Saturday, December 29, 2007

Exposing the Falsehoods of Ed Brayton, part one.

Notice, all the bloggers who believe his deceit.
http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2007/12/more_huckabee_absurdity.php

Let it be known, the Founding Fathers rejected all other ancient republics institutions for law and liberty.

"Sparta, Rome, and Carthage...These examples, though as unfit for the imitation, as they are repugnant to the genius, of America, are, notwithstanding, when compared with the fugitive and turbulent existence of other ancient republics, very instructive proofs of the necessity of some institution that will blend stability with liberty. I am not unaware of the circumstances which distinguish the American from other popular governments, as well ancient as modern; and which render extreme circumspection necessary, in reasoning from the one case to the other."
James Madison, Federalist #63
http://www.llpoh.org/federalist/63.html

The First Amendment only prohibits the first and second commandments; its idea is only to protect freedom of conscience. All other aspects of religion and morality are left to the states.

In matters of religion, I have considered that its free exercise is placed by the Constitution independent of the powers of the general [federal] government.
Thomas Jefferson, Second Inaugural Address, 1805

3. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain
Unconstitutional on both freedom of religion and free speech grounds.>

This civil prohibition against blasphemy and profanity drawn from the Decalogue continued well beyond the Founding Era. It subsequently appeared in the 1784 laws in Connecticut, the 1791 laws of New Hampshire, the 1791 laws of Vermont, the 1792 laws of Virginia, the 1794 laws of Pennsylvania, the 1821 laws of Maine, the 1834 laws of Tennessee, the 1835 laws of Massachusetts, the 1836 laws of New York, etc.

Judge Zephaniah Swift, author in 1796 of the first legal text published in America, explained why civil authorities enforced the Decalogue prohibition against blasphemy and profane swearing: Crimes of this description are not punishable by the civil arm merely because they are against religion. Bold and presumptuous must he be who would attempt to wrest the thunder of heaven from the hand of God and direct the bolts of vengeance where to fall. The Supreme Deity is capable of maintaining the dignity of His moral government and avenging the violations of His holy laws. His omniscient mind estimates every act by the standard of perfect truth and His impartial justice inflicts punishments that are accurately proportioned to the crimes. But short-sighted mortals cannot search the heart and punish according to the intent. They can only judge by overt acts and punish them as they respect the peace and happiness of civil society. This is the rule to estimate all crimes against civil law and is the standard of all human punishments. It is on this ground only that civil tribunals are authorized to punish offences against religion.

In 1824, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania (in a decision subsequently invoked authoritatively and endorsed by the U. S. Supreme Court ) reaffirmed that the civil laws against blasphemy were derived from divine law. The court then noted that its State's laws against blasphemy had been drawn up by James Wilson, a signer of the Constitution and original Justice on the U. S. Supreme Court: The late Judge Wilson, of the Supreme Court of the United States, Professor of Law in the College in Philadelphia, was appointed in 1791, unanimously by the House of Representatives of this State to "revise and digest the laws of this commonwealth. . . . " He had just risen from his seat in the Convention which formed the Constitution of the United States, and of this State; and it is well known that for our present form of government we are greatly indebted to his exertions and influence. With his fresh recollection of both constitutions, in his course of Lectures (3d vol. of his works, 112), he states that profaneness and blasphemy are offences punishable by fine and imprisonment, and that Christianity is part of the common law. It is vain to object that the law is obsolete; this is not so; it has seldom been called into operation because this, like some other offences, has been rare. It has been retained in our recollection of laws now in force, made by the direction of the legislature, and it has not been a dead letter.

4.Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy
Again,unconstitutional on free exercise grounds.>

First is the inclusion in the U. S. Constitution of the recognition of the Sabbath in Art. I, Sec. 7, ¶ 2, stipulating that the President has 10 days to sign a law, "Sundays excepted." The "Sundays excepted" clause had previously appeared in the individual State constitutions of that day, and therefore, when incorporated into the U. S. Constitution, carried the same meaning that had been established by traditional usage in the States. That meaning was then imparted into the constitutions of the various States admitted into the Union subsequent to the adoption of the federal Constitution.

The historical understanding of this clause was summarized in 1912 by the Supreme Court of Missouri which, expounding on the meaning of this provision in its own State constitution and in the U. S. Constitution, declared:It is provided that if the Governor does not return a bill within 10 days (Sundays excepted), it shall become a law without his signature. Although it may be said that this provision leaves it optional with the Governor whether he will consider bills or not on Sunday, yet, regard being had to the circumstances under which it was inserted, can any impartial mind deny that it contains a recognition of the Lord's Day as a day exempted by law from all worldly pursuits? The framers of the Constitution, then, recognized Sunday as a day to be observed, acting themselves under a law which exacted a compulsive observance of it. If a compulsive observance of the Lord's Day as a day of rest had been deemed inconsistent with the principles contained in the Constitution, can anything be clearer than, as the matter was so plainly and palpably before the Convention, a specific condemnation of the Sunday law would have been engrafted upon it? So far from it, Sunday was recognized as a day of rest.

The second point establishing the impact of the fourth commandment of the Decalogue on American law is seen in the civil process clauses of the early State legal codes which forbade legal action on the Sabbath. For example, an 1830 New York law declared: Civil process cannot, by statute, be executed on Sunday, and a service of such process on Sunday is utterly void and subjects the officer to damages. Similar laws may be found in Pennsylvania in 1682 and 1705, Vermont in 1787, Connecticut in 1796, New Jersey in 1798, etc. In the Federal Era and well beyond, states continued to enact and reenact Sabbath laws. In fact, the States went to impressive lengths to uphold the Sabbath.

For example, in 1787, Vermont enacted a ten-part law to preserve the Sabbath; in 1791, Massachusetts enacted an eleven-part law; in 1786, Virginia enacted a law written by Thomas Jefferson and sponsored by James Madison; in 1798, New Jersey enacted a twenty-one-part law; in 1799, New Hampshire enacted a fourteen-part law; in 1821, Maine enacted a thirteen-part law; etc.

5. Honour thy father and thy mother
A good idea, in most cases, but a law requiring it would be unconstitutional and outside the purview of government. You can't legally enforce an individual's feelings toward their parents.>

In 1934 Louisiana appeals court:" ˜Honor thy father and thy mother,' is as much a command of the municipal law as it is a part of the Decalogue, regarded as holy by every Christian people. ˜A child," says the code, ˜whatever be his age, owes honor and respect to his father and mother.'"

Other courts have made similar declarations, all confirming that the fifth commandment of the Decalogue was an historical part of American civil law and jurisprudence.
http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=87

Biblical Law is the Foundation of our Republican Government.

Exposing the Falsehoods of Ed Brayton, part two.

6.Thou shalt not kill
This one is obviously constitutional, and is a part of our legal system. But it's also found in EVERY legal system, even those that have nothing to do with the bible or Christianity.>
http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2007/12/more_huckabee_absurdity.php

"The opinion that human reason left without the constant control of Divine laws and commands will . . . give duration to a popular government is as chimerical as the most extravagant ideas that enter the head of a maniac. . . . Where will you find any code of laws among civilized men in which the commands and prohibitions are not founded on Christian principles? I need not specify the prohibition of murder, robbery, theft, [and] trespass."
Noah Webster

A 1932 Kentucky Appeals Court:"The rights of society as well as those of appellant are involved and are also to be protected, and to that end all forms of governments following the promulgation of Moses at Mt. Sinai has required of each and every one of its citizens that "Thou shalt not murder." If that law is violated, the one guilty of it has no right to demand more than a fair trial, and if, as a result thereof, the severest punishment for the crime is visited upon him, he has no one to blame but himself."

There are yet many more declarations by our people affirming the sixth commandment into our laws.

7. Thou shalt not commit adultery
Another one that is a good idea, but not constitutional if legally enforced. Adultery is a moral wrong, but it's a private matter between individuals.>

Vermont Laws of 1787 "Whereas the violation of the marriage covenant is contrary to the command of God and destructive to the peace of families: be it therefore enacted by the general assembly of the State of Vermont that if any man be found in bed with another man's wife, or woman with another's husband, . . . &c

For example, in 1898, the highest criminal court in Texas declared that its State laws on adultery were derived from the Decalogue: The accused would insist upon the defense that the female consented. The state would reply that she could not consent. Why? Because the law prohibits, with a penalty, the completed act. "Thou shalt not commit adultery" is our law as well as the law of the Bible.

8. Thou shalt not steal
This is the second one that is obviously constitutional, but also found in every legal system regardless of the religious system that may have initially spawned it. A universal imperative that would be part of the law even if the bible never existed.>

The laws regarding theft that indicate their reliance on divine law and the Decalogue are far too numerous even to begin listing. Perhaps the simplest summation is given by Chancellor James Kent, who is considered, along with Justice Joseph Story, as one of the two "Fathers of American Jurisprudence." In his classic 1826 Commentaries on American Law, Kent confirmed that the prohibitions against theft were found in divine law:To overturn justice by plundering others tended to destroy civil society, to violate the law of nature, and the institutions of Heaven.

In 1951, the Louisiana Supreme Court acknowledged the Decalogue as the basis for the unchanging civil laws against theft: In the Ten Commandments, the basic law of all Christian countries, is found the admonition "Thou shalt not steal."
There are many other examples demonstrating this commandment into our laws.

9. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour
Some have interpreted this to be analagous to our perjury laws, but nothing in the text indicates that. It's talking about lying in general, not in a legal sense during court proceedings. And while lying may be wrong, it's not legally wrong except in specific circumstances - perjury and libel/slander. Under our system, most instances of lying would be covered by the first amendment free speech clause.>

The 1924, the Oregon Supreme Court declared:No official is above the law. "Thou shalt not bear false witness" is a command of the Decalogue, and that forbidden act is denounced by statute as a felony.
There are many other examples to show this commandment was incorporated into American civil law and jurisprudence.

10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.
Not only unconstitutional, it would require the ability to read minds.>

John Adams, one of only two individuals who signed the Bill of Rights, also acknowledged the importance of this commandment, declaring: The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If "Thou shalt not covet" and "Thou shalt not steal" were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society before it can be civilized or made free.

Many courts have also acknowledged the importance of this provision of the Decalogue. For example, in 1895, the California Supreme Court cited this prohibition as the basis of civil laws against defamation. In 1904, the Court of Appeals in West Virginia cited it as the basis of laws preventing election fraud. In 1958, a Florida appeals court cited it as the basis of laws targeting white-collar crime. And in 1951, the Oregon Supreme Court cited this Decalogue prohibition as the basis of civil laws against modern forms of cattle rustling.
There are numerous other examples that all affirm that the tenth commandment of the Decalogue did indeed form an historical part of American civil law and jurisprudence.

All the framers believed religion and morality are mandatory in our society: William Findley, a soldier in the Revolution and a U. S. Congressman, who declared:[I]t pleased God to deliver on Mount Sinai a compendium of His holy law and to write it with His own hand on durable tables of stone. This law, which is commonly called the Ten Commandments or Decalogue, . . . is immutable and universally obligatory. . . . [and] was incorporated in the judicial law."

The law given from Sinai was a civil and municipal as well as a moral and religious code; it contained many statutes . . . of universal application-laws essential to the existence of men in society, and most of which have been enacted by every nation which ever professed any code of laws. . . . Vain, indeed, would be the search among the writings of profane antiquity . . . to find so broad, so complete and so solid a basis for morality as this Decalogue lays down."
John Quincy Adams

Justice William Paterson, a signer of the Constitution placed on the Supreme Court by President George Washington, declared: Religion and morality . . . [are] necessary to good government, good order, and good laws.

Justice Joseph Story, later appointed to the Supreme Court by President James Madison, similarly declared:I verily believe Christianity necessary to the support of civil society. One of the beautiful boasts of our municipal jurisprudence is that Christianity is a part of the Common Law. . . . There never has been a period in which the Common Law did not recognize Christianity as lying its foundations. (emphasis added)

Dewitt Clinton, the Framer who introduced the 12th Amendment, also declared:The laws which regulate our conduct are the laws of man and the laws of God. . . . The sanctions of the Divine law . . . cover the whole area of human action.

Perhaps the best reflection of the collective belief of the Framers that religion was not to be excluded from civil society is enactment of the Northwest Ordinance, one of the four organic laws of the United States. That law, passed in 1789 by the same Congress that framed the Bill of Rights, declared:
Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.

Thursday, December 27, 2007

The Founding Fathers' Belief in Freewill and the New Birth in Jesus Christ

It is interesting how appellations have been applied to our Founding Fathers, regarding their religious beliefs; some of these terms are used by secularists, who redefine them. These terms include: arminianism, enlightenment, freedom of conscience, and Christianity. The secularists understanding of enlightenment, or scottish-enlightenment theory, applied to framers such as: John Witherspoon, Benjamin Rush, and James Madison, etc. is not only incorrect, but the world continues to believe this deceit from these pseudo-philosophers. Spiritual liberty was translated into Political liberty in our founding documents, written by men such as Founding Father John Jay:

"On this topic the gospel is explicit. It commands us to obey the higher powers or ruler. It reminds us that “he beareth not the sword in vain”; that “he is the minister of God, and a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.” Now, if he is not to bear the sward in vain, it follows that he is to use it to execute wrath on evildoers, and consequently to draw blood and to kill on proper occasions. As to the second species of warfare, it certainly is as reasonable and as right that a nation be secure against injustice, disorder, and rapine from without as from within; and therefore it is the right and duty of the government or ruler to use force and the sword to protect and maintain the rights of his people against evildoers of another nation. The reason and necessity of using force and the sword being the same in both cases, the right or the law must be the same also."
http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=64

As the framers believed in liberty of conscience, so they believed in freedom of oppression, and injustice.

The Scottish Enlightenment was more radical than that of Europe, because of its denial of the supernatural by Scots such as David Hume, and Francis Hutcheson. Because of this denial, we can exclude from this group, all the Founding Fathers, including John Locke, and the European Christian Theologians, who, without a doubt, believed in the supernatural. So what is enlightenment thought?

It is rule where reason is the ultimate standard, where man is the ultimate arbiter of truth. The other aspect of enlightenment thought that secularists apply to the framers is freewill; that this freedom of conscience originated out of the rationale of man's reason. Nothing could be farther from the truth, which is why the Founding Fathers rejected such utter nonsense.

The proof that the Founding Fathers rejected the enlightenment(rationalism) is their acceptance of the supernatural, and their understanding that freewill in man comes from the Bible, not from the mind of rationalist philosophers like David Hume, who, our framers, including Thomas Jefferson, rejected.

In my opinion, as well as that of Christian Theologians, including: John Calvin, Jonathan Edwards, John Wesley, Richard Hooker, John Witherspoon, Samuel von Pufendorf and Martin Luther; freewill, is laden throughout the New Testament, with The Saviour, Jesus Christ the greatest promoter of this fact. Contrary to the opinion of John Calvin, who, with the others affirmed Political Liberty, but denied Spirtual Freewill.

"A Christian man is the most free lord of all, and subject to none; a Christian man is the most dutiful servant of all, and subject to every one...Yea, the more of a Christian any man is, to so many the more evils, sufferings, and deaths is he subject, as we see in the first place in Christ the first-born, and in all His holy brethren."
Martin Luther-On Christian Freedom, 1520
http://www-personal.ksu.edu/~lyman/english233/Luther-CF.htm

"When a man-made law is imposed upon the soul to make it believe this or that as its human author may prescribe, there is certainly no word of God for it. If there is no word of God for it, then we cannot be sure whether God wishes to have it so, for we cannot be certain that something which he does not command is pleasing to him."
Martin Luther, Luther's Works, Christian in Society II, Vol, 45, 1523. edited by Jaroslav Pelikan et al)
http://books.google.com/books?id=At8kLNZSawoC&pg=PP1&ots=cjXvFGHcY_&dq=isbn:0800603451&sig=YKDybG8G5RpWzTGjo1FneMrnN2o#PPA6,M1
"By this procedure no one is compelled to believe, for he can still believe what he will; but he is forbidden to teach and to blaspheme."
(LW, Vol. 13, 61-62) edited by Jaroslav Pelikan et al

Here James Madison affirms Luther's leading the way in governments removal on the mind of man:

It illustrates the excellence of a system which, by a due distinction, to which the genius and courage of Luther led the way, between what is due to Caesar and what is due God, best promotes the discharge of both obligations. The experience of the United States is a happy disproof of the error so long rooted in the unenlightened minds of well-meaning Christians, as well as in the corrupt hearts of persecuting usurpers, that without a legal incorporation of religious and civil polity, neither could be supported.
TO F. L. SCHAEFFER Montpellier, Dec. 3rd ,1821
http://personal.pitnet.net/primarysources/madisonluther.html

If anyone has granted freedom of conscience to the people, it is Christian people. Luther believed in freedom of conscience, but affirmed the penalties for breaking Biblical Law. I disagree with Luther's proposed penalties apart from murder. The Founding Fathers' upholding of the second table of the law, minus the tenth commandment, is obvious and right; the first two commandments cannot be mandated, yet alone, are contrary to freedom of conscience; the just punishments to the crimes, made by the framers, I concur with.

Another interesting aspect to the enlightenment theory, as applied to the morality, and penalty to the minds of the Founding Fathers, had a non-existent effect. The Bible trumped enlightenment thought, with the death penalty for adultery not lessened until the 1780's. The fact is, the death penalty "was standard for a laundry list of crimes--from adultery to murder, from arson to stealing horses." Robbery and Counterfeiting were also capital offenses.
The Death Penalty: An American History by Stuart Banner
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbninquiry.asp?ean=9780674010833&z=y#TABS

Contrary to enlightenment philosophers, here are some of Jesus' words affirming freewill:

John 4:14
"But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life."
John 6:40,47,51,54
"And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day."
"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life."
"I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever:"
"Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day."
John 7:37
"In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink."
John 8:51
"Verily, verily, I say unto you, If a man keep my saying, he shall never see death."
John 11:26
"And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?"

This is just one book of the Bible; Paul, James, Luke, Jude, and Peter affirmed the same doctrine. The Bible teaches freewill for salvation; practically all of the founding fathers believed this doctrine, as well as the early church fathers, and Christian Theologians.

Pufendorf, on the Bible's superiority, and man's reason:

"For this reason in Scripture too the law is said to be "written in the hearts" of men.[4] [Romans, ii, 15.]...so that man would not be sociable either, if not imbued with religion; and since reason alone cannot go further in religion than in so far as the latter subserves the promotion of peace and sociability in this life. For, in so far as religion promotes the salvation of souls, it proceeds from a special divine revelation."
CHAPTER III On Natural Law, THE TWO BOOKS ON THE DUTY OF MAN AND CITIZEN ACCORDING TO THE NATURAL LAW

Pufendorf believed, as did the framers, man's reason could not save anyone, or reveal who God is.

