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!

Allow me to relieve my fellow bloggers and loyal readers: no, I have not yet been deported for sedition, thankfully. I am quite alive and well. A bit under the weather, and certainly very much preoccupied with an increased number of projects, but well. I would like to heartily thank those who have kept up the Founding Father’s Quote Friday meme in my protracted absense. My apologies that I have not kept up on your posts.

But I here now intend to resume said meme, starting today. Again, anyone willing to participate may. Here are the rules.

Because I am getting a late start in this meme, I am not going to put out a full-blown post here, just some weighty words from John Adams:

Posterity! you will never know how much it cost the present generation to preserve your freedom! I hope you will make a good use of it. If you do not, I shall repent in Heaven that I ever took half the pains to preserve it.
Letter to Abigail Adams, 26 April, 1777

SOURCE: Letters of John Adams, Addressed to His Wife (ed. by Charles Francis Adams), volume 1, page 218

Today, John Adams will answer that question for us. His answer comes from a letter written to an early American historian by the name of Hezekiah Niles, dated February 13, 1818. Several of Niles’ invaluable texts on American history are available for reading and searching here.

But what do we mean by the American Revolution? Do we mean the American war? The Revolution was effected before the war commenced. The Revolution was in the hearts and minds of the people; a change in their religious sentiments of their duties and obligations. …

There might be, and there were others who thought less about religion and conscience, but had certain habitual sentiments of allegiance and loyalty derived from their education. …

This radical change in the principles, opinions, sentiments, and affections of the people was the real American Revolution.

By what means this great and important alteration in the religious, moral, political, and social character of the people of thirteen colonies, all distinct, unconnected, and independence of each other, was begun, pursued, and accomplished, it is surely interesting to humanity to investigate, and perpetuate to posterity.

To this end, it is greatly to be desired, that young men of letters in all the States, especially in the thirteen original States, would undertake the laborious, but certainly interesting and amusing task, of searching and collecting all the records, pamphlets, newspapers, and even handbills, which in any way contributed to change the temper and views of the people, and compose them into an independent nation. (italics are Adams’ original underlining)

SOURCE: The Works of John Adams, volume 10, pp. 282-283

I think that a study of the First Great Awakening, particularly the influence of men like George Whitefield, would very much satisfy the ends of the search which Adams proposed. Indeed, my (hopefully) upcoming book on Alexander Hamilton will deal with this subject, specifically as relates to the shaping of Hamilton’s beliefs and destiny.

How is the Great Awakening responsible in a large degree for the Revolution? Books from the 19th century to the present have been written on the subject; but if I may sum it up simply: The teachings of men like Whitefield convinced men that 1) all men are radically depraved, and 2) they are dependent upon God, and not man-made institutions like the Church of England, for the security of their souls.

The first principle is apparently present in the thinking of our Founding Fathers, the men who framed our founding documents, as they grappled with framing a government with as much balance as possible to counter the constant flow of selfish ambition in all the parties involved in the structure of civil government. And of course, when the second principle was applied, self-government was made possible.

Remember: our First Revolution did not start with just a Tea Party; it started with a return of professing Christians to the Bedrock of the foundation of the Church — the Gospel of Christ. Unless this happens on an individual level, our nation can never be pleasing to God, nor can the body of professing American Christians be acceptable to God, and definitely, nor can our nation return to its founding principles of freedom.

I would encourage readers to refer to my very first Founding Fathers’ Quote Friday post.

I am very thrilled to announce that we have another new participant in FFQF: The Young American! See last week’s FFQF post here.

I hope to continue posting my series called “The Law of Liberty.” I’ve only posted my first installment, and that was some time ago. But, I promise to continue it, and also to continue my exciting series of posts unfolding the relationship between the Founding Fathers, and the Illuminati.

Today’s quote somewhat reflects the theme that I will be touching on in my upcoming installments of “The Law of Liberty.” It’s short, sweet, and simple truth, presenting by the admirable John Adams:

Strait [sic] is the gate and narrow is the way that leads to liberty, and few nations, if any, have found it.

