If there is one thing America could use now, it’s an attitude of gratitude. Maybe a major factor in America’s straying is the thinking that we have entertained for several decades, is that we made ourselves great, and that therefore, America’s destiny and purpose was ours to carve. Contrary to what our humanist history books would have us believe, America is not a monument to man’s potential. It is a monument to the Gospel.

Generations of Christian martyrs fought with the world, stood firm under fire, and preserved the Scriptures with their blood, so that their descendants could live in this land in freedom, could spread the Gospel to the most distant corners of the earth, and shelter countless immigrants on our shores.

No nation has ever seen success without God’s help, and the nation that refuses to acknowledge that, and to respond with humility and gratitude has always been humbled.

No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the Invisible Hand which conducts the affairs of men more than those of the United States. Every step by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation seems to have been distinguished by some token of providential agency; and in the important revolution just accomplished in the system of their united government the tranquil deliberations and voluntary consent of so many distinct communities from which the event has resulted can not be compared with the means by which most governments have been established without some return of pious gratitude, along with an humble anticipation of the future blessings which the past seem to presage. These reflections, arising out of the present crisis, have forced themselves too strongly on my mind to be suppressed.

President George Washington, First Inaugural Address, April 30, 1789

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.

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)

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.

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!

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 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.

The following quotation comes from Alexander Hamilton’s powerful pamphlet, The Farmer Refuted (1775). It is one of his most fascinating pieces, and I have often called it an expanded form of the Declaration of Independence, written nearly a year before Jefferson started writing it. I highly recommend reading this work to gain an understanding of the principles and causes of the American Revolution. Here is one my personally favorite quotes of all time, on LIBERTY.

The sacred rights of mankind are not to be rummaged for among old parchments or musty records. They are written, as with a sunbeam, in the whole volume of human nature, by the hand of Divinity itself, and can never be erased or obscured by mortal power.

Hamilton penned these words when he was an 18-year-old student attending college. He was hardly a statesman then. His pamphlet, which he printed anonymously, was so powerful, that it was assumed that one of the more learned and distinguished patriotic New-Yorkers, like John Jay, had penned it. When it was revealed to Hamilton’s college professor (a Tory) the real identity of the author of The Farmer Refuted, he could not believe his ears, and insisted upon denying that it was Hamilton.

An 18-year-old college student, who had not been on American soil a full two years, was able to figure out, boldly state, and (*gasp*) put into consistent practice, something that not even our current administration (or most politicians today, for that matter) done!

Anyway, here is the quote from Jay’s letter:

“A proper history of the United States wold have much to recommend it: in some respects it would be singular, or unlike all others; it would develop the great plan of Providence, for causing this extensive part of our world to be discovered, and these ‘uttermost parts of the earth’ to be gradually filled with civilized and Christian people and nations. The means or second causes by which this great plan has long been and still is accomplishing, are materials for history, of which the writer ought well to know the use and bearings, and proper places. In my opinion, the historian, in the course of his work, is never to lose sight of that great plan.

“Remarkable interpositions of Divine Providence are fine subjects, but the exhibition cannot have a full effect, unless accompanied with a distinct view of the objects and state of things to which they relate; it is by discerning how admirably they are accommodated and fitted to answer their intended purposes, that the reader is made to reflect and feel properly.

“Few among us have time and talent for such a work. I am pleased with the prospect of your undertaking it; and I do believe, that with a due allowance of time, that is, of several years, you would execute it well.”Letter to Rev. Jedediah Morse, August 16, 1809

Mrs. Mecomber and Cato have decided to join the FFQ meme! Thanks guys!