The founders employed freedom of conscience into Political Liberty, the system John Witherspoon taught James Madison and other students at Princeton.

Witherspoon's students included, in addition to a president and vice-president of the United States, nine cabinet members, twenty-one senators, thirty-nine congressmen, three justices of the Supreme Court, and twelve state governors. Five of the nine Princeton graduates among the fifty-five members of the Constitutional Convention of 1787 were students of Witherspoon.
Witherspoon, John Locke, the Christian Philosophers, and our founding fathers, received the politically couched freedom of conscience from the Bible, not from enlightenment philosophers.


Here, Witherspoon affirms, total depravity, the supernatural, original sin, and Supreme Authority of Scripture:

"When I say it is a supernatural change, I mean that it is what man cannot by his own power effect without superior or divine aid. As we are by nature in a state of enmity against God, so this is what we cannot "of ourselves" remove or overcome. The exercise of our own rational powers, the persuasion of others, the application of all moral motives of every kind, will be ineffectual, without the special operation of the Spirit and Grace of God." John Witherspoon, Works, Section IV http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&id=07Ji84GdfMAC&dq=the+works+of+john+witherspoon&printsec=frontcover&source=web&ots=XxXlSuuHCf&sig=leZSRSgk3I-CqQk3VJf8vHcZumw#PPA14,M1

Thomas Aquinas spoke of Natural Law, primacy of reason in human affairs, five-hundred years before Deist Benjamin Franklin. Man's reason, freedom of conscience, science, and Natural Law are Biblical concepts; ascribing these theories to the enlightenment is false. Enlightenment theory, denied the supernatural, nothing more.
As to the doctrine of the New Birth(being born again) as a child of God, its reference is in John 3:7-8:


"Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. The wind bloweth where it listeth...so is every one that is born of the Spirit."

All the founding fathers that learned at Princeton, James Madison referenced earlier, was taught this New Birth that Jesus speaks of. Princeton alum, Benjamin Rush(1760), who served in the Adams, Jefferson, and Madison administrations, was taught the same thing:

"But inhabiting this earthly body is the body spiritual, immortal, the essence of our Heavenly Father, which expressed the Holy Spirit. It is the awakening of this Spirit which our Saviour refers to when He tells us that we must be born again." Benjamin Rush, The Road to Fulfillment, The Law of New Birth, p.85, Harper & Brothers, 1942, New York and London.

As far as morality goes, Rush was only against the death penalty, not because of enlightenment humanitarism, but to make punishment more efficient, and better.

No doubt, there are countless other framers who believed this doctrine, including ministers: Robert Treat Paine, Lyman Hall, and Abraham Baldwin.

Belief in predestination, espoused by John Calvin, seems to be adhered to by a small percentage of founding fathers, freewill, was the pervading viewpoint. The use of philosophical language by Born Again Founding Fathers, proves the language was common by everyone, not evidence of belief in heterodoxy.































Friday, December 21, 2007

How many Founding Fathers were involved in Church Ministry?

In October, during one of the numerous presidential debates, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, now a candidate for the Republican Party presidential nomination, made the following statement:

"When our founding fathers put their signatures on the Declaration of Independence, those 56 brave people, most of whom, by the way, were clergymen, they said that we have certain inalienable rights given to us by our creator, and among these life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, life being one of them."

Were most of the Signers clergymen? The answer is No, but by Webster's definition of what constitutes a minister of the Gospel, there are at least three. J.L. Bell, at his blog, “Boston 1775" identifys only one: John Witherspoon.

Of course, Republican Candidate Mike Huckabee's statement is incorrect, showing his knowledge of history. Going back to the foundation of our country, with the inclusion of the Signers of the Articles of Association, and Confederation, there may be more.

Signer of the Declaration of Independence Robert Treat Paine was a minister, no matter how long his tenure:

Robert G. Ferris (editor), Signers of the Declaration: Historic Places Commemorating the Signing of the Declaration of Independence, published by the United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service: Washington, D.C. (revised edition 1975), page 115-116:
"A clergyman turned lawyer-jurist, Robert Treat Paine"
http://www.adherents.com/people/pp/Robert_Treat_Paine.html

"He acted as chaplain of the troops on the northern frontier in 1755 and subsequently preached in the pulpits of the regular clergy in Boston and vicinity."
http://virtualology.com/declarationofindependence/RobertTreatPaine.com/

Webster's in 1828, supports my description of Paine:

ORDA''INED, pp. Appointed; instituted; established; invested with ministerial or pastoral functions; settled.
http://machaut.uchicago.edu/?action=search&word=ordained&resource=Webster%27s&quicksearch=:

CHAPLAIN, n. 1. An ecclesiastic who has a chapel, or who performs service in a chapel. The king of Great Britain has forty-eight chaplains, who attend, four each month, to perform divine service for the royal family. Princes also, and persons of quality have chaplains, who officiate in their chapels.
2. A CLERGYMAN who belongs to a ship of war, or to a regiment of land forces, for performing divine service.

It is true, Paine departed from Christianity and became a unitarian, this point being irrelevant, as Paine was orthodox while helping to form the nation.

Signer of the Declaration Lyman Hall was a minister:

"In 1749 he began preaching in Bridgeport and adjacent towns. Young and immature, he probably entrapped himself in the middle of a liberal-conservative schism and in some way alienated his congregation. But repentance brought quick reinstatement from dismissal in 1751, and for a couple of years he temporarily filled vacant pulpits."
Robert G. Ferris (editor), Signers of the Declaration: Historic Places Commemorating the Signing of the Declaration of Independence, published by the United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service: Washington, D.C. (revised edition 1975), pages 65-67
http://www.adherents.com/people/ph/Lyman_Hall.html

"Hall graduated from Yale College in 1747 and studied theology with his uncle, Rev Samuel Hall (1695-1776; Yale 1716) in Cheshire, CT. In 1749, he was called to the pulpit of Stratfield Parish (now Bridgeport, CT). His pastorate was a stormy one"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyman_Hall

Constitution Signer Abraham Baldwin was a minister:

"He graduated in 1772. Three years later, he became a minister and tutor at the college. He held that position until 1779, when he served as a chaplain in the Continental Army."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Baldwin

Being called and licensed to preach is sufficient to being considered a minister, the strict interpretation of being "ordained" is a cop out. The greatest preacher of the Great Awakening, Jonathon Edwards, preached for years without being ordained.

How many more founding fathers were ministers of the Gospel?

Monday, December 17, 2007

John Calvin's involvement in the execution of Michael Servetus

From my past understanding regarding John Calvin's guilt of the Michael Servetus episode, I admit I was guilty of judgment without proper investigation into the act and circumstances of this horrible crime. I, like many, thought John Calvin sentenced and executed Michael Servetus, for speaking out against God, but, there is more to the story, with John Calvin being somewhat vindicated.

The people of Geneva were the ones who wanted to execute Servetus, the same people who kicked Calvin out of Geneva in 1537. Calvin did not want to execute him, but the evidence seems to indicate, he was forced into going along with the sentence. Calvin was not the final authority in Geneva.

The truth is, although Calvin had some hand in the arrest and imprisonment of Servetus, he was unwilling that he should be burnt at all. "I desire," says he, "that the severity of the punishment should be remitted." "We wndeavored to commute the kind of death, but in vain." "By wishing to mitigate the severity of the punishment," says Farel to Calvin, "you discharge the office of a friend towards your greatest enemy." "That Calvin was the instigator of the magistrates that Servetus might be burned," says Turritine, "historians neither anywhere affirm, nor does it appear from any considerations. Nay, it is certain, that he, with the college of pastors, dissuaded from that kind of punishment."

It has been often asserted, that Calvin possessed so much influence with the magistrates of Geneva that he might have obtained the release of Servetus, had he not been desirous of his destruction. This however, is not true. So far from it, that Calvin was himself once banished from Geneva, by these very magistrates, and often opposed their arbitrary measures in vain. So little desirous was Calvin of procuring the death of Servetus that he warned him of his danger, and suffered him to remain several weeks at Geneva, before he was arrested. But his language, which was then accounted blasphemous, was the cause of his imprisonment. When in prison, Calvin visited him, and used every argument to persuade him to retract his horrible blasphemies, without reference to his peculiar sentiments. This was the extent of Calvin's agency in this unhappy affair.

It cannot, however, be denied, that in this instance, Calvin acted contrary to the benignant spirit of the Gospel. It is better to drop a tear over the inconsistency of human nature, and to bewail those infirmities which cannot be justified. He declared he acted conscientiously, and publicly justified the act.
Foxes Book of Martyrs
http://www.ccel.org/f/foxe/martyrs/fox113.htm

That Calvin justified the execution was wrong, and contrary to the Law of Nature, but, in my humble opinion, his guilt was only manifested by the people's thirst for blood. This event would never have happened if Calvin had authority of the situation, as his writings indicate. The unfortunate actions of Christians should not be used against Christianity, no matter who supported that action. The blasphemies, no doubt, stirred up the city to fever pitch; the question of correct punishment is thus pondered.

