]  In the classical languages of Greece and Rome, and especially the latter, he read much, and he was thoroughly acquainted with the literature which they embodied.  He was, too, a man of science; wonderfully catching the spirit of the times, and keeping along with the rapid progress, both of the abstract and the natural sciences.  But his knowledge of history, natural law, political economy, and the science of legislation and civil government, constituted his chief attainments, and furnished the mighty resources and high qualifications which he possessed for complicated action in public life, and the various services of his country to which he was called.[vii]

His unrivalled power in debate, depended more on his inexhaustible fund of knowledge and ready memory, than on any distinguished qualities of eloquence or peculiar graces of oratory.  He always overthrew his antagonists on the political arena, because he was always clad in panoply complete – armed cap-a-pe, with sword in hand, sharpened and burnished, and ready for action.  When pursued with objections, inquiries, and rash statements, as he sometimes was in Congress, and even with a spirit of bitterness and reproach, his resources of mind never failed him; his answers were always ready, his replies conclusive, his retorts keen; confounding his assailants with an array of facts which no man could gainsay, and a conclusiveness of argument which no man could resist.

It has been said, that no man ever attacked him wantonly, in a deliberative assembly, with impunity; that whoever presumed thus to assail him, might be sure of defeat – yes, if the combat was continued, of political death.  An illustration of the truth of this remark occurred in Congress, a few years ago, when he was suddenly attacked by a combination of talents and a conspiracy of interests and prejudices, with a view to his expulsion from the House of Representatives.  How expertly did he resist the attack on the right hand and on the left, in front and in rear; and how completely did he put the combined forces of his assailants to flight, and scatter them to the four winds of heaven!  During the first session of the twenty-sixth Congress, I remember, that a similar, though not so violent attack, was made upon him, with a similar result; and I remember, when the remark was subsequently made to one of the members of the House:  “Why, Mr. Adams seems to know more than any of you,” the prompt reply was: “Yes; more than all of us together.”

Another trait of intellectual character in Mr. Adams, which ought not to be passed without notice, is imagination.  This faculty, however, was certainly not so prominent in him, as was that of memory.  The two faculties, indeed, are never displayed, in very eminent degree, by the same person; because they depend on principles and habits of association differing from each other, and counteracting each other’s operation.  Memory depends on arbitrary connections, gross resemblances, and scientific classifications; but imagination on slight analogies, shadowy visions, ethereal views, and transcendental flights of fancy.  A rich, poetical imagination, therefore, is seldom found in connection with a giant memory.

His imagination, however was by no means deficient.  Some of his poetical effusions have been very favorably received by the literary public.  But if he was not eminent as a poet, he had sufficient power of imagination for the purposes of vivid conception, graphic description, forcible illustration; enough to constitute him a sound and dignified orator; enough to secure to him the title of “the old an eloquent,” as well as “the eloquent young man.”  His eloquence; however, did not depend on voice, or attitude, or playful gesture, but on

“Thoughts that breathe

And words that burn,”

on clearness of views, extent of knowledge, closeness of reasoning and soundness of judgment, expressed in appropriate and forcible language, and addressed to the understanding and the heart.

I well remember, with what dignity and commanding eloquence he rose, on the 5th of December, 1839, in that tumultuous assemblage of the Representatives of the people of the United States, who had been four days in the great hall of the Capitol, without a chairman and without order, trying, but trying in vain, to organize a House.  He rose, after having waited in silence till a crises seemed to be at hand – he rose – I seem to see him now – he rose, and, with his piercing eye, his slowly waving hand, and shrill voice, already enfeebled by age, he soon calmed the troubled elements, “and stilled the tumult of the people.”  The result is known.  But what the result of that party-strife would have been, without his influence, no one can tell.  It might have issued in a continued disorganized convention, or a complete dissolution of the government.

Mr. Adams, we may add, was a man of great decision of character, firmness of purpose, unflinching moral courage.  So prominent was this quality of his mind, that he was sometimes thought to be too unyielding, and even obstinate.  But time has generally shown, that what bitter enemies and timid friends called willfulness and self-sufficiency, was conscientious firmness – a determined adherence to what he viewed as right – that it was conscience and not self-will that held him to his purpose.  Witness his long contest and arduous struggle in Congress for the constitutional right of petition – a contest in which he sometimes stood almost alone; but one in which he never yielded, nor relaxed his efforts, till he carried his point, and convinced both friends and foes, that he was right, and that he had been conscientious in contending for the right.

It was this high quality of firmness and independence, of conscientious adherence to the decisions of his own judgment, which caused him, as I verily believe, so often to break off his connection with those who had claimed him as a partisan.  He was too conscientious and independent to be held in the trammels of party.  Of course, he has been claimed, at different times, as a member of the several political parties, which have existed in the country, but he was never completely identified with any.  Bred in the school of Federalism, he embraced and generally maintained its doctrines, during the administration of Washington and his father.  But, when an occasion occurred, where he thought the policy of the party wrong, he acted promptly on the other side of the question.  Believing, as he declared, that the rights of our oppressed seamen demanded stringent measures to bring the British government to regard the humane law of nations on the subject of impressments, he left the ranks of the opposition, and fell, of course, into the measures and the ranks of those who supported the administration.  He might have been wrong in his judgment; at the time I thought him wrong; and I am not yet convinced, that the unnatural war which followed the stringent measures of the Embargo of 1807, might not have been avoided, and thus much blood and treasure saved.  But he thought otherwise – honestly thought, as I now believe; and accordingly made the strong declaration, for which he has been often and severely censured: “Mr. President,” said he, addressing the presiding officer of the Senate of the United States – “Mr. President, I would not deliberate, I would act.”  I well remember the indignation which burst upon his head, from his former friends and his father’s friends.  Yes; I remember, when a grey-headed man pointedly reproached him in a public hall, where he could not, with propriety, vindicate his conduct; and I remember the meekness and firmness with which he bore the reproach.  The rebuke was certainly untimely; and the indignation, if, as is generally believed, he acted according to his judgment and conscience, was unjust.  Indeed, the language which preceded his vote for the Embargo, upon this supposition, was not rash; it was sublime; it was nobly said: “I would not deliberate, I would act.”

By this course he was brought, as I said, to sympathize and act with what was then called the Republican party; and with them he continued under Madison’s and Monroe’s administrations, till that old division of parties sunk into obscurity, and he was brought into the presidential chair.  But here he found many of his opinions so much at variance with the interests and prejudices of some with whom he was called to act, especially with regard to internal improvements, the regulation of a tariff, the proper treatment of the Indians, and the still more embarrassing subject of slavery, that the course of measures, which he felt himself compelled to recommend, deprived him of a second election to the presidential chair – an election which he might have secured, if he had been willing to sacrifice his judgment and his conscience, or resort to the power of perverted patronage and political proscription.

Finally, by this independent course he became the champion, and, for a time, the favorite of a new party, through whose influence he commenced his long and laborious career in the House of Representatives.  But to meet their wishes and sustain their proposed measures, he could proceed no farther than he felt himself at liberty to go, according to his views of the provisions of the Constitution, and the implied contract with the States of Virginia and Maryland, in the cession of the District of Columbia to the jurisdiction of the United States.  Here again some thought him self-sufficient on the one hand, or too scrupulous on the other.  But, whether right or wrong in judgment, he was honest and firm in purpose.  Thus has he been called to act, in the measures which he approved, with all parties; but he belonged exclusively to none.  Thus did he beautifully illustrate the character of decision, firmness, and moral courage, which constitutes a great man, acting as an independent republican.

One other general characteristic of his mind, or rather of his heart, I am constrained to mention: his susceptibility of emotion, his strong passions, his ardent feelings, his acute sensibility.  But strong as his passions were – and they were confessedly strong and easily excited, – they were always under the control of his will, and subject to the guidance of his reason.  In his highest sallies of indignant eloquence and withering sarcasm; in his most vehement retorts upon his antagonists in debate, he never said what he did not believe to be true; and seldom what he could not prove to be both true and just.  Under the most powerful provocations and the strongest excitement, his understanding remained undisturbed, his conceptions clear, his inexhaustible treasures of knowledge at command; and he never failed of vindicating the positions he had taken against the assailing powers of talent, and eloquence, and prejudice; and to the complete satisfaction of all enlightened, impartial observers.

“Always?” – “Never?” did I say?  Perhaps this language is too strong and sweeping.  He was a man; and it is human to err.  He may have made mistakes; he may have indulged unjust suspicions, and thrown out unkind insinuations.  Unquestionably he sometimes did.  But was he not always ready to explain, where he had been misapprehended?  To make reparation, where he had injured? To forgive, where forgiveness was asked? To be reconciled, where alienation had unhappily and inadvertently taken place?  Would time permit, I could state cases and relate anecdotes, which would furnish a favorable answer to these inquiries, and satisfy every candid mind.

He was, indeed, as we have said, a man of strong feelings and acute sensibility; and the wonder is, that his self-government was so nearly perfect as it was; that amidst all the storms of debate, through which, in high party times, he was called to pass, and under all the violent personal attacks of deliberately-formed conspiracy against him, he was able to control his feelings, so as to command the resources of his mighty mind and inexhaustible memory; so as to throw back upon his assailants the scorching and withering eloquence of truth, and reason, and indignant rebuke.

Yes, he was a man of feeling – of tender as well as strong feeling.  Often have I seen that feeling exhibited in his changing countenance, and even falling tears, under the preaching of the gospel of Christ, in view of the melting scenes of Calvary, and under the pressing influence of the doctrines which cluster around the cross.  Is it improper to say, (for I speak what I do know,) that he has been seen, as he sat in the Clerk’s seat, on the Sabbath, in one of the halls of Congress, with his eye turned to the preacher in the Speaker’s desk, melting into tears, while the doctrine of justification by faith and salvation by grace was exhibited and vindicated against Infidel objections; was presented, as a practical subject; “a doctrine according to godliness,” and applied to the heart and conscience?  This statement I make, not as showing his religious creed, for I know not what he believed on the subject; not even as proof of his being a Christian, (that proof belongs to another place.)  Besides, transient emotion is not the best evidence of religious principle.  But I mention the fact, merely as furnishing evidence of his sensibility – his susceptibility of tender emotion, in view of melting scenes of compassion; where justice is vindicated, while mercy is exercised; where love is exhibited, while integrity and truth are preserved; where grace is displayed, while righteousness is secured, and a holy moral government maintained; where, in a word, justice and mercy meet together, and righteousness and peace embrace each other.