To Richard Rush, Quincy, 14 May, 1821

Liberty — civil liberty — is not a thing easily achieved, or maintained. The essential ingredient that liberty requires is totally missing from human nature. Liberty requires virtue and accountability to be maintained. It requires purity, stability, and a selfless steadfastness. It requires the ability not to be bought or sold, or lulled or hushed.

Liberty is a rare thing in the world because (warning: politically incorrect statement ahead) liberty and human nature are incompatible. Human nature, left to itself in its fallen state, cannot achieve, much less maintain, lasting liberty. Human nature must experience a change before true and lasting liberty is possible.

Keep in mind that Adams made the above statement 5 years previous to his death. He was 86 years old. He had spent his life in making America independent and free. For him to make such a statement toward the end of his life reveals how sobering reality must have been.

It is not as simple as riot and anarchy to bring about, or to restore liberty. As I’ve said before, liberty is NOT maintained (as Jefferson made the mistake of asserting in his famous “tree of liberty” quote) by continually struggling with authority. History has shown that anarchy is substituted for liberty in those cases, and it’s high time that humanity learned the hard lesson that order NEVER comes out of chaos. Liberty is achieved when virtue (i. e., God’s standards) are maintained. Usually, this has only been practiced on a small scale among small groups.

Such were the Separatist Pilgrims who came to this country. They were our original Founders. Because of their godly dedication, our nation was the first republic in history to realize civil liberty on a national scale.

Be careful with your wording. Religion and morality are two very different things.

We don’t need a supernatural being to make us be good citizens and make moral choices. You must take responsibility and choose to be a moral person – it is much more genuine than someone making those sort of life decisions just to appease a higher being. I often wonder if religious people would still be “good” if they were to find out that there really isn’t a god (or gods, etc.)

As far as religion goes – keep your religion (by all means – it’s your freedom to enjoy), but also keep your religion out of my laws (it’s my country too). Laws are meant to govern a population so as not to oppress those and allow us all to live without fear of discrimination, unwarranted cruelty and/or threat to our lives and health. Religious-based laws often end up doing the opposite (don’t even get me started on this one).

So, in summary – freedom, love and equality for all (not just straight, Christian men and the women that agree with them). It’s that easy – if your religion doesn’t agree with that you must ask yourself where has your religion gone wrong?

I wrote back a rather lengthy response, in order to do this discussion a fair amount of justice (though I could have gone on longer). I do wish people would leave some kind of a name, so I could be more polite and have something more formal to address them with, rather than just “Anonymous.” I decided that it would be better if I made my response a post, rather than such a long comment. Here is that response:

Hello Anonymous. Welcome to my blog, and thanks for reading and leaving your comment.

I agree with you that religion and morality are two distinct things, but I also believe, along with John Adams and George Washington, that morality, on a nation-wide scale, depends upon the influence of religion (since they were speaking in an 18th-century American context, they would have been referring to Christianity in general — no other religion was accepted as valid in America at that time).

Since you seem to disagree with this premise, let me lay before you the following facts:

(1) Man is not inherently good. Oh yes, he has a conscience, and I agree with you that even those who are not religious can make moral choices on their own. The Bible itself tells us this in Romans 2:14-15. However, George Washington boldly declared in his Farewell Address: “And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.” In other words, while we may acknowledge that certain individuals may enlighten their minds, and act reasonably, rationally, and morally, societies and nations have not done this often enough or consistently enough throughout history, or even today, for us to trust that man, without accountability to a Higher Power, will do, or even know, what is right on his own.

(2) Please note that you are not just arguing with me on this subject. You are arguing with George Washington (quoted above), John Adams (quoted in the above post), Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and even Benjamin Franklin (read his scalding letter to Thomas Paine here). I’m not saying that these men were infallible; however, they did possess a lot of wisdom and virtuous character (recall that Washington has been called “the eighth wonder of the world” for his virtue) — enough to found the greatest and freest republic the world has ever known. So, you’d think that their words, not spoken off a whim, but rather, in solemn declarations to the public, would have some considerable weight.

