Every Leaf, Line, and Letter E-Book
Erhalten Sie Zugang zu diesem und mehr als 300000 Büchern ab EUR 5,99 monatlich.
- Herausgeber: IVP Academic
- Kategorie: Religion und Spiritualität
- Sprache: Englisch
- Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2021
"I was filled with a pining desire to see Christ's own words in the Bible. . . . I got along to the window where my Bible was and I opened it and . . . every leaf, line, and letter smiled in my face." —The Spiritual Travels of Nathan Cole, 1765 From its earliest days, Christians in the movement known as evangelicalism have had "a particular regard for the Bible," to borrow a phrase from David Bebbington, the historian who framed its most influential definition. But this "biblicism" has taken many different forms from the 1730s to the 2020s. How has the eternal Word of God been received across various races, age groups, genders, nations, and eras? This collection of historical studies focuses on evangelicals' defining uses—and abuses—of Scripture, from Great Britain to the Global South, from the high pulpit to the Sunday School classroom, from private devotions to public causes. Contributors: - David Bebbington, University of Stirling - Kristina Benham, Baylor University - Catherine Brekus, Harvard Divinity School - Malcolm Foley, Truett Seminary - Bruce Hindmarsh, Regent College, Vancouver - Thomas S. Kidd, Baylor University - Timothy Larsen, Wheaton College - K. Elise Leal, Whitworth University - John Maiden, The Open University, UK - Mark A. Noll, University of Notre Dame - Mary Riso, Gordon College - Brian Stanley, University of Edinburgh - Jonathan Yeager, University of Tennessee at Chattanooga
Sie lesen das E-Book in den Legimi-Apps auf:
Seitenzahl: 639
Das E-Book (TTS) können Sie hören im Abo „Legimi Premium” in Legimi-Apps auf:
Sammlungen
Ähnliche
For David Bebbington
Scholar, mentor, and friend
“I was filled with a pineing desire to see Christs own words in the bible. . . . I got along to the window where my bible was and I opened it and the first place I saw was the 15th Chap: John—on Christs own words and they spake to my very heart and every doubt and scruple that rose in my heart about the truth of Gods word was took right off; and I saw the whole train of Scriptures all in a Connection, and I believe I felt just as the Apostles felt the truth of the word when they writ it, every leaf line and letter smiled in my face; I got the bible up under my Chin and hugged it; it was sweet and lovely; the word was nigh me in my hand, then I began to pray and to praise God.”
Contents
Introduction
Thomas S. Kidd
THERE IS SEEMINGLY NO END to definitions of the term evangelical. But it would be hard to imagine any sufficient definition of an evangelical Christian that did not include a reference to the Bible. In the words of the prophet Zechariah, evangelicals have always been Christians who carry “the burden of the word of the Lord.” That mandate has included Bible reading, Bible preaching, and Bible distribution, among many other Bible-centered practices. As this volume shows, however, the uses that evangelicals have made of the Bible are almost as varied as evangelicals themselves.
David Bebbington crafted the best-known definition of evangelicals: the so-called Bebbington Quadrilateral. As Bebbington outlined them in his landmark book, Evangelicalism in Modern Britain (1989), the four defining characteristics of evangelicals are activism, biblicism, conversionism, and crucicentrism (the centrality of the cross). Bebbington undoubtedly would give each of these four characteristics equal weight, but conversionism and biblicism are arguably the most distinctive characteristics of the four. Conversion, or being born again, is the entryway into life in Christ as an evangelical, and many of the most characteristic practices of converted believers and their churches center on the Bible.1
We could multiply examples of the connection between conversion and the Bible for evangelicals (and in the longer Reformed and Augustinian traditions), but consider the experience of Connecticut farmer Nathan Cole, who went through a long conversion travail after hearing the great evangelist George Whitefield preach in the early 1740s. Cole wrote in his conversion testimony that when he broke through to assurance of salvation, his “heart was broken; my burden was fallen off my mind; I was set free.” Instantly he wanted to “see Christ’s own words in the Bible,” and when he began to read, it was a delightful experience like he had never had before. “Every leaf, line, and letter smiled in my face,” he wrote. “I got the Bible up under my chin and hugged it.” He began to pray and to praise God for the new life he had in Christ, mediated by new understanding of the Bible.2
Instead of discussing evangelicals generally, or even all four of the Quadrilateral’s characteristics, this volume focuses on evangelicals and the Bible. That theme allows us to emphasize that amid the vast ethnic, denominational, geographic, and cultural differences among evangelicals around the world, there are characteristics and habits that still sufficiently mark certain Protestant Christians to identify them as evangelicals. In America, the term evangelical has now become inextricably connected to Republican politics, to an extent that puzzles and disturbs many scholars as well as some evangelicals, including many outside the United States. Although White American evangelical voters’ attachment to the Republican Party is an important story, in global and historical perspective there is much more to say about what has made an evangelical an evangelical than politics. There’s no better place to start with evangelical identity than examining the uses that evangelicals—including men and women of many nations and ethnicities, but increasingly those of the Global South—have made of the Bible.
Befitting the broader chronological and geographic trajectory of the evangelical movement, this volume begins with the Bible and Anglo-American evangelicals of the eighteenth century, but moves out to consider the experiences of African American evangelicals, and then (especially in the case of the chapters written by Brian Stanley and John Maiden) to offer broad perspectives regarding biblicism and global evangelical development in the twentieth and even twenty-first century. As always in such discussions, pastors and published writers receive a lot of attention here, but the contributors also balance the experiences of men and women, the famous and the obscure, in order to get a deeper sounding of what difference the Bible has made in evangelicals’ beliefs, experiences, and religion as they actually lived it.
The scholars writing for this volume assume, with Bebbington, that whatever precedents there were for evangelical piety in the older Protestant and Augustinian traditions, evangelical faith represented a significantly new development in the era of the Great Awakening (beginning in the 1730s). Bible reading and interpretation was inescapably central to that development, but evangelical biblicism was also immediately contested. Bruce Hindmarsh’s chapter shows that while evangelicals are often characterized by scholars and journalists as taking a “literal” or “commonsense” reading of Scripture, they also could employ a “figurative” reading when text, disposition, or circumstance warranted it. This figurative reading was the practice of evangelicals from little-known English Methodist women to Jonathan Edwards, whose grand typological readings of Scripture represented a response to aspects of the Enlightenment that seemed to be marginalizing God in the world. As Jonathan Yeager shows, however, Edwards’s interpretations of Scripture did not yield universal affirmation, even from some of his most admiring correspondents, such as the Reverend John Erskine of Edinburgh. Common devotion to the Bible, even among people from such common intellectual and cultural circles as Edwards and Erskine, did not necessarily produce agreement on such fundamental questions as the nature of salvation. Kristina Benham illustrates the dizzying variety of uses that evangelical writers could make of a single biblical narrative such as the exodus. When the politics and struggles of the American Revolutionary era intruded, evangelicals spun a host of creative and sometimes contradictory uses of such biblical narratives, and conflicting ideas about their contemporary applications.
