Bullet Points - 9/28/07

Thanks for the compliment and link!! Awesome!!

I read the “dogmatism” thing, and nearly threw up afterwards.

Has any of you read C.S. Lewis or Francis Schaffer’s works?

The only redeeming factor to your generation’s apparent lily-livered Christianity is that you are all so nice. I mean, you guys are REALLY NICE. You know I have been banned at Calvinist websites, not for impoliteness or anything, but just for mentioning The Hypothetical Question. Not explaining iot mind you, just mentioning it because educated Calvinists know who Duns Scotus actually is.

But you fellas listened to me through thick and thin, through my psychotic ranting and through what must appear to you as some pretty weird theology. Yet you were patient and kind. That’s a rare quality, in my experience.

Anyway, despite the fact that you seem to have a voracious curiosity, I see a problem with epistemological conviction. I spent more than 10-15 years of my life on that subject alone to build a foundation on which truth can take root. I guess I’m just questioning whether this generation even has the top soil that any kind of real truth can flower in. Not from that blog I read, or McGrath’s, or any of a thousand others I see daily.

Christianity will be in big trouble until it does solve that problem. Just look at the scandal in the Catholic Church and you’ll see that the tidal wave of narcisscism and secularist passivity is not far behind you. In fact, it has completely destroyed Catholoicism, the historical Christian denominatioon, and now the cancer has spread to the Episcopalians, the Methodists, the Luthren’s, the Presbyterians….

What? You think you are immune down there in lower church Christianity? You think your Saddleback theologies are going to save you when the day of decision comes?

No.

You have to have worked years before the time to get that kind of wherewithal to overcome evil.

Anyway, you are all so very nice, I wish truth was more positive. But that’s the rub isn;t it? In the Bible, nobody’s message, none of the prophets were preaching messages that sounded wonderful all the time. In fact, God made them do some pretty strange things to actually get people to reject the message of the prophet, so that seeing they may not see, and hearing they may not hear. He had them curse, he had them lay naked, he had them marry prostitutes, he had them kill hundreds of people at a time.

Did they repent (get it)?

Truth is always a stumbling block, ALWAYS.

Later dudes.

I think I have a more productive suggestion to illustrate the point I have been trying but failing to make, Nathan.

Instead of listening to boobs like me and McGrath argue, I suggest that you watch the documentary on TV right now on PBS, Ken Burns’ “The War.”

While you are watching it, pretend the anti-God crowd are the Nazis.

When the Christian world begins to act like the Great Generation in it’s defeat of Nazism, I will be a happy man.

The seventh installment of Burn’s “The War” was excellent, but they all are. It is by far one of the best productions ever shown on American television.

There was a panel afterward of the producers and some theologian, and they were discussing the ethics of the problem of war, it was thought provoking.

One of the heroes of the film, E.B. Sledge, said in the film that after the war he thrust himself into the pursuit of science in order to keep himself from going mad. I thought that was interesting.

Another interesting comment was from one of the soldiers wives in mobile, Alabama who said that not one of their generation could not be convinced that the atomic bomb was not a godsend. I thought that was interesting too.

Well, I think I’m about spent here, Nathan, but I wanted to make one final observation.

Since postulating PC to you, the major objection to the theory seemed to be (always is) the idea that it fails to recognize reality. In other words how can I be so obtuse (you didn’t say that of course, again you are so polite) to presuppose a system of belief that denies observable reality?

Well, I think that is really an interesting thought coming from people who profess to base their entire belief system on something completely unobservable and in complete denial of reality, the doctrine of the Resurrection.

Bultmann of course, did not believe in the resurrection. Nor did he believe in the efficacy of the Cross, that it actually saves men from their sins.

But Bultmann did believe in something interesting. The problem of the Cross. You see, the Cross itself is a stumbling block. It is a stumbling block to those who do not believe, and it is also a greater stumbling block to believers, but they don’t know that because men like myself who have tried to convey that message have failed throughout history.

But I’m rambling again, aren’t I?

Better stick to listening to your “friends” like McGrath. Perhaps he can explain the problem of the Cross to you as a disciple of Bultmann, the atheist Christian theologian.

But I’m the real dichotomous one, right?

Happy trails to you, until we meet again.

While you are watching it, pretend the anti-God crowd are the Nazis.

Hey, I resent that…

Since postulating PC to you, the major objection to the theory seemed to be (always is) the idea that it fails to recognize reality. In other words how can I be so obtuse (you didn’t say that of course, again you are so polite) to presuppose a system of belief that denies observable reality?

Well, I think that is really an interesting thought coming from people who profess to base their entire belief system on something completely unobservable and in complete denial of reality, the doctrine of the Resurrection.

But (and I know that wasn’t adressed to me, I’m responding to it anyway) I, unlike most here, do not profess any such thing. Your position may be logically superior to creationists’ and theistic evolutionists’, which requires cherry-picking which parts of reality to accept and which to reject, but how is it superior to mine, which does not rely on a rejection of reality at all? Do you in fact reconcile your philosophy with reality, and if so, how?

Sorry for the poor choice of comparison, that really was an unfortunate choice of words, I didn;t mean it that way, I think you know that. I think what I was trying to say is that despots in the past century used the secularist construct of Darwinian evolution to wreak massive evil on the world, to the tune of hundreds of millions of murders.

Now, of course, regular secularists do not fall into the category of these evil people, instead they claim the Darwinian philosophy when it regards material viewpoints, and they then make a existential leap in their minds whn it comes to ethics and imagine that their ethical principles somehow derive not from Judeo-Christianity, but from something else, just what we are usually not told, sometimes they blather something about secular humanism.

When you say “thou shalt not murder,” Moses thought of it first.

If you perchance say “thou shalt not screw my wife,” Moses thought of it first.

etc, etc.

As for the reality comment, my only fallback position is Kuhn’s instrumentalism and rational non-realism, how many times do I have to say that that is my philosophical scientific position?

And yes, your view is superior on mateiral issues, I have stipulated that to no end here, that is the other half of my point.

I think, and again I’m being redundant to what I have already addressed here quite sufficiently I should think, that Christians should do secular science, methodological materialism, it is the only possiblke way to do rational science at this point in history.

If my creationist theory is not one that you can climb on board and support, George, at least for Christians, THERE IS NONE. LOL.

When you say “thou shalt not murder,” Moses thought of it first.

If you perchance say “thou shalt not screw my wife,” Moses thought of it first.

And someone else thought of it before him. A few hundred thousand, perhaps a few million years before him. You may continue to disregard my explanation of how a morality entirely separate from Judeo-Christian principles is not only possible but (IMO) preferable, and insist that all morality must come from these principles, but that does not make it so. We were moral creatures long before the advent of Judaism, and we have texts written well before, according to the Bible, the Earth was created which prove this.

George, really, this is beneath you.

American law and ethics, Western law and ethics, are a Judeo-Christian construct, period. Perhaps a tinge of Roman law, but by and large, it’s the Ten Commandments redux.

Please, stay on point.

You’re really quite charming when you actually use that brain of yours, big boy.

You seem sadly misinformed on American history, my friend.

OMG, if you want to follow this up, George, I would be more than happy to give you an extensive lesson on the Christian History of the Constitution of the United States, as well as an extensive history of the theology of the Founding Fathers and the American Colonies.

What do you say, pal o’ mine?

And I think you should pack a lunch.

Here’s a sampling for you, let’s start with the commission of the Liberty Bell. This is from a university textbook “Liberty and Freedom: A Visual History of America’s Founding Ideas.” By David Hackett Fischer, Brandeis University, Oxford University Press.

“The Assembly liked the idea. In 1750, exactly 75 percent of its members belonged to the Society of Friends. The bell was very much a Quaker project, and it symbolized their values and purposes. Isaac Norris junior also chose the words for its inscription, and wrote it in his own hand” “Proclaim liberty thro’ all the land to all its Inhabitants thereof.” Norris took his text from the Bible. The verse in Leviticus 25:10 reads, in the King James version, “And ye shall hallow the fiftieth year, and proclaim liberty throughout all the land unto the inhabitants thereof: it shall be a jubilee unto you; and ye shall return every man unto his possession, and ye shall return every man unto his family.”

Here was a fitting passage for the fiftieth anniversary of Pennsylvania’s Charter of Privileges. It also summarized the Quaker vision of liberty and freedom, which was different from beliefs in New England and New York. This Quaker idea began with an idea of liberty as a gift of God. Other Christians shared that belief, but Quakers understood it in a special way. They thought of it as an “inner light” that was given to all His children, not merely the “elect,” as Calvinists imagined, or to members of an established church, as Anglicans and Roman Catholics insisted. Quakers believed that this inner light dwelled within all God’s creatures. Sometimes they spoke of it as the light of liberty.”

Contrast this to the Roman and Greek ideals, which were devoid of personal liberty and instead either had no meaningful concept of liberty or concentrated it in the polis, or in the gods and fates, or in Caesar, in other words, the State.

Contrast this with any other civilization in history. Judeo-Christianity birthed the idea of liberty and freedom, and to say otherwise is an enormous statement of ignorance, or an outright lie in a vain attempt to avoid historical truth. Do the socialist offer liberty? Hardly. Do the communists (which is a stage of socialism not a variant of it) offer liberty? Please. Is the concept of liberty and freedom inherent in Darwinism? LOL.

Ok, now that we’re off to the races, I’ll digress and begin from the early Puritan period and move forward.