Monday, December 3, 2007

The Religious Beliefs of John Adams

Along with James Madison, here is another case where I have uncovered new information that gives more light into the religious beliefs of Founding Father John Adams, while he helped form our nation. The evidence is what I suspected; along with Madison, Adams was not a rationalist. Adams denied the Deity, and Virgin Birth of the Messiah Jesus Christ, but he believed in the supernatural, inerrancy, original sin, the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, eternal judgment for the wicked, and His physical return to the earth. Adams' mentor Joseph Priestley, denied the Blood Atonement, which Adams may have also rejected, but by examining Priestley's words, he had no clue about Old Testament sacrifices for sin. Here then, are the words of John Adams:

"It is a striking Representation of that Struggle which I believe always happens, between Virtue and Ambition, when a Man first commences a Courtier. By a Courtier I mean one who applies himself to the Passions and Prejudices, the Follies and Vices of great Men in order to obtain their Smiles, their Esteem and Patronage and consequently their favours and Preferments. Human Nature, depraved as it is, has interwoven in its very Frame, a Love of Truth, Sincerity, and Integrity, which must be overcome by Art, Education, and habit, before the Man can become entirely ductile to the Will of a dishonest Master. When such a Master requires of all who seek his favour, an implicit Resignation to his Will and Humour, and these require that he be soothed, flattered and assisted in his Vices, and Follies, perhaps the blackest Crimes, that Men can commit, the first Thought of this will produce in a Mind not yet entirely debauched, a Soliloqui, something like my Motto -- as if he should say -- The Minister of State or the Governor would promote my Interest, would advance me to Places of Honour and Profitt, would raise me and my family to Titles and Dignities that will be perpetuated in my family, in a Word would make the Fortune of me and my Posterity forever, if I would but comply with his Desires and become his Instrument to promote his Measures. -- But still I dread the Consequences. He requires of me, such Complyances, such horrid Crimes, such a Sacrifice of my Honour, my Conscience, my Friends, my Country, my God, as the Scriptures inform us must be punished with nothing less than Hell Fire, eternal Torment. And this is so unequal a Price to pay for the Honours and Emoluments in the Power of a Minister or Governor, that I cannot prevail upon myself to think of it. The Duration of future Punishment terrifies me. If I could but deceive myself so far as to think Eternity a Moment only, I could comply, and be promoted. Such as these are probably the Sentiments of a Mind as yet pure, and undifiled in its Morals, and undifiled in its Morals. And many and severe are the Pangs, and Agonies it must undergo, before it will be brought to yield entirely to Temptation. Notwithstanding this, We see every Day, that our Imaginations are so strong and our Reason so weak, the Charms of Wealth and Power are so en [enchanting]chanting, and the Belief of future Punishments so faint, that Men find Ways to persuade themselves, to believe any Absurdity, to submit to any Prostitution, than rather than forego their Wishes and Desires. Their Reason becomes at last an eloquent Advocate on the Side of their Passions, and [they] bring themselves to believe that black is white, that Vice is Virtue, that Folly is Wisdom and Eternity a Moment."
JOHN ADAMS Diary, FEB, 9TH, 1772. ADAMS PAPERS.
http://www.masshist.org/digitaladams/aea/cfm/doc.cfm?id=D16

Adams again, affirming original sin:

"Thus we are equally obliged to the Supream Being for the Information he has given us of our Duty, whether by the Constitution of our Minds and Bodies or by a supernatural Revelation. For an instance of the latter let us take original sin. Some say that Adams sin was enough to damn the whole human Race, without any actual Crimes committed by any of them. Now this Guiltis brought upon them not by their own rashness and Indiscretion, not by their own Wickedness and Vice, but by the Supream Being. This Guilt brought upon us is a real Injury and Misfortune because it renders us worse than not to be, and therefore making us guilty upon account of Adams Delegation, or Representing all of us, is not in the least diminishing the Injury and Injustice but only changing the mode of conveyance."
John Adams diary August 15, 1756.

This affirmation on total depravity was not reversed until after he left office. Adams' belief in original sin is also consistent with his view on the inferiority of man's reason.

"The passions and appetites are parts of human nature as well as reason and the moral sense. In the institution of government it must be remembered that, although reason ought always to govern individuals, it certainly never did since the Fall, and never will till the Millennium; and human nature must be taken as it is, as it has been, and will be."
John Adams, 1787, Defence, 3:289, 479. Cf., Cited by Michael Novak, On Two Wings: Humble Faith and Common Sense at the American Founding (San Francisco, CA: Encounter Books, 2002).

Clearly in this quote, ADAMS believes man's reason is inferior to God's direct revelation, and always will be. He believes man is corrupted because of sin, not partially corrupted. A partial corruption of man is illogical; a little leaven leavens the whole lump. To rely on a flawed program for ultimate truth is a chimerical idea.

Here also, is a quote from James Madison supporting the Gospel of Jesus Christ, of which includes: That God came to earth, in the form of human flesh, born of a virgin, died for the sins of the world, and rose from the dead for our justification. This Gospel, James Madison is defending; proof of his adherence to it, is found in his Memorial and Remonstrance.

"Does not the exclusion of Ministers of the Gospel, as such, violate a fundamental principle of liberty, by punishing a religious profession with the privation of a civil right? Does it not violate another article of the plan itself, which exempts religion from the cognizance of Civil power? Does it not violate justice, by at once taking away a right and prohibiting a compensation for it? Does it not, in fine, violate impartiality, by shutting the door against the Ministers of one religion and leaving it open for those of every other?" James Madison, August 23, 1785 to John Brown, (Kentucky) Papers of James Madison.

It would seem strange for Madison to affirm the truth of Christianity in his Memorial, and deny the Gospel, which he here, is supporting.

Man's reason is inefficient for absolute truth, because of its corruption by the sinful nature, this, Adams surely believed. Man's reason is flawed, and with no direct authority to adhere to, it is foolish to think the conscience can be the basis of ultimate truth. Of course, the framers, except Jefferson, Franklin, and maybe Washington, at the forming of our nation, believed the Bible is superior to man's conscience. Along with Madison, Adams' university training did not teach him man's conscience is superior to God's word, but the opposite; only later, their unfortunate relationship with Thomas Jefferson, however mislead, corrupted their beliefs.

These quotes show without a doubt his meaning of the Law of Nature was The God of the Bible, what he believed after he left office need not be shown.







Wednesday, November 28, 2007

The Religion of James Madison: Part Two

New insight has been found concerning the religious beliefs of James Madison, maybe this information is common knowledge, but let Mr. Madison's words speak for himself; in no way was Mr. Madison a rationalist, the evidence from his Memorial and Remonstrance in 1785, without any other quotes from him supporting heterodoxy prior to 1785, he must be considered an orthodox Christian, or at the least, a unitarian. Without any quote from Madison regarding Socianism, Arianism, or Unitarianism that I have overlooked, the evidence from the Memorial support his orthodoxy. Let James Madison speak for himself:

"All civilized societies would be divided into different sects, factions...the disciples of this religious sect or that religious sect. In all cases where a majority are united by a common interest or passion, the rights of the minority are in danger. What motives are to restrain them? A prudent regard to the maxim, that honesty is the best policy, is found by experience to be as little regarded by bodies of men as by individuals. Respect for character is always diminished in proportion to the number among whom the blame or praise is to be divided. Conscience, the only remaining tie, is known to be inadequate in individuals; in large numbers, little is to be expected from it. Besides, religion itself, may become a motive to persecution and oppression." James Madison, June 6, 1787. Journal of the Federal Convention by Madison.

Madison is saying reason is insufficient as the primary revelation of truth, thus eliminating the rationalist label put upon him. To Madison, man's reason was insufficient to be ultimate truth, yet alone, to base religion or morality upon. Madison defers to religion because the correct religion is obviously superior to reason; a substitute for the conscience, and this religion is the "light of revelation" he speaks about in his Memorial. He then, claims even religion, can be perverted, as its past abuses show. Madison then claims his belief of the remedy is Republicanism by God's Law:

"The only remedy is, to enlarge the sphere, and thereby divide the community into so great a number of interests and parties, that, in the first place, a majority will not be likely, at the same moment, to have a common interest separate from that of the whole, or of the minority; and in the second place, that in case they should have such an interest, they may not be so apt to unite in the pursuit of it. It was incumbent on us, then, to try this remedy, and, with that view, to frame a republican system on such a scale, and in such a form, as will control all the evils which have been experienced." Madison, June 6, 1788. Elliot's Debates In the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution(Virginia).

Not only was Madison orthodox in his beliefs in Christianity, included in that orthodoxy he believed in was original sin, evidenced by all his references about the evil of man, and Republicanism as a partial remedy. There is no partial depravity in man, man is a sinner or he isn't. Of course man can be good, but this is common sense. Madison again on the depravity of man, which he believed in from his childhood to the orthodox teaching he received at Princeton:

"If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself." Federalist #51.

The internal control over man he speaks of is to halt the depravity of man, which he believed in. Only until he became a polytheist did he become a clear arminian.

From these statements, we know Madison believed Republicanism was designed to limit sin, as much as possible, which Madison believed was the reason for a separation of powers in a Republican Government. As you can see, while Madison helped form the nation, he concurred with Montesquieu, that the separation of powers doctrine is a part of the only true religion, Christianity, and Jeremiah 17:9 is inherent in it, "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?"

The sum of this matter, which has been speculated on for years, is, unless new insights into Madison's words are revealed, that James Madison was an orthodox Christian; his notes referring to "what is christianity" by itself, does not support him being heterodox, but only that he thought those sects were Christian. It seems at this point in his life, he held the same views as fellow framer, Benjamin Rush, which were orthodox views on the essentials of Christianity.

Madison's departure from these essentials happened after he helped form the nation, as I earlier noted. What is clear, so far, is James Madison was no rationalist, or theistic rationalist. He believed man's reason was insufficient for determining truth, because man's reason is flawed and can never be trusted to be superior to God's word, which is direct, rather than unreliable like our conscience. To believe man's flawed reason is superior to a direct revelation from God, is the height of foolishness. Even in large numbers, Madison believed man's reason was flawed, because a written law is not employed. Only Republicanism, of God's Law is sufficient.