Moving into the nineteenth century, Elise Leal’s chapter shows that evangelical leaders desperately wanted children and teenagers to become familiar with the Bible and to create a “children’s Bible culture.” Adult sponsors of the American Sunday school movement labored to achieve transmission of Scripture across the generational divide (a perennial challenge for each generation of evangelicals), but they were never quite certain how much to view or empower Sunday school pupils and young teachers as religious agents in their own right. Mark Noll’s examination of the near-simultaneous emergence of anti- and pro-slavery biblical arguments during America’s antebellum era extends the point that biblicism did not always lead to agreement among evangelicals, especially evangelicals of differing regional identities and economic interests. Noll also suggests just how much historical circumstances—such as the crises over the admission of Missouri to the Union and the alleged Denmark Vesey slave revolt in Charleston in the 1820s—could affect Bible interpretation.
Mary Riso focuses our attention on the piety of one evangelical Bible reader—Josephine Butler, a prominent English women’s rights reformer of the late 1800s. Butler encapsulated the individualistic, quasi-mystical, and enormously powerful engine that was evangelical biblicism. The life of evangelical faith undergirded Butler’s energetic career as a writer and political activist. David Bebbington’s contribution to this book illustrates, in classic Bebbington fashion, the enduring mandate to defend the “divine authority, truth, and integrity of the whole Bible,” which drew on a striking range of British evangelicals and fundamentalists in the 1920s. Bebbington shows that the evangelical campaign to defend the Bible against the perceived assaults of modernist thought was hardly limited to American denominations and seminaries in the era of the fundamentalist-modernist conflict. It was a cause taken up throughout the Anglophone world. England’s Bible League united a remarkable cohort of British churches and parachurch organizations, including ministries for soldiers and policemen, Protestant (anti-Catholic) alliances, associations for premillennial theology, Jewish evangelization societies, and more. Timothy Larsen’s chapter reminds us, however, that there has always been tension between the category of evangelical, and the name evangelical. He illustrates this dilemma by reference to the early twentieth century’s “Liberal Evangelical” cohort in the Church of England, especially Vernon Storr, who for much of his ministry was a Canon of Westminster. Storr and his followers enthusiastically embraced the moniker “evangelical” and promoted three of the four attributes in the Quadrilateral—all of them except biblicism. The Liberal Evangelicals were thoroughly modernist in their view of Scripture, with Storr even endorsing the higher critical opinions of one of America’s most forceful leaders on the modernist side in the fight with fundamentalism, Harry Emerson Fosdick.
Malcolm Foley returns to the American scene and the acute racial tensions there within the evangelical community. He focuses on the post-Reconstruction era, which is often regarded as the “nadir” of race relations in American history. Foley introduces the great African American pastor-theologian Francis Grimké, who never used “evangelical” to describe himself yet embraced all the traits of the Quadrilateral (again, we see tension between the label and the category of evangelical). Foley considers how evangelicals of different races, who agreed on evangelical essentials, reached such starkly different conclusions on social and political issues, including the widespread lynching of African Americans. For Grimké, Foley explains, “the problem with an American Christianity that allowed lynching to continue was that it was a Christianity that was not evangelical enough.”
Moving closer to present day, Catherine Brekus examines an American evangelical biblicism that seems a far cry from Grimké’s—the biblicism exemplified by The American Patriot’s Bible (2009). As Brekus shows, the militarism and nationalism exemplified by this study Bible resonates with many evangelicals today, especially White American evangelicals. But it stands in demonstrably stark contrast with much of the American history it claims to defend. Even some other White American evangelicals today regard this kind of biblicism as “idolatrous” and aberrant. John Maiden introduces yet another kind of evangelical biblicism: that of the charismatic renewal movement of the late twentieth century, with focus on Britain and New Zealand. While charismatics and Pentecostals are often marginalized in discussions of evangelicalism and biblicism, Maiden contends that there was a “charismatic reanimation of Scripture” that accounted for much of the movement’s appeal to believers. The effort to integrate “pneumatic experience” and biblicism is a notable example of how the ministry of the Holy Spirit has sometimes competed for status as a fifth defining element of evangelical piety, especially if one accounts for the surging prominence of charismatics and Pentecostals in the global Christian movement.
That movement is the subject of Brian Stanley’s concluding chapter, which not only assesses Bebbington’s historiographical legacy, but considers the fate of the Quadrilateral—including biblicism—since the Global South has become the primary locus of evangelical, Pentecostal, and Christian growth generally. In a fitting finish to the book, Stanley concludes that the local believers of the Global South have tested some limits of the Quadrilateral’s undergirding assumptions, such as the mandates of literacy and printed texts in biblicism. Yet “evangelical forms of Christianity have frequently proved unwittingly responsive to the cultural environment in which they seek to discharge their mission,” Stanley writes. Bebbington’s defining traits of evangelicalism have often become incarnated in surprisingly flexible ways in Africa, Asia, and Latin America, but their adherents have remained recognizably evangelical nonetheless.
