The 236 Year Old Message to us From Philadelphia

I originally wrote this back in 2014, sharing again for relevance to this day.

Today, September 15th is a very important day in United States Constitutional history. No, it's not the day we celebrate as Constitution Day, that would be later this week on September 17th. On this day 236 years ago, the delegates to the Philadelphia Convention [today referred to as the Constitutional Convention but actually known to the framers as the Philadelphia or the Federal Convention of 1787] had been going over every section of every article in the final months of the Convention in 1787.

236 years ago, on a Saturday, just two days before the Convention in Philadelphia completed its work, we find a gem in the notes of James Madison, who took extensive notes just about every day of the convention. This item that I refer to as a “gem” is little known and hardly talked about today. On September 15, 1787, George Mason of Virginia (referred to in Madison’s notes as Col Mason), was alarmed that in the text of Article V (the provision for making Amendments to the Constitution), Congress would have sole power to propose amendments; Mason insisted, as he did earlier in June, that the states have authority to call for conventions. Mason explained that an oppressive Congress would never agree to propose amendments necessary to restrain a rogue, tyrannical legislature.

"Col. Mason thought the plan of amending the Constitution exceptionable & dangerous (only by Congress). As the proposing of amendments is in both the modes to depend, in the first immediately, in the second, ultimately, on Congress, no amendments of the proper kind would ever be obtained by the people, if the Government should become oppressive, as he verily believed would be the case.” (See Madison’s notes 15 Sep 1787).

To make sense of that, you must understand that earlier in the summer when the issue of even having an Amendment process was first brought up as a provision in the Constitution, many of the delegates thought it unnecessary. Madison’s notes record the following on June 11^th: “Col. Mason urged the necessity of such a provision [Amendments]. The plan now to be formed will certainly be defective, as the Confederation has been found on trial to be. Amendments therefore will be necessary, and it will be better to provide for them, in an easy, regular and Constitutional way than to trust to chance and violence. It would be improper to require the consent of the Natl. Legislature, because they may abuse their power, and refuse their consent on that very account…”.

Then by the time the convention reached its final days in mid September, the Amendment provision had been added as Article V, and the provision had two methods; the national legislature (Congress) could propose Amendments and the states could request that Congress propose specific amendments. However, both methods were left in the hands (power) of the national legislature, that’s what Mason meant when he referred in the first quote above as “both the modes to depend, in the first immediately, in the second, ultimately, on Congress”. Mason had objected to this back in June and now as the convention drew to a close, he rose to his feet to forcefully object with his reasons stated above (“It would be improper to require the consent of the Natl. Legislature, because they may abuse their power, and refuse their consent on that very account”). Madison’s notes of 15 Sept tell us that Mason’s motion was accepted and the language was changed in order to require [mandate] Congress to call a convention upon application of 2/3 of the states.

It is noteworthy to point out that this process does not call for a Constitutional Convention; the inane unscholarly language used in ignorance by today's opponents of the framers provision for the states to castrate an out of control federal government. The language specifies calling a convention for the purpose of “proposing amendments”…to the existing Constitution…it would still require 3/4ths of the states (38) to ratify any amendment proposed in this convention.

We owe George Mason and the other framers a huge debt for this...they had the foresight to understand first of all, that we needed an orderly process in which to amend our Constitution (“regular and Constitutional way than to trust to chance and violence” – Mason 11 June). Secondly we owe them a huge debt for recognizing and understanding the depravity of man and the extremely intoxicating effects of years of power in the hands of the same people (hence a need for term limits) and that these power intoxicated occupants of the United States Congress would “abuse their power, and refuse their consent” (Mason 11 June) to any amendments that would “injure” themselves and return powers never intended for the national legislature or any of the other branches for that matter, they would never take steps to return that power on their own to the rightful owner, the states/people (“no amendments of the proper kind would ever be obtained by the people, if the Government should become oppressive” – Mason 15 Sep).