Tuesday, November 6, 2007

The Religion of James Madison While He Helped Form the Nation

If, it is agreed that the beliefs of our Founding Fathers is only relevant during the time they helped establish the nation, the fact is, James Madison held to orthodox Christian views, until his unfortunate relationship with the infidel Thomas Jefferson led him away from the Gospel of Jesus Christ. By a close examination of Madison's Memorial and Remonstrance, one perceives he was still an orthodox Christian, not departing from the faith until years later.

The Memorial is filled with declarations for the truth of Christianity, that is, the orthodox beliefs held by the majority of Christians for hundreds of years.

"Whilst we assert for ourselves a freedom to embrace, to profess and to observe the Religion which we believe to be of divine origin, we cannot deny an equal freedom to those whose minds have not yet yielded to the evidence which has convinced us." James Madison, Memorial and Remonstrance, [ca. 20 June 1785] http://odur.let.rug.nl/~usa/P/jm4/writings/memor.htm

Madison is here, including himself with orthodox Christians, not infidel whigs, or anyone else. He is saying I am one of you. A key point to understand is the audience the seminary student is addressing; most, if not all those Virginians were orthodox Christians, as historian James Hutson notes, this document was “written to appeal to evangelical forces during a petition campaign in 1785.″ These evangelical forces were orthodox, the secret "infidel" whigs were not a threat. http://positiveliberty.com/2007/09/bishop-meade-on-james-madisons-creed.html

Another point to reflect on is Bishop Meade's comments on Madison's words for Christianity. When Meade writes,

"It is drawn up on the supposition of the truth of Christianity. It must indeed have done this in order to be acceptable to those by whom it was solicited." http://books.google.com/books?id=M0oOAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA305&dq=bishop+meade,+old+churches+volume+II+papers#PPA1,M1

Does Meade understand this comment as an attack against Madison not being truthful, or an obvious statement? I believe it's the latter; accusing Madison of being disengenious, lying to his family, and the people of Virginia just to defeat an assessment bill doesn't seem right to me. Even if Bishop Meade does believe Madison is lying to garner votes, does that seem to be Madison's character? The words Madison uses in the Memorial seem to be authentic, with a great deal of time and thought put into it:

"Because the Bill implies either that the Civil Magistrate is a competent Judge of Religious Truth; or that he may employ Religion as an engine of Civil policy... The second an unhallowed perversion of the means of salvation."

Madison is saying Christianity is the only truth, and Jesus is the only means of salvation. Earlier, he explained Christianity is true, and everything else false; again, do not be deceived about the Christianity Madison is talking about. He is referring to orthodoxy, not heterodoxy. Madison was no universalist at this time, and from the orthodox audience he's addressing, labeling him anything else is unreasonable as well. Here Madison wishes everyone would be a Christian:

"Because the policy of the Bill is adverse to the diffusion of the light of Christianity. The first wish of those who enjoy this precious gift ought to be that it(Christianity) may be imparted to the whole race of mankind."

If another religion was adequate for salvation, Madison would never have said this. Again, Madison exalts Christianity over the other false religions; quite different from his "best and purest religion" comment in 1833. Madison again:

"Compare the number of those who have as yet received it with the number still remaining under the dominion of false Religions; and how small is the former! Does the policy of the Bill tend to lessen the disproportion? No; it at once discourages those who are strangers to the light of revelation from coming into the Region of it; and countenances by example the nations who continue in darkness, in shutting out those who might convey it to them. Instead of Levelling as far as possible, every obstacle to the victorious progress of Truth"

As to the faith of James Madison after forming the nation, I see it as irrelevant; although, I firmly believe he abandoned Jesus Christ, and became a polytheist, as is current President, George Bush.

Monday, November 5, 2007

Who is the God of the Founding Fathers, The Law of Nature and Nature's God?

Without any doubt whatsoever, The Law of Nature is Jesus Christ, The image of the invisible God(Yahweh, the God of Israel). The Founding Fathers made this very clear before they made the Declaration of Independence. William Livingston(Yale 1741) prepared a Congressional proclamation for a national day of prayer and fasting, which Congress designated May 17, 1776, as the day of its observance. The proclamation declared:

"The Congress...desirous...to have people of all ranks and degrees duly impressed with a solemn sense of God's superintending providence, and of their duty devoutly to rely.... on His aid and direction... do earnestly recommend...a day of humiliation, fasting, and prayer; that we may with united hearts confess and bewail our manifold sins and transgressions and, by a sincere repentance and amendment of life,...and through the Merits and mediation of Jesus Christ, obtain His pardon and forgiveness."
Journals of Congress (1905), Vol. IV, pp. 208-209, May 17, 1776.

The acting President of the Colonies was John Hancock, who was the only signer of the Declaration on July 2. To say that Hancock, and Congress would sign a Declaration affirming a deist, undefined god, when they declared a month and a half earlier their God was Jesus Christ, is deceit!(emphasis added)

To ascribe unalienable rights from an undefined Creator is illogical, and an embarrassment to Jesus Christ, who was given the homage for His merciful Blessings upon the colonies. Because of God's Providence in the American victories at Bennington, Stillwater, Saratoga, and others, Congress drafted and approved a proclamation for a national day of prayer and thanksgiving; this proclamation was approved on November 1, 1777:

"Forasmuch as it is the indispensable duty of all men to adore the superintending providence of Almighty God; to acknowledge with gratitude their obligation to Him for benefits received...[to offer] humble and earnest supplication that it may please God, through the merits of Jesus Christ, mercifully to forgive and blot [our sins] out of remembrance...and to prosper the means of religion for the promotion and enlargement of that kingdom which consisteth "in righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost."
Journals of...Congress (1907), Vol. IX, 1777, pp 854-855, November 1, 1777.

As you can see, this proclamation drafted by the same men who signed the Declaration, prayed to Jesus Christ, not to an undefined creator. Did the Founding Fathers apply laws and morality from an undefined creator? Of course not. They knew who their God was, and they studied His Word their entire lives in the schools; the Law of Nature in the Declaration of Independence is Jesus Christ, who is the express image, or exact representation of the God of Israel. That the Christian philosophers from Thomas Aquinas to John Locke agreed, is indisputable. The Christian State Constitutions were drafted by mostly the same men who drafted the Declaration, it is unreasonable to say they would have forgot who their God was. That a few Founding Fathers: Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, and Allen, were in error believing in a universalist god is their problem; ultimately, is irrelevant to the God, religion, law, and morality of the United States, which is based on the Bible.

Wednesday, October 31, 2007

The Founding Fathers Justified Righteous Rebellion From the Bible

The Founding Fathers justified their civil war(as it was called in the beginning) by the will of God in the Bible, not by enlightenment rationalism, or any other ism(sp), by infidels like: Jean Jacques Rousseau, Immanuel Kant, or Joseph Priestley.

Romans 13:
3For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:
4For he is the minister of God to thee for good.

Rulers in this case is the government correct? God says this ruler is the minister of God, correct? Only good government is ordained by God, that evil government is ordained by God is not possible, and irrational, though all power is ultimately from God. This is all common sense. The heroes of the faith in the book of Hebrews rebelled against authority; they are exalted because what they rebelled against was contrary to the Law of Nature. That God would ordain wickedness and corrupt government, which He condemns in His Word, is absurd!

Here, John Jay speaks of Biblical justification for righteous rebellion in Romans 13:

"As to the first species of warfare, in every state or kingdom, the government or executive ruler has, throughout all ages, pursued, and often at the expense of blood, attacked, captured, and subdued murderers, robbers, and other offenders; by force confining them in chains and in prisons, and by force inflicting on them punishment; never rendering to them good for evil, for that duty attaches to individuals in their personal or private capacities, but not to rulers or magistrates in their official capacities. This species of war has constantly and universally been deemed just and indispensable. On this topic the gospel is explicit. It commands us to obey the higher powers or ruler. It reminds us that “he beareth not the sword in vain”; that “he is the minister of God, and a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.” Now, if he is not to bear the sward in vain, it follows that he is to use it to execute wrath on evildoers, and consequently to draw blood and to kill on proper occasions.As to the second species of warfare, it certainly is as reasonable and as right that a nation be secure against injustice, disorder, and rapine from without as from within; and therefore it is the right and duty of the government or ruler to use force and the sword to protect and maintain the rights of his people against evildoers of another nation. The reason and necessity of using force and the sword being the same in both cases, the right or the law must be the same also."