1
British Exodus, American Empire
Evangelical Preachers and the Biblicisms of Revolution
Kristina Benham
IN 1760, ON A DAY OF THANKSGIVING, David Hall, an itinerant preacher and minister of Sutton, Massachusetts, preached a sermon titled “Israel’s Triumph,” a response of praise and thanksgiving for God’s providential victory in favor of British forces in Canada during the Seven Years’ War. He took as his text the song of praise by the Israelites after the drowning of Pharaoh in the Red Sea, comparing the British colonies and empire to the people of God in opposition to their French Catholic enemies. “A vast and fertile country is now subject to the British Sovereignty. . . . And the Lord shall hasten the day when the Gospel shall run and be glorified; that it may prevail from the east to the western ocean; and from the rivers to the utmost limits of our North America.”1 Sixteen years later, on July 4, 1776, the Continental Congress set up a committee that included Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and John Adams to propose a seal for the brand new American nation. Though their version was never adopted, the committee later reported on a design including a depiction of the presence of God in a pillar of fire and Moses standing at the Red Sea as the waters overwhelmed the monarch Pharaoh.2 Just months before Adams had written to his wife, Abigail, that he heard a sermon by Presbyterian minister George Duffield of Philadelphia, former assistant to Great Awakening preacher Gilbert Tennent and then chaplain to the Continental Congress. The sermon Adams heard compared the actions of King George to Pharaoh’s oppression of the Israelites. Adams admitted to feeling awe at participating in what Duffield concluded was God’s providential design to drive the American colonies to independence.3 At the accomplishment of peace in 1783 and on a day of thanksgiving appointed by Congress, Duffield again made the comparison between the exodus and American deliverance. This “American Zion” was a nation that had been born at once and had “brought forth her children, more numerous than the tribes of Jacob, to possess the land, from the north to the south, and from the east to the yet unexplored, far distant west.”4
In the years between these points, the exodus narrative became one of the most important ways that Americans applied biblical knowledge to understanding their transition from British colonies to a new nation. While reviving a deep English tradition of Hebraic nationalism, Americans set themselves up for a providential interpretation of deliverance from British rule. In the exodus they at first sought a principled, nonrebellious defense of resistance, but they tapped into a ready revolutionary potential that was unleashed with the opening of war and the Declaration of Independence. Providential applications, however, could take multiple forms, and the years of resistance and revolution provoked competing national providential applications of the exodus narrative. Before independence, uses of the exodus to explain oppression and warn both rulers and subjects of God’s judgment appealed to a timeless principle of judicial providence. This interpretation could be used to criticize British rulers and hope for God’s intervention, but it could also be used to turn criticism on American society itself, especially to address chattel slavery. While these interpretations continued to hold broad appeal, the experience of civil war and the declaration and peaceful settlement of independence led Americans to the application of a historical providence in God’s deliverance of his particular people and divine purpose for their new nation.5 This chapter makes three claims. (1) The exodus was a particularly important biblical narrative for the process of revolution and independence. (2) The ways Americans used the exodus in their revolutionary context changed significantly over a very short span of time. (3) There were distinct, and sometimes competing, categories of religious-political interpretation, or biblicism, involved in the American Revolution and the exodus narrative: biblically identifying political oppression, warnings, and lessons about God’s judgment (against Americans and British alike), hoping in or claiming providential victory, and identifying the new American nation as the people of God.
In late-colonial American history, identifying evangelicalism based on biblicism is far from straightforward. American culture from colonial beginnings through the American Civil War was suffused with biblical principles, references, and arguments. Mark Noll’s synthesis of American Protestantism throughout these periods is closely tied to evangelical reliance on the Bible alone for religious authority.6 More specifically, in American Zion, Eran Shalev examines the distinct version of Hebraic Biblicism developed in America in the late-eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, through other lessons and parallels applied to public life from several major points in Hebrew history.7 Historians who have studied, more specifically, the Bible during the American Revolution find that a diverse range of people among the founding generation—from evangelical chaplains to theologically liberal ministers to deist political thinkers—turned to biblical allusions, warnings, parallels, and principles on a regular basis.8 For example, James P. Byrd’s analysis of the most commonly used passages of Scripture during the Revolution emphasizes the military applications of biblical history and New Testament justifications. It is significant to the argument here to note that Byrd found the exodus to be the second most cited biblical passage of the era, and he concludes that “no biblical narrative surpassed the exodus in identifying the major themes, plots, characters, and subplots of the Revolution.”9 This chapter, a close study of the exodus narrative as it was used during the era of the American Revolution, echoes these findings. The types of sources used range widely, including especially newspapers and sermons, but also letters, diaries, poems, and Congressional proclamations and proposals. Evangelical preachers relied on the exodus narrative as a biblical pairing with arguments from natural rights and British constitutional tradition. David Avery, the military chaplain who held his arms aloft in prayer over the Battle of Bunker Hill like Moses over the Israelite battle with Amalek, was one such example.10 But others who were far from evangelicalism also picked up the parallel as relevant to the nation. Charles Chauncy, a Unitarian Congregationalist from Boston, testified to the widespread cry during the Stamp Act crisis, “We shall be made to serve as bond-servants; our lives will be bitter with hard bondage,” which he compared to the plight of the Jews in Egypt before God delivered them.11 Decades later, with the Revolution settled and the new nation surviving constitutional upheaval, the exodus and America as the new Israel lived on. In 1805, in his second inaugural address, Thomas Jefferson appealed to the help of God, whom he described thus: “in whose hands we are, who led our forefathers, as Israel of old, from their native land, and planted them in a country flowing with all the necessaries and comforts of life; who has covered our infancy with his providence, and our riper years with his wisdom and power.”12
Evangelical preaching, however, had a distinct prominence in these uses of the exodus. Nearly every sermon in this chapter comes from an evangelical preacher (with the possible exception of Phillips Payson, for whom there is little immediate information, and two others who are likely, but not guaranteed, evangelicals: Stephen Johnson and Elijah Fitch). Newspaper sources are much harder to identify, since common practice was to publish controversial issues anonymously and often even to mask the real author as a very different character. Though touching on other specific concerns, newspapers using the exodus followed many of the same arguments as these sermons. Therefore, by following the transition in uses of the exodus during the American Revolution, these sources reveal that biblicism could mean quite different things, especially when applied to national purposes. Admonitions for repentance in the face of national judgment, hope in God’s providential purposes through suffering and victory, and claims to divine national identity are quite different types of interpretation. This is, of course, leaving out entirely the variety of interpretations of the exodus that evangelicals such as Jonathan Edwards or Hannah Heaton or Sarah Osborne used, which were almost entirely focused on personal sanctification, prayers for the spiritual transformation of the people within the nation, typologies of redemption in Christ, or prophecies of the final glorification of the church.13
The story of the exodus of Israel from Egypt as Americans used it in the Revolutionary era can be divided into four major interpretations: oppression, divine judgment, providential victory, and the emergence of the people of God. And these interpretations connect directly to the ways that uses of the exodus narrative changed. Americans, at first unwillingly on the road to political independence, increasingly adopted this biblical story as a parallel to their own situation in all of these four ways. In earlier uses of the story during the Stamp Act crisis and the years immediately following, colonists explained what seemed like an inexplicable change in imperial policy with principles of political oppression and navigated the dangerous ideological waters of disobedience to authority with justifications for biblical resistance. They also perceived what seemed like intentional attacks on their rights and resources and the havoc of war as suffering that confirmed the justness of their cause and indicated the judgments of God against them for sins. Suffering, however, was also a tool in God’s hands to bring about his plan for his people, whether repentance, expansion, or independence. Warnings of judgment, however, came most easily for wicked and hard-hearted rulers, whose apparent reckless pride destined them for ruin. And in this judgment colonists encouraged each other to trust in God’s eventual deliverance from oppression. God’s miraculous victory over their enemies became more relevant as the newly independent states fought what started as a civil war against a superior force with no powerful allies. With each step toward victory—independence, the flight of the British from Boston, the alliance with France, and peace on terms of two independent nations—Americans perceived the hand of God. Finally, looking back on what appeared to be stunning victories and the sudden change in form of government and national identity, Americans thought of themselves religiously and politically as like the people of God. The narrative of miraculous intervention and national blessing and expansion which once applied to the British Empire, or regionally to Puritan forebears, now applied to the stunning event of a nation redeemed by God and born in a day.