When you get tired of being pummeled to death, let me know.

Next post will probably be Monday, I’m going to try and go win one of those college and pro football pools this weekend.

See you, bud.

You know what I find also interesting, George, is that even if I grant you your premise that all of Judeo-Christian principles of law and ethics are found resident in other religions (which I don;t, but let’s pretend), you still have to acknolwedge that you are getting your ethics from SOME RELIGION. You are not even arguing that secular humanism produced them, you are arguing for a religious origin.

I don’t get it. So, are you saying you will accept the Judeo-Christian ethics if it can be shown they derived from the Babylonian law instead of specifically from Moses?

Really, what are you trying to say, anyway?

But, regardless of your answer, I’m going to love this string. Showing the Christian history of America is one of my favorite subjects.

Well, I reconsidered using Nathan’s Blog as a ring in which to spar with you. It’s not really my place, and I really am seeing no value in attempting to sway an athiest. Please, do not let me in any way deflect you from your path of disbelief. That would certainly be rude of me. I would love to sit here for the next several weeks and show you how our entire personal injury law, criminal law, business law, tort and civil law, are based on Mosaic Law, but what’s the point? Nobody cares anymore, not even the Christians.

Read R.J. Rushdoony, Institutes of Biblical Law; Gary North economic treatise on the Pentateuch, 5 volumes; Gary Demar’s God and Government series; The American Covenant by Marshall Foster and Mary Swanson; The Christian History of the Constitution of the United States by Rosalie Slater; and if you would like a list a a couple hundred or thousand other works on the subject, all of which I have read, please let me know.

For now let me leave you with one of my favorite qoutes:

Let Divines, and Philosophers, Statesmen and Patriots unite their endeavours to renovate the Age, by impressing the Minds of Men with the importance of educating their little boys, and girls — of inculcating in the Minds of youth the fear, and Love of the Deity, and universal Phylanthropy; and in subordination to these great principles, the Love of their Country — of instructing them in the Art of self government, without which they never can act a wise part in the Government of Societys great, or small — in short of leading them in the Study, and Practice of the exalted Virtues of the Christian system.

* Letter to John Adams (4 October 1790)

That was Samuel Adams, btw.

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Samuel_Adams

Oh, and if you are intending on playing a battle of the woutations, like many YEC’s play, forget, not interested.

You could easily on this very blog, find qouted from me that would make me look like an atheist and a Darwinist. Yet no one who knows anything about me would agree that that is the case.

Substantive scholarship is what we need, not little boy playground games, which is not a poke at you at all, George, more of an observation of what I get out of my own kind.

Interesting… you throw quotations at me, then insist you are above a battle of quotes. Besides which, I fail to understand how a [i]letter to[/i] a Founding Father can be considered evidence of the prevailing winds in early American religio-political policy.

You know what I find also interesting, George, is that even if I grant you your premise that all of Judeo-Christian principles of law and ethics are found resident in other religions (which I don;t, but let’s pretend), you still have to acknolwedge that you are getting your ethics from SOME RELIGION. You are not even arguing that secular humanism produced them, you are arguing for a religious origin.

No, I am not. I stated that most of these values had likely originated tens of thousands of years ago, in all likelihood before the concept of religion was even invented. Even our primate relatives share many concepts of morality with us.

Contrast this to the Roman and Greek ideals, which were devoid of personal liberty and instead either had no meaningful concept of liberty or concentrated it in the polis, or in the gods and fates, or in Caesar, in other words, the State.

You might wish to turn to Plato’s Republic. I’m sure you have a copy, since it’s required reading for Intro Philosophy in most colleges, and as you have said so many times, you are obviously quite well versed in the subject.

The entire concept of doubting the Christian origin of America is patently stupid.

I suggest you ask for a refund from wherever you were educated.

George, unless you are 20 years old, I can scarcely imagine that you are not aware of the voluminous content arrayed against you on this argument.

But, if you insist, I suppose I’ll play along as long as I have the strength.

I equate this effort with arguing with a YEC at this point, just to let you know.

Perhaps we should begin this discussion by taking it out of the context of the theoretical and right into the light of modern controversy, which is basically what you are challenging me to do, to show it’s (the Law and the Prophets, in other words, the Word of God) relevance then, and it’s relevance now:

http://www.visionforum.com/hottopics/newsletters/newsletter.aspx?id=02-22-06

http://www.judicial.state.al.us/supreme.cfm?Member=120

Read the article, I have just copied a portion here. We shall commence with the lesson on Christian history shortly, perhaps tonight or tomorrow morning.

Welcome to VisionForum.com! (log in) | Your Account | Tracking | Cart | Help
E-Mail Newsletters

Extraordinary times require extraordinary men. George Washington was a giant of a man — uniquely crafted by the Lord and providentially raised up for a defining moment in our history. He was God’s tool to bring military victory to the cause of independence, to oversee the crafting of our Constitution, and to shape and define the meaning and nature of the American Presidency. As we progress into the twenty-first century, the future of Americans again seems uncertain. The urgency of the hour is for unflinching, stalwart men — men who boldly proclaim the law of God — to stand with might in the very gates of the land, fighting in the defining battles of our generation. Today, on the 274th anniversary of our first Commander in Chief’s birth, Vision Forum inaugurates our George Washington Man of the Year Award to recognize and honor those individuals who demonstrate, through their public courage, the stalwart spirit and mature leadership of the General himself.
Justice Tom Parker: Man of the Year

And he set judges in the land throughout all the fenced cities of Judah, city by city, And said to the judges, Take heed what ye do: for ye judge not for man, but for the LORD, who is with you in the judgment. Wherefore now let the fear of the LORD be upon you; take heed and do it: for there is no iniquity with the LORD our God, nor respect of persons, nor taking of gifts. Moreover in Jerusalem did Jehoshaphat set of the Levites, and of the priests, and of the chief of the fathers of Israel, for the judgment of the LORD, and for controversies, when they returned to Jerusalem. (2 Chronicles 19:5-8)

February 22, 2006
By Wesley Strackbein

Do you remember the last time you heard of a high-ranking elected official invoking the name of Jesus Christ in his inaugural address, explaining that the Lord is the only source of life, law, and liberty?

You have heard of innumerable judges and their rulings which appear to legitimize sin and progressively banish God from the public square; but when was the last time you read of a Supreme Court justice using Scripture in a court opinion to explain and defend the biblical roots of the common law and our constitutional system of government?

And can you think of one high-ranking judge in the entire United States, currently in office, who has risked his “[career], his fortune and his sacred honor” by standing completely alone, taking an unequivocal biblical stand in the defense of women and children?

If you have followed the rise of the Christian jurist, Alabama Supreme Court Justice Tom Parker, then your answer is yes.

For demonstrating unflinching courage in the field of legal and spiritual battle; for modeling a heroic commitment to historic constitutional and Christian principles of justice; for restoring the biblical duty of the judge to defend women and children; for acting without compromise, but with remarkable charity and gentlemanly demeanor; and for restoring hope to a generation of Christians who have, for decades, lived in the shadows of judicial tyranny, Justice Tom Parker is the 2005 Vision Forum George Washington Man of the Year. In our view, he represents the very best example of visionary, righteous, Christian leadership.

Justice Tom Parker, Dottie Parker, and Justice Clarence Thomas in a private swearing-in ceremony in the chambers of U.S. Supreme Court
The swearing-in committee in the chambers of the United States Supreme Court
Justice Parker Rises to Fill a Leadership Void

A distinguishing characteristic of Justice Tom Parker is his marriage to wife Dottie. Virtually inseparable, the couple’s deep love for each other and commitment to serve the Lord as a team is widely recognized. A model southern lady and a devoted student of Scripture, Dottie is usually seen by her husband’s side, encouraging him and praying for him. It is clear to everyone that they are not just husband and wife; they are best friends. In a day of leaders with failing marriages and broken covenants, this happy marriage of twenty-three years is an encouragement to many.

Together, the Parkers have been front and center in the battle to preserve righteousness in the land and defend the American family. A graduate of Dartmouth College and Vanderbilt Law School, Justice Parker founded the Alabama Family Alliance (now the Alabama Policy Institute) and Alabama Family Advocates. He served three Alabama Attorney Generals, where he handled death penalty cases, criminal appeals, and constitutional litigation. Throughout his legal career, Parker has fought to defend the unborn, to protect the rights of parents to home educate their children, and to defeat judge-ordered tax increases.

In January of 2001, Justice Parker received an appointment that forever changed his life. Judge Roy Moore, newly elected as Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, hired Tom Parker to serve as his Deputy Director of the Administrative Office of the Courts. During the Ten Commandments controversy, Parker served as Legal Adviser to Chief Justice Moore. Through the long fight to keep the Ten Commandments Monument in the judicial building and through Chief Justice Moore’s ultimate removal from office by a kangaroo court, Justice Parker stood beside his boss and was immediately fired in the fall of 2003 after Chief Justice Moore was tossed off Alabama’s high court.