Would time permit, I might here speak of his character for prudence, self-respect, industry, improvement of time, punctuality in business, early rising, exercise and general regimen; with his simplicity of  manners, of dress, of equipage, of everything, indeed, becoming a true republican in a well constituted republic.  For all these things were intimately connected with the development and efficient application of his intellectual powers, and his salutary influence in society.

I might too, speak of his private virtues, domestic relations, and moral character generally.  But my personal acquaintance with him was not sufficiently intimate to justify the attempt to do justice to these topics.  Besides, it seems uncalled for, and altogether unnecessary.  For here public sentiment, I believe, universally concurs with private friendship, in pronouncing his unqualified eulogy.  Here the tongue of slander is silent, and even the breath of calumny suppressed.

I might, moreover, speak more at large than I have incidentally done of his public services.  But they were performed in public view, and were subjected to public inspection.  They are recollected by some of my hearers; others have been told of them by their fathers; and they will soon become matters of history, and will unquestionably occupy some of the most brilliant and instructive pages of the history of liberty and our country.  Let it suffice, therefore, at this time, simply to say, – No man ever served his country longer,[viii] more faithfully, with higher motives and a purer patriotism; and history will, by and by, show with better and happier ultimate results.  Though party spirit has for a time counteracted some of his wise measures, and retarded the progress of improvement, it will not always retain its power; though it may, for the present, throw some obscurity over his political career, history will dissipate the darkness which surrounds it, and show it in all its brightness; will, especially, show, that the administration of the government, during his presidential term, was a model administration; among the most prudent and economical; free from the abuse of patronage, and the use of questionable power; consistent with the true spirit of the Constitution, and promotive of the cause of liberty and equal justice; – that, next to Washington, he has left the strongest impress of true republicanism on our institutions and the age.  History, I say, will do him justice.  Already, indeed, public opinion is returning to his rejected counsels, and preparing the way for the voice of history to be favorably heard.

But I forbear, and hasten to say a word on his crowning excellency; that which gave direction to his great talents, security to his high morals, utility to his arduous labors, and greatness to his whole character – I mean his religious principles.

Mr. Adams was a Christian; and a Christian, as has been beautifully said, “is the highest style of man.”  What were his particular views on many controverted points in theology, I am not informed. He did not intrude them on the public.  Indeed, I suppose though he was a close student of the Bible, he was not a technical theologian.  Some of his practical sentiments come out incidentally in his published writings, but not in technical language.  For example, in his second letter to his son, on the reading of the Bible, he says: “There are three points of doctrine, the belief of which form the foundation of all morality.  The first is the existence of God; the second is the immortality of the soul; and the third is a future state of rewards and punishments.  Suppose it possible,” he continues, “for a man to disbelieve either of these articles of faith, and that man will have no conscience; he will have no other law than that of the tiger or the shark.  The laws of man may bind him in chains or put him to death, but they can never make him wise, virtuous, or happy.”

In the autumn of 1840, Mr. Adams delivered two lectures in New York, on the subject of Faith, which, at the time, made a strong impression on the public mind, and are said to have done much in arresting the progress of Infidelity.  I find a synopsis of one of them in the New York Observer of November 28th, of that year, in the following words:

“1.  In the existence of one Omnipresent God, the Creator of all things.

2.  In the immortality of the soul, and man’s accountability to God for his conduct.

3.  In the divine mission of the Lord Jesus Christ.”

But I will not detain you with farther quotations.  He was a practical Christian; not a theorist; certainly not a sectarian.  He called himself a Bible Christian.  This blessed book he read much; and, in a course of letters to his son, written while he was in Russia, he recommends it as a Divine Revelation, to be read and studied daily, and to be made the rule of faith and practice.  To enforce on his son this earnest recommendation, he says: “I have myself, for many years, made it a practice to read through the Bible once every year.”  After speaking of the necessity of prayer “to Almighty God, for the aid of his Holy Spirit,” he adds: “My custom is to read four or five chapters every morning, immediately after rising from my bed.”  In this daily exercise, as he stated to a friend, he used the text of the original or versions in four other languages; always, however, making use of our common English translation as one of the copies.

He was, indeed, a Bible Christian; and his letters to his son show, with what confidence and strong faith he searched the Scriptures, and submitted to their authority.

He was, too, as I said, a practical Christian.  He early joined the church in his native village – a Congregational Church – formed in the days of our pilgrim fathers.[ix]  Here he continued to worship and attend on the ordinances of the gospel, whenever he visited that village.  At Washington, he always attended the stated service held in the Capitol in the morning, during the sessions of Congress.  In the afternoon, as there were no services in the Capitol, he attended at some church in the city.  He was, indeed, an example of punctuality and constancy, in attendance on the public worship and ordinances of God.  I am told, that he never failed, when in health, of attending on the religious services of Congress, during the winter of 1839 and 1840.  And had all the members of Congress been as constant, and punctual, and devout, as he was, I am confident, that a religious influence would have been diffused over the troubled elements of that stormy session.

Yes, he was a Bible Christian, I repeat; and a practical Christian.  And this fact gave the crowning excellence to his character, and rendered him truly “a great man.”

“Know ye not,” my hearers, that “a great man is fallen?”  The repetition of this inquiry brings us to the consideration of the closing scene of his life.  Let us contemplate it for a few moments, as it must have appeared to those who stood around him when he fell.  Truly it must have been a scene, not of excitement and solemnity merely, but of awful sublimity merely, and moral grandeur.  A great man fallen, at the close of a protracted period of public service, full of years, crowned with honors, still at his post of duty, with armor on, watching for his country’s good; surrounded by his compeers; having just given his last vote, and uttered his last emphatic No in the cause of liberty; – fallen and stinking submissively into the arms of death, and even announcing his departure from earth, in language of composure and peace of mind, is indeed a scene of great moral sublimity and beauty; may I not add, in view of his Christian character and Christian hopes, and the glory and immortality which awaited him, a scene of solemn joy?

I have often stood by the bed of dying Christians – Christians, dying in peace and hope; and sometimes in the triumph of faith, and even, like Stephen, in the ecstacies of anticipated life and immortality in the presence of their God and Redeemer.  And I have always viewed such scenes, not with sorrow, but with chastened joy.  Indeed, it is a blessed privilege to see a Christian die.  “For precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of his saints:”

                                                The chamber, where the good man meets his fate,

                                                Is privileged beyond the common walks

                                                Of virtuous life – quite on the verge of heaven.

But when a great man dies, and dies in the midst of circumstances and coincidences which fill the mind with high thoughts and rich associations; which read lessons of wisdom, while they bring consolation to the living, the beauty of death swells into the sublime of immortality; the very soul of the pious spectator is lifted up, and he is ready to exclaim with Elisha, as he gazed on the ascending chariot of Elijah: “My father, my father; the chariot of Israel, and the horsemen thereof!”

Who that has faith – who that has hope, would not wish to die such a death?  “Let me die the death of the righteous, and let my last end be like his!”

 

END. 


[i] The death of Mr. Adams was, indeed, sudden; and the circumstances attending it peculiarly impressive.  He had through life enjoyed almost uninterrupted health.  And by his attention to diet and regimen, early rising, regularity of exercise, careful appropriation of time, and complete system in the regulation of his business and various pursuits, he had been able to accomplish more labor than most men could endure; and to accomplish it with apparent ease and satisfaction.  A little more than a year before his death, he had a slight stroke of the palsy, which he viewed as the premonitory stroke of death, designed to bring his earthly labors to a close; and, we are told, he made a corresponding entry in his daily record of himself.  Still, as his energies of mind remained unimpaired, and as his bodily strength and activity soon returned, he was induced to resume his public duties, and take his seat in Congress.  And though he never recovered his full strength, he continued to discharge his public duties with his wonted faithfulness and punctuality; till, on Monday the 21st of February, 1848, as he sat in his seat in Congress, the same disease returned; and on Wednesday the 23d, closed his eventful life, at the ripe age of more than four-score years.

[ii] Delivered at Dudley, Mass., April 6th, 1848, being the day of the Annual Fast in this Commonwealth.

[iii] July 11, 1767.

[iv] It was stated by an intimate friend, that he continued, through life, to repeat, in connection with his evening devotions, a simple prayer, taught him by his mother.

[v] Leyden and Cambridge.

[vi] The French and German especially.

[vii] A collection of his miscellaneous publications, which, I hope, will soon be made, would furnish abundant proof of the accuracy of this general statement.

[viii] John Quincy Adams, the subject of this discourse, was born (as stated before) July 11th, 1767, in the village of Quincy, formerly a part of the town of Braintree.  His ancestors were among the first settlers of that part of Massachusetts.  He was the eldest son of John Adams – subsequently the second President of the United States, and Abigail (Smith) Adams, the daughter of a Congregational minister of Weymouth.

In the year 1778 – being then a lad of eleven years – he went to France with his father; and with him and at school pursued his studies as before; till, at the age of fourteen, in 1781, he proceeded to Russia, as private Secretary to Francis Dana, Minister to the Court of St. Petersburg.  Thence he returned to his father, in Holland, in 1783; and with him, as Minister to the Court of St. James, he went to England, where he acted as Private Secretary to his father, (at the same steadily pursuing his classical studies) till his return to America, where he finished his classical education; and was graduated at Harvard College in 1787.

His professional studies were pursued at Newburyport, in the office of Theophilus Parsons, subsequently Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Massachusetts.