By the end of the Seven Years’ War, British Americans had already learned through several rounds of European colonial wars some of the national applications of the exodus story that would become central in the Revolutionary era. Ministers often applied the exodus to debates about the justness of war or in celebrations of God’s apparent providential intervention in history. In 1747, Gilbert Tennent, Presbyterian minister of Philadelphia and Great Awakening evangelist, used the song of Moses at the Red Sea to assert God’s approval of just wars. The exodus claim that “the Lord is a Man of War” settled the principle question, since something by which God was named could not contradict his character. Still, Tennent’s argument indicates the conflict over religious and political meanings attached to British imperial goals, and he sought to outline how the approval of God could be identified by those who feared God as opposed to their enemies under the sway of the Antichrist. Just war decidedly excluded wars of ambition and glory for monarchs.14 Likewise, though David Hall’s 1760 thanksgiving sermon used the song in Exodus as a celebration of complete victory in North America, Hall warned his audience against falling into the trap of sinful pride in their victory and not giving glory to God for his deliverance.15 Before the Revolution, uses of the exodus fell more clearly along imperial lines. When these lines began to break apart under new imperial policy and the contradiction of the language of political slavery, Americans began to find many more meanings in the exodus.
The Stamp Act instigated the first major effort for political resistance before the Revolution, and colonists turned to the exodus story to argue through principles of political oppression why resistance was necessary and biblical. Colonists took practical and spiritual cues from this story. The draining of colonial money in a time of great debt left them in a worse position than the Israelites punished by Pharaoh with the task of making bricks without straw provided to them. They argued that at least the Israelites could go out and gather their own straw.16 Throughout resistance and the war, Pharaoh’s taskmasters and making bricks without straw became phrases synonymous with unreasonable and cruel impositions in response to humble petitions by loyal subjects.17 Demonstrating the injustice of British policies and comparing them to the actions of Pharaoh, whose heart was hard against God in his plots to destroy the Israelites, made resistance righteous to colonists. Hebrew history revealed that God favored the people in the face of oppression, and the exodus was a prime example.
Americans used the exodus to understand increasing and unreasonable political burdens as evidence for political oppression and biblical sanction for resistance. In December of 1765, Connecticut held a day of fasting in response to the Parliamentary tax on paper goods in the colonies, which had not yet been repealed. Stephen Johnson, a Congregational minister of Lyme, preached a sermon for the occasion taken from the example of the Israelites in bondage in Egypt. From the story of the exodus, he drew four main points: that enslaving the people of God was a great sin, that Pharaoh’s gradual method of oppression was typical of tyrants, that God instructed the Israelites through their suffering, and that God finally delivered them from oppression.18 The thrust of his argument was in coupling submission and dependence on God with justification for resisting rulers, traditionally assumed to be appointed by God. In this story, God clearly took the side of those under cruel and oppressive measures. Johnson drew a parallel between British policies and Pharaoh’s attempt to stop the growth of the Israelite people. Parliamentary encroachments on rights and false accusations that the colonists schemed for independence were like Pharaoh fearing and attacking the growing strength of his subjects by setting taskmasters over them and having Israelite male infants murdered.19 Clearly, Johnson argued, there were cases where civil authority must be resisted in order to obey God. Throughout the Revolution colonists praised the Hebrew midwives in Egypt who resisted the command to carry out the execution because they feared God.20
Colonists also carefully backed up their righteous resistance with new explanations of New Testament injunctions to obey civil authorities. Here more evangelical-leaning preachers used direct biblical precedents in conjunction with other ministers’ revision of New Testament passages through Lockean theory. Johnson objected to the “doctrine of passive obedience and non-resistance to arbitrary, enslaving edicts,” often endorsed through several New Testament passages. “Render to Caesar the things which are Caesar’s,” he countered, could not mean forfeiting what God had given in natural rights, nor could it mean the kind of obedience that was due only to God.21 Therefore, any laws that contradicted God’s revealed moral laws could not be rightly obeyed. He took a similar approach even to the more direct command: “Let every soul be subject to the higher powers . . . [for] The powers that be, are ordained of God, [and] Whosoever resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God.”22 The higher powers, he insisted meant civil government and the rule of law, at least laws that were just. The key to understanding this assertion was the explanation in this New Testament passage that rulers were ordained “for good,” which Johnson and others understood to mean the common good found in the social compact to protect rights.23 David Jones—who held a variety of pastoral positions in New Jersey and Pennsylvania as well as work as a Baptist missionary to Native Americans and chaplain in the American Revolution—preached a sermon on a fast day declared by the Continental Congress in 1775. In it he made similar points about obedience to authority. The “higher powers,” he argued, meant constitutional laws and civil government as a means to “secure the property and promote the happiness of the whole community” and applied to both subjects and rulers. The Hebrew midwives who disobeyed Pharaoh and feared God were a perfect example of the principle that only laws that reflected the just nature of God could be considered God’s ordinance. Jones even went so far as to assert that only the people can rightly judge that the laws are just.24
The exodus story held more explanatory power than could be found in principles of government and obedience alone. The example of Pharaoh’s increasingly hard-hearted resistance to Israelite deliverance was important to understanding what seemed like unprovoked, secret plots against the colonies. Colonists often quoted Pharaoh plotting with his advisors, “Behold, the people of the children of Israel are more and mightier than we. Come, let us deal wisely with them; least they multiply, and it come to pass, that when there falleth out any war, they join also unto our enemies, and fight against us, and so get them up out of the land.”25 In contrast to parallels with the deliverance from Egypt in past sermons on British victories over Catholic enemies, Americans now saw a deeper betrayal than even the Israelites experienced, since this war was between Protestants and fellow subjects. Jealousy and false suspicions seemed the only explanation for such a falling out.26 As the war progressed, Americans focused more on the unrighteous attributes of Pharaoh, as seen in particular rulers, beginning with local appointed officials and generals like Thomas Gage, and eventually denouncing the king himself as a wicked, murdering Pharaoh. The Egyptian tyrant was most commonly remembered as hard-hearted against just petitions and prideful in resisting God’s ordered law and gift of natural rights. In the end, years of warfare could best be described, in American minds, as being executed by a ruler so against God and his people that he rushed madly to his own destruction in the Red Sea.27
