To hear so many public figures, or even ordinary people who publicly sound their opinions, say it, many might answer “yes” to the above question. So many people, on all sides of any issue, see so many wrongs in a country, including ours, that need to be corrected. It seems to be the fashion these days, indeed, the fashion throughout the ages, to seek solution to moral and social ills in reason and in legislation. We humans tend to look to the source of power for the righting of wrongs; usually, that source of power, intended for the preservation of truth and justice (when Superman is not available, of course), is the government. We go to the halls of legislation and law enforcement to right social and moral wrongs. In doing so continually, we are demonstrating the great confusion we have over (1) the purpose and capability of government and (2) the cause of moral and social problems.

I have discussed these two issues extensively on this blog, so I will not go into these issues presently. Instead, I will focus on answering the original question: “Can legislation and reason change America’s moral climate?”

I choose to answer this question, by presenting to my readers a parable, in the form of a dream that Benjamin Rush had in September of 1808, which he related in a letter to his good friend John Adams in that same month. Benjamin Rush was deeply concerned about the effects of alcoholism on the American populace, especially after observing how one of his patients had abused it. This moral pestilence troubled him deeply, and followed him into his sleep. Hence the dream:

After having recently observed the fatal effects of intemperance in the use of ardent spirits in one of my patients, and reflecting afterwards upon the incalculable evils they are spreading through our country, I went to bed a few evenings ago at my usual hour, and during the night I dreamed that I had been elected President of the United States [may I insert here, that Dr. Rush was a very humble man?*]. At first I objected to accepting of the high and honorable station [See? What did I tell you?], but upon recollecting that it would give me an opportunity of exercising my long-cherished hostility to ardent spirits by putting an end to their general use in our country, I consented to accept the appointment and repaired to the city of Washington where I entered upon the duties with spirit and zeal.

The secretaries brought me a number of letters and reports. I laid them upon a table and told them I would do no business until I got a law passed by Congress to prohibit not only the importation and distilling but the consumption of ardent spirits in the United States and counties in which spirits were consumed in the greatest quantities. Petitions flowed in upon me from all quarters to advise Congress to repeal the law, but I refused to comply with them.

One day sitting alone in my council chamber, a venerable but plain-looking man was introduced to me by one of my servants. I offered him a chair and delicately asked him what his business was with me. “I have taken the liberty,” said he, “Mr. President, to call upon you to remonstrate with you against the law for prohibiting the importation, manufactory, and consumption of ardent spirits. He said the law was well enough for a month or two, during which time all the drunken men had become sober, but, protracted as it was for nearly a year, it did such violence to the physical and commercial habits of our citizens that it had not and could not be carried into general effect; that many of the persons who had conformed to it had been sick form drinking nothing but cold water; that the plow and the wagon stood still from the want of that strength in the men which they formerly derived from their morning dram; that the stage drivers and coachmen everywhere fell from their seats from the same cause; that the clergy in many places were unable to preach and the lawyers to plead from the want of a little grog to moisten and oil their organs of speech; that women everywhere became unusually peevish and quarrelsome from a relaxation of their nerves brought on by the want of a little brandy in their tea; and that all the West India merchants, distillers, and tavern-keepers in the country were in an uproar; and that unless the water and small beer law were instantly repealed, we should soon have our country filled with hospitals and our jails with bankrupts.”

“Hold, sir,” said I. “You don’t know the people of the United States as well as I do; they will submit to the empire of Reason, and Reason will soon reconcile them to the restrictions and privations of the law for sobering and moralizing our citizens.”

“Reason! Reason! Mr. President. Why, you forget that it was Reason in the form of a Goddess that produced all the crimes and calumnies of the French Revolution, and that it was by a book entitled The Age of Reason that Tom Paine demoralized half the Christian world. You forget too that men are rational only, not reasonable creatures. … But Mr. President … permit me to mention an empire of another kind to which men everywhere are yield a willing, and in some instances, involuntary, submission, and that is the Empire of Habit. You might as well well arrest the orbs [planets] of heaven in their course as suddenly change the habits of a whole people. Even in little things they resist sudden innovations upon their ancient and general customs. Peter, the husband of the late Catherine of Russia, lost his life for an attempt to change a part of the dress of his subjects. The inhabitants of Madrid once rose in a mob to oppose an edict which was intended to compel them to use privies in order to prevent the accumulation of night soil in their streets. An hundred other instances might be mentioned of the fatal or mischievous consequences of opposing the settled habits and prejudices of nations and communities.