Mr. Adams commenced the practice of the law, at Boston, in 1790.  But he was soon called, by President Washington, in 1794, at the early age of twenty-seven, to assume the character of a public Minister at a foreign Court; and thus he commenced that career of public service which he pursued with little interruption to the end of life.

He continued in Europe, Resident Minister, at different Courts, till he was recalled by his father, at the close of his presidential term; and returned to America in 1801.

Almost immediately on his return, he was elected a member of the Senate of Massachusetts, and, in 1803, he was appointed a Senator of the United States.  This office he held till his resignation in 1808.  During a part of his Senatorial term, he had held the office of Professor of Rhetoric and Oratory in Harvard College.  To the duties of this office he devoted his undivided energies till 1809, when he was again called into public service, and appointed Minister Plenipotentiary at the Court of Russia.  Subsequently he was called to act as one of the Commissioners in negotiating the peace of Ghent in 1815.  Hence, by appointment, he proceeded to England; and became the Resident Minister of the United States, at the Court of St. James.

In 1817, he was called home to act as Secretary of State.  This office he held for eight years, during both the terms of Mr. Munroe’s Presidency.  In 1825, he became President of the United States.  On the expiration of his presidential term, he retired to private life; till in 1831 he consented to enter Congress again, as a member of the House of Representatives.  And in this capacity, he continued to serve his country, with undiminished zeal and fidelity, till Feb. 7th, 1848; when, as stated before, he died, at the age of 80 years and 7 months.

[ix] A.D., 1639.

Eulogy – 1813, Massachusetts

Isaac Parker (1768-1830) Biography:

Born in Boston, Parker graduated from Harvard when 18. After teaching for many years, he began studying law. Admitted to the law profession in 1789, Parker relocated to Castine, Maine, and became its first lawyer. In 1796, he was elected to Congress as a Federalist and served one term. Leaving Congress, Parker served as a US Marshall from 1797-1801 under President John Adams. Five years later, he relocated to Portland (where he remained until his death) and became a judge on the Massachusetts Supreme Court. He taught law at Harvard for eleven years, was an overseer at Harvard, and a Trustee of Bowdoin College. In 1820, he served as president of the Massachusetts Constitutional Convention. Two of his famous orations that were published included his Oration on Washington and Sketch of the Character of Chief-Justice Parsons.

 


A

 

SKETCH

OF THE CHARACTER OF THE LATE

CHIEF JUSTICE PARSONS,

 

EXHIBITED IN

AN ADDRESS TO THE GRAND JURY,

DELIVERED

AT THE OPENING OF THE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT

AT BOSTON,

ON THE TWENTY-THIRD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 1813.

AFTER THE

USUAL CHARGE.

 

PUBLISHED AT THE UNANIMOUS REQUEST OF

THE GRAND JURY AND THE BAR OF SUFFOLK.

 

BY ISAAC PARKER, ESQ.

ONE OF THE ASSOCIATE JUSTICES OF THAT COURT.

 

BOSTON:

PRINTED BY JOHN ELIOT, COURT STREET

1813.

INTRODUCTION.

 

            CHIEF JUSTICE PARSONS was born in February, 1750, and received the rudiments of his education under the celebrated Master Moody, at Dummer Academy, in his native parish of Byefield, within the ancient town of Newbury.  His father was minister of that parish.  He received the ordinary honours of the University in Cambridge in 1769.  He entered upon the study of the law under the late Judge Bradbury, in Falmouth, now Portland, and while there kept the Grammar School in that town.  He practiced law there a few years; but the conflagration of the town by the British obliged him to withdraw to his father’s house, where he met Judge Trowbridge, as stated in the address.  He, in about a year from this time, opened his office in Newburyport.  He has been honoured with degrees of Doctor of Laws, from the University of Cambridge and Dartmouth College, and from Brown University in Rhode Island.  In 1801, he was presented by President Adams with a commission of Attorney General of the United States, which he did not accept.  He had been also, by the choice of our state Legislature, one of the Commissioners to settle a controversy with the State of New York.  He continued faithful to his chosen profession, until he was appointed Chief Justice of the State, which was in the summer of 1806.

            While this Address was passing through the press, the following letter was received, and the testimony it contains cannot fail to gratify the publick.

Cambridge, 1 December, 1813.

            My Dear Sir,

                        SINCE I handed you the note containing the testimonial of Professor Luzac to our venerated friend’s rank, as a proficient in Greek learning, I have received a letter from my respected friend Vanderkemp, from which I extract the following.

            “We have then lost that ornament of the bench, that brilliant gem of your country.—The Giant of the Law, the polished Greek scholar, is gone. I knew him:  I had learned to revere him through my friend Luzac.  You introduced me to him, and he afterwards honoured me by visiting me three times at my lodgings in Boston.  For this I was indebted to my deceased Luzac, whom he respected.  I flattered myself that I should yet gather a rich harvest from his acquaintance; and he seemed inclined not to disappoint me “Make my compliments to Mrs. V.” these were his last words to me, “and tell her she ought to command you to return soon to Boston.”—Such a delicate compliment from a Parsons, was a treasure to an epicurean, in regard of praise.”

            The good man then indulges his hopes, in a strain of enthusiasm, that the excellent properties of our deceased luminary may excite the emulation of professors of the law who survive him, and of those who may hereafter arise.

            I am, dear Sir,

            Your most obliged servant,

            D. A. TYNG.

 

 

ADDRESS, &c.

 

Gentlemen of the Grand Jury,

                        At the first assembling of this Court in this place, after the death of that eminent man who has for some years been its head and ornament, our minds are naturally and forcibly led to a contemplation of those extraordinary qualities, which had secured to him an uncommon share of the veneration of his fellow-citizens.

            Eulogies upon the dead have become, in publick estimation, but equivocal evidence of their virtues and talents, and indiscriminate panegyrick conveys no honour to its subject and no benefit to survivors.

            But the illustrious dead—those who have brought signal reputation to their country, who have aided in rearing and supporting the edifice of state, whose learning has been devoted to general use, whose private virtues have afforded an example to the young—whose strength of mind and character has added to the dignity of man—these ought not to be forgotten.

            The stores of human wisdom could never be increased, did not such men speak, even though dead.  Their lives, and their actions, recorded with truth, are the voice of history speaking to successive generations, calling them to emulate what is great and noble, and shewing the practicability of almost infinite improvement in the capacities of the human mind.

            I shall not be accused of fulsome panegyrick, in asserting that the subject of this address has for more than thirty years been acknowledged the great man of his time.  The friends who have accompanied him through life, and witnessed the progress of his mind, want no proof of this assertion; but to those who have heard his fame, without knowing the materials of which it is composed, it may be useful to give such a display of his character as will prove, that the world is not always mistaken in awarding its honours.

            From the companions of his early years I have learned, that he was comparatively great, before he arrived at manhood; that his infancy was marked by mental labour and study, rather than by puerile amusements; that his youth was a season of persevering acquisition, instead of pleasure; and that, when he became a man, he seemed to possess the wisdom and experience of those who had been men long before him.  And, indeed, those of us, who have seen him lay open his vast stores of knowledge in later life, unaided by recent acquirement, and relying more upon memory than research, can account for his greatness only by supposing a patience of labour in youth, which almost exhausted the sources of information, and left him to act rather than study, at a period when others are but beginning to acquire.

            His familiar and critical knowledge of the Greek and Latin tongues, so well known to the literati of this country, and to some of the most eminent abroad, was the fruit of his early labours, preserved and perhaps ripened in mature years, but gathered in the spring time of his life (a) His philosophical and mathematical knowledge were of the same early harvest, as were also his logical and metaphysical powers.

            Had he died at the age of twenty-one, I am persuaded he would have been held up to youth, as an instance of astonishing and successful perseverance in the severest employments of the mind.

            Heaven, which gave him this spirit of industry, endowed him also with a genius to give it effect. 

            There were united in him an imagination vivid, but not visionary, a most discriminating judgment, the attentiveness and precision of the mathematician, and a memory, which, however enlarged and strengthened by exercise, must have been originally powerful and capacious.

            With these wonderful faculties, which had, from the first drawings of reason, been employed on subjects most interesting to the human mind, he came to the study of that science, which claims a kindred with every other—the science of the law.

            This was a field worthy of his labours and congenial with his understanding.  How successfully he explored, cultivated and adorned it, need not be related to his cotemporaries.

            Never was fame more early or more just, than that of Parsons as a lawyer.  At an age when most of the profession are but beginning to exhibit their talents and to take a fixed rank at the bar, he was confessedly, in point of profound legal knowledge, among the first of its professors.

            His professional services were everywhere sought for.  In his native county, and in the neighbouring state of New-Hampshire, scarcely a cause of importance was litigated in which he was not an advocate.  His fame had spread from the country to the capital, to which he was almost constantly called to take a share in trials of intricacy and interest.

            At that early period of his life, his most formidable rival and most frequent competitor was the accomplished lawyer and scholar, the late Judge Lowell, whose memory is still cherished with affection by the wise and virtuous of our state.  Judge Lowell was considerably his senior, but entertained the highest respect for the general talents and juridical skill of his able competitor.  It was the highest intellectual treat, to see these great men contending for victory in the judicial forum.  Lowell, with all the  ardour of the most impassioned eloquence, assaulting the hearts of his auditors, and seizing their understandings also, with the most cogent as well as the most plausible arguments.  Parsons, cool, steady and deliberate, occupying every post which was left uncovered, and throwing in his forces, wherever the zeal of his adversary had left an opening.  Notwithstanding this almost continual forensic warfare, they were warm personal friends, and freely acknowledged each other’s merits.

            The other eminent men of that day, with whom Parsons was brought to contend, did full justice to his great powers.  I have myself heard the late Governor Sullivan declare, he was the greatest lawyer living.

            So rapid and yet so sure was the growth of his reputation, that immediately upon his commencing the practice of the law, his office was considered, by some of the first men our state has produced, to be the most perfect school for legal instruction.