Yet Tom Parker would live to fight another day. In November 2004, Parker was elected to the Alabama Supreme Court after a hotly disputed primary against Jean Brown, an incumbent Associate Justice who voted to remove the Ten Commandments monument from the Alabama Judicial Building and supported the removal of Chief Justice Roy Moore. Justice Brown and her supporters out-spent Tom Parker six-to-one, but still lost. Then, in the General Election, soon-to-be Justice Parker easily defeated his Democratic opponent.
Justice Parker Claims the High Ground During
Swearing-In Ceremony

Justice Parker’s victory over Justice Jean Brown set the stage for another day of drama. Once again, both Moore and Parker would stand before the high court and their fellow Alabamians for Justice Parker’s investiture. On January 14, 2005, hundreds of Alabamians packed out the Troy State University Davis Theatre for the Performing Arts in Montgomery to witness the swearing-in ceremony of Justice Tom Parker along with two other newly-elected Alabama Supreme Court Justices.

At the appointed time, Tom Parker walked toward the front of the stage to take his oath of office. Behind him, at a long table draped in black, sat the very justices who had supported the removal of Chief Justice Roy Moore and Tom Parker from office!

When he reached center-stage, Parker stood face-to-face with Roy Moore. With Dottie holding the family Bible, former Chief Justice Moore swore in Justice Tom Parker.

Following the administration of his oath, Justice Parker walked to a podium on the left side of the stage where he addressed the capacity crowd that had gathered for the ceremony. In Parker’s opening remarks as a newly-installed Supreme Court Justice, he cut straight to the heart of the raging battle over legal theory with these pointed words:

The defining question for the American people today is this: “By what standard?” By what standard shall we govern ourselves? By what standard shall our courts interpret the Constitution? Who is the ultimate voice of authority? Is it the people? Is it the judges who wear black robes? Are they truly the ultimate voice of authority? Or is there a higher source from which even the legitimacy of constitutions ultimately derive their authority, and to whom the allegiance of every policy maker and judge is due?[i]

In his answer to this probing question, Justice Parker claimed the high ground with this proclamation:

The very God of Holy Scriptures, the Creator, is the source of law, life, and liberty. It is to Him, not evolving standards or arbitrary pronouncements of judges, that the leaders of every nation owe their ultimate allegiance.[ii]

George Washington’s Education

(by Mrs. Dorothy Robbins)

It is often heard today that Washington was not a well educated man! If he wasn’t, it is amazing that he had such a large correspondence with the most educated men of his day. In fact, if one begins to read the many documents a man of his many responsibilities had to write, it is doubtful most folks could do as well as he did. They are well written grammatically and his vocabulary puts to shame that of most of today’s college students. (That includes me!)

Peter Lillback tells us that,

“…Although (Washington) never received a college education, given his disciplined and methodical temperament, he never stopped learning. Washington’s continual self-improvement by reading, experimenting, and correspondence he continued his education.” (As most of the men of our Founding period did inasmuch as they were, by and large, what we now call “home schooled.” -Ed)

“The legacy of his commitment to learning was seen in his extensive library; the many scholarships he gave to young scholars, his generous endowments of schools and universities, as well as a persistent advocacy of the formation of schools of higher education.”

“Washington, writing to clergyman Reverend John Lathrop on June 22, 1788, spoke of a common vision of both “reason and religion” recognizing that education is necessary for both. He states:”

“How pitiful, in the eye of reason and religion, is that false ambition, which desolates the world with fire and sword for the purposes of conquest and fame; when compared to the milder virtues of making our neighbors and our fellow men as happy as their frail conditions and perishable natures will permit them to be!…. In truth it appears to me that (the proposed government) will be a new phenomenon in the political and moral world; and an astonishing victory gained by enlightened reason over brutal force!”

“In his First Annual Address to Congress, January 8,1790, the president explained the importance of knowledge to the new republic.” (Simply, the American experiment would not work if the people were ignorant. -Ed)

“Knowledge is in every country the surest basis of public happiness. To the security of a free Constitution it contributes in various ways:”

Teaching the people themselves the five following things is what Washington recommended:

“to know and to value their own rights;

to discern and provide against invasions of them;

to distinguish between oppression and the necessary exercise of lawful authority;

to distinguish between burdens proceeding from a disregard to their convenience and those resulting from the inevitable exigencies of Society;

to discriminate the spirit of Liberty from that of licentiousness, cherishing the first, avoiding the last,

and uniting a speedy, but temperate, vigilance against encroachments, with an inviolable respect to the Laws.”

In other words, a well-educated citizenry is essential to maintain both the law and liberty, and for having the ability to distinguish between liberty and license. This discernment comes through education. Washington insisted that religion and morality were integral to a sound education.

Despite what you may hear from the media and public school textbooks, America was founded as a Christian nation. In 1620, long before the United States won its independence from England, the Pilgrims came to America’s shores with this mission statement,

“[W]e all came to these parts of America, with one and the same end and aim, namely, to advance the Kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ.” – New England Confederation of 1643

The Assault on God and the Bible
by Gary DeMar

http://www.americanvision.org/articlearchive/01-26-06.asp

Anti-Christians are out in force. Richard Dawkins says that teaching religion to children is a form of child abuse.1 The video “The God Who Was Not There” is making the rounds on the Internet. Iraq-war combat veteran Paul Hackett, who is running for the U.S. Senate from Ohio, describes religious conservatives as not “a whole lot different than Osama bin Laden and a lot of other religious nuts around the world.”2Maybe he should take a deep breath and consider how these same “religious conservatives” raised money, collected clothing, opened up their homes, and ministered to hurricane and flood victims in Jesus’ name. Some might point to Eric Rudolf as a religious zealot with a violent streak justified by his Christian principles. Rudolf prefers “Nietzsche to the Bible.”3

What about Paul Hill who killed an abortionist? Hill stated: “I believe that the Lord has used and will use what I did in a marvelous way. I’m standing for a principle. I’m willing to die for the principle. I consider it a great honor to die, possibly die, for having defended innocent human beings.”4 His methods, not his views on abortion, were almost universally condemned by Christians. He was excommunicated from the church where he was a member, and he was routinely and regularly counseled not to kill in “the name of the Lord.” In fact, I was one of those who told him that he did not have biblical grounds to assassinate abortion “doctors.”

People like Dawkins and Hackett don’t want the light of day to see deep in their philosophical closets. What’s the death count of the atheists? In Mao: The Untold Story, an 832-page book written by the (married) historians Jung and Jon Halliday, the authors tell us that the atheistic Communist dictator, “who for decades held absolute power over the lives of one-quarter of the world’s population, was responsible for well over 70 million deaths in peacetime, more than any other twentieth century leader.”

I’ll take responsibility for Paul Hill and a dozen more misguided religious enthusiasts like him when atheists assume responsibility for the tens of millions who had their lives taken from them to build a better tomorrow. If teaching religion to minor children is considered to be child abuse by an atheist like Dawkins, then what should we call genocide in the name of Darwin? If mass murder can be justified by an appeal to the doctrine of the “survival of the fittest,” and we have a long bloody record of the results to prove that the logic of Darwin was behind it all, it seems to me that child protective agencies should remove children from atheistic parents, before they can grow up and put their godless worldview into action.

From Ethan Allen:

“Morality is therefore of more importance to us than any or all other attainments; as it is a habit of mind, which, from a retrospective consciousness of our agency in this life, we should carry with us into our succeeding state of existence, as an acquired appendage of our rational nature, and as the necessary means of our mental happiness. Virtue and vice are the only things in this world, which, with our souls, are capable of surviving death; the former is the rational and only procuring cause of all intellectual happiness, and the latter of conscious guilt and misery; and therefore, our indispensable duty and ultimate interest is, to love, cultivate and improve the one, as the means of our greatest good, and to hate and abstain from the other, as productive of our greatest evil. And in order thereto, we should so far divest ourselves of the encumbrances of this world, (which are too apt to engross our attention) as to inquire a consistent system of the knowledge of religious duty, and make it our constant endeavor in life to act conformably to it. The knowledge of the being, perfections, creation and providence of God, and of the immortality of our souls, is the foundation of religion; which has been particularly illustrated in the four first chapters of this discourse. And as the Pagan, Jewish, Christian and Mahometan countries of the world have been overwhelmed with a multiplicity of revelations diverse from each other, and which, by their respective promulgators, are said to have been immediately inspired into their souls by the spirit of God, or immediately communicated to them by the intervening agency of angels (as in the instance of the invisible Gabriel to Mahomet) and as those revelations have been received and credited, by afar the greater part of the inhabitants of the several countries of the world (on whom they have been obtruded) as supernaturally revealed by God or angels, and which, in doctrine and discipline, are in most respects repugnant to each other, it fully evinces their imposture, and authorizes us, without a lengthy course of arguing, to determine with certainty, that not one of them had their original from God; as they clash with each other, which is ground of high probability against the authenticity of each of them.”

Ok, now that we have laid some kind of quick foundation for the subject, here is the most important quotation ever mouthed by an American Founding Father:

“Beer is proof God loves us and wants us to be happy.”
Ben Franklin (submitted by a visitor)

http://www.jcpa.org/dje/articles/cov-amer.htm

JCPA LOGO

Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs
Daniel Elazar Papers Index

American Political Culture

Covenant and the American Founding
Daniel J. Elazar

On his way to Washington to take the oath of office as President of the United States of America, itself seemed destined for dissolution, Abraham Lincoln pointedly stopped in Philadelphia to visit Independence Hall. Standing before that historic landmark on February 21, 1861, Lincoln emphasized to his audience that he had come “to listen to those breathings rising within the consecrated walls where the Constitution of the United States, and I will add, the Declaration of Independence was originally framed.” Lincoln continued:

I have never asked anything that does not breathe from those walls. All my political warfare has been in favor of the teachings coming forth from that sacred hall. May my right hand forget its cunning and my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth, if ever I prove false to those teachings.1

America’s Covenantal Vocation

Lincoln’s paraphrase of the fifth and sixth verses of Psalm 137 is one of many manifestations of his view of the American experience as being parallel to that of biblical Israel. If Americans were not the chosen people, they were at least, in his eyes, “an almost chosen people.” Every cadence and content of Lincoln’s remarks at Independence Hall and on similar occasions suggest that he shared the sense of an American vocation similar to that described by Governor John Winthrop, the foremost of the American Puritan founders.2 In his Modell of Christian Charity delivered aboard the Arabella on the Atlantic Ocean in 1630, Winthrop summarized the enterprise upon which the first Puritan emigrants from England had embarked in the New World: “We are entered into Covenant with him for this work, we have taken out a Commission….”