The least we can do as citizens of this great nation today, citizens that do not seem to want to be bothered with taking the time to understand the underpinnings of their liberty, the least we can do is take the time to understand what the framers of this amazing document did for us. When the framers agreed on September 15^th, 1787 to change the text in Article V, they in effect were telegraphing a message to us in 2023, a message to us showing us the way back inside the fence of the Constitution, a way back to what Thomas Jefferson called the “chains of the Constitution”.

 Some Christian Worldview thoughts as we enter Independence Day weekend 2023.

Debate persists today concerning whether or not the men who assembled at Independence Hall in Philadelphia in the summer of 1776 had the biblical authority to formally enter a state of rebellion against their Romans 13 governing authority who lay across the vast Atlantic Ocean.

Most people never read this part of the Declaration of Independence:

“Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly, all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.”

 

These words reveal to us that these men most certainly did not take what they were doing lightly. Their words indicate that they not only didn’t take it lightly, they reminded us that experience showed that most of the time the people would suffer long and hard before trying to “right things.” History shows us that the founders in this era most certainly did long suffer before arriving at this point and had exhausted every means before them.

 

Without going into a long discourse of the meaning of the applicable passage in Romans 13 pertaining to civil government, suffice it to say that the command “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities” (Rom 13:1) is no more of an absolute command than is the command for a wife to be subject to her husband (Eph 5:22). It is a general command. Using Romans 13 to prove a tyrants’ claim that Christians must give absolute and total submission to civil government is like using Ephesians 5:22 to prove that a guy can beat his wife into submission.

 

There is much more that can be said concerning the proper interpretation of the Romans 13 civil government passage but for the purposes of this article/blog/post I’ll leave it with the mention that Romans 13:1-4 ranks among the most misinterpreted and ripped out of context passages in scripture. Verse 4 is hardly ever read when this is taught and is the verse that gives us context. It is the verse that exposes part of God’s design for civil government, the fact that civil government under God’s design is for the good of people. The founders understood this:

 

“That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…”. (See Deuteronomy 1:13 for God’s design of self-government).

 

Civil government under our founding charter is designed to perform a very limited and God ordained function.

 

Today, some of my conservative friends are too quick to repeat the part of the Declaration that explains the need for the founders rebellion:

 

“whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government…”

 

Let us remember that these men had exhausted all other recourse. For decades they had petitioned the crown for redress and were met with nothing but more tyranny. They had no recourse under a “rule of law”.

 

That is not the case today. When the framers of the United States Constitution met in Philadelphia in the hot summer of 1787 to revise America’s first governing document (the Articles of Confederation) they completely understood the tyranny that they had come from under the crown of England. They designed a system of federal civil government that would place all of the government under a “Rule of Law” rather than the Rule of Men. Understanding the biblical doctrine of the depravity of man, they designed a system of separating and dividing powers. They instituted mechanisms of redress for the people and the states to affect change if defects in the governing document were discovered. They gave us an incredible document in our United States Constitution, a system of government closely aligned with biblical precept and truth under which liberty could flourish and potential government tyranny could be checked.

Today, the Romans 13 biblical "Governing Authority" is no longer fallen man, but rather the United States Constitution and the Rule of Law. Let the Church in America glorify God for His goodness and His providence by standing up, speaking up, and showing up to defend the gift He has bestowed upon His church in America by engaging in the political process with Constitutional precision.

For more on Romans 13 and the "Governing Authority" you can access a more in-depth message I gave on this subject here.

Who is King in America?

Connecting the dots. 1 Peter 2:17 in part tells us to "honor the king". How many Christians understand who that earthly "king" is in a Constitutional Republic? In our nation, law is king. Our founders placed ALL elected offices under the United States Constitution. Article VI tells us that the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land. The great Reformer Samuel Rutherford in his work "Lex Rex" introduced the Church to the truth that men, due to their depraved nature, could never govern above the law, but rather needed to be constrained by law. Our founders understood this and therefore set up a system of civil government where Law would be king. In our country, The U.S. Constitution is "king". No law whether federal or state may contravene (violate) the U.S. Constitution.