Preachers and other Americans saw in the exodus not just the evil oppression of Pharaohs in their own time but the threat of judgment on tyrannical rulers. A subscriber to the New-London Gazette in 1771 expounded on the nature of plagues, asserting that the causes of them are “tyranny, oppression, and cruelty.”28 In the same year, “A Field Labourer” argued in the Essex Gazette that a good king keeps his Bible close to his heart and meditates on his duty and the fate of bad kings, that “Pharaoh was drowned in the Red Sea for oppressing the Israelites.”29 Sometimes God’s judgment meant simply enforcing reciprocity, as when a fast day sermon in the Connecticut Courant claimed that God drowned Pharaoh for commanding the drowning of Hebrew children.30 A series of widely reprinted newspaper reports about General Gage’s occupation of Boston in 1775 called the British military leader a perfect example of Pharaoh and hoped he would meet the same judgment as that biblical tyrant.31 Colonists occasionally continued to emphasize the threat of judgment against bad rulers even after independence and military success. In 1783, “Lucullus” responded to the king’s speech before Parliament on the event of peace negotiations: “O, Pharaoh! How is it possible you can ever hope . . . [for reconciliation] with America; when after being so long called upon, by the good and wisest part of your nation, to let the people go, and your hard heart would not consent to it, continuing maliciously and wantonly to spill their blood . . . Repent! repent! and humble yourself immediately in the dust, murderer, if you wish to obtain mercy; and make all the restitution in your power, whilst you continue to exist.”32
Oppression and war also led Americans to believe that God’s judgment applied to themselves. The idea of plagues and other general calamities falling on an entire people had long suggested the need for general repentance. In the midst of his Exodus reading of British oppression in 1765, Stephen Johnson concluded, “We must piously and dutifully acknowledge the correction of God. . . . It is a great judgment of God upon a nation, when suffered to fall into very hurtful measures, which impoverish and tend to the slavery and ruin of a free people.”33 The writer on plagues in the New-London Gazette in 1771 also reminded his readers that the Israelites fell to plagues after leaving Egypt for their disobedience to God.34 “J. P. Juvenus” appealed to young people in the New-London Gazette in 1771, arguing that British tyranny should concern them even more than their parents, since “as Pharaoh increased the burden of the Israelites, by degrees, so all other tyrants, add to the weight of their galling yoak.” He encouraged youths to support the patriot cause by avoiding vice—including vanity, swearing, keeping bad company, Sabbath-breaking, and ridiculing religion, which were the cause of God’s judgments—and to “humble ourselves for our sins, pursue the path of virtue, and exert ourselves . . . for the glorious cause of liberty.”35 And a deacon’s letter from 1775 in the Essex Journal urged readers not to rejoice too soon and to remember God’s judgment to “a stubborn incorrigible people.” In this letter, the typical use of the exodus was turned upside down, and Americans were the hard-hearted sinners. “Did the Almighty bring ten dreadful plagues upon Egypt before Pharaoh would let his slaves go? witness the consequence.”36
The deacon’s letter was more controversial than simply turning judgment on Americans, though. The reason that Americans were like hard-hearted Pharaoh was that they held actual slaves. The central theme of slavery and deliverance in the exodus story was useful for Americans who portrayed British policies as enslaving them but tricky when it came to facing their own slaveholding or complicity in it. In 1773 a writer to the New-London Gazette reminded his readers that Pharaoh’s enslavement of the Israelites was “very provoking to God” and that “God’s demand on Pharaoh was to let them go, and his refusing was the cause of God’s controversy with him.” The result was plagues and a final overthrow in the Red Sea. He continued, “May we not conclude that God has a controversy with us, and his demand on us is to let the Africans so long enslaved go free?” Surely, he concluded, this was the cause of God allowing their enemies in government to oppress them.37 In a 1774 fictional letter in the Connecticut Journal, another writer used the same comparison. Writing as if from Pharaoh from beyond the grave, the subscriber addressed “Philemon,” another contributor who had submitted a four-part series containing a biblical argument for slavery. Pharaoh praised his worthy friend in the land of the living for taking up the “glorious cause” of slavery, inverting Americans’ common phrase “the glorious cause of liberty.” Pharaoh recounted his own misunderstood position, calling Moses a cunning magician and using all the arguments for slavery common to American slaveholders. Instead of getting into difficult biblical passages and debates on slavery, the writer simply skewered his opponent’s lengthy and detailed approach by comparing him to the wicked and hard-hearted Pharaoh, who oppressed the people of God and refused to acknowledge God himself.38 Other Americans took a more seriously applied approach to the comparison, such as when Virginia Quakers petitioned the state legislature in 1782 against the re-enslavement of their former slaves. Since they had endured God’s judgment in the war, “we earnestly desire to improve the present Prospect of Tranquility, and that it may not have the same effect upon us, as the respite of the Plagues had upon Pharaoh, who refused to let Israel go from under his Bondage.”39
Many Americans held more complicated views of slavery and the exodus story, Christianity, and the patriot cause. In 1775 a contributor to the Providence Gazette addressed the General Assembly with an argument against slavery, like others, using the example of Pharaoh, but his plea was also a sharp rebuke for hypocritical patriots. The writer responded to the declaration of a fast day by addressing a biblical passage often cited along with the exodus, frequently shortened to “let the oppressed go free.” Taken from Isaiah, the full passage criticized fasting that was a pretense of repentance simultaneous with oppression. How much more joyous would deliverance be, the contributor argued, were slaves freed to join and thank God for liberty? Then he challenged his readers to consider all of the arguments for their own liberty, first taking natural rights, and arguing that no one, from the one capturing slaves to the buyer several transactions removed from Africa, had any ground to stand on. Next he responded to the argument that it would not be good for slaves to be freed. Here he turned to the exodus, imagining that Pharaoh might have very wisely claimed that suddenly freeing all of the Israelites and sending them with no experience of government into a desert would be disastrous for them. But many of his contemporaries, he continued, would make this exact argument about Africans and then urge their fellow patriots to risk any consequences and trust God for the result in the cause of their own freedom. To the argument that their cause was too important to risk disunity over slavery, he continued the comparison with Pharaoh. “The present, I aver with certain knowledge, is the only time to do well; that neglected, we are not sure we will have it in our hearts to do so tomorrow. It is a most dangerous procrastination, and may, as on Egypt of old, bring down judgment after judgment upon our heads, accompanied with the hardness of Pharaoh’s heart.” Finally, he finished with a mock prayer of such double-minded lovers of liberty, pleading for God’s intervention in their own fight against oppression while explaining why they could not possibly obey him yet in freeing their slaves. “What solemn mockery,” he declared, “must have been the fastings, humiliations and prayer of men of such principles?”40