            That distinguished lawyer and statesman Rufus King, having finished his education at our university, at an age when he was qualified to choose his own instructor, placed himself under the tuition of Parsons; and probably it was owing in some measure to the wise lessons of the master, as well as to the great talents of the scholar, that the latter acquired a celebrity during the few years he remained at the bar, seldom attained in so short a professional career.

            Many others of our principal lawyers and statesmen are indebted to the same preceptor for their fundamental acquisitions in the science of jurisprudence and civil polity.

            I will not omit to mention, for I wish not to exaggerate his powers, that he enjoyed one advantage in his education beyond any of his cotemporaries, except the learned, able and upright Chief Justice Dana, whose long and useful administration in this court ought to be remembered with gratitude by his fellow citizens.  I refer to the society and conversation of Judge Trowbridge, perhaps the most profound common lawyer of New England before the revolution.  This venerable old man, like some of the ancient sages of the law in England, had pursued his legal disquisitions, long after he had ceased to be actively engaged in the profession, from an ardent attachment to the law as a science, and had employed himself in writing essays and forming elaborate readings upon abstruse and difficult points of law.

            Many of his works are now extant in manuscript, and some in print, and they abundantly prove the depth of his learning, and the diligence and patience of his research.

            When Parsons had retired to the house of his father, a respectable minister of Newbury, in consequence of the destruction of Falmouth by the British, he there met Judge Trowbridge, who had sought shelter from the confusion of the times in the same hospitable mansion.  How grateful must it have been to the learned sage, in the decline of life, fraught with the lore of more than a half century’s incessant and laborious study, to meet in a peaceful village, secure from the alarms of war, a scholar panting for instruction and capable of comprehending his profound and useful lessons; and how delightful to the scholar to find a teacher so fitted to pour instruction into his eager and grasping mind.  He regarded it as an uncommon blessing, and has frequently observed, that this early interruption to his business, which seemed to threaten poverty and misfortune, was one of the most useful and happy events of his life.

            His habit of looking deeply into the ancient books of the common law, and tracing back settled principles to original decisions, probably acquired under this fortunate and accidental tuition, was the principal source of his early and continued celebrity.

            He entered upon business also, after this connexion ceased, early in our revolutionary war, when the courts of admiralty jurisdiction were open and crowded with causes, in the management of which he had a large share.  This led him to study with diligence the civil law, law of nations, and the principles of belligerent and neutral rights, in all which he soon became as distinguished as he was for his knowledge of the common and statute law of the country.  Twenty-six years ago, when I with others of my age were pupils in the profession of the law, we saw our masters call this man into their councils, and yield implicit confidence to his opinions.  Among men eminent themselves, and by many years his seniors, we saw him by common consent take the lead in causes which required intricate investigation and deepness of research.

            In the art of special pleading, which more than anything tests the learning of a lawyer in his peculiar pursuit, he had then no competitor.

            In force of combination and power of reasoning he was unrivalled, and in the happy talent of penetrating through the mass of circumstances which sometimes surround and obscure a cause, I do not remember his equal.

            His arguments were directed to the understandings of men, seldom to their passions; and yet instances may be recollected, when, in causes which required it, he has assailed the hearts of his hearers with as powerful appeals as were ever exhibited in the cause of misfortune or humanity.  I do not disparage others by placing him at their head.  They were great men, he was a wonderful man.  Like the great moralist of England, he might be surrounded by men of genius, literature and science, and neither he nor they suffer by a comparison. Indeed, he seemed to form a class of intellect by himself, rather than a standard of comparison for others.

            Even his enemies, for it is the lot of all extraordinary men to have them, paid involuntary homage to his greatness; they designated him by an appellation which from its appropriateness became a just compliment, the Giant of the Law.

            I have spoken now of his early life only, before he was thirty five years of age, and yet it is known that common minds and even great minds do not arrive at maturity in this profession until a much later period.

            From this time for near twenty years I lived in a remote part of the state, and had no opportunity personally to witness his powers; but his fame pursued me even there.  He was regarded by those lawyers, with whom I have been conversant, as the living oracle of the law.  His transmitted opinions carried with them authority sufficient to settle controversies and terminate litigation.

            On my accession to the bench, I had an opportunity to see him in practice at the bar, when he possessed the accumulated wisdom and learning of fifty-six years. Though laboring under a valetudinarian system, his mind was vigorous and majestic.  His great talent was that of condensation.  He presented his propositions in regular and lucid order, drew his inferences with justness and precision, and enforced his arguments with a simplicity yet fullness which left nothing obscure or misunderstood.

            He seemed to have an intuitive perception of the cardinal points of a cause, upon which he poured out the whole treasures of his mind, while he rejected all minor facts and principles from his consideration.

            He was concise, energetic and resistless in his reasoning. The most complicated questions appeared in his hands the most easy of solution; and if there be such a thing as demonstration in argument, he, above all the men I know, had the power to produce it.

            With this fullness of learning and reputation, having had thirty five years of extensive practice in all branches of the law, and having indeed for the last ten years acted unofficially as judge in many of the most important mercantile disputes which occurred in this town, he was, on the resignation of Chief Justice Dana, selected by our present Governour to preside in this court. (b) This was the first, and I believe the only instance of a departure from the ordinary rule of succession; and, considering the character and talents of some who had been many years on the bench, perhaps no greater proof could be given of his pre-eminent legal endowments, than that this elevation should have been universally approved. Perhaps there never was a period when the regular succession would have been more generally acquiesced in as fit and proper, and yet the departure from it in this instance, was everywhere gratifying.

            That the man who, in England would, probably, by the mere force of his talents, without the aid of family interest, have arrived to the dignity of Lord Chancellor or Lord Chief Justice, should be placed at the head of so important a department, was considered a most favourable epoch in our juridical history. (c)

            The imperfect system of judicature, which had prevailed here until about that period, had rendered even great legal abilities inadequate to the establishment of a course of proceedings, and uniformity of decisions, so necessary to the safe and satisfactory administration of justice.  There had been no history of past transactions preserved by a reporter, the sage opinions and learned counsels of departed judges had been lost even from the memory, and precedents were sought for only in the books of a foreign country.  The most interesting points of law had been settled in the hurry and confusion of jury trials; and conflicting opinions of judges, arising from pressure of business and want of time to deliberate, were adjusted by that body which is supposed by the constitution and the laws to be competent to try the fact alone.

            But a new era had arisen; our system had been wisely assimilated to that of England, imperfectly it is true, but with great improvements upon the old.

            Its success depended much upon the character of those who were called to administer it.  There were men upon the bench qualified to illustrate its advantages, (I need not say to a candid auditory that I speak altogether of others,) yet the appointment of parsons was hailed by all, and especially by those who best understood our past difficulties, with the highest approbation.  His profound learning, long and uninterrupted employment in the country and in the capital, and especially his accurate knowledge of forms and practice peculiarly fitted him to take the lead in the new and improved order of things.  How fully publick expectation has been satisfied, I need not declare.  The reformed state of the dockets throughout the commonwealth, the promptness of decisions, the regularity of trials, attest the beneficial effects of a system, which he has done so much to render popular and permanent.

            If to some respectable and eminent men he at times appeared precipitate, in his nisi prius opinions, I am sure they will admit that he of all men had the most right to decide promptly, and that the rectitude of his decisions generally justified their apparent haste.

            On this subject I would also remark, that in the course of thirty-five years practice almost every subject of legal inquiry had passed in review before his mind; that his memory, the most distinguished of all his great faculties, retained everything he had ever read, and almost everything he had ever heard; and that, thus supplied with principles and precedents, it is not astonishing that great minds, should sometimes be surprised at the suddenness of his opinions, and should be inclined to impute to haste what was the effect of knowledge.  He appeared to have an instantaneous perception of the legal merits of a controversy, and to see the beginning, middle and end of a cause with one comprehensive glance.  I acknowledge myself among those who have sometimes imputed to precipitancy, what I have afterwards found to be the result of learning and memory.

            To have had a depository for the preservation of the learned efforts of so eminent a judge, must be considered fortunate for us and for posterity.  The six first volumes of the present series of reports will long endure, as a monument of the technical learning and deep juridical reasonings of the late chief justice.  The principles of the common law, relating to real estates, are there clearly and familiarly explained, and most of our important legislative acts have there received constructions consonant to their real, but often obscure, intent.  In these books will also be found many important mercantile cases, in which the principles of commercial and marine contracts have been discussed with remarkable clearness, and the law merchant has been fully and satisfactorily explained.  Had he been speared to us, as I had always hoped he would be, for a period of ten years of judicial life, the abundant stores of his knowledge would have been thus drawn out for publick use, and his fellow-labourers who survive, and their successors, perhaps for centuries, would have enjoyed the fruits of his studies and experience.  But more than two years ago it pleased Heaven to afflict him with a malady, which, though it left his mind unimpaired, rendered corporeal exercise, particularly that of writing, extremely irksome.  In this respect only was his usefulness diminished, but the consequence has been a loss to the publick of much of his learning and juridical wisdom.

            But he possessed other qualities of a judge, not exposed to the publick eye, but equally important with those which have been mentioned.  He was a patient and diligent inquirer after truth, revolving and revising his own opinions, until it was scarcely possible they should not be correct, communicating freely to his brethren his own reasonings, and candidly listening to theirs, suppressing all pride of opinion, and being ready to adopt another’s, instead of his own, if found more conformable to truth, and never being willing to give the sanction of the whole court to a principle, until it had been tested by every method which learning and ingenuity could devise.

            The remarkable coincidence of opinion, which appears in our reports, is not more a testimony of his power of enforcing his own, than of his candid estimation of that of others.  He was not an arrogant man; for, though he well knew his own powers, he also knew the fallability of all human power, and that no man is so sufficient of himself as to want no assistance from others.  The decisions of the court, with the reasons on which they were founded, when digested and committed to writing by him, were submitted to the consideration of his brethren, with a strong desire that they should be criticized and pruned, and he lent a willing ear to suggestions of alteration and improvement.

