Founders History: Forget 1776, Reverend Jonathan Mayhew Started and Won the American Revolution in 1750

A Single Sermon from Founding Grandfather Jonathan Mayhew About Resistance Theology Moved Colonists to Fulfill Moral Duty to Resist Tyranny

October 8th, 1720 is the birthday of the Founding Grandfather of our country. This may sound a bit dramatic, but Reverend Jonathan Mayhew is acknowledged by John Adams, Samuel Adams, James Madison and other Founding Fathers as being one of the most influential figures in the American Revolution. His sermon “Discourse Concerning the Unlimited Submission and Non-Resistance to Higher Powers“ became the foundation of resistance theology, paving the way for birth of the resistance to Britain. We should note that Mayhew passed away in 1766, prior to many of the hostilities and horrors that the American Colonists would endure to gain their freedom from the British Monarchy.

We live in turbulent times, and on many occasions we see our freedoms not only ignored, but actively targeted. While I am a Christian, I don’t pretend to be all that well versed in the Bible, but I have frustration with many of my fellow Christians who automatically signal that they are turning a cheek, and that all the injustice and direct assault on our rights is in God’s hands. They turn away, do nothing.  This is not an essay on religion, but it is on the critical evolution of thought that was in many ways hampered by misinterpretation of a Bible passage.  When Reverend Mayhew articulated a new Biblical interpretation that evolved colonial thinking, and our country was born.  Prior to the Revolutionary War.  There are important analogies to our thinking today that we must consider if we are to halt the destruction of our rights.  

Today a paralysis has set in and this has emboldened many who seek to permanently change our morals and force us to celebrate things that we would never accept. This paralysis has trapped us and instructs us to sit by and hope that Superman will descend from the sky and make the changes we need.  We hope that God will send someone else to judge the things we are too timid to judge, or are to say the things we stumble to utter.  Some urge extra prayer.  If you a Christian then this paralysis is forcing you to ignore the talents and faculties that God imbued in you.  Many regard Romans 13 v 1-4 as justification for understanding “the order of things”.

Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. 4 For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.

Roman 13 v. 1-4

What I describe is America in 2024, and it was also America in 1750.  Mayhew’s radical sermon based on some very simple logic and sound Biblical thinking, changed colonial thinking.  It was the match that ignited the fire in the minds of men and women that would shape an entire new society that embarked on a new form of self governance never attempted before in known history. 

Mayhew’s sermon “Discourse Concerning the Unlimited Submission and Non-Resistance to Higher Powers“ gave rise to resistance theology, and Without the sermon, there would only have been the Colonial rebellions, no plurality, no Declaration of Independence, no Jeffersonian philosophy.  Mayhem took on the justification to leave things in God’s hands and forced people to realize what a sin passive obedience in the face of tyranny could be.

Who Was Revered Jonathan Mayhew?

Mayhew’s family tree was one of the oldest in the American colonies.  The Mayhew family arrived in the colonies in 1631.  His great grandfather was Thomas Mayhew, the first European settler to establish a colony in Martha’s Vineyard in 1642.  As Puritans, religion was a primary focus in the Mayhew lineage.  Thomas Mayhew was an editor of the Bay Psalm Book.  This book was the first publication in the colonies in 1640.  It’s important to note that while the Mayhew family had left England, they remained aware of the Civil War that swept England during the reign of Charles 1st, the execution of King Charles, the tenure of Oliver Cromwell and the restoration of the monarchy thereafter.  While remote, this history would be part of colonial culture.

Jonathan Mayhew, born October 8th, 1720, attended Harvard Seminary and was ordained in 1747.  His path to being ordained was a rocky one, as many ministers rejected his ideals. While being a descendent of Puritans, most Puritans rejected his theology.

Mayhew’s ordination was highly irregular, as no Boston minister took part in it and he had already been labeled a heretic before he stepped into the ministerial role at the Old West Church. This criticism stemmed from his background in Arianism and Unitarianism, which he had studied with Dr. Gay in Hingham. On the day of his ordination, only two ministers from the city of Boston showed up. When presented with Mayhew’s theology, they left the church immediately, stalling the beginning of his priesthood.

Despite his reputation as a radical, his writing and sermons were published in both New England and in England, giving him a transatlantic influence.  And Mayhew was known for being outspoken and controversial.  What is interesting is that Mayhew’s theology was defined as Arminian, meaning that God’s divine will was that of love and not power.  At the time, Calvinism and Anglicanism were the primary religions for the British, but Mayhew rejected these as authoritarian and instead preached of strong individual responsibility and private judgment.  This is at odds with Calvinism which held the doctrine of predestination.  Mayhew interpretations placed him at odds with the Puritan community in Boston, yet his commitment to his ideals won him respect and a following among those who sought religious freedom and a separation of church and state.    