Still others coupled pitying dehumanization of African Americans with mockery of the whole patriot cause, using the exodus as an analogy. One writer in New York penned a sarcastic rebuke of a declaration by the state legislature in 1777. In response to the American claim to enslavement, he declared, “All of us know, what Wretches, what Israelites in Bondage, we have hitherto been, till our good Representatives above mentioned undertook our Deliverance.” He continued that everyone knew that no one could hold any possessions, or live in peace and security, or say he held life and property “before we were under the direction of our Congress, Conventions, and watchful Committees.” Then he turned the contradiction of chattel slavery on these supposed patriotic “poor Jews in Egypt under [Britain’s] arbitrary domination.” It must also be clear, he concluded, that the argument that all men are created free and able to set up their own government applied to African slaves. “We may therefore justly expect to have, in a little time, a black Assembly, a black Council, a black Governor, and a black Common Wealth . . . Such a Constitution would shine like my shoe.”41
African Americans would also apply the exodus story to their own deliverance, especially by the second decade of the nineteenth century with leading examples among the Revolutionary generation like Lemuel Haynes. During the era of the Revolution itself, however, Phillis Wheatley is considered the first African American to put the parallel in writing.42 In her “Letter to Samson Occum” of February 1774, Wheatley used the exodus to argue for both American liberty and freedom for slaves. After explaining the essential unity of religious and civil liberty in general with the Israelite example of liberation, she argued that “in every human Breast, God has implanted a Principle, which we call Love of Freedom; it is impatient of Oppression, and pants for Deliverance; and by the Leave of our Modern Egyptians [American slaveholders] I will assert, that the same Principle lives in us.” Wheatley turned to more open criticism of the colonists’ hypocrisy, pointing out “the strange Absurdity of their Conduct whose Words and Actions are so diametrically opposite.” She was responding to Occum’s assertion that natural rights applied to Africans and concluded, “How well the Cry for Liberty, and the reverse Disposition for the Exercise of oppressive Power over others agree,—I humbly think it does not require the Penetration of a Philosopher to determine.”43
The crucial moment for this message of providential suffering and victory, though, came with independence, proof to many Americans that God’s purpose was more than just repentance and redress of political grievances. Through the tumultuous years of resistance, Americans who interpreted British tyranny as oppression at God’s hand, believed that his purposes involved political results, including unity, defending their liberties, and eventually independence. When the mother country turned to outright military action in April of 1775, the number of uses of the exodus expanded significantly.44 Thomas Paine’s timely argument against monarchy in Common Sense tapped into the broader Hebraic republican ideal, a period of Hebrew history Americans saw as being inaugurated with the exodus. Paine argued that the Israelite demand that God give them a king was sin and remembered the battles of Lexington and Concord as the point when he finally rejected “the hardened, sullen tempered Pharaoh of England” in favor of independence.45 As early as 1765, Johnson addressed all of these political purposes. For his point on God’s eventual deliverance of the Israelites, he drew a parallel to the “remarkable and almost unparalleled spirit of unanimity, unity, and public zeal for their important rights and privileges, which now happily reigns in the American colonies.” This zeal for their rights came through the day of trial as God’s means of making them aware of their oppression and ready to resist it. Like the Israelites, who suffered increasing tyranny because of Egyptian suspicions of them, refusal to recognize their loyalty and legitimate claims could lead to what Pharaoh feared most: their entire deliverance and independence.46 Elijah Fitch, who preached his sermon only months before independence (though it may have been printed after), argued that, though it looked at first like God was against the Israelites, “in truth it was only to make way for their freedom from bondage and slavery, to let the oppressed go free.” Pharaoh’s “grievous impositions,” he argued, “made them all with one heart and mind resolve to be free.” From this he concluded,
Perhaps our God, by these commotions, contentions, disturbances [etc.], is about to lay a firm foundation for the lasting future peace, tranquility and liberty of these American Colonies. . . . The means, that our unnatural enemies have made use of . . . are much the same which Pharaoh, Egypt’s haughty Monarch used, and they have as yet had the same effect: Their schemes to oppress, divide, and then subjugate these Colonies, have served to unite our hearts, as one man, to cast off the burthens they have been imposing upon us.47
As the difficulties of war dragged on, Americans turned to the exodus more to demonstrate God’s miraculous military victory for his people, though war itself could lead to either justification or doubts about the cause. Some continued to qualify victory with repentance. Sylvanus Conant was a Congregational minister from Middleboro, Massachusetts, who gained his pastorate from the revival party of a church split during the Great Awakening. In December of 1776 Conant preached an anniversary sermon at Plymouth in celebration of the landing of the Pilgrims, but he used the occasion to expound on a threefold comparison of the Israelites in Egypt, the New England forefathers, and the patriot cause. He reminded his audience that their victory was sure if they avoided sin. God used the war to increase their military strength and skill and could do the same for their Christian virtue. With those assurances, they could be certain that “tho never so great an host comes against our country, it will live through the war—we shall rise superior to the powers that combine against us, and finally triumph over all the enemies of our salvation.” Remembering how the Israelites increased and succeeded under bondage, like their forefathers under persecution, it was clear how easy victory could be to God.48 Many more, along with Conant, focused more on the need to give credit to God’s intervention for their victories. On a day appointed by the Continental Congress for thanksgiving in 1777, Israel Evans, an evangelical preacher and a trusted military chaplain of George Washington, urged his fellow soldiers to praise God for their victories. First, he reminded them, “that many years past the language of Britain corresponded with the language of Pharaoh and his cruel task-masters, who said, ‘come let us deal wisely with them, lest they multiply.’” Since God granted them success in escaping these snares, he continued, the British government brought against them the formidable enemies of “the arms of the King of England,” his “invincible navy,” the “veterans of Britain,” and the mercenaries of Germany. And yet they found themselves free, a good cause for thanksgiving.49
Though fear of divinely ordained defeat continued through the war, by the end Americans using the exodus story exalted in a reenactment of miraculous victory of the people of God. In 1779 Congress issued a proclamation in preparation for a day of fasting that reflected the earlier mix of apprehension of judgment and hope for nearly miraculous victory. The reason for the need of national prayer, they explained, was the apparent judgment of God on Americans in the calamity of war. Congress declared that because too few Americans had come to realize their sin and turn from it, that “the malevolence of our disappointed enemies, like the incredulity of Pharaoh, may be used as the scourge of Omnipotence to vindicate his slighted Majesty, there is reason to fear that he may permit much of our land to become the prey of the spoiler, our borders to be ravaged, and our habitations destroyed.” Yet Congress also declared that “divine Providence hath hitherto in a wonderful manner conducted us, so that we might acknowledge that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong.”50 This belief in God’s help to the weak and oppressed encouraged Americans to hope for God’s intervention. And many others used this hopeful passage in connection to the exodus.51