            Though fraught with all the technical learning of the bar, and accustomed to a strict adherence to rules in his own practice, he yet, like Lord Mansfield, was averse from suffering justice to be entangled in the net of forms; and he, therefore, exerted all his ingenuity to support by technical reasoning the principles of equity and right.

            In the administration of criminal law, however, he was strict, and almost punctilious, in adhering to forms.  He required of the publick prosecutors the most scrupulous exactness, believing it to be the right, even of the guilty, to be tried according to known and practiced rules; and that it was a less evil for a criminal to escape, than that the barriers established for the security of innocence should be overthrown.

            He was a humane judge, and adopted, in its fullest extent, the maxim of Lord Chief Justice Hale, that doubts should always be placed in the scale of mercy.

            I have thus attempted a sketch of the professional and judicial character of Chief Justice Parsons; but he was always a man belonging to the publick, and his political character requires some attention.  I abstain from any observations upon the political doctrines he uniformly espoused, so far as they relate to the administrations of our government, for I wish not to offend the feelings of some who are obliged to hear, and who, probably, differ from him, and from me, upon that subject.  I mean only to show what he has done, in order that you may not refuse to join me in ascribing to him the character of a statesman and a patriot.  He was always tenaciously attached to home, and unwilling to engage in scenes which drew him from it; so that it was difficult to prevail upon him to take so great a share in publick councils as his townsmen and the people of his county desired.

            But on great and solemn occasions, when the commonwealth was organizing, and when it was in jeopardy, he yielded to the impulse of patriotism and the solicitations of his neighbours, and gave his time and talents to the state.  Accordingly in 1779 he became a member of the convention which deliberated upon and formed the frame of state government, which has so happily continued, in spite of the many rude shocks it has received, to the present day. At a time when the people had freed themselves from a government which had become tyrannical, when they were held together as a body politick by a sense of danger rather than by the restraints of law, and when an enthusiastic love of liberty was universally felt, so that the rigours of a bad government would naturally excite jealousy of any which should be proposed, it was no easy task to introduce into the compact vigour enough to prolong its existence beyond the time of peril, which seemed to supersede the necessity of all government.

            There were great and amiable men in that convention, so enraptured with the view of order, discipline and regard to right, spontaneously existing without coercive power, that they in some measure lost sight of the lessons of history, and concluded that the people would always remain wise and virtuous, and that the most lax system of government for such a people was the best.  There were others equally attached to true liberty, but less ardent in their feelings, who believed, that man was in all ages, and in almost all places, the same; a being of many virtues and many vices, thoughtful and moderate in adversity, rash and presumptuous in prosperity, and at all times requiring the strong arm of government and law to repress his passions, and restrain his propensity to errour.

            In the latter class was Parsons; and he was indefatigable in his exertions to obtain as energetic a system as the people would bear, and to introduce into it those checks and balances which would ensure its durability.  I have the authority of contemporary statesmen for declaring, that, among these wise men and patriots, Parsons, at that time not thirty years old, discovered an intelligence, strength of mind, and force of reasoning, which gave him a decided influence in that venerable assembly.  Many of the most important articles of the constitution were of his draught, and those provisions which were most essential, though least palatable, such as dignity and power to the executive, independence to the judiciary, and a separation of the branches of the legislative department, were supported by him with all the power of argument and eloquence, which could be derived from deep historical information and wise reflections upon the nature and character of mankind.  Wherever he was placed, his influence was immediately felt, and his assiduity and patience of investigation, added to his ability to enforce his opinions, put him in the front rank in all arduous and anxious conflicts. (d)

            After this constitution had been adopted by the people, and had gone into operation, he appeared but seldom in the political assemblies of the state.  The ordinary business of legislation was not of importance enough in his mind to draw him from a profitable pursuit of his profession, which was necessary for the support and education of an increasing family.  Yet when the seeds of disorder sprang up in the community, and the most dangerous principles of disorganization had begun to spread, he was again prevailed upon to take a seat in the legislature, where his great political knowledge, and his peculiar address, contributed largely to the preservation of that constitution he had done so much to establish.

            But another great national revolution occurred.  The constitution of the United States was presented to the people for their approbation, and a convention of delegates from the several towns in this commonwealth was assembled to discuss its merits, and adopt or reject it.  This was the crisis of life or death to the union of the states, and ruin or prosperity hung upon the decision.  Parsons again appeared in the cause of order, law and government, the cause indeed of the people, though they did not recognize it; for no doubt was entertained that, at the first meeting of that convention, a great majority of its members were predetermined to reject the constitution.  I, then a young man, was an anxious spectator of these doings.  I heard there the captivating eloquence of Ames, the polished erudition of King, the ardent and pathetic appeals of Dana, the sagacious and conciliating remarks of Strong, and the arguments of other eminent men of that body.  But Parsons to me appeared the master spirit of that assembly.  Upon all sudden emergencies, and upon plausible and unexpected objections, he was the centinel to guard the patriot camp, and to prevent confusion from unexpected assault. He labored there in season and out of season, the whole energies of his mind being bent upon the successful issue of a question which was, he believed, to determine the fate of his country.  This finished his political engagements, except some few years in the legislature at subsequent periods, when his influence was visible, but the subjects which occurred only of ordinary import.

            But though he was only occasionally engaged as a member of the legislature, he yet was an active observer of publick measures, and without doubt contributed his councils in many of the arrangements which took place.  His political friends frequently sought his advice, and they always found him perfectly acquainted with passing events and ready to communicate his opinions.

            More has been imputed to him on the score of political influence than was true.  By those who felt the weight of his character, without enjoying his confidence, it was believed, or at least asserted, that he dictated most of the measures which his political friends adopted.  From seven years most intimate and confidential intercourse with him, I can testify, that his influence has not been exerted during that period in projecting publick measures, that it appeared only in giving advice when solicited for it, and that if his opinions were adopted, it was not from any authority claimed by him or submitted to by others, but because they were deemed wise and beneficial.

            He was undoubtedly a bold politician, and on any interesting crisis his system was to take the ground which he thought was right, and maintain it without regard to the difficulties to be encountered, and especially never to be deterred by fear of unpopularity.  This sometimes led even his friends to think that his political courage partook of temerity, and that he overlooked expediency in pursuit of right; but it not unfrequently happened, that the difference between them was owing to his greater share of political foresight, or to his instantaneous perception of what the times and circumstances required.

            In his political, as well as in his judicial character, there was an apparent suddenness of opinion, which at the moment seemed precipitancy, but which has in most instances been discovered to be the effect of a process of reasoning astonishingly rapid, or the immediate decision of judgment upon fact and principles stored in his memory and always ready for use.  Instances could be adduced, in which his friends have rejected his opinions, from a doubt of their correctness, and yet have been necessarily brought, by the course of events which he had the sagacity to foresee, to the very point from which they had prudently, as they thought, receded.

            I add, that I most sincerely believe that he had no private or personal views to gratify, and that his sole object was the permanent interest and prosperity of his country.

            You will spare me a few moments, while I briefly exhibit to you the private character of this distinguished man.  He was just, regular and punctual in all his transactions.  Simplicity and order presided over his household; hospitality, without ostentation or ceremony, reigned within his mansion.  Domestick tranquility and cheerfulness beamed from his countenance, and was reflected back upon him from his happy and delighted family.  It has been the misfortune of many, if not most of those, who have been devoted to literature, and who have attained great celebrity, to have been so much absorbed in grave contemplations as to acquire a distaste to those charities of life which are the sources of its happiness, or to become insensible to the ordinary excitements to recreation and pleasure.  It was not so with Parsons.  He was great even in common affairs.  His conversation could instruct or amuse, as times and seasons suited.  Neither philosophers nor children could leave his society without being improved or entertained.  Amid the multifarious occupations of his mind in business and scientific pursuits, he had still found room for all the lighter literature, and was ready with his critique even upon the ephemeral works of fancy and of taste.  The more solid productions of polite literature had passed the ordeal of his judgment, so that his materials for social converse were abundant, and his power of using them unlimited.  Indeed, his memory may be considered a capacious store house, separated into an infinite number of apartments, in which principles, facts and anecdotes were laid up according to their classes, marked and numbered, so that he could draw them out and appropriate them whenever occasion offered, without confusion or misapplication.  His conversation was illumined with flashes of wit and merriment, which captivated his hearers, and rendered him at the same time the most edifying and the most entertaining of companions.  He was accessible, familiar and communicative, never morose or ill-natured, a patron of literature and literary men, a warm friend to the clergy and to the institutions of religion and learning, and a most ardent admirer and promoter of merit among the young. (e)  He was not an avaricious man, for, after a long life of labour in a lucrative profession, with as much opportunity as was ever enjoyed to amass riches, he has left no greater estate, than is frequently accumulated by a prudent and respectable tradesman.

            The man whom he most resembled in powers of mind could be brilliant and astonishing, when surrounded by kindred spirits, and spurred on to intellectual conflicts; but when the tournament was over, he retired with exhausted spirits and debilitated mind, and sunk into the gloom of superstition and the horrours of self-condemnation.  But Parsons could leave the theological controversy, the mathematical problem, or the legal inquiry, and enter, at once, with spirit and interest into domestick conversation, and even into children’s sports.  When fatigued with the labour of deep legal research, or exhausted by a continued train of thought upon one subject, it was not uncommon for him to relax his mind with some abstruse arithmetical or geometrical demonstration, or to turn over the pages of some popular and interesting novel.  And, strange as it may seem, it is true, that, from his earliest years to the latter season of his life, these two sources of amusement were constantly enjoyed by him. (f)

            I know that I am in danger of being thought so infatuated with admiration, as to exaggerate his talents, or at least to give them too high a colouring.  But death has destroyed all motives for flattery, if any could have existed, and a month’s interval has given opportunity to reflect upon the folly of overstrained praise.  I confess, the more I contemplate his character, the more I revere it.  To some of its strongest points I consider myself a witness, and should disdain to pass beyond the limits of truth.  In relation to his professional and publick judicial character, I speak in the presence of men, who are witnesses as well as myself.  As to his classical and literary acquirements I profess not to judge, except from the testimony of those best qualified to decide.  I can appeal with confidence to the learned and reverend governours of our university, who for more than ten years have enjoyed the benefit of his counsels, and witnessed the depth of his learning.  For his mathematical and philosophical eminence, I could summon the chosen professors of those branches, and I could add to them the modest and scientific Bowditch. (g)  For his knowledge in astronomy, mechanicks, chemistry and electricity I would venture to call the most distinguished masters we have in those several branches, and I believe the testimony from each witness would be, that Parsons was great in each particular department.

