Wonder-Working Providence: A History of New England (Original Narratives of Early American History)

0/5 ( ratings)

As with any old, republished book, one could ask why this book is being republished? It is a great subject of debate whether these United States of America were founded as a Christian Nation. Almost inevitably, someone will quote one or two prominent figures and maybe a Congressional document or declaration, either for or against the idea. This is done without any regard to its “un-American” aspect. America, whatever we may think of her, was founded in quite an un-oligarchic fashion. Therefore, to quote one or two individuals of the higher echelons of society should strike the American mind as being quite contrary.
The better way is to understand the common view. What did the individuals think in their lives? What did they say when the contracted together?
It certainly is true that there was a confederated aspect to the actions and thoughts of many individuals. Moreover, that there was a jingoistic character whether pro-Britain or pro-American is without a doubt; though at that time, it might be more reasonable to say pro-king vs. pro-independence. But all the arguments for or against, collectively towards separation or against it, was usually fought on the battleground of faith and what the Scripture would allow. That this was a subject on the mind of the average person is a matter of record.
Thus, this book is reproduced to provide the view of a common individual, and their view of the "goings-on" of the world around them. In this, it is incredibly fascinating. Somewhat Diaretical in nature, it records history as one standing in the flow of events, and constantly yields praise to the one true and living God of the Bible.
The question as to whether America was founded as a Christian Nation, might be better phrased as whether America was a Christian Nation at its founding. That is the real matter of weight, and the only answer that can be given is a resounding echo from the pages of history and the records of yesteryear: an unabating yes.
If another historical view was offered, it would be to recognize that there were colonies more or less oligarchic. Where, indeed, it was either one man or a group of men who presided over a sovereign colony under charter from the English Monarchy. It is interesting to note that these were considered "Theocratic" in constitution. That is, they were considered to be ruled by God as the Israelites of old. Obviously, one could debate about the precise character of these colonies. But if taken into consideration of the question concerning the founding of America, one would have to then render a hybridized answer. Where some parts of the new American States were founded as a Christian States, while others were compositionally Christian in nature. The idea, moreover, didn't falter for many years. Many of the old theocratic colonies continued to have an official religion, Christian of course, and had a state church, which was usually Episcopalian.
It is here that we must bring before the reader's attention that one will repeatedly run across the word antinomian in the course of reading. From a doctrinal perspective, this word would indicate that one has no regard for the Law of God, and that there is no standard. A conscientious reader would be careful to not superimpose this idea too strictly upon the word. There are cases of such opinion in Colonial America, but generally this word, especially as it applies to the Baptists, meant that they refused to recognize a Church as a presiding hierarchy. Baptists have historically stood for "Local" Church Autonomy. That is, they are separate and distinct, and should be subject to no governing authority. Thus, the name antinomian was hurled at them quite regularly, though in all other ways they were quite law abiding and very contentious of God's Law in all its Biblical facets.