By the 1780s Americans using the exodus story began focusing more exclusively on the Israelites entering the Promised Land and enjoying a series of miraculous victories from God. In 1781 Robert Smith, a Presbyterian in the Log College network of theological schools, preached a sermon in response to a national day of thanksgiving with special notice of “the Various Interpositions of His Providence in Their Favor, during Their Contest with Great Britain, Particularly . . . the Capture of Lord Cornwallis with His Whole Army . . .” Smith reminded them that God chose Moses out of his brush with death in a watery grave to confound the great court of Pharaoh, but he also encouraged them with the lesson that God would fight for them as he did for the Israelites at Jericho.52 In 1782 Phillips Payson preached a sermon on the anniversary of the battles of Lexington and Concord on “Some Signal Interpositions of Providence in the American Revolution.” He took his text from Exodus 12, a passage on the feast of the Passover for the Israelites he described as a memorial of God’s deliverance. Payson told his audience that “The finger of God has indeed been so conspicuous in every stage of our glorious struggle, that it seems as if the wonders and miracles performed for Israel of old, were repeated over and anew for the American Israel, in our day.” After recounting the comparison of the British king and his government as possessing the same hard-heartedness and madness of Pharaoh, he compared the miraculous victories of the Israelites taking the land of Canaan as a parallel to the American victories in the Revolution.53 In 1783 Israel Evans, this time preaching on a day of thanksgiving for peace and American independence, addressed his audience with a text from the song of Moses after the defeat of the Egyptians in the Red Sea. Though he hesitated to make more detailed comparisons to the Israelites, he still rewrote the song of Moses as a prayer of praise to God for his intervention in the American war. He confidently declared to his audience that their victories would be remembered, or doubted, as much as the miracles of the Israelite deliverance.54
With peace accomplished, or at least in sight, American independence attained a new significance in connection to the exodus. Uses of Israelite deliverance now supported direct assertions of Americans as the people of God, as providentially brought into nationhood, and as promised a future expansion of their land and ideals. Phillips Payson also included in his 1782 sermon another passage commonly used in recounting God’s deliverance: “The time, it seems, was come . . . appointed by the councils of Heaven, in the course of nature, when a new Empire should arise in the world, and a nation be born in a day . . .”55 Americans frequently used the idea of a “nation born in a day” as a response to the question in the book of Isaiah, “Shall the earth be made to bring forth in one day, or shall a nation be born at once?”56 Since independence Americans had begun to answer this question in the affirmative with their own sudden emergence as a nation. Sylvanus Conant, whose 1776 sermon emphasized the fulfillment of prophecy, claimed that, taken in a literal sense, American independence was the first such occurrence in Christian history, and he reminded his audience that, though independent, they must acknowledge their dependence on God’s providence.57 In 1782 Payson used this supposed fulfillment of Scripture to argue that God, who inspired Americans with a zeal for liberty and united them in the cause, formed them into an empire that might grow in strength greater than any before them and spread across all of North America. Though peace had not yet been settled, the perceived works of God in their favor so far led him to conclude “we cannot but entertain raised hopes that our deliverance is just at hand, and the blessings of peace will soon be restored, and our independence secured; when this kind of liberty will become a quiet habitation; the wilderness blossom like a rose; commerce and agriculture flourish; the arts and sciences be cultivated; and generations yet unborn shall rejoice in the happy purchases of our treasure and blood.”58
On the day of thanksgiving for peace and independence in 1783, George Duffield’s sermon addressed the nation being born in a day: “Who hath heard such a thing? who hath seen such things? Shall the earth be made to bring forth in one day, or shall a nation be born at once? For as soon as Zion travailed, she brought forth her children!” He compared these pains of birth to the Israelite and American deliverances, but he argued that the American exodus was even more sudden. The Israelites, after all, had to wander in the desert, but “almost as soon as our American Zion began to travail . . . she brought forth her children, more numerous than the tribes of Jacob, to possess the land, from the north to the south, and from the east to the yet unexplored, far distant west . . .” Duffield recognized that the British government seemed to model the policies of Pharaoh, especially in his jealousy of potential independence, but Duffield argued that the American case was even more grievous. The Israelites and Egyptians were at least different peoples, but Americans, whose “religion and manners” were the same as their rulers, were truly betrayed through false suspicions. The “American Zion” had once been part of the British imperial people of God, in opposition to their outside (Catholic) enemies, but after years of resisting their own unjust rulers, to many, God had confirmed their separate purpose.59
Through the process of internal conflict, both with their rulers at a distance and with their rulers and neighbors close by, Americans reapplied the exodus narrative of an empire with divine favor. What began as confirmation of oppression and justification of resistance transformed through the experience of war and victory into a new American Zion. Internal conflict over the meanings of the exodus would continue, especially when connected to real slavery. Where the British imperial picture of deliverance from Pharaoh was composed of more clear-cut lines between Catholic enemies and the Protestant succession, Americans applying it to their own dramatically changing situation pictured a vague divine empire of new and old ideals, of the gospel and a new kind of civil society. The influence of evangelical preachers, or their participation in developing a national divine purpose was not straightforward, just as national biblicism came in many forms of interpretation and produced conflicting political conclusions. Nevertheless, a triumphant narrative of a new American Zion emerged through the application of the exodus to the process of revolution.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Primary
Avery, David. The Lord Is to Be Praised for the Triumphs of His Power. A Sermon, Preached at Greenwich, in Connecticut, on the 18th of December 1777. Being a General Thanksgiving through the United American States. By David Avery, V.D.M. Chaplain to Col. Sherburne’s Regiment. [One Line from Psalms]. Norwich, CT: Printed by Green & Spooner, 1778. America’s Historical Imprints, Evans Collection, 1639–1800.
Conant, Sylvanus. An Anniversary Sermon Preached at Plymouth, December 23, 1776. In Grateful Memory of the First Landing of Our Worthy Ancestors in That Place, An. Dom. 1620. By Sylvanus Conant, Pastor of the First Church in Middleborough. [Two Lines from Samson’s Riddle]. Boston: Printed by Thomas and John Fleet, 1777. America’s Historical Imprints, Evans Collection, 1639–1800.