Mayhew’s influence was, in John Adam’s estimation, important to changing the culture prior to the outbreak of the Revolutionary War in 1776.  While Patrick Henry was a strong voice of the Founding Fathers, Adams made it clear that Mayhew was one of several key thinkers whose ideals converged to form the foundation of moral and religious justification for the War of Independence.  Adams wrote to Hezekiah Niles on February 13, 1818 to clarify the progression that led to the Revolutionary War.

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 Minds and Hearts of the People. A Change in their Religious Sentiments of their Duties and Obligations.

The People of America had been educated in an habitual Affection for England as their Mother-Country; and while they Thought her a kind and tender <Mother> Parent, (erroneously enough, however, for She never was Such a Mother,) no Affection could be more Sincere. But when they found her a cruel Beldam willing, like Lady Macbeth, to “dash their Brains out,” it is no Wonder if their fillial Affections ceased and were changed into Indignation and horror.

This radical Change in the Principles, Opinions Sentiments and Affection of the People, was the real American Revolution.

John Adams Letter Hezekiah Niles dated February 13, 1818

The American Revolution was in the minds and hearts first.  The colonists had to conquer their own minds in order to effect the transformation to a new and free nation.

What Was the “Discourse Concerning the Unlimited Submission and Non-Resistance to Higher Powers“

I find it a bit sad that much of the wisdom of those like Mayhem is not accessible to us because of language. The concepts are simple, but today our eyes glaze over at titles like the one above as we imagine powdered wigs, and people writing with feathers surrounded by books. So called experts have made philosophy too esoteric and lofty, making the concepts too abstract.  

As we go through Mayhew’s ideas, please note that when you see the term “apostle” in the quotes below, it is in reference to Paul, the author of Romans in the New Testament.

Mayhew delivered Discourse Concerning the Unlimited Submission and Non-Resistance to Higher Powers 1750, the 100th anniversary of the execution of King Charles the First for treason against his subjects.  It was naturally a reminder of the heritage of British citizens who fought to protect their rights, even from a king who claimed to answer only to God.

Mayhew’s message was this: Christian thinking of his time considered Romans 13 v 1-4 as the reason why rebelling against the authority of a monarchy and civil service was a sin, but according to Mayhew this was not a full understanding of the passage, and it was wrong. In fact, passive obedience could actually be a sin.  Your duty as a Christian was to resist sin, and according to Mayhew, there was Biblical justification for rebellion against a monarch who sought to transgress God’s plan for a healthy, virtuous society.

The passage from Romans “The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted …” established a divine order.  Mayhew claimed that when a society is in harmony with God’s will, it serves the purpose of fulfilling God’s plan.  A monarch’s function was to remain in harmony with God’s intent and that was to promote the welfare of a healthy society.  When the laws and morals align with God’s plan, then those laws must be obeyed.

But what happens when a monarch or society is acting against God’s will, what is the action that a people should take when a ruler specifically directs measures that are sinful?  Taken further, what are the implications of laws that act against the well being of citizens?  As stated in the Bible, everyone answers to God, even monarchs.

Mayhew asked if a monarch was an end in of himself, or was a monarch’s purpose to serve as the institution directing his subjects for God?  This common sense logic puts an end to the idea of a higher station a monarch occupies gives moral justification to go beyond moral bounds while all other stations must comply.  There is no statement in the passage that gives monarchs the right to commit transgressions and insist people remain compliant with the ruler’s sin.

Thus, upon a careful review of the apostle’s reasoning in this passage, it appears that his arguments to enforce submission, are of such a nature, as to conclude only in favor of submission to such rulers as he himself describes; i.e., such as rule for the good of society, which is the only end of their institution. Common tyrants, and public oppressors, are not entitled to obedience from their subjects, by virtue of anything here laid down by the inspired apostle.

Taken further, following the order of things that promote the good in accordance with God's plan is to also fight against those things contrary to God’s goal.  

…the purpose of government was the common good, and citizens, working with established political authorities at the local and state level, had a moral duty to resist tyranny.

But how does this argument conclude for paying taxes to such princes as are continually endeavoring to ruin the public? And especially when such payment would facilitate and promote this wicked design!  “Render therefore to all their dues; tribute, to whom tribute is due; custom, to whom custom; fear, to whom fear; honor, to whom honor.”