To answer your statement: “You must take responsibility and choose to be a moral person – it is much more genuine than someone making those sort of life decisions just to appease a higher being. I often wonder if religious people would still be “good” if they were to find out that there really isn’t a god (or gods, etc.)”

I think you have a misunderstanding of how religion, or, I should say Christianity, works. Most world religions operate through fear or brainwashing to get people to be good and moral. Christianity, as the Bible defines it, is the work of God in a willing and repentant heart. By renouncing sin, turning from it, and to Jesus Christ and His righteousness, God gives us a new heart. Our appetite is no longer for sin or for the passing pleasures of immorality; God gives us a hunger for Him, and changes us. We act out of willing and grateful obedience for His forgiveness — out of love. Any goodness that Christians may perform is genuine because it is voluntary.

Think about this also: people may want to do right. They may go through all the hoops and hurdles, but there still is a problem. How do you know that everything you do is moral? Who decides what is and is not moral? Now, we may not dispute over things like murder, but how about covetousness? How about adultery? How about little lies? Some people may think those things are not very bad, while others are convinced they are. The truth is, that, they ultimately harm others and harm society. In a free society especially, such things have much bigger consequences.

Consider this also: why does morality matter? I mean, if there is no God, why bother? “Immoral actions hurt other people; that’s why it matters.” True, but how can you possibly tell what will hurt other people? And haven’t you noticed the strange tendency people have to justify the “small” wrong things they do saying “No one will know” or “it won’t hurt anybody”?

Once again, certain individuals may act upon these considerations, but this is not common, since humans are inherently selfish and short-sighted. Therefore, to entrust morals on a nation-wide scale to simple discretion is very dangerous, as Washington was quoted above as arguing.

You say to keep my religion out of your laws. Please define. It’s one thing to force others to convert to my religion, or profess certain creeds from my religion, by using the force of civil law. I am not attempting to do that, and I am not aware of any Christians who are.

But if it is moral laws that we are urging, based on our religious convictions, sorry — our Founders did that before we did. They outlawed sodomy, polygamy, forbade gambling, etc etc out of their own Christian principles. So what Christians want to say, pass laws banning abortion? First of all, it’s not a religious law. It’s a moral law (i. e., killing innocent life is morally wrong), and our belief that abortion is wrong (just like we believe murder, theft, etc is wrong) is based in our Christian beliefs. Maybe you don’t agree with Christianity, but if you have any real sense of morals, why would you object to such legislation? And how does that “religion-based” law hurt people? Maybe you should turn off the major news networks and do some studying.

You say that “laws are meant to govern a population so as not to oppress those and allow us all to live without fear of discrimination …”

It’s a bit hard for me to tell exactly what you are saying here, because I am assuming there is a part after “oppress those” which is missing. So my question is “‘those’ who?”

But let me say this: laws are indeed meant to discriminate. They are meant to discriminate criminals from the innocent, to lay down the difference between what is right and what is wrong in society.

The obvious question then is, “What is the ultimate standard between right and wrong?” If the rulers are left to themselves to decide, they very likely will make those decisions arbitrarily.

Having learned this lesson from history, our Founders set out to establish “a government by law, and not a government of men,” to use John Adams’ wording. But let me ask you this: without God, all law and all authority must ultimately trace to man. And therefore, all morality, all standards of right and wrong, would be the arbitrary dictates of man — usually the man/men with the most power.

Can you please tell me how you can get a government of law without God? I have asked this question to other atheists, and they have been unable to answer. Maybe you can help me, if you have any answer to this.

John Adams had such a way of telling stories. In his letters, and in his Autobiography (today’s selection comes from the latter), his recounting of amusing incidents, or, incidents he made amusing with his retelling, are unforgettable. Today’s selection reveals the amusing side of his “yankee” nature. John Adams liked to dicker and argue by nature. He walked, talked, ate, breathed, and yes, slept argument — literally. Perhaps no incident demonstrates this more than the little discussion he and Benjamin Franklin had about “theory of colds.” (You’ve probably never heard this one before.)