In January 1965, Winthrop’s statement found an echo in President Lyndon B. Johnson’s inaugural address:

They came here — the exile and the stranger, brave but frightened — to find a place where a man could be his own man. They made a covenant with this land. Conceived in justice, written in liberty, bound in union, it was meant one day to inspire the hopes of all mankind; and it binds us still. If we keep its terms, we shall flourish.

The American covenant called on us to help show the way for the liberation of man. And that is today our goal. Thus, if as a nation there is much outside our control, as a people no stranger is outside our hope.3

Almost 3,000 years after the Covenant at Sinai, the Pilgrims, who saw themselves as new Israelites embarked on a venture into their own “hideous and desolate wilderness,” introduced into North America a major stream of thought derived from the biblical idea of covenant.4 While often more latent than manifest since the days of the Puritans, and partially submerged within other streams and eddies of American thought and culture — especially secular constitutionalism — covenant ideas not only formed a significant part of the foundation of the United States, but have continued to influence American life.

Thus, from their earliest beginnings, the people and polities comprising the United States have bound themselves together through covenants to erect their New World order, deliberately following biblical precedents. The covenant concluded on the Mayflower on November 11, 1620, remains the first hallowed document of the American constitutional tradition:

In the name of God, Amen. We whose names are under-writen, the loyall subjects of our dread soveraigne Lord, King James, by the grace of God, of Great Britaine, Franc, and Ireland king, defender of the faith, etc., haveing undertaken, for the glorie of God, and advancemente of the Christian faith, and honour of our king and countrie, a voyage to plant the first colonie in the Northerne parts of Virginia, doe by these presents solemnly and mutualy in the presence of God, and one of another, covenant and combine our selves togeather into a civill body politick, for our better ordering and preservation and furtherance of the ends aforesaid; and by vertue hearof to enacte, constitutions, and offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meete and convenient for the generall good of the colonie, unto which we promise all due submission and obedience. In witnes wherof we have hereunder subscribed our names at Cap Codd the 11. of November, in the year of the raigne of our soveraigne lord, King James, of England, France, and Ireland the eighteenth, and of Scotland the fiftie fourth. Ano: Dom. 1620.

A classic covenant, it explicitly created a community and the basis for its subsequent constitutional development. With more pride than accuracy, John Quincy Adams once referred to that Mayflower Compact as “perhaps the only instance in human history of that positive, original social compact which speculative philosophers have imagined as the only legitimate source of government.”5 In fact, there were many such covenants at the time of the settlement of British North America. His point is an important one, however. The Mayflower Compact occurred at least thirty years before the speculative philosophers imagined it. By the time that Hobbes and Locke formulated their compactual theories, there were already many compactual civil societies in the New World.

For the patriots of Samuel Adams’ “solemn league and covenant” against British oppression; for the framers of the constitutional compact of 1787; for Jefferson who referred to the young republic in his first inaugural address as a “chosen country;” for Lincoln who often characterized the American union as “a regular marriage;” for Johnson; and for millions of ordinary Americans, the concept of covenant has been reflected in real experiences from Jamestown to the present whereby individuals and families have come together to establish governing arrangements by compact.

The Puritans: Covenant Comes to the New World

The first political principles systematically enunciated in America were extensions and adaptations of the Puritans’ federal theology which saw all society as an outgrowth of the basic biblical covenants between God and His people.6 Winthrop referred to the good commonwealth as one committed to “federal liberty,” or the freedom to freely harken to the law of the covenant. The Puritans sought to place all relationships among people on a covenantal basis. Their congregations were covenant-formed partnerships of “saints” which came into existence only when potential members covenanted among each other, and survived only so long as the covenantal act remained valid (potentially but not necessarily forever).

Similarly, civil government among the Puritans was instituted by civil covenant among the residents (or potential residents) of virtually every town in most of the New England provinces.7 The Mayflower Compact (originally known as the Plymouth Combination) was the first of these covenantal acts. Subsequently, the same mode of town formation was extended to virtually every settlement created in New England and to many created in the other colonies as well. Connecticut and Rhode Island, for example, were formed by their towns covenanting (together). John Clarke and his Narragansett associates expressed the basic idea in their Plantation Agreement:

It is agreed by this Present Assembly thus Incorporate, and by this Present Act declared, that the Forme of Government Established in Providence Plantations is Democraticall; that is to say, a Government held by ye Free and Voluntarie Consent of all, or the greater Parte of the Free Inhabitants.8

As Henry Steele Commager has observed: “All through the colonial era Americans went from compact to compact — the Fundamental Laws of Connecticut of 1639, the ‘Solemn Compact’ at Portsmouth of 1638, and its successor the Charter of the Providence Plantations of 1647, the Pennsylvania Charter of Privileges of 1701 (not quite so clear a case, to be sure), and thereafter a score of compacts and agreements on one frontier after another.”9 As Richard Niebuhr observed some years ago: “one of the great common patterns that guided men in the period when American democracy was formed…was the pattern of the covenant or of federal society.”10

As Winthrop and his colleagues such as Thomas Hooker, the Mathers and other Puritan divines reveal in their works, the Puritans who settled in New England combined a fundamental conservatism with an unhesitating radicalism in a way that was to become as paradigmatic for Americans as other aspects of their approach to life. That combination was no doubt directly related to their covenantal ideology which saw humans bound to God through predestination, yet through that binding free to live according to the constitution He provided for their salvation. To implement that constitution required a revolt against the existing society, but the goals of that revolt were to restore prelapsinarian harmony to the world. The Puritans came to the New World to build a new society, but never lost sight of human weakness in trying to do so.

The synthesis did not always hold together. Those who leaned more to the radical side such as Roger Williams and Ann Dickinson almost immediately broke away. Williams established his own covenantal commonwealth of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations that was as firmly grounded in covenant in matters civil and political in order to guarantee openness in matters religious, something that the Puritans believed was impossible for the attainment of salvation.

Others allowed the conservative dimensions of Puritanism to overwhelm them; hence the Salem witch trials in which the continued Puritan emphasis on the deviltry in human souls got out of hand. But for the most part the synthesis held, spinning off different versions. Thomas Hooker, for example, moved his flock from Massachusetts to what became Connecticut to develop a more egalitarian Puritan commonwealth, but one no less faithful to combining conservative and radical dimensions. Here his supporters wrote the first full American constitution, The Fundamental Orders of Connecticut, which adopted the Mosaic law as the basis of Connecticut law, by reference.

Puritan federalism expressed itself socially through the concept of “federal liberty” which John Winthrop articulated in his Address to the General Court in 1645. For Winthrop and the other Puritans, federal liberty stood in contradistinction to natural liberty:

There is a two-fold liberty, natural (I mean as our nature is now corrupt) and civil or federal. The first is common to man with beasts and other creatures. By this, man, as he stands in relation to man simply, hath liberty to do what he lists; it is a liberty to evil as well as to good. This liberty is incompatible and inconsistent with authority and cannot endure the least restraint of the most just authority. The exercise and maintaining of this liberty makes men grow more evil and in time to be worse than brute beasts: omnes sumus licentia deteriores. This is that great enemy of truth and peace, that wild beast, which all of the ordinances of God are bent against, to restrain and subdue it. The other kind of liberty I call civil or federal; it may also be termed moral, in reference to the covenant between God and man, in the moral law, and the politic covenants and constitutions between men themselves. This liberty is the proper end and object of authority and cannot subsist without it; and it is a liberty to that only which is good, just and honest. This liberty you are to stand for, with the hazard (not only of your goods, but) of your lives if need be.11

In truth, others who came to America were attracted by the openness of a wild land and sought natural liberty. The tension between federal and natural liberty has been a continuing one in American society. Federal liberty — the liberty to live up to covenants consented to — is challenged again and again by those who see liberty as doing what one pleases except when it directly interferes with the liberty of the next person.

Politically, the culmination of Puritan federalism was in the New England Confederation which in the end was destroyed by the British as a threat to the empire. Organized originally by the four New England colonies of Plymouth, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Connecticut for defensive purposes, it followed the style of ancient and medieval confederacies of communities in which the real locus of power and commitment remained in the constituting units, but it soon showed signs of going beyond a mere military alliance.

Although the New England Puritans remained the most eloquent articulators of the covenant idea, they were not the only ones to bring it to America. The Scotch-Irish of the mountains and piedmont from Pennsylvania to Georgia; the Dutch of New York; the Presbyterians; and to a lesser extent, the Quakers and German Sectarians of Pennsylvania and the Middle States; and the Huguenots of South Carolina were all nurtured in churches constructed on the covenant principle. The first ministers in Virginia — usually cited as the antithesis of New England — were also Puritans.12 Indeed, the tradition became so widespread that by 1776 over half of the new nation’s church congregations were based on covenant principles.