            Should anyone ask, had this great man no faults, no foibles?  I answer, he had, for he was a man—but none which ought to enter into a candid estimation of his character.  I leave them to those who are hardy enough to violate the sanctity of the tomb for the purpose of magnifying and exposing them.

            That such a man as this, whose mind had never been at rest, and whose body had seldom been in exercise, should have lived to the age of sixty three, is rather a matter of astonishment, than that he should then have died.

            At this distance from the period of his death, when the first painful sensations at so great a loss have subsided, it is not unsuitable to take consolation from the possible, if not probable consequences of a prolonged life.  Beyond the age at which he had arrived, I do not know, that an instance exists of an improvement of the faculties of the mind, but many present themselves of deplorable decay, and humiliating debility.  An opposite example exists in the case of that venerable Judge Trowbridge, whom I have had occasion to mention before in this address.  The last twenty years of his life passed in almost entire forgetfulness of and by the world.  Should it not be considered a happy, rather than a lamentable event, to escape the infirmities, the disabilities, and perhaps the neglects of a protracted old age?  Parsons died in the zenith of his reputation, in the strength of his understanding; and so dying, has left a legacy to his children and to the publick, in his character, more valuable than exhaustless riches.

            The testimony he bore, too, to the truth of the Christian revelation should furnish a consolation for his death.  It was the testimony of a most exalted human intellect, unclouded by the apprehensions of death, and unobscured by superstition. It was declared repeatedly in the best state of his health, and confirmed in the serene contemplation of his expected change.  It was the result of a trial of witnesses, in which professional acuteness was aided by native powers of discrimination.  He has left written evidence of the conclusion his penetrating mind had formed upon this all interesting inquiry.  It may seem unbecoming in a Christian to place much reliance upon human authority for his hopes of immortality and happiness.  But a great portion of the world is governed by authority, and when some few great men have published their skepticism, and thus given confidence to the infidel of inferior understanding, it is comforting to the sincere and humble believer, to be able to add the name of Parsons to the long list of great and good men, who have given their living and dying testimony to the religion they profess. (h)

            May the life and celebrity of this great man stimulate the young to diligence and perseverance in their studies, so that, at some future time, one may rise up from among them fit to supply his place in publick estimation.

            May his pre-eminent qualifications for the judicial magistracy, which cannot be reached by his fellow labourers, incite them to greater zeal, labour and attention, so that the chasm made by his death may be the less observed.  And may his departure impress us all with solemn and suitable reflections upon the vanity of all human attainments, compared with that wisdom which cometh from above, whose ways are pleasantness, and whose end is everlasting life.

NOTES.

 

            (a)  The following facts were communicated to me by the Hon. D. A. Tyng.

            During the late visit of Fr. Ad. Vanderkemp, Esq. formerly of Leyden, but for many years past resident in the State of New York, I had the satisfaction of introducing him to our late excellent Chief Justice, and of witnessing a very interesting conversation between these two learned men on various topicks of literature.  After we left the Chief Justice’s house, Mr. V. said to me, that he had been much gratified with the interview, for which he had felt a strong desire, and particularly from a circumstance which he then related.

            Some years since Mr. V. received a letter from the late Mr. John Luzac, professor of the Greek language, &c. in the university of Leyden, who was the relative and intimate friend and correspondent of Mr. V. and confessedly the first Greek scholar of his day in Europe; in which letter Mr. Luzac inquired of Mr. Vanderkemp, whether he had made an acquaintance with a Mr. Parsons of Boston, of whom he had heard that he was called in America “the Giant of the law.”—How well Mr. Parsons might be entitled to this appellation, Mr. Luzac said he could not judge; but he could of his own knowledge affirm that he was “a giant in Greek Criticism.”

            Professor Luzac’s opinion was founded on a correspondence he held with the Chief Justice many years ago, occasioned by the latter sending to Amsterdam for some rare editions of Greek authors which could not be obtained then, either in this country or England.

            At College he was an excellent scholar in Greek and Latin.  But he began the study of Greek again after he was 40 years old, when his eldest son was fitting for college.

            (b)  So great was his reputation as a lawyer, that, upon his removal from Newburyport to Boston, it was customary for merchants of distinction, who had some unavoidable dispute, to make out a statement of the facts, and submit them to his decision, and in this way many important commercial questions have been settled, without incurring the expense or delay of a lawsuit.

            (c)  The assertion, that Chief Justice Parsons would probably have been made Lord Chancellor or Lord Chief Justice in England had he lived there, will probably be considered extravagant by those who are in the habit of magnifying objects in proportion to their distance.  But from a comparison of him with Lords Mansfield, Kenyon, Ellenborough, Eldon and Erskine, as they appear in books, and from the opinion of several gentlemen, who have seen most of those dignitaries in the exercise of their high functions, I have little doubt that such would have been his destiny, and none that he would have merited it.

            (d)  It is not generally known, that before this convention of the people by their delegates was called for the purpose of making a constitution, the existing government, which was exercised by a convention, in the year 1777, drew up the form of a constitution, and presented it to the people for their acceptance.  This appeared to some gentlemen in the county of Essex so loose and inefficient in its texture, that they urged a representation of their towns in a county convention, which accordingly met in 1778 at Ipswich.  Parsons was one of this convention.  They agreed to advise the towns to reject the constitution, which had been proposed.  A committee of this county convention was appointed to take into consideration the proposed constitution, and report thereon.  Parsons was upon this committee.  The report is undoubtedly his, though he was probably aided by others, at least with their advice.  This elaborate report is called the Essex Result; and it contains an able discussion of the principles of a free republic, and shows clearly the defects of the proffered form of government.

            The people rejected the constitution.  A convention was called for the express purpose of making another, which was finished and accepted by the people in 1780.

            (e)  The zealous attention of the Chief Justice to the interests of the college, while he was a member of the corporation, was generally known. But his care for the interests of literature was in other ways exemplified.  He had been for three years one of the supervisory committee of a Grammar School, kept by Mr. Clap in this town.  I have attended the examinations of the scholars, at all of which the Chief Justice was present.  He generally took the lead in the examination, and discovered such a critical knowledge of the Greek and Latin languages as surprised everybody.

            His presence was useful in other respects, for he so interested and amused the boys with anecdotes concerning the men and the times about which they were reading, as to render their examinations pleasant, instead of being formidable to them.

            (f)  Judge Tudor, who was a class-mate of the Chief Justice in college, and in the college phrase, his chum, has frequently told me, that after the usual exercises, Parsons was in the habit of taking his slate and amusing himself with some deep mathematical calculation, and that he would vary his recreation by reading some tale or novel—it seeming indifferent to him, which of these amusements first fell in his way.  I have, within the last seven years of his life, found him indulging the same propensity—finding him with his slate and pencil so deeply engaged, that I would not disturb his slate and pencil so deeply engaged, that I would not disturb him for some minutes after my entrance, and not unfrequently as deeply engaged in some modern novel, or other work of fancy.

            (g)  Mr. Bowditch, in his Practical Navigator, on the subject of Lunar Observations, speaking of a method of correcting the apparent distance of the moon from the sun, says, “it is an improvement on Witchell’s method, and was made in consequence of a suggestion from a gentleman eminently distinguished for his mathematical acquirements;” and by a note referred to in this passage, Chief Justice Parsons is the gentleman alluded to.  Mr. Bowditch also received some communications from him on the subject of the Comet, which last made its appearance in our hemisphere, which showed ingenuity and learning.

            (h)  About three months before the Chief Justice died, I had a conversation with him upon the subject of the Christian religion, and particularly upon the proofs of the resurrection contained in the New Testament.  He told me, that he felt the most perfect satisfaction on that subject; that he had once taken it up with a view to ascertain the weight of the evidence by comparing the accounts given by the four evangelists with each other; and that from their agreement in all substantial and important facts, as well as their disagreement in minor circumstances—considering them all as separate and independent witnesses, giving their testimony at different periods, he believed that the evidence would be considered perfect, if the question was tried at any human tribunal.  I then did not know that he had made a publick profession of his belief by becoming a member of any church, and I asked him why he had not thus testified his belief.  He told me that he had postponed it a great while, because, as the general state of his health, and his fear of exposing himself to the cold and damp air would prevent him from attending publick worship constantly, and as from those causes, he might frequently be absent on communion days, he was apprehensive he might be thought not to act up to his profession; but that two or three years ago, he had made up his mind to do his duty in joining the church, and as much of his duty as he could in attending upon the ordinance—and he accordingly joined the church of which President Kirkland was then the pastor.

            A similar conversation was held by him with the Rev. Mr. Thacher during his late sickness, through the whole of which he evinced a patience and resignation, which, considering his extreme nervous irritability and apprehensions of disease, when in his best state of health, can be accounted for only by the enlightened and satisfactory hopes he entertained of a happy immorality.  It ought to be highly consolatory to his friends to know, that he whom they had seen to shrink at an eastern breeze, and to start at the slightest pain, should, at the certain approach of the king of terrours, collect all the energies of his wonderful mind, and contemplate his approaching dissolution with as much steadiness and composure, as he would many of the ordinary events of life.

END.