In the year 1776, they were traveling together, but it was getting late and they needed a place to stay before they could continue their journey. Adams recounted that the taverns were so full, there was not enough room to accommodate them, but they finally found some space at Brunswick — a single bed, in a room not much bigger than the bed, with no Chimney, and a small, open window.

The Window was open, and I, who was an invalid and afraid of the Air in the night (blowing upon me), shut it close. “Oh!” says Franklin, “don’t shut the Window. We shall all be suffocated. I answered I was afraid of the Evening Air. Dr. Franklin replied, the Air within this Chamber will soon be, and indeed now is worse than that without Doors: come! open the Window and come to bed, and I will convince you: I believe you are not acquainted with my Theory of Colds.”

Opening the Window and leaping into Bed [giving the Doctor a little bounce, perhaps?], I said that I had read his Letters to Dr. Cooper in which he had advanced, that Nobody ever got cold by going into a cold Church, or any other cold Air: but the Theory was so little consistent with my experience, that I thought it a Paradox: However I had so much curiosity to hear his reasons, that I would run the risque of a cold. [Here, ladies and gentlemen, is proof that the inhabitants of Missouri are descended from John Adams.]

The Doctor then began an harrangue [sic], upon Air and cold and Respiration and Perspiration, with which I was so amused that I soon feel asleep, and left him and his Philosophy together: but I believe they were equally sound and insensible, within a few minutes after me, for the last Words I heard were pronounced as if he was more than half asleep. … I remember little of the Lecture…
Autobiography

How eagerly Adams must have wished to cut in with one of Franklin’s own sayings, especially the one about small packages!

Today we will hear from an address which President John Adams gave to the officers of the First Brigade of the Third Division of the Massachusetts Militia, on October 11, 1798:

While our country remains untainted with the principles and manners which are now producing desolation in so many parts of the world; while she continues sincere, and incapable of insidious and impious policy, we shall have the strongest reason to rejoice in the local destination assigned us by Providence.

But should the people of America once become capable of that deep simulation towards one another, and towards foreign nations, which assumes the language of justice and moderation while it is practising [sic] iniquity and extravagance, and displays in the most captivating manner the charming pictures of candor, frankness, and sincerity, while it is rioting in rapine and insolence, this country will be the most miserable habitation in the world; because we have no government capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net.

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. … Oaths in this country are as yet universally considered as sacred obligations. That which you have taken and so solemnly repeated on that venerable spot, is an ample pledge of your sincerity and devotion to your country and its government. Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States (edited by Charles Francis Adams), volume 10, pages 227-228.

He does not come out and say it, but their need be no doubt that he is making the point that our Constitution cannot successfully govern us without religion and morality in the people, both in those who administer the government (since they are bound by their sacred oaths of office), and by the populace (since the amount of civil government needed to govern society will rely wholly upon their moral principles and habits, or lack thereof).

I think we too easily forget this truth — even we who are informed on these matters. Tyranny is a horrible thing, but it is the price that a nation pays for its own depravity. Our Constitution no longer binds us, or governs us, because, as Alexander Hamilton warned, we have become “old and corrupt,” and are no longer “young and virtuous.” (1)

I regret to say that all our attempts to reinstate the Constitution through legal and other means, even if successful, would be in vain. Why is this? To echo Adams: “Our Constitution is WHOLLY INADEQUATE to govern a people that is not religious and moral.” We are not, as a people, religious and virtuous. Even the Christian Church of this country is not, as a majority, religious and virtuous — at least, not in the true and biblical sense. Whether we realize it or not, we have taken on a very, very deceptive form of humanism, and by being like the culture, have become like the rotten meat, and not the salt and the light.

Do I suggest that we take our country back by force of arms? No. It is much too late for that.