Initially, the basic covenants of town and congregation united individuals and families. Parallel to those covenants there developed the network of voluntary associations — commercial, social, church, and civic — which represent the non-governmental aspects of a society founded on the principles of free contract. From the first, networks of communities were united as colonies, then states. Ultimately, the network of states was linked in a federal union, always paralleled by a similar network of associations.

Covenants and Other Bonds

The American federal system is very much an outgrowth of both the theological and philosophic streams of thought that converged about covenant by the late seventeenth century. If covenant ideas were first brought to the New World by the Pilgrims and Puritans who settled New England, another set of covenant-related ideas entered America through the teachings of the new political science, especially those of Locke and Montesquieu. That is why federalism in the United States is more than a political device for dividing and sharing power among the state and federal governments but, rather, the form of the American polity in the eighteenth century sense of the term, that is to say, the principle that informs every aspect of the polity.13

As the form of the American polity, federalism has its roots not only in the political dimension of American society, but in the economic, social, and religious dimensions as well. As we have seen, the political and religious dimensions are closely linked. Significantly, the economic roots of American federalism also have a compactual base. They can be traced back to the early trading companies that sponsored British and Dutch settlement in North America and to the system of governance encountered by those settlers on the voyage over.14

The trading companies, each with its royal monopolies, were organized on a shareholding basis, so that both ownership and control was spread among the shareholders. In some cases, the shareholders remained in Europe and tried to hold the actual settlers within their grasp on the basis of their control of the company. Invariably, this failed for political reasons. In a few cases, the settlers or some significant portion of them were themselves shareholders and, as such, combined political and economic control. In either case, the pattern of shareholding led to a corporate structure that was at least quasi-federal in character.

In the very earliest days the line between the political and economic aspects of the charters establishing the colonies was not at all clear. As the companies lost their monopolies, charters turned more in the direction of political constitutions, pure and simple, thereby reinforcing the theopolitical covenantal dimension where it was present or providing a complementary, compactual alternative where it was not.

Even the voyage across the ocean contributed to the covenantal experience of the colonists. The governance of ships had a contractual character that at least involved federal principles to the extent that every member of a ship’s crew was in some respects a partner in the voyage. By signing the ship’s articles, a crew member was entitled to an appropriate share of the profits of the voyage while at the same time formally submitting himself to the governance of the captain and the ship’s officers. Since every ship that ventured forth on the ocean was, in effect, leaving civil society for a state of nature, every voyage had to be based upon a prior compact among all participants that would determine the political arrangements that would prevail for that voyage and the distribution of the economic benefits that would result. Two centuries later, this system resurfaced in slightly different form in the organization of the wagon trains that crossed the plains, which also left civil society for a land voyage through the state of nature, so that their members also had to compact with one another to provide for their internal governance during the long trek westward.

These religious, political, and economic elements combined to socialize Americans into a kind of federalistic individualism. That is to say, not the anarchic individualism of Latin countries, but an individualism that recognized the subtle bonds of partnership linking individuals even as they preserved their respective integrities. William James was later to write about the federal character of these subtle bonds in his prescription for a pluralistic universe.15 Indeed, American pluralism is based upon the tacit recognition of those bonds. Even though in the twentieth century the term pluralism has replaced all others in describing them, their federal character remains of utmost importance. At its best, American society becomes a web of individual and communal partnerships in which people link with one another to accomplish common purposes or to create a common environment without falling into collectivism or allowing individualism to degenerate into anarchy. These links usually manifest themselves in the web of associations which we associate with modern society but which are particularly characteristic of covenanted societies such as that of the United States.16

In a covenanted society the state itself is hardly more than an association writ large and endowed with exceptional powers but still an association with limited means and ends. Were Americans to adopt a common salutation for some farfetched reason, like “comrade” in the Soviet Union or “citizen” in the days of the French Revolution, in all likelihood the American salutation would be “pardner,” the greeting of the archetypical American folk figure, the cowboy who embodies this combination of individualism and involvement in organized society and who expresses the character of that involvement through the term “pardner.”

The Revolution and the Declaration of Independence

The Revolutionary era required a new round of covenanting as the colonies reconstituted themselves as independent civil societies. Invariably they followed the customary patterns albeit in the new secularized forms of declarations of rights of constitutions. Thus, according to the Virginia Bill of Rights (1776):

All men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot by any compact deprive or divest their posterity, namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.

The Vermont Declaration of Independence of 1777 holds that:

We…the inhabitants [of the New Hampshire Grants] are at present without law or government, and may be truly said to be in a state of nature; consequently, a right remains to the people of said Grants to form a government best suited to secure their property, well being and happiness.

All followed the dictum from Leviticus inscribed on the Liberty Bell, rung for the reading of the Declaration of Independence, “Proclaim liberty throughout the land and to all the inhabitants thereof,” as they understood it.

These Revolutionary era documents reflect the influence of the “new political science” which had become prominent by this time. They also reflect the increasing secularization of covenant which had begun to occur after 1690 along with the Puritan declension in Europe and America. By 1776, the word covenant had been largely, though not entirely, superseded in political affairs by the words compact and constitution. It was during this period, for example, that the Plymouth Combination became known as the Mayflower Compact.17

As the original Christian and communitarian solidarity associated with the idea of covenant (i.e., both kinship and consent) became more elusive in the face of growing populations, new generations, and rising manufacturing, the old Puritan communities tended to become more legalistic and contractual, often along the kinds of “oppressive” lines which many contemporary Americans associate with “Puritanism.” Where, for instance, a handshake might have sealed a business relationship in 1630, a written contract with “fine print” enforceable by secular courts was more likely to seal a relationship in 1730. Consequently, in a movement paralleled in the “new political science,” there tended to be a greater division of secular and religious affairs, with the formal language of covenant being more confined to private sector congregationalism and a secularized language of constitutionalism being more prominent in public sector affairs. In short, the emphasis shifted from communitarianism toward individualism — a movement capped by the disestablishment of churches in all but the most religiously covenantal states during the immediate revolutionary era. The shift was not complete, of course, and tensions between these conceptions of civil society have persisted throughout American history.

Some of these tensions are also reflected in the Declaration of Independence, the founding covenant of the American people which preceeded the Constitution of 1787. The Constitution was designed to translate the relationships called for in the Declaration into workable institutions. Whatever Jefferson’s and Congress’ indebtedness to Locke, which is a subject of much debate’ the concept and intention of the Declaration is more covenantal than compactual in the American context. As Jefferson remarked nearly fifty years later:

Neither aiming at originality of principles or sentiments nor yet copied from any particular and previous writing, it was intended to be an expression of the American Mind.18

There is little resemblance between the Declaration and the Hobbesian compact. While many of the fundamental principles and basic ideas of Hobbes with regard to human nature and natural right are present, the Declaration is prudential but not pessimistic about the possibilities of human self-government, hence it does not accept the idea of absolute king of leviathan state required by the Hobbesian compact. At the same time, the Declaration is more comprehensive than the Lockean compact and even drops the word “property,” which is so essential to Locke’s system, in favor of “the pursuit of happiness.” Since the Declaration is the statement of a people that has already emerged from the state of nature, it does not use that starting point. In that sense, it is presented as a revision of an earlier compact and appeals to the Laws of Nature and of nature’s god.19

The Declaration shares many of the characteristics of the classic biblical covenant at Sinai.20 Central to this similarity is that the Declaration established the Americans as an organized people bound by a shared moral vision as well as common interests. The sense of an American identity, which had been emerging during the previous generation, was formalized and declared to the world much like the Sinai covenant had formally created the people of Israel whose sense of shared identity and common destiny had emerged earlier but was concretized during the Exodus. Thus, the opening paragraph of the Declaration asserts that Americans are no longer transplanted Englishmen, but a separate people entitled, like all peoples, to political independence. There is, then a separation of one people from another and a flight from tyranny. The Americans, moreover, are held to be a single people made up of individuals bound in partnership in a common enterprise.

Also like the classic Sinai covenant, the Declaration is not a constitution. It does not establish a particular form of government. That is left open to subsequent constitutional action on the part of the people created by the Declaration.

Instead, the Declaration sets forth the fundamental principles that define the character of the American people, their basic purposes, and the nature of good government for such a people. Perhaps this is why Abraham Lincoln appealed so often to the Declaration during the Civil War. The Constitution had already been torn asunder by a bloody war between the states which threatened to destroy the American people as well. While constitutional matters could be dealt with in due time, there is the more fundamental promise of peoplehood contained in the Declaration of Independence. This promise has the character of being perpetual and irrevocable. As Lincoln said in several of his addresses, there can be no divorce. The American people cannot separate and go away from each other.

While the Declaration does not have the force of law in the American system, it is part of the higher law background of the United States Constitution and serves as the standard against which particular constitutions are to be judged by Americans. As such, like a classic biblical covenant, the Declaration invokes God as both a witness and guarantor. This sets it apart from a simple compact. Niebuhr’s description of this dimension as understood by early Americans seems to capture the essential thrust of the Declaration.