“Indeed, Mr. President, I am sorry to tell you, you are no more a philosopher than you are of a politician, or you never would have blundered upon your spirit law. Let me advise you to retire from your present station and go back to your professor’s chair and amuse your boys with your idle and impracticable speculations, or go among your patients and dose them with calomel and jalap [internal medical purges] –”

“Stop, stop, sir,” said I. “What do you mean by thus insulting the First Magistrate of your country? Here, John (calling to my servant), turn this man out of doors.” The noise of John coming hastily into the council chamber, and the vexation I felt in being thus insulted, awoke me and made me happy in discovering that the whole of the scene that I have described was nothing but a dream.”
Benjamin Rush: Signer of the Declaration of Independence, by David Barton, pages 153-156; cites Letters of Benjamin Rush (edited by Lyman Butterfield), volume 2, pages 977-979
*DISCLAIMER: It is not the intention of the author to be sarcastic, but the styling of Rush’s words here prompted him, and said author could not resist inserting a little humor. Said author does indeed believe in the humble character of Doctor Benjamin Rush.

There is a lesson that can be learned from this. Rush saw a legitimate problem, and he cared about it enough to try to fix it, as much as was within his power. His solution came through the means of strict legislation, that was sure, he thought, to stamp out the problem (liquor) once and for all. He was convinced that the people of America would “submit to the empire of Reason” — that they would see the wisdom in such legislation, and would jump on the bandwagon of anti-alcoholism, “President Rush”-style. This, of course, did not seem to happen. Such was the complaint among the people, that Congress was flooded with petitions, and “President Rush” was himself personally visited by one of the protectors. This anonymous visitor seems to have taken less concern for the moral health of the nation than for other things; and he did not seem to argue very strongly in support of his view, until he argued that men are more creatures of habit than creatures of logic.

This was his unshakable point. It is a point that we Christians especially seem to miss in so many of our efforts to reclaim our culture and win the hearts and souls of our fellow-men. We think that it will only take reason and the arm of the law to at least preserve the corps of what is long-dead. We try to work up and to manufacture what only the Holy Spirit can do with willing and obedient vessels. As I wrote recently, our refusal to learn this lesson is reaping bitter fruit. Let us learn it and apply it while we still have time.

Thanks for reading Founding Father’s Quote Friday! If you would like to participate in the weekly meme, visit this link, and write me a comment, with a link to your blog, letting me know that you participate. If you participated today, leave a comment with a link to your FFQF post below! Thank you!

Founding Father Benjamin Rush, signer of the Declaration of Independence and “father of American education” (until about 100 years ago) brings things in perspective.

I have been alternately called an aristocrat and a democrat. I am now neither. I am a Christocrat. I believe all power … will always fail of producing order and happiness in the hands of man. He alone who created and redeemed man is qualified to govern him. David Ramsey, An Eulogium Upon Benjamin Rush, M. D., 1813, p. 103

SOURCE: Benjamin Rush: Signer of the Declaration of Independence, by David Barton

In a day and age when our society embraces moral relativism and religious relativism, in a day and age when these demented philosophies have produced more major problems than we seem to be able to grapple with, and in a day and age that refuses to turn to God in the midst of escalating licentiousness and decadence, the words of our wise forefathers need so much to be considered and applied.

It is now several months since I promised to give you my reasons for preferring the Bible as a schoolbook to all other compositions. Before I state my arguments, I shall assume the five following propositions:

1 . That Christianity is the only true and perfect religion; and that in proportion as mankind adopt its principles and obey its precepts they will be wise and happy.

2. That a better knowledge of this religion is to be acquired by reading the Bible than in any other way.

…

Every just principle that is to be found in the writings of Voltaire is borrowed from the Bible; and the morality of Deists, which has been so much admired and praised where it has existed, has been, I believe, in most cases, the effect of habits produced by early instruction in the principles of Christianity.

Benjamin Rush, A Defense of the Use of the Bible in Public Schools

Why then, if these books for children must be retained, as they will be, should not the Bible regain the place it once held as a school book? Its morals are pure, its examples captivating and noble. The reverence for the sacred book that is thus early impressed lasts long; and probably, if not impressed in infancy, never takes firm hold of the mind.