God has blessed our nation with an earthly "king" (Constitution) that is very friendly to the Church. Indeed it was designed to protect the Church. Nothing inside of that document would ever put the Christian at odds with his God. How sad that so few in the American Church have been taught or understand this very relevant body of information.

Our problem: We don't recognize who the "earthly king" is.

Our nation is governed under a Constitutional Republic....NOT a Democratic Republic. This is not semantics, there is a big difference between the two. The latter is a set up for mob rule. The former is designed to place and keep men under the Rule of Law. In most other nations around the world, the Romans 13 / 1 Peter 2 governing authority is a human that has been placed into office. Not so in our country. If you claim Christ, it is imperative that you understand this in light of Romans 13/1 Peter 2. The "governing authority" and "human institution" in the United States of America is NOT any person inside the three branches of our government. Because of the United States Constitution....in our nation the Romans 13 / 1 Peter 2 governing authority is the Rule of Law....the United States Constitution.

How in the world can those that claim Christ obey the clear command in Romans 13 / 1 Peter 2 to "obey the governing authority" if they are not taught not "who"...but "what" that governing authority is in our nation? How will they know when their "governing authority" is being abused by humans? How will they know how to respond?

The Birthing of America: A Leading Event in the Gospel Dispensation

 

On July 4, 1837, some sixty-one years after the Declaration of Independence, at the invitation of the townspeople of Newburyport, Massachusetts, John Quincy Adams delivered a powerful oration that stands today as a fascinating and underutilized source when looking at the founders’ beliefs about God’s providence in the founding of the nation. Adams makes the ultimate connection between the founding documents and Christianity. Not only does he draw a connection to Christianity, he makes bold and profound pronouncements about the connection between the nation’s founding and the scriptures, Christ, the Declaration of Independence, emancipation, and American liberty and its connection to divine providence.

From the outset of the address, John Quincy Adams makes a powerful statement that reveals his deep personal belief in the providential hand of God in the founding of the nation:

Why is it that, next to the birthday of the Saviour of the World, your most joyous and most venerated festival returns on this day? —And why is it that, among the swarming myriads of our population, thousands and tens of thousands among us, abstaining, under the dictate of religious principle, from the commemoration of that birthday of Him, who brought life and immortality to light, yet unite with all their brethren of this community, year after year, in celebrating this, the birthday of the nation? Is it not that, in the chain of human events, the birthday of the nation is indissolubly linked with the birthday of the Saviour? That it forms a leading event in the progress of the gospel dispensation? Is it not that the Declaration of Independence first organized the social compact on the foundation of the Redeemer's mission upon earth? That it laid the corner stone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity, and gave to the world the first irrevocable pledge of the fulfilment of the prophecies, announced directly from Heaven at the birth of the Saviour and predicted by the greatest of the Hebrew prophets six hundred years before?[1]

Adams begins by asking a question that on the surface might seem heretical to the Christian, because he connects the founding of the nation with the birth of Christ. He then answers the question with an explanation of his meaning. He suggests the birth of the nation is “indissolubly” linked to the birth of Christ and he uses the phrase “chain of human events” to refer to what Christians call the providential hand of God. He goes on to stake the claim that the founding of the United States of America forms a primary or beginning event in the “gospel dispensation.” Adams could not possibly know how prescient his words would be, but his statements bear witness to his deep-felt belief in the guiding providential hand of God in the affairs of men and particularly in the affairs of the men who were part of the nation’s founding. The United States would become the largest liberty promoting nation in the history of the world. The liberty produced under the American system of government would propel the nation to one day become the largest exporter of Christian missionaries and Christian thought for the next two centuries, and thus become a powerful force in  the “dispensation” of the gospel.[2]

The American Church stands in history as among the most blessed of all of Christ's Church down through history, yet has squandered its inheritance through gross ignorance and failure to connect the dots. Let us take up the mantle bequeathed to us once again and labor to rescue our inheritance from the brink of destruction. Pray to the God of the nations to lend us His powerful hand once again so that American liberty can continue to be exercised for the furtherance of the gospel and the good of the civil society!