Covenant meant that political society was neither purely natural nor merely contractual, based on common interest. Covenant was the binding together in one body politic of persons who assumed through unlimited promise responsibility to and for each other and for the common laws, under God. It was government of the people, for the people and by the people but always under God, and it was not natural birth into natural society that made one a complete member of the people but always the moral act of taking upon oneself, through promise, the responsibilities of a citizenship that bound itself in the very act of exercising its freedom. For in the covenant conception the essence of freedom does not lie in the liberty of choice among goods, but in the ability to commit oneself for the future to a cause and in the terrible liberty of being able to become a breaker of the promise, a traitor to the cause.21

The Declaration also follows the classical covenant formulary to a great degree. First, there is a statement of who is doing the covenanting, namely, “the Representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress assembled,” July 4, 1776. Second, there is a prologue and historical section detailing the prior relationships of England and the American colonies. These establish the setting for the Declaration and give reasons for its creation. Third, there is a set of stipulations and obligations containing the basic agreements of the American people. These begin as a statement of self-evident truths. Fourth, there is a provision for its public proclamation to mankind, and copies were to be sent to Parliament and distributed throughout the newly independent states. While, of course, there are no provisions for depositing the Declaration in a temple, it was eventually enshrined and elevated to a hallowed position. During the nineteenth century, moreover, the Declaration was given annual public readings on the Fourth of July in many communities, events which had echoes of covenant renewal ceremonies which often are a feature of covenantal communities. Fifth, there is an invocation of a divine witness, namely, “the Supreme Judge of the world” and “Divine Providence.” Sixth, there are indirect statements of blessings and curses. The blessings for performance are national independence and individual life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. The curses for non-performance are tyranny, oppression, and even death.

From Covenant to Constitution

The establishment of the American covenant in an appropriate constitution occurred over a period of twelve years. The states were the first to write constitutions. The Massachusetts Constitution of 1780 — the oldest written constitution in the modern world and still in effect today — is as close to being an example as any.22 Drafted largely by John Adams, it weaves together the elements of covenant, compact, and constitution quite nicely, as reflected in the Preamble quoted earlier.

The body-politic is formed by a voluntary association of individuals. It is a social compact by which the whole people covenants with each citizen and each citizen with the whole people, that all shall be governed by certain laws for the common good. It is the duty of the people, therefore, in framing a Constitution of Government, to provide for an equitable mode of making laws, as well as for an impartial interpretation and a faithful execution of them, that every man may, at all times, find his security in them.

Similar statements, though usually less eloquent, appear in almost all of the fifty state constitutions.23

It should not be surprising, therefore, that the Americans established a federal system of government with sovereignty divided and shared between the states and the nationwide government. This if often treated as an anomaly or as a product of unique circumstances. Yet the governmental outcome of the Revolution could have been very different. The states could have separated as independent nations. They could have been united in whole or in sections by conquest. The Americans could have erected a monarchy. Indeed, given past experiences with the governance of large territories, these were much more likely outcomes than the actual one. Instead, the Americans, within their states, sent representatives to a convention, ostensibly to improve the Articles of Confederation, and then ended up ratifying, under pacific conditions, a wholly new constitution that employed federal principles to create the first continental republic in world history. Whereas, historically, large territories (as well as most small ones) were invariably ruled by an imperial center, the United States became governed through a system of dispersed democratic majorities coupled with nationwide representation of both individuals and constituent states.24

Although it is impossible to determine definitively the influences upon the minds of the framers of the Constitution who created the unique American federal system, the most overlooked, yet perhaps most important, source of ideas is the covenant tradition which found its first political expression in the federation of tribes of ancient Israel. One of the few political scientists to recognize this possibility was William C. Morey in the late nineteenth century. Morey saw the sources of American federalism in “the reappearance of democratic and federal institutions in the Puritan colonies.25 Although he did not mention federal theology, he regarded the federative system of New England as the model of federalism. After all, there were no extant models for the framers of the U.S. Constitution except New England. Furthermore, representatives from New England, especially Connecticut and Massachusetts, were influential in the Constitutional Convention. The principal compromise of the Convention, The Connecticut Compromise, was initiated by those delegates accustomed to the New England legislative system in which one house provided for representation of towns. This compromise lies at the heart of the federal system and makes it, in the words of James Madison, a “compound republic” partly national and partly federal (in the earlier sense of confederal). In addition, the most covenantal of the state constitutions, that of Massachusetts, was among the most influential of the state models for the framers.

Supplementing the New England regional influences were the ethnoreligious conduits of covenant ideas, especially Congregationalism and Presbyterianism, the two largest denominations in 1787. A majority of the delegates to the Convention were affiliated with covenant-based churches, while most of the delegates were no doubt familiar with the covenant idea, given their Protestantism and attention to the Bible as a source of wisdom and literary enjoyment, if not always spiritual inspiration. The English and Scottish backgrounds of many of the delegates may have also accounted for covenantal influences. The Congregationalists were certainly grounded in covenant ideas, though their propensity for localism and local control made them somewhat hesitant to leap into large-scale arrangements. The Presbyterians, however, were already moving toward full-scale federalism. As Arthur Schlesinger, Sr., noted: “More than either [the Congregationalists or Anglicans] the Presbyterians in their reliance on federalist and representative institutions anticipated the political makeup of the future United States.26 Indeed, as the first government came into office under the U.S. Constitution in 1789, the Presbyterians held their first nationwide General Assembly. In the Presbyterian system, congregations in a local area formed a presbytery; several presbyteries in a region formed a synod; and then came the General Assembly. As a result, the system of federal democracy established by the U.S. Constitution has often been referred to as Presbyterianism writ large for civil society.

Moreover, James Madison of Virginia, the principal architect of the theory of federal democracy, was a Scotch-Irish Episcopalian who had studied under and been greatly influenced by the Scottish Reverend, Donald Robertson, the prominent scholar-divine John Witherspoon at the Presbyterian-oriented College of New Jersey (now Princeton). Indeed, six of the delegates to the Constitutional Convention had studied under Witherspoon. As a strong supporter of independence and a signer of the Declaration of Independence, Witherspoon’s influence was substantial enough that Horace Walpole is alleged to have complained that: “There is no use crying about it. Cousin America has run off with a Presbyterian parson, and that is the end of it.”27

The comment may be fictitious, but the sentiment is not. Institutional structures and cultural traditions which served as carriers of covenant ideas were still strong in 1787, though increasingly in secular forms. The framers, however, were engaged in a wholly secular enterprise. By 1787 the theological stream of covenant ideas and the philosophic stream of compactual ideas had become so intermingled in the concept of constitutionalism that it is difficult to separate their effects. Albeit, given that the federal system established by the framers bears a much greater similarity to the political systems proposed by the federal theologians and implemented in their church polities, than the political systems proposed by Hobbes and Locke, and given that Americans were already covenanting into civil societies well before the speculative philosophers adopted the idea, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that covenant ideas had, in the final analysis, a more decisive influence than those of the “new political science.”

Furthermore, the systems of the English philosophers could not by directly applied to America because, even in 1787, the country was simply enormous compared to tiny England. While such prominent revolutionary ideas as “natural rights” certainly belong to the Lockean tradition, they were also grounded in the covenant tradition and were further adapted to the federal framework of American constitutionalism rather than the monarchical framework of Hobbes or parliamentary framework of Locke. Thus, it is inaccurate to describe America as simply a Lockean nation.

Notes

1. Abraham Lincoln, “Reply to Mayor Alexander Henry at Philadelphia, Pennsylvania” in Collected Works (New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press, 1953), Vol. 4, pp. 238-239.

2. John Winthrop, “A Model of Christian Charity,” in The American Puritans: Their Prose and Poetry, Perry Miller, ed. (Garden City, N.Y.: Anchor, 1956), pp. 79-84.

3. Lyndon B. Johnson, January 20, 1965 Presidential Inaugural Address, in Howard B. Furer, ed., Lyndon B. Johnson: Chronology-Documents-Bibliographical Aids (New York: Ocean Publications, 1971), pp. 92-95.

4. Richard P. Gildrie, Salem, Massachusetts, 1626-1683: A Covenant Community (Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1972), and E. Brooks Holifield, The Covenant Sealed: The Development of Puritan Sacramental Theology in Old and New England: 1570-1720 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1974).

5. John Quincy Adams, The Social Compact, Exemplified in the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts; with Remarks on the Theories of Divine Right of Hobbes and of Filmer, and the Counter Theories of Sidney, Locke, Montesquieu, and Rousseau, concerning the Origin and Nature of Government, a lecture delivered before the Franklin Lyceum at Providence, R.I., November 25, 1842 (Providence: Knowles and Vose, 1842).

6. Charles Hyneman and Donald Lutz, American Political Writing During the Founding Era, 1760-1805 (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 1983); Donald Lutz, Documents of Political Foundation Written by Colonial Americans (Philadelphia: Institute for the Study of Human Issues, 1986); Perry Miller, The New England Mind: From Colony to Province (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1953).

7. Edmund S. Morgan, Puritan Political Ideas, 1558-1794 (New York: Bobbs-Merrill, 1965).

8. Cf. Donald Lutz, Documents of Political Foundation.

9. Henry Steele Commager, Documents of American History (New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1963).

10. H. Richard Niebuhr, “The Idea of Covenant and American Democracy,” Church History, Vol. 23 (1954): 126-135.

11. John Winthrop, History of New England, 1630-1649, ed. Sam Savage (Boston, 1853), 2: 279-282.

12. On non-New England covenants, see W. Keith Kavenagh, ed. Foundations of Colonial America (New York: Chelsea House, 1983),m especially Volume 3, Parts I and II.