Fisher Ames, Essay on School Books (1801)

Why may not the Bible, and especially the New Testament, without note or comment, be read and taught as a divine revelation in the college — its general precepts expounded, its evidences explained, and its glorious principles of morality inculcated? What is there to prevent a work, not sectarian, upon the general evidences of Christianity, from being read and taught in the college by lay-teachers? … Where can the purest principles of morality be learned so clearly or so perfectly as from the New Testament? Where are benevolence, the love of truth, sobriety, industry, so powerfully and irresistibly inculcated as in the sacred volume?

Chief-Justice Joseph Story, Opinion of the United States Supreme Court in the case Vidal v. Girard’s Executors (1844)

Last week we discussed the necessity of religious principle in the people of the republic in order for it to remain free. To use the words from last week’s quote: “Does [morality] require the aid of a generally received and divinely authoritative religion?”

It is here that we run into a little dilemma, however. Our modern minds read statements like this, and we are mislead into believing that this statement does not discriminate between certain religions. The use of the term “religion,” in our modern dictionaries, is far more general than its use by our American Founders. Here is the modern definition of the term:

A set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

But that is not how our Founders defined “religion” when they spoke of it in most cases. To illustrate, here is the definition of “religion” from Noah Webster’s 1828 American-English Dictionary:

1. Religion, in its most comprehensive sense, includes a belief in the being and perfections of God, in the revelation of his will to man, in man’s obligation to obey his commands, in a state of reward and punishment, and in man’s accountableness to God; and also true godliness or piety of life, with the practice of all moral duties. It therefore comprehends theology, as a system of doctrines or principles, as well as practical piety; for the practice of moral duties without a belief in a divine lawgiver, and without reference to his will or commands, is not religion.

As most modern dictionaries, the most common use of a term is listed first; hence the number “1″ at the beginning of this paragraph. And then, in descending order, the lesser-used terms are listed. Let’s see what they are:

2. Religion, as distinct from theology, is godliness or real piety in practice, consisting in the performance of all known duties to God and our fellow men, in obedience to divine command, or from love to God and his law. James 1.

Please notice that he uses as his authority for his definition, the Epistle of James 1, in the Bible. No doubt Webster was referring to the portion of that chapter which reads: “Pure and undefiled religion before God and the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their trouble, and to keep oneself unspotted from the world.”

3. Religion, as distinct from virtue, or morality, consists in the performance of the duties we owe directly to God, from a principle of obedience to his will. Hence we often speak of religion and virtue, as different branches of one system, or the duties of the first and second tables of the law.

And then, like many modern dictionaries, he uses a sentence to illustrate in the mind of his readers, the full sense of this definition. Lo and behold, he uses this sentence, from Washington’s “Farewell Address”:

Let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion.

This sheds tremendous light upon the definition of “religion” used in this important declaration. With that in mind, let us now paraphrase Washington’s statement for the modern American reader:

Let us be very careful lest we suppose that a nation that neglects the duties it owes to God (that is, the duties which He Himself has revealed to us and commanded us) can still preserve its morality.

And here are the last two definitions of “religion” given by Webster. In his time, these would have been the definitions least used when Americans used the term “religion”:

4. Any system of faith and worship. In this sense, religion comprehends the belief and worship of pagans and Mohammedans, as well as of christians; any religion consisting in the belief of a superior power or powers governing the world, and in the worship of such power or powers. Thus we speak of the religion of the Turks, of the Hindoos, of the Indians, &c. as well as of the christian religion. We speak of false religion, as well as of true religion.

5. The rites of religion; in the plural.

How curious that the least used sense of the term has become the most-used definition today!

So, to answer our dilemma, with this information in mind, let us turn to Benjamin Rush:

The form of government we have assumed has created a new class of duties to every American. It becomes us, therefore … to enquire [sic] what mode of education we shall adopt so as to secure to the state all the advantages that are to be derived from the proper instruction of youth; and here I beg leave to remark, that the only foundation for a useful education in a republic is to be laid in religion. Without this there can be no virtue, and without virtue there can be no liberty, and liberty is the object and life of all republican governments.