---

[1] John Quincy Adams, An Oration Delivered Before the Inhabitants of the Town of Newburyport, at Their Request: on the Sixty-First Anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, July 4th, 1837 (Newburyport, MA: Morss and Brewster, 1837), 5-6.

[2] George Thomas Kurian and Mark A. Lamport, Encyclopedia of Christianity in the United States, (Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 2016), 2370.

Read the entire Newburyport Address here: https://bit.ly/3hqwfGq

Erasing and Rewriting the History of the Thanksgiving Celebration

There is a profound movement today to rewrite or erase history as it pertains to the American founding. At the tip of the spear in this revisionist attack on the truth is the history of the Mayflower Separatists and what we know today as Thanksgiving history. Today, in my Constitutional Law and American Government course, the Mayflower Compact is covered as the first foundational document in America leading to the United States Constitution. But not only is the Mayflower Compact the cornerstone of American self government, the history of these early separatist settlers is profoundly important in identifying the providential hand of God in our nations founding.

I encourage you to consider the following as you prepare for our traditional holiday dedicated to the giving of thanks in our nation. Permit me to share a fascinating thing that we see from the historical account provided by William Bradford, about the people we refer to today as the "Pilgrims". God's hand of provision for this small groups dwindling numbers in the early part of year following their arrival at what they called "New Plymouth". Their first encounters with native American Indians are interesting and nothing short of miraculous. Keep in mind that the "frontier" of North America would have been literally at the beach line on the east coast. This group of Pilgrims was desperately in need of help in how to survive this new land with its unknown wildlife and other unforeseen dangers and hardships. With that in mind, let’s look at this account from Bradford's journal in the first months after landing at the northern tip of Cape Cod in November of 1620:

"All this while the Indians came skulking [sneaking] about them, and would sometimes show themselves aloof [remote, unapproachable] off, but when any approached near them, they would run away. And once, they stole away their [the Pilgrims’] tools where they had been at work, and were gone to dinner. But about the sixteenth of March a certain Indian came boldly amongst them, and spoke to them in broken English, which they could well understand, but marveled at it. At length they understood by discourse with him, that he was not of these parts, but belonged to the eastern parts, where some English-ships came to fish, with whom he was acquainted, and could name sundry of them by their names, amongst whom he had got his language. He became profitable to them in acquainting them with many things concerning the state of the country in the east-parts where he lived, which was afterwards profitable unto them; as also of the people here, of their names, number, and strength; of their situation and distance from this place, and who was chief amongst them."

"His name was Samoset; he told them also of another Indian whose name was Squanto, a native of this place, who had been in England and could speak better English than himself. Being, after some time of entertainment and gifts, dismissed, a while after he carne again, and five more with him, and they brought again all the tools that were stolen away before, and made way for the coming of their great Sachem [chief, tribal leader], called Massasoit; who, about four or five days after, came with the chief of his friends and other attendance, with the aforesaid Squanto."

Interestingly enough, what followed is not talked about much today, the next part of Bradford's journal records an agreement that was reached between these two groups. The journal records that "they made a peace with him [Massasoit]" (which continued for 24 years). This is important to note due to revisionist historians today that try to paint a distorted picture of the relationship between these early settlers and Native American Indians.  Just like depravity resides in all men today, it resided in all men at that time too. Just like there are "peaceful" people today, there were "peaceful" Indians back then.  Just as there are "wicked" people today, there were "wicked" people back then (both European and Native American Indian).  One cannot lump all of history into one sock so to speak. When we look at history from a Biblical Worldview, we ought to look at all of it; the good, the bad, and the ugly!  However, what we see in Bradford's account is God's hand at work bringing a group [tribe] of peaceful native Indians to the rescue of this group of English Separatists looking for the early vestiges of religious freedom in a new land. Take note of the items agreed to in Bradford's journal:

"1. That neither he nor any of his, should injure or do hurt to any of their people.