We are not bound in all cases to adhere to edicts, laws and regulations, because when we are compelled to perform acts detrimental to the plans of a good and well functioning society, it destroys that society.  And even a monarch must make the effort to understand the limits of taxes and laws.  To do so means that the monarch acts as a benefactor for society.  To avoid that duty makes the monarch or civil servant a tyrant.

Common sense must be applied when regarding how monarchs behave.

For what can be more absurd than an argument thus framed? “Rulers are, by their office, bound to consult the public welfare and the good of society: therefore you are bound to pay them tribute, to honor, and submit to them, even when they destroy the public welfare, and are a common pest to society, by acting in direct contradiction to the nature and end of their office.”

Thus, upon a careful review of the apostle’s reasoning in this passage, it appears that his arguments to enforce submission, are of such a nature, as to conclude only in favor of submission to such rulers as he himself describes; i.e. such as rule for the good of society, which is the only end of their institution. Common tyrants, and public oppressors, are not entitled to obedience from their subjects, by virtue of anything here laid down by the inspired apostle.

But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid: For he is the minister of God, a revenger, to execute wrath upon him that doth evil.”  Here the apostle argues from the nature and end of magistracy, that such as did evil, (and such only) had reason to be afraid of the higher powers;

Mayhem lays out plainly that when a ruler abuses his subjects, his subjects MUST resist.

…makes his subjects his prey to devour and to destroy, instead of his charge to defend and cherish, we are bound to throw off our allegiance to him, and to resist;

So in fact there is NO excuse for not actively resisting.  Mayhem goes on to state that form of government doesn’t matter. Tyranny is tyranny. There is no condition that countermands the argument that benefactors for society MUST serve for the good of that society.  A monarchy is not exempt from what the passage in Romans has laid out.

The apostle does not concern himself with the different forms of government. This he supposes left entirely to human prudence and discretion. Now the consequence of this is, that unlimited and passive obedience is no more enjoined in this passage, under monarchical government; or to the supreme power in any state, than under all other species of government, which answer the end of government; or, to all the subordinate degrees of civil authority, from the highest to the lowest

there is NO POWER but of God:  And we are required to render to ALL their DUES; and not MORE than their DUES.

I have included a link to a synopsis of Mayhew’s sermon, as well as a link to the full version.  The important thing is that Mayhew’s concept is simple:  we are not compelled by the Bible to passively comply with tyrants and bureaucrats' abuses.  We are, in fact, required to rebel and resist, as our allegiance to evil is not binding.  For the good of society, we have to fulfill this duty.

This basic tenet was reflected in Patrick Henry’s writing, Jefferson, Samuel and John Adams.  It formed the basis of legislation in Virginia.  

It begs the question, would we have prevailed in the War for Independence if we had not already achieved this awareness, a revolution of mind and spirit as Adams described?  What Mayhew achieves with the application of common sense achieves a moral justification for resisting, and for ignoring the Divine Right of Kings.  It also reminded the American Colonists of the struggles of 100 years earlier, and how King Charles was offered guidance from Parliament in the form of petitions, laws, and finally the Grand Remonstrance where Parliament provided a list of all forms of capricious and tyrannical activity that harmed King Charles subjects. Rebellion came only after years of the British begging to be heard.

This passage from Romans 13 was used for centuries as a control mechanism, as it instructed people to remain compliant and hope that things would change.  Would a compliant subject dare to advise his or her better?  Mayhew clears the way for the colonists to assert their liberty with a clear conscience and a firm moral argument for rebelling.  It calls for self defense, but it does not direct action to murder.  It calls for communication and presenting the moral claims for rights, it does not call for subversion where none is needed.

Finally, Mayhew made it clear that rebellion was a moral duty, and clearly there were times of despair during the Revolutionary War itself that this philosophy would drive people to persevere. It was their Christian duty to resist, and the Bible did not compel citizens to endure oppression. For people who sought religious freedom, this was a very powerful motivator.

Where Liberty Always Starts But Is Also Curtailed

As Adams and many other Founding Fathers said, they own their drive and justification for asserting their rights and recognition that they were already free from British rule to Mayhew’s sermon, without it there would have been no American Revolution, no American Revolutionary War, there would have been only a rebellion.  They had a duty to resist, and rebel.  The mind and spirit transcended the mindset that they were bound in all cases to a monarch and their destiny was to merely endure.  They knew they had the strength to take bold action.

Many say that Harriet Tubman, who escaped slavery in the South and traveled to the north to in turn free other slaves, was free in her mind first.  She was free in her mind first before she took the action to leave.  If the mind is trapped, no action is action.

You have to be free in the mind.  Then you have to live to keep that freedom.  She escaped, in many ways we have less to do than that.