Such is my veneration for every religion that reveals the attributes of the Deity, or a future state of rewards and punishments, that I had rather see the opinions of Confucius or Mahomed [sic] inculcated upon our youth than see them grow up wholly devoid of a system of religious principles. But the religion I mean to recommend in this place is that of the New Testament. …

All its doctrines and precepts are calculated to promote the happiness of society and the safety and well being of civil government. A Christian cannot fail of being a republican. … for every precept of the Gospel inculcates those degrees of humility, self-denial, and brotherly kindness which are directly opposed to the pride of monarchy and the pageantry of a [king's] court. A Christian cannot fail of being useful to the republic, for his religion teacheth him that no man “liveth to himself” [Romans 14:7]. And lastly, a Christian cannot fail of being wholly inoffensive, for his religion teacheth him in all things to do to others what he would wish in like circumstances they should do to him [Matthew 7:12].

On the Mode of Education Proper in a Republic (1798); quote from Benjamin Rush: Signer of the Declaration, by David Barton (1999), pp. 45-46

Today’s quote comes from Benjamin Rush, a great but under-estimated Founding Father and American. In my humble opinion, he was one of the greatest men among the Founding Fathers. David Barton wrote an excellent biography of him, which is available from Wallbuilders, as a PDF on CD-Rom, or a book (paperback or hardback).

I think that Rush is a very fitting person to speak on this subject. The fact that he was an educator, physician, and social activist, as well as the fact that he and his wife Julia had thirteen children (!), certainly put him in a very good position to appreciate the important role of mothers.

From the numerous avocations from their families, to which a professional life exposes gentlemen in America, a principal share of the instruction of children naturally devolves upon the women. It becomes us therefore to prepare them by a suitable education, for the discharge of this most important duty of mothers. …

From the numerous avocations from their families, to which a professional life exposes gentlemen in America, a principal share of the instruction of children naturally devolves upon the women. It becomes us therefore to prepare them by a suitable education, for the discharge of this most important duty of mothers. …

The influence of female education would be still more extensive and useful in domestic life. The obligations of gentlemen to qualify themselves by knowledge and industry to discharge the duties of benevolence, would be increased by marriage; and the patriot — the hero — the legislator, would find the sweetest reward of their toils, in the approbation and applause of their wives.

Children would discover the marks of maternal prudence and wisdom in every station of life; for it has been remarked that there have been few great or good men who have not been blessed with wise and prudent mothers. Thoughts Upon Female Education (1787) from Essays on Literary, Moral, and Political Subjects (by Benjamin Rush), page 76 and 88

Although it is true that fathers are the heads of their respective families, and therefore bear the burden of responsibility to lead the family in virtue and uprightness, mothers, at least in our country, are the most fundamental instructors of youth. Their words and their example effect children from their earliest years.

Today, I would like to make the sad announcement that our friend Jean from Yeah, Right… will not be contributing to FFQF. I have really appreciated her posts in the past, and she has a great blog. She will continue to blog, and she is writing a book (which takes up time, and is why she must skip our meme), but she is doing as God leads, and that is not to be regretted. We will miss you, Jean!

But what is more mysterious and wonderful is little known. Doctor Benjamin Rush, a close friend of both Adams and Jefferson (himself also a signer of the Declaration of Independence) even through the years of their political rivalry, had a dream sometime before the reconciliation of the two men.

A little background: Dr. Rush was not an ardent follower of either political party; he had close friends among leaders of both parties, working in the Presidential administrations of Presidents who were leaders of different parties. And not only was Rush a warm friend of Adams and Jefferson, but of Alexander Hamilton, who, as the years progressed, was less and less friendly with both of those two men. Rush summed up his own political affiliation in the following words:

I have been alternately called a democrat and an aristocrat. I am now neither. I am a Christocrat. … He alone who created and redeemed man is qualified to govern him.” (1)

Benjamin Rush, especially close to Adams and Jefferson, was deeply disturbed by their irreconcilable differences. But on October 17, 1809, Rush wrote to Adams of a dream in a letter that would change the course of the lives of those three men forever. Rush wrote as follows:

“What book is that in your hands?” said I to my son Richard a few nights ago in a dream. “It is the history of the United States,” said he. “Shall I read a page of it to you?” “No, no,” said I. “I believe in the truth of no history but in that which is contained in the Old and New Testaments.” “But, sir,” said my son, “this page relates to your friend Mr. Adams.” “Let me see it then,” said I. I read it with great pleasure and herewith send you a copy of it.