2. That if any of his did any hurt to any of theirs, he should send the offender, that they might punish him.

3. That if anything were taken away from any of theirs [the Pilgrims’], he [Massasoit] should cause it to be restored; and they should do the like to his.

4. If any did unjustly war against him [Massasoit], they [the Pilgrims] would aide him; if any did war against them, he [Massasoit] should aid them [the Pilgrims].

5. He should send to his neighbor’s confederates, to certify them of this, that they might not wrong them, but might be likewise comprised in the conditions of peace. [That is, different tribes should share members to prevent warfare or serve as hostages in case of war.]

6. That when their [the Indians’] men came to them [the Pilgrims], they [the Indians] should leave their bows and arrows behind them."

"After these things he [Massasoit] returned to his place called Sowams, some 40 miles from this place, but Squanto continued with them, and was their interpreter, and was a special instrument sent of God for their good beyond their expectation. He directed them how to set their corn, where to take fish, and to procure other commodities, and was also their pilot to bring them to unknown places for their profit, and never left them till he died. He was a native of this place, and scarce any left alive beside himself."

Don't miss the significance of this, nothing short of miraculous is the fact that this group of English Separatists were originally bound and chartered for a settlement in Virginia but were blown off course and landed in a desolate location unknown to them.  A harsh winter is awaiting them, and they desperately need help from someone knowledgeable of the local area. Into this God sends an Indian that speaks broken English [Samoset], but who knows another Indian that speaks fluent English [Squanto].  Ask yourself what the chances are that this group of Pilgrims accidentally landing in a location with one of the few if not only friendly English speaking Indians in North America? Coincidence or the providential hand of God?  Today we have all kinds of revisionists historians that have tried to rewrite our nation’s history and rewrite the hand of God out of it...look closely at this and decide for yourself.  Recall Bradford's words that I quoted above, Bradford referred to Squanto as "a special instrument sent of God for their good beyond their expectation." Bradford records that in late September of 1621, a group from New Plymouth set out to help another group that had settled in a nearby area, that in Bradford's terms had "made havoc of their provisions" and realized that "want [or need] would press them" in the coming winter months. In other word's this group had made unwise choices for their provisions and needed help. So they set out with this group to help them. Bradford records the following:
 

"All things being provided, Captain Standish was appointed to go with them, and Squanto for a guide and interpreter, about the latter end of September; but the winds put them in again, and putting out the second time, he [Captain Standish] fell sick of a fever, so the Governor went himself. But they could not get about the shoals of Cape Cod for flats and breakers, neither could Squanto direct them better, nor the master durst venture any further, so they put into Manamoyick Bay and got what they could there. In this place Squanto fell sick of an Indian fever, bleeding much at the nose (which the Indians take for a symptom of death), and within a few days died there; desiring the Governor to pray for him, that he might go to the Englishmen’s God in heaven, and bequeathed sundry of his things to sundry of his English friends, as remembrances of his love; of whom they had a great loss."

 

God had used this incredible man, Squanto. God through His marvelous works had ordained for Squanto to be taken to England years before by an earlier north Atlantic fishing expedition. This Indian had learned fluent English, and miraculously had been returned to his native land a few years later. Think about that...think about the time we are talking about...do you realize how utterly incredible those events are?  Then this group of Separatists from the Church of England set out to cross the Atlantic bound for a colony in Virginia...the end up in a place far from their intended destination.  They end up in a place where maybe the only fluent English speaking Native American Indian resides! God uses this man to train and help these early settlers and seekers of religious liberty.