13. Cf. Daniel J. Elazar, The American Constitutional Tradition (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1987).

14. Andrew McLaughlin, The Foundations of American Constitutionalism (Gloucester, Mass.: Peter Smith, 1972).

15. William James, A Pluralistic Universe (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1977). Cf. also Harry S. Levinson, “William James and the Federal Principle,” Publius, Vol. 9, No. 4 (Fall 1979): 65-86.

16. Cf. Robert MacIver, The Web of Government (New York: Macmillan, 1947), and Corinne L. Gilb, Hidden Hierarchies: The Professions and Government (New York: Harper and Row, 1966).

17. Cf. Donald Lutz, “From Covenant to Constitution in American Political Thought,” Publius, Vol. 10, No. 4 (Fall 1980): 106, and Harry M. Ward, Statism in Plymouth Colony (Port Washington, N.Y.: Kennikat Press, 1972), p. 4.

18. Saul K. Padover, Jefferson (New York: Harcourt Brace and Company, 1942), p. 54.

19. Cf. Carl Becker, The Declaration of Independence: A Study in the History of Political Ideas (New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company, 1922), and Daniel J. Elazar, The American Constitutional Tradition, Ch. 4.

20. Neal Riemer, “1776 and the Tradition of Prophetic Politics,” Working Paper (Philadelphia: Center for the Study of Federalism, 1981).

21. H. Richard Niebuhr, “The Idea of Covenant and American Democracy.”

22. Ronald Peters, The Massachusetts Constitution of 1780: A Social Compact (Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1974).

23. John Adams, Adams: His Political Writings, edited with an introduction by George A. Peek, Jr. (New York: Bobbs Merrill, 1954), p. 95; Willi Paul Adams, The First American Constitutions (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1973); Donald Lutz, Documents of Political Foundation Written by Colonial Americans.

24. Cf. Daniel J. Elazar, The Politics of American Federalism (Lexington, Mass.: D.C. Heath, 1969), Introduction.

25. William C. Morey, “The First State Constitutions,” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences, Vol. 4, No. 2 (1893): 201-232.

26. Arthur M. Schlesinger, Sr., The Birth of the Nation (New York: Alfred Knopf, 1968), p. 83.

27. Cf. Gary Wills, Inventing America: Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1978).

Elazar Papers Index / JCPA Home Page / Top of Page

http://www.covenant-reformed.org/iotc/
Home Contact
“A Study on Christianity and the Law of the Land”

Join the Institute on the Constitution through a twelve lecture series by Constitutional Law Professor John Eidsmoe of Thomas Goode Jones School of Law of Faulkner University, Alabama along with other selected materials by David Barton of Wallbuilders.

The program is intended to reconnnect Americans to the history of the American Republic and to their heritage of freedom under law. By exploring the fundamental principles of civil government upon which our Constitional Republic was founded, and by studying the original intent of the founders, we can begin to recover the lost freedoms that require knowledge and vigilance to protect and defend. Today, many Americans are surprised but delighted to learn that we were founded as a Constitutional Republic of sovereign States with a central government of purposely limited powers based on Biblical principles. The recovery and application of these principles is necessary for the reclamation of the Republic.

The course will be held on Monday evenings at 6:00 pm beginning April 9, 2007 and continue for twelve weeks. The course will be held at Christian Fellowship Church, 4100 Millersburg Rd, Evansville, IN 47725. The course is hosted by Thomas Weddle, 812-962-3704
Lectures

* A Biblical View of History, Law, and Government
* The Discovery, Settlement, and Evangelization of America
* Beliefs of the Founding Fathers
* The Founding Fathers’ Five Fold Formula
* From Independence to the Constitution
* Preamble; Article I
* Articles II and III
* Articles IV Thru VII
* The Bill of Rights: The First Amendment
* Amendments II Thru XXVII
* From Biblical Absolutes to Evolutionary Humanism
* A Victory Plan for Restoring Our Constitutional Heritage

Mr. Weddle will be sharing his experiences over thirteen years of Constitutional litigation which led, not only to an interest in American history and preserving our legal heritage, but a deeper relationship with Jesus Christ and understanding of Scripture and its application to our lives today.
Course Materials
The student manual, which a family can share, along with copies of the Founding documents and other literature for further study is $ 45.00. Manuals will be delivered on April 9th at the first class and must be ordered by March 21, 2007.

Sign Up Today

Complete this order form to register for the Institute on the Constitution. PayPal and all major credit cards are accepted.

© Copyright 2007 Thomas Weddle, All Rights Reserved
http://www.covenant-reformed.org/iotc/

http://www.mcgill.ca/reporter/35/03/elon/

“The first thing to understand is that Jewish law has been active and developing for most of Jewish history,” Elon said. “The second is that it is much more than religious law. Jewish law touches every area of human existence.”

The whole of Jewish law, or Halakha, is rooted in the Torah, which is conservatively defined as the first five books of the Bible. These fundamental laws are believed to define the correct way to live, according to God. But they have never been static.

Elon explained that during the 2,000 years of the Diaspora, when Jews were dispersed throughout Europe, North Africa and the Middle East, Jewish law not only survived and developed, but also unified. Scattered Jewish settlements remained autonomous within their larger city-states. When a difficult legal question arose, it was directed to the day’s foremost religious authorities. These rabbinical judges interpreted the Torah and precedent body of law to render a decision. A written collection of these court decisions, or Responsa, from the 8th to 18th centuries numbers more than 300,000. In this way, the law evolved alongside human intellect and wisdom. Elon likened the phenomenon to a great polyphonic symphony written long ago: “Every generation needs a great conductor to interpret it for a modern audience.”

With good reason. The writing of the Torah, and the codes that it spawned, preceded not only contemporary culture but also many contemporary concepts. There are no contracts, no public, no democracy. Over time the issues that rose again and again in the rabbinical courts of the Diaspora required deft interpretation. “The Responsa dealt with the same problems we face today in synthesizing Jewish and democratic values,” Elon explained. “I say ‘Ein hadash takhat hashemesh.’ There’s nothing new under the sun.”

The Mayflower Compact

1620

“In the name of God, Amen. We, whose names are underwritten, the Loyal Subjects of our dread Sovereign Lord, King James, by the Grace of God, of England, France and Ireland, King, Defender of the Faith, e&.

Having undertaken for the Glory of God, and Advancement of the Christian Faith, and the Honour of our King and Country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the northern parts of Virginia; do by these presents, solemnly and mutually in the Presence of God and one of another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil Body Politick, for our better Ordering and Preservation, and Furtherance of the Ends aforesaid; And by Virtue hereof to enact, constitute, and frame, such just and equal Laws, Ordinances, Acts, Constitutions and Offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the General good of the Colony; unto which we promise all due submission and obedience.

In Witness whereof we have hereunto subscribed our names at Cape Cod the eleventh of November, in the Reign of our Sovereign Lord, King James of England, France and Ireland, the eighteenth, and of Scotland the fifty-fourth. Anno Domini, 1620.”

The Fundamental Orders of Connecticut

January 14, 1639

For as much as it hath pleased Almighty God by the wise disposition of his divine providence so to order and dispose of things that we the Inhabitants and Residents of Windsor, Hartford and Wethersfield are now cohabiting and dwelling in and upon the River of Connectecotte and the lands thereunto adjoining; and well knowing where a people are gathered together the word of God requires that to maintain the peace and union of such a people there should be an orderly and decent Government established according to God, to order and dispose of the affairs of the people at all seasons as occasion shall require; do therefore associate and conjoin ourselves to be as one Public State or Commonwealth; and do for ourselves and our successors and such as shall be adjoined to us at any time hereafter, enter into Combination and Confederation together, to maintain and preserve the liberty and purity of the Gospel of our Lord Jesus which we now profess, as also, the discipline of the Churches, which according to the truth of the said Gospel is now practiced amongst us; as also in our civil affairs to be guided and governed accordinbg to such Laws, Rules, Orders and Decrees as shall be made, ordered, and decreed as followeth: etc, etc

The First Thanksgiving Proclamation

June 20, 1676

“The Holy God having by a long and Continual Series of his Afflictive dispensations in and by the present Warr with the Heathen Natives of this land, written and brought to pass bitter things against his own Covenant people in this wilderness, yet so that we evidently discern that in the midst of his judgements he hath remembered mercy, having remembered his Footstool in the day of his sore displeasure against us for our sins, with many singular Intimations of his Fatherly Compassion, and regard; reserving many of our Towns from Desolation Threatened, and attempted by the Enemy, and giving us especially of late with many of our Confederates many signal Advantages against them, without such Disadvantage to ourselves as formerly we have been sensible of, if it be the Lord’s mercy that we are not consumed, It certainly bespeaks our positive Thankfulness, when our Enemies are in any measure disappointed or destroyed; and fearing the Lord should take notice under so many Intimations of his returning mercy, we should be found an Insensible people, as not standing before Him with Thanksgiving, as well as lading him with our Complaints in the time of pressing Afflictions:

The Council has thought meet to appoint and set apart the 29th day of this instant June, as a day of Solemn Thanksgiving and praise to God for such his Goodness and Favour, many Particulars of which mercy might be Instanced, but we doubt not those who are sensible of God’s Afflictions, have been as diligent to espy him returning to us; and that the Lord may behold us as a People offering Praise and thereby glorifying Him; the Council doth commend it to the Respective Ministers, Elders and people of this Jurisdiction; Solemnly and seriously to keep the same Beseeching that being perswaded by the mercies of God we may all, even this whole people offer up our bodies and soulds as a living and acceptable Service unto God by Jesus Christ.”

Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death

March 23, 1775
By Patrick Henry

No man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the house. But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen if, entertaining as I do opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely and without reserve. This is no time for ceremony. The question before the house is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at the truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings. …..

Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace–but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!

Declaration of the Causes and Necessity of Taking Up Arms

July 6, 1775

A declaration by the representatives of the united colonies of North America, now met in Congress at Philadelphia, setting forth the causes and necessity of their taking up arms.

If it was possible for men, who exercise their reason to believe, that the divine Author of our existence intended a part of the human race to hold an absolute property in, and an unbounded power over others, marked out by his infinite goodness and wisdom, as the objects of a legal domination never rightfully resistible, however severe and oppressive, the inhabitants of these colonies might at least require from the parliament of Great-Britain some evidence, that this dreadful authority over them, has been granted to that body. But a reverance for our Creator, principles of humanity, and the dictates of common sense, must convince all those who reflect upon the subject, that government was instituted to promote the welfare of mankind, and ought to be administered for the attainment of that end……

The Virginia Declaration of Rights

June 12, 1776

1. That all men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.
2. That all power is vested in, and consequently derived from, the people; that magistrates are their trustees and servants, and at all times amenable to them.
3. That government is, or ought to be, instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security of the people, nation or community; of all the various modes and forms of government that is best, which is capable of producing the greatest degree of happiness and safety and is most effectually secured against the danger of maladministration; and that, whenever any government shall be found inadequate or contrary to these purposes, a majority of the community hath an indubitable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to reform, alter or abolish it, in such manner as shall be judged most conducive to the public weal.
4. That no man, or set of men, are entitled to exclusive or separate emoluments or privileges from the community, but in consideration of public services; which, not being descendible, neither ought the offices of magistrate, legislator, or judge be hereditary.
5. That the legislative and executive powers of the state should be separate and distinct from the judicative; and, that the members of the two first may be restrained from oppression by feeling and participating the burthens of the people, they should, at fixed periods, be reduced to a private station, return into that body from which they were originally taken, and the vacancies be supplied by frequent, certain, and regular elections in which all, or any part of the former members, to be again eligible, or ineligible, as the laws shall direct.
6. That elections of members to serve as representatives of the people in assembly ought to be free; and that all men, having sufficient evidence of permanent common interest with, and attachment to, the community have the right of suffrage and cannot be taxed or deprived of their property for public uses without their own consent or that of their representatives so elected, nor bound by any law to which they have not, in like manner, assented, for the public good.
7. That all power of suspending laws, or the execution of laws, by any authority without consent of the representatives of the people is injurious to their rights and ought not to be exercised.
8. That in all capital or criminal prosecutions a man hath a right to demand the cause and nature of his accusation to be confronted with the accusers and witnesses, to call for evidence in his favor, and to a speedy trial by an impartial jury of his vicinage, without whose unanimous consent he cannot be found guilty, nor can he be compelled to give evidence against himself; that no man be deprived of his liberty except by the law of the land or the judgement of his peers.
9. That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed; nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
10. That general warrants, whereby any officer or messenger may be commanded to search suspected places without evidence of a fact committed, or to seize any person or persons not named, or whose offense is not particularly described and supported by evidence, are grievous and oppressive and ought not to be granted.
11. That in controversies respecting property and in suits between man and man, the ancient trial by jury is preferable to any other and ought to be held sacred.
12. That the freedom of the press is one of the greatest bulwarks of liberty and can never be restrained but by despotic governments.
13. That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and be governed by, the civil power.
14. That the people have a right to uniform government; and therefore, that no government separate from, or independent of, the government of Virginia, ought to be erected or established within the limits thereof.
15. That no free government, or the blessings of liberty, can be preserved to any people but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality, and virtue and by frequent recurrence to fundamental principles.
16. That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator and the manner of discharging it, can be directed by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore, all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity towards each other.

Declaration of Independence

July 4, 1776

The Unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united* States of America.

When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the Separation.

We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness….

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm Reliance on the Protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

The Articles of Confederation

Nov. 15, 1777

To all to whom these Presents shall come, we the undersigned Delegates of the States affixed to our Names send greeting.

Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the states of New Hampshire, Massachusetts-bay Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia. …

And Whereas it hath pleased the Great Governor of the World to incline the hearts of the legislatures we respectively represent in Congress, to approve of, and to authorize us to ratify the said Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union…..

The Paris Peace Treaty of 1783

In the name of the most holy and undivided Trinity.

It having pleased the Divine Providence to dispose the hearts of the most serene and most potent Prince George the Third, by the grace of God, king of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, defender of the faith, duke of Brunswick and Lunebourg, arch- treasurer and prince elector of the Holy Roman Empire etc., and of the United States of America, to forget all past misunderstandings and differences that have unhappily interrupted the good correspondence and friendship which they mutually wish to restore, and to establish such a beneficial and satisfactory intercourse , between the two countries …..

Memorial and Remonstrance

June 20, 1785

To the Honorable the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia

A Memorial and Remonstrance

We the subscribers, citizens of the said Commonwealth, having taken into serious consideration, a Bill printed by order of the last Session of General Assembly, entitled “A Bill establishing a provision for Teachers of the Christian Religion,” and conceiving that the same if finally armed with the sanctions of a law, will be a dangerous abuse of power, are bound as faithful members of a free State to remonstrate against it, and to declare the reasons by which we are determined. We remonstrate against the said Bill, …

(It must be noted that although the remonstrance voted against the public funding of religion, there were state-established churches well into the 1830’s. - Sonny)

First Inaugural Address of
President George Washington

April 30, 1789

Fellow-Citizens of the Senate and of the House of Representatives:

Among the vicissitudes incident to life no event could have filled me with greater anxieties than that of which the notification was transmitted by your order, and received on the 14th day of the present month. On the one hand, I was summoned by my country, whose voice I can never hear but with veneration and love, from a retreat which I had chosen with the fondest predilection, and, in my flattering hopes, with an immutable decision, as the asylum of my declining years — a retreat which was rendered every day more necessary as well as more dear to me by the addition of habit to inclination, and of frequent interruptions in my health to the gradual waste committed on it by t ime. On the other hand, the magnitude and difficulty of the trust to which the voice of my country called me, being sufficient to awaken in the wisest and most experienced of her citizens a distrustful scrutiny into his qualifications, could not but overwhelm with despondence one who (inheriting inferior endowments from nature and unpracticed in the duties of civil administration) ought to be peculiarly conscious of his own deficiencies. In this conflict of emotions all I dare aver is that it has been my faithful study to collect my duty from a just appreciation of every circumstance by which it might be affected. All I dare hope is that if, in executing this task, I have been too much swayed by a grateful remembrance of former instances, or by an affectionate sensibility to this transcendent pr oof of the confidence of my fellow-citizens, and have thence too little consulted my incapacity as well as disinclination for the weighty and untried cares before me, my error will be palliated by the motives which mislead me, and its consequences be judged by my country with some share of the partiality in which they originated.

Such being the impressions under which I have, in obedience to the public summons, repaired to the present station, 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 t hemselves for these essential purposes, and may enable every instrument employed in its administration to execute with success the functions allotted to his charge. In tendering this homage to the Great Author of every public and private good, I assure my self 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………

naugural Address of President John Adams

Philadelphia, March 4, 1797

WHEN it was first perceived, in early times, that no middle course 1 for America remained between unlimited submission to a foreign legislature and a total independence of its claims, men of reflection were less apprehensive of danger from the formidable power of fleets and armies they must determine to resist than from those contests and dissensions which would certainly arise concerning the forms of government to be instituted over the whole and over the parts of this extensive country. Relying, however, on the purity of their intentions, the justice of their cause, and the integrity and intelligence of the people, under an overruling Providence which had so signally protected this country from the first, the representatives of this nation, then consisting of little more than half its present number, not only broke to pieces the chains which were forging and the rod of iron that was lifted up, but frankly cut asunder the ties which had bound them, and launched into an ocean of uncertainty…..

I feel it to be my duty to add, if a veneration for the religion of a people who profess and call themselves Christians, and a fixed resolution to consider a decent respect for Christianity among the best recommendations for the public service, can enable me in any degree to comply with your wishes, it shall be my strenuous endeavor that this sagacious injunction of the two Houses shall not be without effect.

With this great example before me, with the sense and spirit, the 13 faith and honor, the duty and interest, of the same American people pledged to support the Constitution of the United States, I entertain no doubt of its continuance in all its energy, and my mind is prepared without hesitation to lay myself under the most solemn obligations to support it to the utmost of my power.

And may that Being who is supreme over all, the Patron of Order, the 14 Fountain of Justice, and the Protector in all ages of the world of virtuous liberty, continue His blessing upon this nation and its Government and give it all possible success and duration consistent with the ends of His providence.

Inaugural Address of President John Quincy Adams

March 4, 1825

In compliance with an usage coeval with the existence of our Federal Constitution, and sanctioned by the example of my predecessors in the career upon which I am about to enter, I appear, my fellow-citizens, in y our presence and in that of Heaven to bind myself by the solemnities of religious obligation to the faithful performance of the duties allotted to me in the station to which I have been called. ……..

To the guidance of the legislative councils, to the assistance of the executive and subordinate departments, to the friendly cooperation of the re