Duffield, George. A Sermon, Preached in the Third Presbyterian Church, in the City of Philadelphia, on Thursday, December 11, 1783. The day appointed by the United States in Congress assembled, to be observed as a day of thanksgiving, for the restoration of peace; and establishment of our independence, in the enjoyment of our rights and privileges. By George Duffield, A.M. Pastor of the said church. Published at the request of the committee of the said congregation. [Five lines of Scripture quotations]. Philadelphia: Printed by F. Bailey, 1784. America’s Historical Imprints, Evans Collection, 1639–1800.
Evans, Israel. A Discourse, Delivered in New-York, before a Brigade of Continental Troops, and a Number of Citizens, Assembled in St. George’s Chapel, on the 11th December, 1783. The Day Set Apart by the Recommendation of the United States in Congress, as a Day of Public Thanksgiving for the Blessings of Independence, Liberty and Peace, by the Rev. Israel Evans, A.M. Chaplain in the American Army. New York, NY: Published, and sold by John Holt.
———. A Discourse, Delivered, on the 18th Day of December, 1777, the Day of Public Thanksgiving, Appointed by the Honourable Continental Congress, by the Reverend Israel Evans, A.M. Chaplain to General Poor’s Brigade. And Now Published at the Request of the General and Officers of the Said Brigade, to Be Distributed among the Soldiers, Gratis. Lancaster, PA: Printed by Francis Bailey, 1778. America’s Historical Imprints, Evans Collection, 1639–1800.
Fitch, Elijah. A Discourse, the Substance of Which Was Delivered at Hopkinton, on the Lord’s-Day, March 24th, 1776, Being the next Sabbath Following the Precipitate Flight of the British Troops from Boston. By Elijah Fitch, A.M. Published at the Request of the Hearers. [Two Lines from Solomon]. Boston: Printed by John Boyle, in Marlborough-Street, 1776. America’s Historical Imprints, Evans Collection, 1639–1800.
Fletcher, John. The Bible and the Sword: Or, the Appointment of the General Fast Vindicated: In an Address to the Common People, Concerning the Propriety of Repressing Obstinate Licentiousness with the Sword, and of Fasting When the Sword Is Drawn for That Purpose. London, 1776.
Hall, David. Israel’s Triumph. It Concerns the People of God to Celebrate the Divine Praises, according to All His Wonderful Works. A Sermon Preached at Sutton on a Publick Thanksgiving, October 9th. 1760. For the Entire Reduction of Canada. Also, Delivered Afterwards, with Some Alteration, at Hollis, in New-Hampshire, on a Private Thanksgiving, Observed There November the 20th Following, upon the Same Occasion. And Now Published at the Repeated Desire of Many of the Hearers. By David Hall, A.M. Pastor of the First Church in Sutton. [Six Lines from Psalms]. Boston: Printed and Sold by J. Draper, 1761. America’s Historical Imprints, Evans Collection, 1639–1800.
Holly, Israel. God Brings about His Holy and Wise Purpose or Decree, Concerning Many Particular Events, by Using and Improving the Wicked Dispositions of Mankind in Order Thereto; and Often Improves the Present Corruptions of Sinners, as the Means to Chastise and Punish Them for Former Wickedness; Briefly Illustrated in a Sermon, Preached at Suffield, December 27, 1773, the next Sabbath after the Report Arrived, That the People at Boston Had Destroyed a Large Quantity of Tea, Belonging to the East-India Company, rather than to Submit to Parliament-Acts, Which They Looked upon Unconstitutional, Tyrannical, and Tending to Enslave America. Published with Some Enlargements. By Israel Holly, Preacher of the Gospel in Suffield. [One Line of Scripture Text]. Hartford, CT: Printed by Ebenezer Watson, 1774. America’s Historical Imprints, Evans Collection, 1639–1800.
Johnson, Stephen. Some Important Observations, Occasioned By, and Adapted To, the Publick Fast, Ordered by Authority, December 18th, A.D. 1765. Newport, RI: Printed and sold by Samuel Hall, 1766. America’s Historical Imprints, Evans Collection, 1639–1800.
Jones, David. Defensive War in a Just Cause Sinless. A Sermon, Preached on the Day of the Continental Fast, at Tredyffryn, in Chester County, by the Revd. David Jones, A.M. Published by Request. [One Line from Daniel]. Philadelphia: Printed by Henry Miller, 1775. America’s Historical Imprints, Evans Collection, 1639–1800.
Paine, Thomas. Common Sense; Addressed to the Inhabitants of America, on the Following Interesting Subjects. I. Of the Origin and Design of Government in General, with Concise Remarks on the English Constitution. II. Of Monarchy and Hereditary Succession. III. Thoughts on the Present State of American Affairs. IV. Of the Present Ability of America, with Some Miscellaneous Reflections. [Two Lines from Thomson]. Philadelphia, PA: Printed and sold by R. Bell, 1776. America’s Historical Imprints, Evans Collection, 1639–1800.
Payson, Phillips. A Memorial of Lexington Battle, and of Some Signal Interpositions of Providence in the American Revolution. A Sermon Preached at Lexington, on the Nineteenth of April, 1782. The Anniversary of the Commencement of the War between Great-Britain and America, Which Opened in a Most Tragical Scene, in That Town, on the Nineteenth of April, 1775. By Phillips Payson, A.M. Pastor of the Church in Chelsea. [Two Lines in Latin from Virgil]. Boston: Printed by Benjamin Edes & Sons, 1782. America’s Historical Imprints, Evans Collection, 1639–1800.
Smith, Robert. The Obligations of the Confederate States of North America to Praise God. Two Sermons. Preached at Pequea, December 13, 1781, the Day Recommended by the Honourable Congress to the Several States, to Be Observed as a Day of Thanksgiving to God, for the Various Interpositions of His Providence in Their Favour, during Their Contest with Great Britain, Particularly Those of the Present Year, Crowned by the Capture of Lord Cornwallis with His Whole Army. By Robert Smith, A.M. Minister of the Gospel at Pequea. Philadelphia, PA: Printed by Francis Bailey, 1782. America’s Historical Imprints, Evans Collection, 1639–1800.
Tennent, Gilbert. The Late Association for Defense, Encourag’d, or The Lawfulness of a Defensive War. Represented in a Sermon Preach’d at Philadelphia December 24. 1747. By Gilbert Tennent, A.M. [Twelve Lines of Quotations] Published at the Request of the Hearers. Philadelphia, PA: Printed by William Bradford, 1748. America’s Historical Imprints, Evans Collection, 1639–1800.
Secondary
Byrd, James P. Sacred Scripture, Sacred War: The Bible and the American Revolution