The words of the Mayflower Compact tell us why these Pilgrims crossed the foreboding and dangerous north Atlantic ocean: "Having undertaken for the Glory of God, and Advancement of the Christian Faith".  These words tell us that they came to engage God's creation in a new world, they came to take God principles to the rest of His creation.  Let me be sure about one thing as I bring this to a close; these men were not perfect men, they were flawed men. But God was using them to take baby steps towards the liberty that we see written into the Bible. Lastly, don't miss what happened to Squanto! By all indications God used these Pilgrims to draw Squanto unto Himself, Bradford tells us that Squanto's last dying wish was to know this great God of these Englishmen and I am sure they were more than happy to share the good news of salvation with their Indian friend!

My hope is that you will read this incredible story of God's goodness to your families as you observe our great national tradition and gather for a Thanksgiving meal. Pass on these great historical events that point to the great guiding hand of Almighty God. Give thanks for all our Great God has done for us in this incredible nation, founded for HIS PURPOSES and for HIS GLORY!

The 233 Year Old Message to us From Colonel George Mason

As "Constitution Day" approaches on Thursday, September 17, it's a great opportunity to teach a little Constitutional history that is overlooked to the detriment of our great Republic today.

 

233 Years ago today (September 15), the delegates to the Philadelphia Convention (today referred to as the Constitutional Convention) had been going over every section of every article in the final months of the Convention in 1787. 233 years ago, on a Saturday, just two days before the Convention in Philadelphia completed its work, we find a gem in the notes of James Madison, who took extensive notes just about every day of the convention. This item that I refer to as a “gem” is little known and hardly talked about today. On September 15, 1787, George Mason of Virginia (referred to in Madison’s notes as Col Mason), was alarmed that in the text of Article V (the provision for making Amendments to the Constitution), Congress would have sole power to propose amendments; Mason insisted, as he did earlier in June, that the states have authority to call for conventions. Mason explained that an oppressive Congress would never agree to propose amendments necessary to restrain a rogue, tyrannical legislature.

"Col. Mason thought the plan of amending the Constitution exceptionable & dangerous. As the proposing of amendments is in both the modes to depend, in the first immediately, in the second, ultimately, on Congress, no amendments of the proper kind would ever be obtained by the people, if the Government should become oppressive, as he verily believed would be the case.” (See Madison’s notes 15 Sep 1787).

To make sense of that, you must understand that earlier in the summer when the issue of even having an Amendment process was first brought up as a provision in the Constitution, many of the delegates thought it unnecessary. Madison’s notes record the following on June 11^th: “Col. MASON urged the necessity of such a provision [Amendments]. The plan now to be formed will certainly be defective, as the Confederation has been found on trial to be. Amendments therefore will be necessary, and it will be better to provide for them, in an easy, regular and Constitutional way than to trust to chance and violence. It would be improper to require the consent of the Natl. Legislature, because they may abuse their power, and refuse their consent on that very account…”.

Then by the time the convention reached its final days in mid September, the Amendment provision had been added as Article V, and the provision had two methods; the national legislature (Congress) could propose Amendments and the states could request that Congress propose specific amendments. However, both methods were left in the hands (power) of the national legislature, that’s what Mason meant when he referred in the first quote above as “both the modes to depend, in the first immediately, in the second, ultimately, on Congress”. Mason had objected to this back in June and now as the convention drew to a close, he rose to his feet to forcefully object with his reasons stated above (“It would be improper to require the consent of the Natl. Legislature, because they may abuse their power, and refuse their consent on that very account”). Madison’s notes of 15 Sept tell us that Mason’s motion was accepted and the language was changed in order to require [mandate] Congress to call a convention upon application of 2/3 of the states.

It is noteworthy to point out that this process does not call for a Constitutional Convention; the language specifies calling a convention for the purpose of “proposing amendments”…to the existing Constitution…it would still require 3/4ths of the states (38) to ratify any amendment proposed in this convention.