Religious Activities at Presidential Inaugurations

by David Barton

Americans have long believed that civic ceremonies such as presidential inaugurations should include religious activities. Recently, some individuals and groups have raised objections to these activities, often arguing that they violate the Founders’ supposed commitment to secularizing the public square by separating church and state.1 These arguments have no historical foundation, as can be seen by briefly considering America’s first presidential inauguration.

Constitutional experts abounded at George Washington’s inauguration. The inauguree himself was a signer of the Constitution, and one-fourth of the members of the Congress that organized and directed his inauguration had also been delegates to the Constitutional Convention. 2 This body certainly knew what was, and was not constitutional.

George Washington’s First Inauguration

The first inauguration occurred on April 30, 1789, at Federal Hall in New York City (the city served as the nation’s capital in 1789-1790). Extensive preparations for that event were made by Congress, with the cooperative help of a body of fourteen clergy, including ministers from different denominations and a rabbi.3

Local papers reported the first of these activities:

[O]n the morning of the day on which our illustrious President will be invested with his office, the bells will ring at nine o’clock, when the people may go up to the house of God and in a solemn manner commit the new government, with its important train of consequences, to the holy protection and blessing of the Most High. An early hour is prudently fixed for this peculiar act of devotion and it is designed wholly for prayer. 4

As the day proceeded, things appeared to be moving smoothly. But as the parade carrying Washington by horse-drawn carriage was nearing Federal Hall, it was realized that no Bible had been obtained for administering the oath. Today this would not be a problem for some civic officials, but in that era it would have been highly unusual to take an oath without a Bible.

Oaths in American History

In the Christian West, oath taking had long been held to be an innately religious activity. Many early colonial and state laws required oaths to be taken on the Bible. Some states even specified that they were to be taken “on the holy evangelists of Almighty God” 5 —that is, on the Bible, but with special emphasis on the Gospels. Requirements also routinely stipulated that “So help me God” be part of the official oath,6 and multiple states specifically required that the person taking the oath, “after repeating the words, ‘So help me God,’ shall kiss the Holy Gospels.” 7 These general provisions—in place at the time of the federal Constitution—were retained for generations.8

With this as the standard practice for oath-taking, a Bible was certainly needed. So Parade Marshal Jacob Morton hurried off and soon returned with a large 1767 King James Bible.

Bible & the Presidential Oath at the 1st Inauguration

The inaugural ceremony was conducted on the balcony at Federal Hall. With a huge crowd gathered below to watch the proceedings, the Bible was laid upon a crimson velvet cushion held by Samuel Otis, Secretary of the US Senate. New York Chancellor Robert Livingston administered the oath of office. (He was on the five-man committee charged with drafting the Declaration of Independence, but before he could affix his signature to the document he was called back to New York to guide his state through the Revolution. Because Livingston was the highest ranking judicial official in New York, he was chosen to administer the oath to President Washington.) Standing beside them were many distinguished officials, including Vice President John Adams, future Supreme Court Chief Justice John Jay, and Generals Henry Knox and Philip Schuyler.

When it came time to take the oath, Washington placed his left hand upon the Bible, which had been opened at random to Genesis 49,9 raised his right, and swore to “faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” He then bent over, reverentially kissed the Bible, and then likely added the words “So help me God.”

Oaths in the Various States

Significantly, twelve of the thirteen colonies at the time required the use of that phrase when taking an oath, 10 and the thirteenth colony required a declared belief in God just to hold office. 11 While no contemporary records verify this addition to his oath, it would have been highly unusual if he had neglected to do so; and we can be confident that the absence of these words would certainly have been noted in contemporary accounts.

Many of Washington’s actions related to oath-taking have clear antecedents in the Bible. For example, God declared: “I RAISED MY HAND IN AN OATH . . .” (Ezekiel 20:15, 23; 36:7; Psalm 106:26) and the Scripture further affirms that “The Lord has sworn by His RIGHT hand” (Isaiah 62:8). And when God’s people were instructed how to take an oath, they were told: “You shall . . . take oaths IN HIS NAME” (Deuteronomy 10:20), which is reflected with our use of the phrase “So help me God.”

Founders on Oaths

America’s Founders repeatedly affirmed that oath taking is an inherently religious activity. For example (emphasis added in each quote):

[An] oath—the strongest of religious ties.12 JAMES MADISON, SIGNER OF THE CONSTITUTION

[In o]ur laws . . . by the oath which they prescribe, we appeal to the Supreme Being so to deal with us hereafter as we observe the obligation of our oaths. The Pagan world were and are without the mighty influence of this principle which is proclaimed in the Christian system. 13 RUFUS KING, SIGNER OF THE CONSTITUTION

Oaths in this country are as yet universally considered as sacred obligations. 14 JOHN ADAMS, SIGNER OF THE DECLARATION, FRAMER OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS

An oath is an appeal to God, the Searcher of Hearts, for the truth of what we say and always expresses or supposes an imprecation [calling down] of His judgment upon us if we prevaricate [lie]. An oath, therefore, implies a belief in God and His Providence and indeed is an act of worship. . . . In vows, there is no party but God and the person himself who makes the vow.15 JOHN WITHERSPOON, SIGNER OF THE DECLARATION

The Constitution enjoins an oath upon all the officers of the United States. This is a direct appeal to that God Who is the avenger of perjury. Such an appeal to Him is a full acknowledgment of His being and providence. 16 OLIVER WOLCOTT, SIGNER OF THE DECLARATION

According to the modern definition [1788] of an oath, it is considered a “solemn appeal to the Supreme Being for the truth of what is said by a person who believes in the existence of a Supreme Being and in a future state of rewards and punishments . . .” 17JAMES IREDELL, RATIFIER OF THE CONSTITUTION, EARLY U. S. SUPREME COURT JUSTICE

The Constitution had provided that all the public functionaries of the Union, not only of the general [federal] but of all the state governments, should be under oath or affirmation for its support. The homage of religious faith was thus superadded to all the obligations of temporal law to give it strength. 18JOHN QUINCY ADAMS, PRESIDENT

George Washington, in his famous Farewell Address at the end of his presidency, pointedly warned Americans never to let the oath-taking process become secular:

[W]here is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths . . . ?19

Clearly, in the Founding Era, the act of taking an oath was considered an intrinsically religious activity.

Eyewitness Account of the 1st Inauguration

After George Washington finished taking his oath, Chancellor Livingston proclaimed “It is done!” Turning to the crowd assembled below, he shouted, “Long live George Washington —the first President of the United States!” That shout was echoed and re-echoed by the crowd. As reported by one eyewitness:

It would seem extraordinary that the administration of an oath, a ceremony so very common and familiar, should in so great a degree excite the public curiosity. But the circumstances of his election—the impression of his past services—the concourse of spectators – the devout fervency with which he repeated the oath—and the reverential manner in which he bowed down and kissed the Sacred Volume—all these conspired to render it one of the most august and interesting spectacle ever exhibited on this globe. It seemed, from the number of witnesses, to be a solemn appeal to Heaven and earth at once. Upon the subject of this great and good man, I may perhaps be an enthusiast, but I confess that I was under an awful and religious persuasion that the gracious Ruler of the Universe was looking down at that moment with peculiar complacency [satisfaction] on an act, which to a part of His creatures was so very important. Under this impression, when the Chancellor pronounced in a very feeling manner, “Long live George Washington,” my sensibility was wound up to such a pitch that I could do not more than wave my hat with the rest, without the power of joining in the repeated acclamations which rent the air.20

Washington’s Inauguration Address

Washington and the other officials then left the balcony and went inside Federal Hall to the Senate Chamber, where he delivered the first Inaugural Address to a joint session of Congress. He began by emphasizing that it would be peculiarly improper to omit in this first official act my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being Who rules over the universe, Who presides in the councils of nations, and Whose providential aids can supply every human defect – that His benediction may consecrate to the liberties and happiness of the people of the United States a government instituted by themselves for these essential purposes. 21

Washington then called his listeners to remember and acknowledge God:

In tendering this homage [act of worship] to the Great Author of every public and private good, I assure myself that it expresses your sentiments not less than my own, nor those of my fellow-citizens at large less than either. No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the Invisible Hand which conducts the affairs of men more than those of the United States. Every step by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation seems to have been distinguished by some token of Providential Agency. . . . [and] we ought to be no less persuaded that the propitious [favorable] smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right which Heaven itself has ordained.22

Washington concluded the address by offering a heartfelt closing prayer:

I shall take my present leave—but not without resorting once more to the benign Parent of the Human Race in humble supplication [prayer] that . . . His Divine blessing may be equally conspicuous in the enlarged views, the temperate consultations, and the wise measures on which the success of this government must depend.23

Church After Inauguration

After the address, Congress had stipulated:

That after the oath shall have been administered to the President, he—attended by the Vice-President and members of the Senate and House of Representatives—proceed to St. Paul’s Chapel to hear Divine service.24

So, agreeable to the congressional resolution:

The President, the Vice-President, the Senate, and House of Representatives, &c., then proceeded to St. Paul’s Chapel, where Divine Service was performed by the chaplain of Congress. 25

The president and Congress went en masse to church, where the service was conducted by The Right Reverend Samuel Provoost—the Episcopal Bishop of New York who had been chosen chaplain of the Senate the preceding week. 26 He performed the service according to The Book of Common Prayer, including prayers taken from Psalms 144–150, administering the sacrament of Holy Communion, and Scripture readings from the book of Acts, I Kings, and the Third Epistle of John. 27

After the church service Congress returned to Federal Hall where it adjourned, thus concluding the official inaugural activities.