Beyond the fact that our forms of resistance, humanly speaking, are far too inferior for us to stand the slightest chance, it would only aggravate the evil passions which dominate our nation now. I think Hamilton put it best: “[T]he passions of revolution are apt to hurry even good men into excesses.” (2)

I think we tend to take terms like “war” and “revolution” a bit to lightly; after seeing the approaching horrors of tyranny, we are quick to revert to the Jeffersonian saying that

“God forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion. … what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.” (3)

We easily ignore or forget, as Jefferson apparently did, the dearer cost than lives that war, particularly revolt, demands: innocence. Liberty is not preserved by the people struggling continually with their government; liberty is preserved by the people struggling to maintain virtue. War, and especially revolution, does anything but encourage virtue. On the contrary, it brings out the very worst in human nature. And when a nation revolts, it casts off the established authority, however excessive its power may have been, that once kept the people in check. At the same time, those who are most revolutionary (i. e., those who would cast off all control and all restraint) usually dominate revolutions and revolts. The outcome of such revolutions? Anarchy, and then another (usually more oppressive) form of despotism. Remember the French Revolution.

Every other revolution and revolt has had this fate — except the American Revolution. And the reason for our victory was not due to luck, or to our superior principles. I don’t even think that we could rightly say that American virtue insured its success. Rather, it was the hand and blessing of God. But as Washington said, “The propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right, which Heaven itself has ordained.” (4)

What then, is to be done? A Great Awakening is needed to shake the Christian Church away from the things of this world that have deceived her, and bring her back to Christ. But such an awakening will have to be brought on by more than just supernatural manifestations — it seems that the Church has idolized the spiritual in place of the Spirit, and has sought for the manifestations of God’s power, and not sought the powerful God. When we realize that even the gifts of God will profit us nothing apart from God, then we shall begin the road toward true revival.

To wake the American church out of her Laodicean apathy, however, there may have to come times of severe tribulation. Perhaps only then will she realize that she is poor, blind, and naked, and only then will she run to Christ, and receive from Him heavenly riches, eye salve, and unblemished garments (Revelation 3:14-22).

After the call to revival has gone forth, and those who have ears to hear have heard and obeyed, and those who have hard hearts will fall away, the great possibility is that then Christ will receive His Church. Maranatha!

Today’s selection on virtue comes from John Adams, who perhaps needs no introduction among the Founding Fathers, except for my prefatory remark that he was more essential to the Founding than several other Founders we seem to know more about and emulate these days (Jefferson and Franklin immediately come to mind — I’ll blog about that controversial subject soon!).

Although he did not participate in the Constitutional Convention (he was serving overseas as a diplomat), he was the chief author of the state constitution of Massachusetts — and the text and intent of the Constitution follows this constitution more than that of any other of the thirteen original states. John Adams also knew several of the people who labored over that document, and being one of the “founding” Presidents of the United States, is very much qualified to give an opinion on the spirit of the Constitution.

In a rather brief but powerful address to a division of the militia of Massachusetts, he declared that the success of the whole plan of Constitutional government, depends entirely upon virtue and morality in government and in the people.

While our country remains untainted with the principles and manners which are now producing desolation in so many parts of the world; while she continues sincere, and incapable of insidious and impious policy, we shall have the strongest reason to rejoice in the local destination assigned us by Providence. But should the people of America once become capable of that deep simulation towards one another, and towards foreign nations, which assumes the language of justice and moderation while it is practising [sic] iniquity and extravagance, and displays in the most captivating manner the charming pictures of candor, frankness, and sincerity, while it is rioting in rapine and insolence, this country will be the most miserable habitation in the world; because we have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

John Adams to the Officers of the 1st Brigade of the 3rd Division of the Militia of Massachusetts, October 11, 1798

How we have disregarded the wisdom of our ancestors.

*How was your FFQF today? Leave a comment below, with a link to your post.

Today’s quote comes from John Adams, one of the greatest and most influential Founders. The role he played, the honesty and virtue which marked his character, and the consistency of his convictions make him a greater statesman than Jefferson or Franklin.

Statesmen, my dear Sir, may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is religion and morality alone, which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue; and if this cannot be inspired into our people in a greater measure than they have it now, they may change their rulers and the forms of government, but they will not obtain a lasting liberty. They will only exchange tyrants and tyrannies. You cannot, therefore, be more pleasantly or usefully employed than in the way of your profession, pulling down the strong-holds of Satan. This is not cant, but the real sentiment of my heart. To Zabdiel Adams, June 21, 1776