John Jay, appointed by President George Washington as the first Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court. In addition to serving on the Supreme Court, Jay had a very distinguished history of public service. He was a member of the Continental Congress (1774-76, 1778-79) and served as President of Congress (1778-79); he helped write the New York State constitution (1777); he authored the first manual on military discipline (1777); he served as Chief-Justice of New York Supreme Court (1777-78); he was appointed minister to Spain (1779); he signed the final peace treaty with Great Britain (1783); and he was elected as Governor of New York (1795- 1801). Jay is also famous as one of the three coauthors, along with James Madison and Alexander Hamilton, of the Federalist Papers, which were instrumental in securing the ratification of the federal Constitution. John Jay was a strong Christian, serving both as vice-president of the American Bible Society (1816-21) and its president (1821- 27), and he was a member of American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions. In this series of letters, John Jay expounds on the Biblical view of war. The Correspondence and Public Papers of John Jay, Henry Johnston, editor (New York: G. P. Punam's Sons, 1893), Vol. IV, pp. 391-393, 403-419, letters to John Murray, October 12, 1816 and April 15, 1818. http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=64

Founding Father James Otis (a leader of the Sons of Liberty and the mentor of Samuel Adams) in a 1766 work argued that the only king who had any Divine right was God Himself; beyond that, God had ordained power to rest with the people:

Has it [government] any solid foundation? any chief cornerstone. . . ? I think it has an everlasting foundation in the unchangeable will of God, the Author of Nature whose laws never vary. . . . Government. . . . is by no means an arbitrary thing depending merely on compact or human will for its existence. . . . The power of God Almighty is the only power that can properly and strictly be called supreme and absolute. In the order of nature immediately under Him comes the power of a simple democracy, or the power of the whole over the whole. . . . [God is] the only monarch in the universe who has a clear and indisputable right to absolute power because He is the only one who is omniscient as well as omnipotent. . . . The sum of my argument is that civil government is of God, that the administrators of it were originally the whole people.
James Otis, The Rights of the British Colonies Asserted and Proved (Boston: J. Williams 1766), pp. 11, 12, 13, 98.

Rebellion against corrupt govt was approved by the framers:

[T]here was no anarchy. . . . [T]he people of the North American union, and of its constituent States, were associated bodies of civilized men and Christians in a state of nature, but not of anarchy. They were bound by the laws of God, which they all, and by the laws of the Gospel, which they nearly all, acknowledged as the rules of their conduct.
John Quincy Adams, An Address Delivered at the Request of the Committee of Arrangements for the Celebrating the Anniversary of Independence at the City of Washington on the Fourth of July 1821 upon the Occasion of Reading The Declaration of Independence (Cambridge: Hilliard and Metcalf, 1821), p. 28.

Notice that Adams, and the rest of the Founding Fathers believed the author of nature, state of nature, is God, not just man's reason. To separate reason from the Creator of Reason is laughable, and illogical.

Wednesday, October 24, 2007

Founding Fathers Considered Clergy

The colleges the Founding Fathers graduated from were seminaries; some of them are: Princeton, Harvard, and Yale. Most of the Founding Fathers were not pastors, but were church officers, elders, managers, or founders of Bible societies; showing the clergy label upon them is correct.

It is correct then, that almost half the signers of the Declaration of Independence, as well as most every Founding Father graduated from orthodox Christian teaching seminaries. That Harvard, and William and Mary taught infidelity[a disbelief in the Scriptures and in Christianity] is irrelevant; the relevant point is did the founding fathers subscribe to infidelity? The answer is a definite no!(emphasis added) Infidels Thomas Jefferson, John Marshall(became orthodox at the end of his life), and John Adams are the only popular founding fathers who attended hotbeds of infidelity that were not orthodox; William and Mary, and Harvard respectively.

Many of our Founding Fathers graduated from seminaries, were considered church elders/church officers; here is a small list:

SAMUEL ADAMS, SIGNER OF THE DECLARATION, FATHER OF THE REVOLUTION, ATTENDED HARVARD, WAS ORTHODOX.

JOHN HANCOCK, FIRST SIGNER OF THE DECLARATION, ACTING PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, STARTED THE "MINUTEMEN," commissioned George Washington commander-in-chief of the Continental Army. GOVERNOR OF MASSACHUSETTS, ATTENDED HARVARD, WAS ORTHODOX.

JOHN QUINCY ADAMS: SIXTH PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, Vice-President of the American Bible Society; of the Massachusetts Bible Society. ATTENDED HARVARD, WAS ORTHODOX.

ROBERT TREAT PAINE (SIGNER OF THE DECLARATION): Military Chaplain. HELPED WRITE THE MASSACHUSETTS CONSTITUTION. ATTENDED HARVARD, WAS ORTHODOX.

RUFUS KING (SIGNER OF THE CONSTITUTION): Selected as manager@ of the American Bible Society, Signer of the Constitution, Ratifier of the Bill of Rights, ATTENDED HARVARD, WAS ORTHODOX.

BUSHROD WASHINGTON was a (U. S. SUPREME COURT JUSTICE), Vice-President of the American Bible Society, and Vice-President of the American Sunday School Union. ATTENDED WILLIAM AND MARY, WAS ORTHODOX.

JOHN LOWELL (REVOLUTIONARY OFFICER; MEMBER OF THE CONTINENTAL CONGRESS): Member of the Society for the Propagating of the Gospel among the Indians and Others. ATTENDED HARVARD, WAS ORTHODOX. Authored Article I in Massachusetts Constitution of 1779, and his insistence upon its adoption into the Bill of Rights, "All men are born free and equal, and have certain natural, essential and inalienable rights, among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties..."

JONATHAN TRUMBULL, GOVERNOR OF CONNECTICUT, ATTENDED HARVARD, WAS ORTHODOX, ORDAINED PASTOR.

TIMOTHY PICKERING, REVOLUTIONARY GENERAL; SECRETARY OF STATE, His ideas formed the Northwest Ordinance, ATTENDED HARVARD, WAS ORTHODOX.

WILLIAM SAMUEL JOHNSON, SIGNER OF THE CONSTITUTION, ATTENDED YALE, WAS ORTHODOX.

ZEPHANIAH SWIFT, AUTHOR OF AMERICA'S FIRST LEGAL TEXT, ATTENDED YALE, WAS ORTHODOX.

JAMES BOWDOIN (GOVERNOR OF MASSACHUSETTS): Member of the Society for Propagating the Gospel Among the Indians and Others. ATTENDED HARVARD, WAS ORTHODOX.

JAMES KENT (FATHER OF AMERICAN JURISPRUDENCE) ATTENDED YALE, WAS ORTHODOX.

JOEL BARLOW (DIPLOMAT UNDER WASHINGTON AND ADAMS): Chaplain in the American Revolution for three years. ATTENDED YALE, WAS ORTHODOX, NOT BECOMING A LIBERAL UNTIL 1794.

JOHN COTTON SMITH (GOVERNOR OF CONNECTICUT; U. S. CONGRESSMAN): President of the Litchfield County Foreign Missionary Society; first President of the Connecticut Bible Society; President of the American Bible Society; President of the American Board of Foreign Missions. ATTENDED YALE, WAS ORTHODOX, A PURITAN MINISTER.

JOHN TREADWELL (GOVERNOR OF CONNECTICUT; MEMBER OF CONTINENTAL CONGRESS): Member of the Missionary Society of Connecticut. ATTENDED YALE, WAS ORTHODOX.

Most of these men were important Founding Fathers, which, without their leadership militarily, or as ratifiers of the Constitution, the United States would not exist as it is. Some of the secularist claims distort the issue, or twist the context so all the colleges appear to teach infidel principles and that every framer was an infidel; that deceit does not get past this blog. Here is an example:

"Barton is the one who most notably asserts something along the lines of 27 signers of the Declaration of Independence had "seminary" degrees. The reality is, they had degrees from places like Harvard, Yale, and Princeton which were originally founded with orthodox Christian missions. Something the Christian Nation crowd doesn't tell us about these "Christian" colleges, is during the time the founders (and the ministers they followed) were educated, those colleges became hotbeds of "infidelity," and even the seminary schools trained their ministers in "infidel" principles. The result was Harvard trained ministers like Jonathan Mayhew, Samuel West, and Charles Chauncy embraced theological unitarianism, universalism and rationalism and, in so doing, arguably ceased being "Christian," (or at least "Christian" as defined by its historic orthodoxy). These men also delivered the most notable and influential pro-revolutionary sermons from the pulpit. And even Witherspoon, who was an orthodox Christian, when he argued for Revolution from the pulpit, left his orthodox Christianity at the church door and instead turned to Locke, the Scottish Enlightenment and rationalism, because the Bible/orthodox Christianity could not provide a sufficient basis to justify revolt while those a-biblical sources could and did." http://jonrowe.blogspot.com/2007/10/david-bartons-myths-strike-mike.html

First, Princeton University was Presbyterian that did not teach infidel principles; Yale did not teach infidelity whatsoever; the student body may have been corrupt, but that has nothing to do with Yale, Penn, Columbia, Dartmouth, Princeton, or any other seminaries' curriculum. The fact is, the faulty curriculum of Harvard and William and Mary had no effect on the beliefs of the Founding Fathers; most likely Jefferson, and John Adams held their beliefs before they entered seminary, Jefferson a universalist, Adams a unitarian. Notice how this secularist names the different colleges, but only mentions preachers from Harvard; the list of orthodox preachers from the other seminaries(which are many more), or the orthodox preachers who came from Harvard he doesn't list.

"and many others including America’s key founding fathers, as theological unitarians and universalists arguably weren’t “Christians” (at least not as evangelicals or Catholics understand the term). Keep that in mind next time proponents of the Christian America thesis note the involvement of ministers or figures with “seminary” degrees who played key roles in America’s founding." http://www.positiveliberty.com/2007/09/conditions-of-orthodoxy-at-founding-era-colleges.html

This is a false statement, as there are not many other founding fathers who were unitarians and universalists, there are a few at the most: Washington, Franklin, Jefferson, John Adams, and John Marshall are the more popular ones that come to mind. In the end, the infidelity Harvard and William and Mary taught is irrelevant to the beliefs of the Founding Fathers. Some may have indeed turned to Born Again Christian John Locke for his beliefs on some issues; a justification to revolt is in the Bible, of which the framers knew.