Conclusion

The first presidential inauguration included at least eight distinctly religious activities: (1) a time of public prayer preceding the inauguration (today, this often occurs through an official prayer breakfast preceding the inauguration); (2) the use of the Bible to administer the oath; (3) solemnifying the oath with multiple religious expressions (placing a hand on the Bible, saying “So help me God,” and kissing the Bible); (4) prayers offered by the president himself; (5) religious content in the inaugural address; (6) the president calling the people to pray or acknowledge God; (7) official church worship services; and (8) clergy-led prayers. These have been repeated, in whole or part, in every subsequent inauguration. 28

From the earliest colonial settlements to the first presidential inauguration, Americans believed that religious practices should play an important role in civic ceremonies. There is no reason to think America’s Founders desired to change these practices, and every reason to believe they firmly embraced them.


Endnotes

1 See, for example, “ FFRF asks Trump to eject religion and prayer from public oath-taking,” Freedom From Religion Foundation, January 3, 2017; Newdow v. Roberts, 603 F.3d 1002, Ct. of Appeals, Dist. of Columbia (2010); Newdow v. Bush, USDC, District of Columbia, Civil Action No. 04-2208 (JDB), opinion rendered January 14, 2005.

2 Significantly, many of the U. S. Senators at the first Inauguration had been delegates to the Constitutional Convention that framed the Constitution including William Samuel Johnson, Oliver Ellsworth, George Read, Richard Bassett, William Few, Caleb Strong, John Langdon, William Paterson, Robert Morris, and Pierce Butler; and many members of the House had been delegates to the Constitutional Convention, including Roger Sherman, Abraham Baldwin, Daniel Carroll, Elbridge Gerry, Nicholas Gilman, Hugh Williamson, George Clymer, Thomas Fitzsimmons, and James Madison.

3 See, for example, The Jewish Encyclopedia (New York: Funk and Wagnalls Company, 1907), XI:160, “Gershom Mendez Seixas.”

4 The Daily Advertiser, (New York, April 23, 1789), 2.

5 See, for example, the laws of Georgia, both before and after the federal Constitution: Oliver H. Prince, A Digest of the Laws of the State of Georgia (Milledgeville: Grantland & Orme, 1822), 3, “An Act for the case of Dissenting Protestants, within this province, who may be scrupulous of taking an oath, in respect to the manner and form of administering the same,” passed December 13, 1756 and South Carolina: Joseph Brevard, An Alphabetical Digest of the Public Statue Law of South Carolina (Charleston: John Hoff, 1814), II:86, “Oaths-Affirmations.”

6 See, for example, Connecticut as an example. For policies on this before the federal Constitution: R.R. Hinman, A.M., Letters From the English Kings and Queens, Charles II, James II, William and Mary, Anne, George II, &C., To the Governors of the Colony of Connecticut, Together With the Answers Thereto, From 1635 to 1749; And Other Original, Ancient, Literary and Curious Documents, Compiled From Files and Records in the Office of the Secretary of the State of Connecticut (Hartford: John B. Eldredge, Printer, 1836), 26-28. For policies on this following the federal Constitution, see: The Public Statute Laws of the State of Connecticut (Hartford: Hudson and Goodwin, 1808), 535, Title CXXII: Oaths, Ch. 1, Sec. 6, law passed in May, 1742; 540, Title CXXII: Oaths, Ch. 1, Sec. 25, law passed in May, 1726; 541, Title CXXII: Oaths, Ch. 1, Sec. 30 & 32, law passed in May, 1718.

For additional examples of states requiring people being sworn into office to say “so help me God” see: The Federal and State Constitution, Colonial Charters, and Other Organic Laws, ed. Francis Newton Thorpe (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1909), I:523, 1638-1639. Fundamental Orders of Connecticut; II:780, 1777. Georgia Constitution, Art. XIV-XV; III:1909, 1780. Massachusetts Constitution, Ch. VI; IV:2468, 1784. New Hampshire Constitution, “Oaths and Subscriptions”; VI:3255, 1778. Constitution of South Carolina, Sec. XXXVI. Laws of the State of Delaware (New Castle: Samuel and John Adams, 1797), II:1261, Ch. XCVIII, Sec. 29.

Laws of Maryland, Made Since MDCCLXIII (Annapolis: Frederick Green, 1787), Ch. V from “A Session of the General Assembly of Maryland…in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and seventy-seven”. William Patterson, Laws of the State of New-Jersey (Newark: Matthias Day, 1800), 376, “An Act prescribing certain oaths,” February 20, 1799. The Public Laws of the State of Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations (Providence: Miller & Hutchens, 1822), 109, 111, “An Act to establish a Supreme Judicial Court,” passed from 1729-1822. Abridgment of the Public Permanent Laws of Virginia (Richmond: Augustine Davis, 1796), 219-220, “Oaths,” December 22, 1792, the text of many of the oaths listed here come from 1779.

7. John Haywood, A Manual of the Laws of North Carolina (Raleigh: J. Gales, 1814), 34, “Oaths and Affirmations. 1777”; Laws of the State of New-York (New York: Thomas Greenleaf, 1798), 21, “Chap. XXV: An Act to dispense with the usual mode of administering oaths, in favor of persons having conscientious scruples respecting the same, Passed 1st of April, 1778”; James Parker, Conductor Generalis: Or the Office, Duty and Authority of the Justices of the Peace (New York: John Patterson, 1788), 302-304, “Of oaths in general”.

8. George C. Edward, A Treatise on the Powers and Duties of Justices of the Peace and Town Officers, in the State of New York (Ithaca: Mack, Andrus & Woodruff, 1836), 91, “Of the proceedings on the trial.”

9. See, for example, “The 1st Presidential Inauguration,” Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies (accessed on January 17, 2017).

10. Laws requiring some version of “so help me God” are found in all original 13 colonies except Pennsylvania. American Political Thought (Spring 2014), 3:1:55, Mark David Hall, “Madison’s Memorial and Remonstrance, Jefferson’s Statute for Religious Liberty, and the Creation of the First Amendment.”

11. The Pennsylvania Constitution of 1776 required legislators to swear or affirm, “I do believe in one God, the Creator and Governor of the universe, the Rewarder of the good and the Punisher of the wicked. And I do acknowledge the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by Divine inspiration” [The Constitutions of the Several Independent States of America (Boston: Norman and Bowen, 1785), 81, Pennsylvania, 1776, Chapter II, Section 10]. The Pennsylvania Constitution of 1790 required that the official “acknowledges the being of a God and a future state of rewards and punishments” [The American’s Guide: Comprising the Declaration of Independence; the Articles of Confederation; the Constitution of the United States; and the Constitutions of the Several States Composing the Union (Philadelphia: Towar, J. & D. M. Hogan, 1830), 168, Pennsylvania, 1790, Art. 9].

12. James Madison, The Writings of James Madison, ed. Gaillard Hunt (New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1904), V:30, to Thomas Jefferson on October 24, 1787.

13. Reports of the Proceedings and Debates of the Convention of 1821, Assembled for the Purpose of Amending The Constitution of the State of New York (Albany: E. and E. Hosford, 1821), 575, Rufus King, October 30, 1821.

14. John Adams, The Works of John Adams, ed. Charles Francis Adams (Boston: Little, Brown and company, 1854), IX:229, to the Officers of the First Brigade of the Third Division of the Militia of Massachusetts on October 11, 1798.

15. John Witherspoon, The Works of John Witherspoon (Edinburgh: J. Ogle, 1815), VII:139, 142, from his “Lectures on Moral Philosophy,” Lecture 16 on Oaths and Vows.

16. Jonathan Elliot, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution (Washington: Printed for the Editor, 1836), II:202, Oliver Wolcott on January 9, 1788.

17. Jonathan Elliot, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution (Washington: Printed for the Editor, 1836), IV:196, James Iredell on July 30, 1788.

18. John Quincy Adams, The Jubilee of the Constitution. A Discourse Delivered at the Request of the New York Historical Society, in the City of New York, on Tuesday, the 30th of April, 1839; Being the Fiftieth Anniversary of the Inauguration of George Washington as President of the United States, on Thursday, the 30th of April, 1789 (New York: Samuel Colman, 1839), 62.

19. George Washington, Address of George Washington, President of the United States . . . Preparatory to His Declination (Baltimore: George and Henry S. Keatinge, 1796), 23.

20. Gazette of the United States (May 9-13, 1789), 3, “Extract of a letter from New-York, May 3;” The American Museum: Or Repository of Ancient and Modern Fugitive Pieces, & c. Prose and Poetical (Philadelphia: Matthew Carey, 1789), V:505.

21. The Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States, ed. Joseph Gales (Washington: Gales & Seaton, 1834), Vol. I, p. 27; George Washington, Messages and Papers of the Presidents, ed. James D. Richardson (Washington, D.C.: 1899), 1:44-45, April 30, 1789.

22. Debates and Proceedings (1834), I:27-29, April 30, 1789.

23. Debates and Proceedings (1834), I:27-29, April 30, 1789.

24. In the Senate: Debates and Proceedings (1834), I:25, April 27, 1789; in the House: Debates and Proceedings (1834), I:241, April 29, 1789.

25. Debates and Proceedings (1834), I:29, April 30, 1789.

26. Clarence W. Bowen, The History of the Centennial Celebration of the Inauguration of George Washington (New York, D. Appleton & Co., 1892), 54; “Chaplain’s Office,” United States Senate (accessed on January 12, 2017).

27. Book of Common Prayer (Oxford: W. Jackson & A. Hamilton, 1784), s.v., April 30th. For evidence that George Washington participated in that communion, see Peter Lillback, Sacred Fire (Bryn Mawr, PA: Dickinson Press, 2006), 420-423.

28. The religious activities that took place during Barack Obama’s inauguration ceremony in 2009 were fewer than those at Washington’s Inauguration but did include prayer before and after the oath of office, using a Bible during the oath, saying “so help me God” at the end of the oath [“The 56th Presidential Inauguration,” Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies], religious content in the inaugural address [“President Barack Obama’s Inaugural Address,” The White House, January 21, 2009], and attending a prayer service the day after the inauguration [Amanda Ruggeri, “For President Obama, a Somber, Inclusive Inaugural Prayer Service,” U.S. News & World Report, January 21, 2009].

 

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