Rush then wrote down the words of the page of the “history book” he dreamed that he saw. (This book, of course, would have been written many years after Rush actually had the dream; so, to save confusion, Rush was dreaming of reading a history book written in the future.)

“1809. Among the most extraordinary events of this year was the renewal of the friendship and intercourse between Mr. John Adams and Mr. Jefferson, the two ex-Presidents of the United States. They met for the first time in the Congress of 1775. Their principles of liberty, their ardent attachment to their country . . . being exactly the same, they were strongly attracted to each other and became personal as well as political friends. . . . A difference of opinion upon the objects and issue of the French Revolution separated them during the years in which that great event interested and divided the American people. The predominance of the party which favored the French cause threw Mr. Adams out of the Chair of the United States in the year 1800 and placed Mr. Jefferson there in his stead. The former retired with resignation and dignity to his seat at Quincy, where he spent the evening of his life in literary and philosophical pursuits, surrounded by an amiable family and a few old and affectionate friends. The latter resigned the Chair of the United States in the year 1808, sick of the cares and disgusted with the intrigues of public life, and retired to his seat at Monticello, in Virginia, where he spent the remainder of his days in the cultivation of a large farm agreeably to the new system of husbandry.

“In the month of November 1809 [a month after this letter was written], Mr. Adams addressed a short letter to his friend Mr. Jefferson in which he congratulated him upon his escape to the shades of retirement and domestic happiness, and concluded it with assurances of his regard and good wishes for his welfare. This letter did great honor to Mr. Adams. It discovered a magnanimity known only to great minds. Mr. Jefferson replied to this letter and reciprocated expressions of regard and esteem. These letters were followed by a correspondence of several years in which they mutually reviewed the scenes of business in which they had been engaged, and candidly acknowledged to each other all the errors of opinion and conduct into which they had fallen during the time they filled the same station in the service of their country. Many precious aphorisms [truths], the result of observation, experience, and profound reflection, it is said, are contained in these letters. It is to be hoped the world will be favored with a sight of them. . . . These gentlemen sunk into the grave nearly at the same time, full of years and rich in the gratitude and praises of their country.” (2)

Fascinating! Every detail of this dream came to pass. Adams, in accordance with the “dream page” Rush had wrote to him, congratulated Jefferson on final retirement to public life, and this letter did indeed begin a series of letters between the two men on topics most interesting to the world, and they both “sunk into the grave at nearly the same time full of years and rich in the gratitude and praises of their country.”

Another detail of this dream is worth noticing. The son of Rush who introduced the page to his father in the dream was Richard Rush. Richard Rush grew up to serve the American public under the Presidents who succeeded Adams and Jefferson, including President James Madison (perhaps Jefferson’s best friend of his latter years) and President John Quincy Adams (son of John Adams). Amazing; the very young man in Rush’s dream concerning the reconciliation of Adams and Jefferson would serve under the son of Adams and the best friend of Jefferson.

It is impossible that the circumstances and details of this dream could have been controlled by the principle persons in it. True, John Adams may have chosen to write to Jefferson on that date because of Rush’s dream letter, but neither Adams nor Rush nor Jefferson could have controlled every aspect of the dream, including the ability of Adams to live to the incredible age of 96 and Jefferson to 86 so that they would both pass away on the 50th anniversary of American independence, and that at the same time! And what is incredible is that Rush could not have written this letter after the fact, giving himself the credit for the foretelling of these awesome events, because he never lived to see the dream fully fulfilled, passing away in the year 1813. Rush’s date of decease is too interesting; he passed away on April 19, the very day the the “shot heard round the world” was fired at Lexington and Concord, which in turn opened the way for the Declaration of Independence, 38 years before.

The accuracy of Rush’s dream, and the impossibility that man could have controlled the circumstances in order to paint this incredible picture, can point only in the direction of God whom the Founders often referred to as “Divine Providence.” This term of referring to God as Providence is, apart from the interpretation of modern historians, anything but a strictly deistic way to refer to God. The term “Providence” refers to God’s beneficent care and protection of the human race (our “Provider”), something that can hardly be in accordance with deistic principles. But I will write more on the line of deism and the Founding Fathers in another post.

For now, however, we can only acknowledge the indisputable fact that God’s hand was indeed involved in American history, as this set of events so powerfully illustrates.

NOTES:
(1) Benjamin Rush, Signer of the Declaration of Independence, by David Barton; p. 243
(2) same; pp. 198-200