We owe George Mason and the other framers a huge debt for this...they had the foresight to understand first of all, that we needed an orderly process in which to amend our Constitution (“regular and Constitutional way than to trust to chance and violence” – Mason 11 June). Secondly we owe them a huge debt for recognizing and understanding the depravity of man and the extremely intoxicating effects of years of power in the hands of the same people (hence a need for term limits) and that these power intoxicated occupants of the United States Congress would “abuse their power, and refuse their consent” (Mason 11 June) to any amendments that would “injure” themselves and return powers never intended for the national legislature or any of the other branches for that matter, they would never take steps to return that power on their own to the rightful owner, the states/people (“no amendments of the proper kind would ever be obtained by the people, if the Government should become oppressive” – Mason 15 Sep).

The least we can do as citizens of this great nation today, citizens that do not seem to want to be bothered with taking the time to understand the underpinnings of their liberty, the least we can do is take the time to understand what the framers of this amazing document did for us. When the framers agreed on September 15^th, 1787 to change the text in Article V, they in effect were telegraphing a message to us in 2020, a message to us showing us the way back inside the fence of the Constitution, a way back to what Thomas Jefferson called the “chains of the Constitution”.

The Birthday of the Nation "Indissolubly Linked" with the Birthday of the Saviour?

On July 4, 1837, some sixty-one years after the Declaration of Independence, at the invitation of the townspeople of Newburyport, Massachusetts, John Quincy Adams delivered a powerful oration that stands today as a fascinating and underutilized source when looking at the founders’ beliefs about God’s providence in the founding of the nation. Adams makes the ultimate connection between the founding documents and Christianity. Not only does he draw a connection to Christianity, he makes bold and profound pronouncements about the connection between the nation’s founding and the scriptures, Christ, the Declaration of Independence, emancipation, American liberty, and even his belief in the political doctrine of Manifest Destiny and its connection to divine providence.  From the outset of the address, John Quincy Adams makes a powerful statement that reveals his deep personal belief in the providential hand of God in the founding of the nation:

"Why is it that, next to the birthday of the Saviour of the World, your most joyous and most venerated festival returns on this day? —And why is it that, among the swarming myriads of our population, thousands and tens of thousands among us, abstaining, under the dictate of religious principle, from the commemoration of that birthday of Him, who brought life and immortality to light, yet unite with all their brethren of this community, year after year, in celebrating this, the birthday of the nation? Is it not that, in the chain of human events, the birthday of the nation is indissolubly linked with the birthday of the Saviour? That it forms a leading event in the progress of the gospel dispensation? Is it not that the Declaration of Independence first organized the social compact on the foundation of the Redeemer's mission upon earth? That it laid the corner stone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity, and gave to the world the first irrevocable pledge of the fulfillment of the prophecies, announced directly from Heaven at the birth of the Saviour and predicted by the greatest of the Hebrew prophets six hundred years before?"

Adams begins by asking a question that on the surface might seem heretical to the Christian, because he connects the founding of the nation with the birth of Christ. He then answers the question with an explanation of his meaning. He suggests the birth of the nation is “indissolubly” linked to the birth of Christ and he uses the phrase “chain of human events” to refer to what Christians call the providential hand of God. He goes on to stake the claim that the founding of the United States of America forms a primary or beginning event in the “gospel dispensation.” Adams could not possibly know how prescient his words would be, but his statements bear witness to his deep-felt belief in the guiding providential hand of God in the affairs of men and particularly in the affairs of the men who were part of the nation’s founding. The United States would become the largest liberty promoting nation in the history of the world. The liberty produced under the American system of government would propel the nation to one day become the largest exporter of Christian missionaries and Christian thought for the next two centuries, and thus become a powerful force in  the “dispensation” of the gospel. It is also noteworthy to point out in this initial passage of the address that Adams draws attention to John Locke’s social contract theory by pointing out that the Declaration of Independence laid the cornerstone for human civil government upon the precepts of Christianity.

This short blog is an excerpt form a larger thesis work entitled: John Quincy Adams Newburyport Address and Providentialism in America. Contact Bob Menges at bobmenges@bellsouth.net if you are interested in reading the full thesis.