Here, John Jay speaks of Biblical justification for righteous rebellion in Romans 13:

"As to the first species of warfare, in every state or kingdom, the government or executive ruler has, throughout all ages, pursued, and often at the expense of blood, attacked, captured, and subdued murderers, robbers, and other offenders; by force confining them in chains and in prisons, and by force inflicting on them punishment; never rendering to them good for evil, for that duty attaches to individuals in their personal or private capacities, but not to rulers or magistrates in their official capacities. This species of war has constantly and universally been deemed just and indispensable. On this topic the gospel is explicit. It commands us to obey the higher powers or ruler. It reminds us that “he beareth not the sword in vain”; that “he is the minister of God, and a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.” Now, if he is not to bear the sward in vain, it follows that he is to use it to execute wrath on evildoers, and consequently to draw blood and to kill on proper occasions.
As to the second species of warfare, it certainly is as reasonable and as right that a nation be secure against injustice, disorder, and rapine from without as from within; and therefore it is the right and duty of the government or ruler to use force and the sword to protect and maintain the rights of his people against evildoers of another nation. The reason and necessity of using force and the sword being the same in both cases, the right or the law must be the same also."

John Jay, appointed by President George Washington as the first Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court. In addition to serving on the Supreme Court, Jay had a very distinguished history of public service. He was a member of the Continental Congress (1774-76, 1778-79) and served as President of Congress (1778-79); he helped write the New York State constitution (1777); he authored the first manual on military discipline (1777); he served as Chief-Justice of New York Supreme Court (1777-78); he was appointed minister to Spain (1779); he signed the final peace treaty with Great Britain (1783); and he was elected as Governor of New York (1795- 1801). Jay is also famous as one of the three coauthors, along with James Madison and Alexander Hamilton, of the Federalist Papers, which were instrumental in securing the ratification of the federal Constitution. John Jay was a strong Christian, serving both as vice-president of the American Bible Society (1816-21) and its president (1821- 27), and he was a member of American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions. In this series of letters, John Jay expounds on the Biblical view of war. The Correspondence and Public Papers of John Jay, Henry Johnston, editor (New York: G. P. Punam's Sons, 1893), Vol. IV, pp. 391-393, 403-419, letters to John Murray, October 12, 1816 and April 15, 1818. http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=64


















Saturday, October 6, 2007

The Christian Foundation of Republican Government

For decades now, secular revisionists continue to deny the United States was founded a Christian nation; rejecting the Common Law foundation of Republican Government; Common Law, found in the Bible, is no longer a mystery; brought to light to refute the disingenuous agenda of the American secularist order. Common knowledge, and research of the Founding Fathers' writings shows the Republican Government of the United States was based on the political system of England. Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution, guarantees the United States shall guarantee every State in this Union a Republican form of Government.

The foundation of Republican Government is Law, Common Law. The basis of the Constitution's Republican Government, and Common Law, is without a doubt, The Ten Commandments from Yahweh, the God of Israel. It is an indisputable fact the Founding Fathers believed this(emphasis added). God ordained Republican Government three-thousand five-hundred years ago, albeit not formed as a theocracy, the Founding Fathers started a Constitutional Republic, based on representatives ruling for the people. It is irrelevant the differences in government, and manner the representatives came about to rule, Biblical Law is the standard, and in both cases the people agreed to the choosen Representatives:

Deuteronomy 1 (King James Version)
14And ye answered me, and said, The thing which thou hast spoken is good for us to do.
15So I took the chief of your tribes, wise men, and known, and made them heads over you, captains over thousands, and captains over hundreds, and captains over fifties, and captains over tens, and officers among your tribes.

Like I said, whether the representatives were selected or elected is irrelevant, this is only a diversion to reject the Biblical foundation. Secularists distort the issue by claiming Republican Government is where citizens elect representatives to actually govern, and authority is derived from the citizens or their elected representatives.This is an incorrect assertion; no where did the Christian Philosophers(Aquinas, Calvin, Locke, Blackstone, Montesquieu, etc.) believe electing representatives was the foundation of Republicanism. Law(Biblical Law) is the foundation of Republicanism; how representatives are elected is not mandatory. The only mandatory aspect of Republicanism is the acceptance of the people to form a government that has representatives, which is true of ancient Israel, and the United States.

From the Holy Bible, we see the conscience(reason) of man, and The Ten Commandments(Divine Law), is the foundation of Law in a Republican Government; this being clearly revealed to the world in the New Testament by the Apostle Paul in Romans 2:14-15:

"For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another."

Thomas Aquinas did not need to bypass the New Testament, and employ Aristotle's theories into the church, that was an error; the sacred oracles in man(conscience) were designed in man by the true God, Jesus Christ, not the "thought thinking self" of Aristotle.

The Founding Fathers rejected every other Republican Government, except that of the English, as James Madison explains:

"Sparta, Rome, and Carthage...These examples, though as unfit for the imitation, as they are repugnant to the genius, of America, are, notwithstanding, when compared with the fugitive and turbulent existence of other ancient republics, very instructive proofs of the necessity of some institution that will blend stability with liberty. I am not unaware of the circumstances which distinguish the American from other popular governments, as well ancient as modern; and which render extreme circumspection necessary, in reasoning from the one case to the other."
James Madison, Federalist #63
http://www.llpoh.org/federalist/63.html

The moral laws of the states prove their law was Biblical Law, and no other.

England is the main example of Republican Government to the Founding Fathers; the celebrated Montesquieu, their main authority on the matter. How did the English acquire Republican Government for their nation? Montesquieu explains:

"In perusing the admirable treatise of Tacitus On the Manners of the Germans, we find it is from that nation the English have borrowed the idea of their political government."
Book XI. Of the Laws Which Establish Political Liberty, with Regard to the Constitution 6. Of the Constitution ofEngland.

However, in my opinion, Sir William Blackstone provides a better explanation:

"there never was any formal exchange of one system of laws for another: though doubtless by the intermixture of adventitious nations, the Romans, the Picts, the Saxons, the Danes, and the Normans, they must have insensibly introduced and incorporated many of their own customs with those that were before established; thereby in all probability improving the texture and wisdom of the whole, by the accumulated wisdom of divers particular countries. Our laws, saith lord Bacon, are mixed as our language: and, as our language is so much the richer, the laws are the more complete.

And indeed our antiquaries and early historians do all positively assure us, that our body of laws is of this compounded nature. For they tell us, that in the time of Alfred, the local customs of the several provinces of the kingdom were grown so various, that he found it expedient to compile his dome-book, or liber judicialis, for the general use of the whole kingdom. This book is said to have been extant so late as the reign of king Edward the fourth, but is now unfortunately lost. It contained, we may probably suppose, the principal maxims of the common law, the penalties for misdemesnors, and the forms of judicial proceedings. Thus much may at least be collected from that injunction to observe it, which we find in the laws of king Edward the elder, the son of Alfred."

That the Divine Law is The Ten Commandments is clear:

"Divine Providence, which, in compassion to the frailty, the imperfection, and the blindness of human reason, hath been pleased, in sundry times and diverse manners, to discover and enforce it's laws by an immediate and direct revelation. The doctrines thus delivered we call the revealed or divine law, and they are to be found only in the Holy Scriptures" (emphasis added). Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England.
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/blackstone/introa.htm

Yet this rule admits of exception, where the former determination is most evidently contrary to reason; much more if it be dearly contrary to the divine law...And hence it is that our lawyers are with justice so copious in their encomiums on the reason of the common law, that they tell us, that the law is the perfection of reason, that it always intends to conform thereto, and that what is not reason is not law. Blackstone, SECTION THE THIRD. OF THE LAWS OF ENGLAND
http://www.constitution.org/tb/tb-1103.htm

So the immigrants from Europe brought with them their customs and religion; being primarily Christianity with Common Law. The Common Law is no doubt the Divine Law, and the Gospel as Blackstone has said. Christianity had spread into England as early as the first century; Christianity gaining converts throughout England by the beginning of the fourth century. Christianity was known in pagan saxon territory, as well as the rest of England:

"The discovery of the Darenth Bowl (a glass communion chalice c.450 A.D.) discovered by the Dartford District Archaeological Group in a Saxon grave in the grounds of the old Darenth Park Hospital has raised all sorts of questions about the possible survival of Christian belief in and around Dartford."
http://www.dartfordarchive.org.uk/early_history/religion_s.shtml

The Common Law of the Bible was instituted by early Christians, and Christian Kings: Ethelbert, in the sixth century, and in the ninth century under Christian King Alfred the Great, the only English King called the Great. Granted, the Bible was not translated into the common language of the people, but they understood the Gospel; their Common Law is evidence of this fact. So, Christianity is the foundation of Common Law; Republican Government founded on the Law and the Gospel.

The Founding Fathers were correct in claiming Common Law is founded on Christianity; if not for the sinfulness of man, what was the reason for the separation of powers in a Republican Government? There is no other reason for the separation of powers other than sin, and wickedness of man; the Founding Fathers knowing this full well.

"If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself."
James Madison, Federalist #51.

"Republican government loses half of its value where the moral and social duties are...negligently practiced. To exterminate our popular vices is a work of far more importance to the charachter and happiness of our citizens, than any other improvements in our system of education. [T]he moral principles and precepts contained in the Scriptures ought to form the basis of all our civil constitutions and laws....All the miseries and evils which men suffer from vice, crime, and ambition, injustice, oppression, slavery and war, proceed from their despising or neglecting the precepts contained in the Bible." History, p. 339. Noah Webster

"[O]ur citizens should early understand that the geniune source of correct republican principles is the Bible, particularly the New Testament, or the Christian religion." Noah Webster, History of the United States (New Haven: Durrie & Peck, 1832), p. 6.

Webster understood where true Liberty and Free Government lies:

[T]he religion which has introduced civil liberty is the religion of Christ and his apostles...and to this we owe our free constitutions of government." History, p. 300,

John Adams understood our Republican Government is based on Law, Common Law of the Bible:

"No good government but what is republican...the very definition of a republic is'an empire of laws, and not of men.'' "Thoughts on Government" January, 1776

Baron Charles Secondat de Montesquieu was the main influence on the Founding Fathers regarding Republican Government, his Spirit of Laws published in 1752, was studied intensely by the framers; proclaiming Christianity the foundation of Republican Law, agreeing that law and religion are twin sisters, to form the greatest government of mankind:

"The Christian religion, which ordains that men should love each other, would without doubt have every nation blest with the best civil, the best political laws; because these, next to this religion, are the greatest good that men can give and receive." - United States Founding Influences, Baron Charles Secondat de Montesquieu, "Spirit of Laws", (Philadelphia: Isaiah Thomas, 1802), Vol. II, pp. 125-126

Book XXIV.Of Laws in relation to Religion Considered in Itself,and in its Doctrines1. Of Religion in General. 3. "That a moderate Government is most agreeable to the Christian Religion, and a despotic Government to the Mahometan. The Christian religion is a stranger to mere despotic power. The mildness so frequently recommended in the Gospel is incompatible with the despotic rage with which a prince punishes his subjects, and exercises himself in cruelty."

"Society notwithstanding all its revolutions, must repose on principles that do not change." - United States Founding Influences, Baron Charles Secondat de Montesquieu, "Spirit of Laws", (Philadelphia: Isaiah Thomas, 1802), Vol. I, p. 18, ad passim

Secularists try to claim Montesquieu did not use biblical examples for Republican Government; diverting the important point of Law as its foundation; the author giving examples of pagan government is not claiming they are the originators of it. To the Founding Fathers, religion and government are to work together, worthy of the peoples support, as Thomas Jefferson explains:

"No nation has ever existed or been governed without religion. Nor can be. The Christian religion is the best religion that has been given to man and I, as Chief Magistrate of this nation, am bound to give it the sanction of my example." Hutson (see n. 8) at p. 96, quoting from a handwritten history in possession of the Library of Congress, “Washington Parish, Washington City,” by Rev. Ethan Allen.

Critics believe this is a spurious quote because of the early age of the Reverend, but many framers had diaries and writings when they were young; the quote also has confirmation from another witness; the quote was not disputed when it was published, and is harmonious with the views of other framers:

"[W]e can only depend on the all powerful influence of the Spirit of God, whose Divine aid and assistance it becomes us as a Christian people most devoutly to implore. Therefore I move that some minister of the Gospel be requested to attend this Congress every morning during the sessions in order to open the meeting with prayer." Elias Boudinot, Acting President of the United States, Chairman of the House Committee which Drafted the Bill of Rights. Member of the Continental Congress (1778-79, 1781-84). The Life, Public Service, Addresses, and Letters of Elias Boudinot, LL.D., President of the Continental Congress, J. J. Boudinot, editor (Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co., 1896), Vol. I, p. 21, to the First Provincial Congress of New Jersey.

"Sensible of the importance of Christian piety and virtue to the order and happiness of a state, I cannot but earnestly commend to you every measure for their support and encouragement. . . . [T]he very existence of the republics . . . depend much upon the public institutions of religion." John Hancock, member of the Continental Congress (1774-78) where he was the first signer of the Declaration of Independence (1776) and Acting President of the United States (1774-77); Senior Major-General of Massachusetts Militia (1778); delegate to the State constitutional convention (1779); and he was Governor of Massachusetts (1780-85, 1787-93). Independent Chronicle (Boston), November 2, 1780, last page; see also Abram English Brown, John Hancock, His Book (Boston: Lee and Shepard, 1898), p. 269.

"[A] free government. . . . can only be happy when the public principle and opinions are properly directed. . . . by religion and education. It should therefore be among the first objects of those who wish well to the national prosperity to encourage and support the principles of religion and morality." Abraham Baldwin, Signer of the Constitution, A Framer of the Bill of Rights in the First Congress. Charles C. Jones, Biographical Sketches of the Delegates from Georgia to the Continental Congress (Boston: Houghton, Mifflin, and Company, 1891), pp. 6-7.

The laws spoken of, are the Law and the Gospel found in the Bible; these laws are the liberty spoken of in the Bible, it is pure liberty, as the framers prohibited man from abrogating them. Most of the states laws on morality are straight from the bible, for instance laws against blasphemy, and profanity come from the bible, "...continued well beyond the Founding Era. It subsequently appeared in the 1784 laws in Connecticut, the 1791 laws of New Hampshire, the 1791 laws of Vermont, the 1792 laws of Virginia, the 1794 laws of Pennsylvania, the 1821 laws of Maine, the 1834 laws of Tennessee, the 1835 laws of Massachusetts, the 1836 laws of New York, etc.

Judge Zephaniah Swift, author in 1796 of the first legal text published in America, explained why civil authorities enforced the Decalogue prohibition against blasphemy and profane swearing: Crimes of this description are not punishable by the civil arm merely because they are against religion. Bold and presumptuous must he be who would attempt to wrest the thunder of heaven from the hand of God and direct the bolts of vengeance where to fall. The Supreme Deity is capable of maintaining the dignity of His moral government and avenging the violations of His holy laws. His omniscient mind estimates every act by the standard of perfect truth and His impartial justice inflicts punishments that are accurately proportioned to the crimes. But short-sighted mortals cannot search the heart and punish according to the intent. They can only judge by overt acts and punish them as they respect the peace and happiness of civil society. This is the rule to estimate all crimes against civil law and is the standard of all human punishments. It is on this ground only that civil tribunals are authorized to punish offences against religion.

Notice how Christian Judge Swift used philosophical language in his assessment.

In 1824, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania (in a decision subsequently invoked authoritatively and endorsed by the U. S. Supreme Court ) reaffirmed that the civil laws against blasphemy were derived from divine law: The true principles of natural religion are part of the common law; the essential principles of revealed religion are part of the common law; so that a person vilifying, subverting or ridiculing them may be prosecuted at common law.The court then noted that its State's laws against blasphemy had been drawn up by James Wilson, a signer of the Constitution and original Justice on the U. S. Supreme Court:

The late Judge Wilson, of the Supreme Court of the United States, Professor of Law in the College in Philadelphia, was appointed in 1791, unanimously by the House of Representatives of this State to “revise and digest the laws of this commonwealth. . . . ” He had just risen from his seat in the Convention which formed the Constitution of the United States, and of this State; and it is well known that for our present form of government we are greatly indebted to his exertions and influence. With his fresh recollection of both constitutions, in his course of Lectures (3d vol. of his works, 112), he states that profaneness and blasphemy are offences punishable by fine and imprisonment, and that Christianity is part of the common law. It is vain to object that the law is obsolete; this is not so; it has seldom been called into operation because this, like some other offences, has been rare. It has been retained in our recollection of laws now in force, made by the direction of the legislature, and it has not been a dead letter. http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=101

This point also indicates James Wilson helped form the laws prohibiting, and penalizing homosexuality. Here Wilson differentiates rape with consensual homosexuality:

A rape is an irreparable and a most atrocious aggression on the right of personal safety. Besides the thousand excruciating, but nameless circumstances by which it is aggravated, some may be mentioned with propriety. It is a crime committed not only against the citizen, but against the woman; not only against the common rights of society, but against the peculiar rights of the sex: it is committed by one from whom, on every virtuous and manly principle, her sex is entitled to inviolable protection, and her honour to the most sacred regard. This crime is one of the selected few, which, by the laws of the Saxons, were punished with death. The same punishment it still undergoes in the commonwealth of Pennsylvania. On this subject, for an obvious reason, particular observations will not be expected from a lecture in the hall: they are fit for the book and the closet only: for even the book and the closest they are fit, only because they are necessary.

The crime not to be named, I pass in a total silence.

"OF CRIMES AGAINST THE RIGHT OF INDIVIDUALS TO PERSONAL SAFETY." http://www.constitution.org/jwilson/jwilson3.htm

It seems Wilson helped write the Pennsylvania laws on morality.

Regarding the separation of powers doctrine, it was spoken about in the Bible over twenty-five hundred years ago:

Isaiah 33:22 (King James Version)For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our king; he will save us.

A Constitutional Republic has the same foundation as a Theocracy; Law. A Theocracy and Republic differ in that God's law is supreme in a Theocracy; the people, not God, are sovereign in a Republic; our framers understanding consent of the governed is consistent with the Law of Nature's free will in man. If a people can keep a Republic, the Divine Law is superior in all cases enumerated. Sir William Blackstone explains:

To instance in the case of murder: this is expressly forbidden by the Divine. . . . If any human law should allow or enjoin us to commit it we are bound to transgress that human law. . . . But, with regard to matters that are . . . not commanded or forbidden by those superior laws such, for instance, as exporting of wool into foreign countries; here the . . . legislature has scope and opportunity to interpose. William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England (Philadelphia: Robert Bell, 1771), Vol. I, pp. 42-43.

Because the Constitution is exempt in matters of religion, religion is left to the states; the framers then, formed Christian states. So, the Britons, including saxons, were converted to Christianity by the Apostles(Simon the Zealot in the first century), and missionaries, these Britons employed Common Law(Ten Commandments) of the Bible into their government, hence, the Founding Fathers of the United States used the same Republicanism, but varied. Despite the secularist claim, the United States was founded a nation of Christian states.