Thursday, September 29, 2011

John Adams Believed Religion Only Meant Christianity, Says His First Cousin

Unless specifically enumerated, as I have been saying, religion meant only Christianity. I found Adams' first cousin Zabdiel, quoting the exact quote John wrote to him. How classic! He used another man's quote from a letter to himself. Here is John Adams in 1776.
Statesmen, my dear Sir, may plan and speculate for Liberty, but it is Religion and Morality alone, which can establish the Principles upon which Freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free Constitution is pure Virtue, and if this cannot be inspired into our People in a greater Measure than they have it now, They may change their Rulers and the forms of Government, but they will not obtain a lasting Liberty. They will only exchange Tyrants and Tyrannies.
--Letter to Zabdiel Adams (1776-06-21)

Now, here is Zabdiel Adams in 1782 in front of Governor Hancock:
Statesmen may plan and Speculate for liberty, but it is religion' and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can surely stand.
A SERMON PREACHED BEFORE THE EXCELLENCY JOHN HANCOCK, Esq; GOVERNOUR
HIS HONOR THOMAS CUSHING, Esq, LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR; THE HONORABLE THE COUNCIL, AND THE HONORABLE THE SENATE, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Of THE
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, MAY 29, 1782, p. 43. Being the Day of General Elect:ion By ZABDIEL ADAMS, A. M. PASTOR OF THE CHURCH IN LUNENBURG.

Was Rev. Samuel West Orthodox?

The greatest Patriot Preachers were in this order: Whitefield, Witherspoon, Muhlenberg, and Cooper. All four were staunch Calvinists. While Muhlenberg attained one of the highest ranks in the Army--Major General, Cooper was so effective, the English issued a warrant for his arrest. As to Samuel West, he was an eccentric fellow who had to resign his pastorate due to his mental instability, however, he was influential to Boston Patriots. His Sermon to the Boston House of Representatives is quite famous--but as I found out, secularists may have mis-read his entire sermon. The fact is West elevates right reason in the context of man's relations with man, not with anything supernatural or implying a miracle is not above reason:
Had men persevered in a state of moral rectitude, every one would have been disposed to follow the law of nature..There could be no occasion for the exertion of such a power; for every man, being under the government of right reason, would immediately feel himself constrained to comply with everything that appeared reasonable or fit to be done, or that would any way tend to promote the general good. This would have been the happy state of mankind had they closely adhered to the law of nature, and persevered in their primitive state.

Thus we see that a state of nature, though it be a state of perfect freedom, yet is very far from a state of licentiousness.  The law of nature gives men no right to do anything that is immoral, or contrary to the will of God, and injurious to their fellow-creatures; for a state of nature is properly a state of law and government, even a government founded upon the unchangeable nature of the Deity, and a law resulting from the eternal fitness of things.  Sooner shall heaven and earth pass away, and the whole frame of nature be dissolved, than any part, even the smallest iota, of this law shall ever be abrogated; it is unchangeable as the Deity himself, being a transcript of his moral perfections.  A revelation, pretending to be from God, that contradicts any part of natural law, ought immediately to be rejected as an imposture; for the Deity cannot make a law contrary to the law of nature without acting contrary to himself,--a thing in the strictest sense impossible, for that which implies contradiction is not an object of the divine power.  Had this subject been properly attended to and understood, the world had remained free from a multitude of absurd and pernicious principles, which have been industriously propagated by artful and designing men, both in politics and divinity.  The doctrine of non-resistance and unlimited passive obedience to the worst of tyrants would never have found credit among mankind had the voice of reason been hearkened to for a guide, because such a doctrine would immediately have been discerned to be contrary to natural law..These are some of the laws of nature which every man in the world is bound to observe, and which whoever violates exposes himself to the resentment of mankind, the lashes of his own conscience, and the judgment of Heaven.  This plainly shows that the highest state of liberty subjects us to the law of nature and the government of God.  The most perfect freedom consists in obeying the dictates of right reason, and submitting to natural law.  When a man goes beyond or contrary to the law of nature and reason, he becomes the slave of base passions and vile lusts; he introduces confusion and disorder into society, and brings misery and destruction upon himself.  This, therefore, cannot be called a state of freedom, but a state of the vilest slavery and the most dreadful bondage.  The servants of sin and corruption are subjected to the worst kind of tyranny in the universe.  Hence we conclude that where licentiousness begins, liberty ends.
 
The law of nature is a perfect standard and measure of action for beings that persevere in a state of moral rectitude; but the case is far different with us, who are in a fallen and degenerate estate..Now, whatever right reason requires as necessary to be done is as much the will and law of God as though it were enjoined us by an immediate revelation from heaven, or commanded in the sacred Scriptures. [bold face mine]
As anyone can plainly read, his sermon has absolutely nothing to do with man's flawed reason superior to the Bible. Was Samuel West Orthodox? He believed in Total Depravity. That West was a universalist is refuted as West quoted Rev. 14:9-10.
Hence that terrible denunciation of divine wrath against the worshippers of the beast and his image: "If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand, the same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation, and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb; and the smoke of their torment ascendeth for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and who receive the mark of his name." We have here set forth in the clearest manner, by the inspired apostle, God's abhorrence of tyranny and tyrants, together with the idolatrous reverence that their wretched subjects are wont to pay them, and the awful denunciation of divine wrath against those who are guilty of this undue obedience to tyrants.[bold face mine]
At this point, I will not proclaim West was an Orthodox Christian, but I ask anyone to furnish any of his writings that specifically reject Christian Orthodoxy. More or less, West used Trinitarian verbage because he knew his audience.

Wednesday, September 28, 2011

Another Error by Justice Antonin Scalia

Speaking at the Duquesne Law School, Antonin Scalia has it all wrong. Scalia claims abortion is not in the Constitution--he is correct. However, abortion violates the Laws of Nature in the Declaration of Independence which is still in effect. Signer of the Declaration and Constitution, James Wilson, wrote that abortion under the Common Law is a felony and framers penalized it as such. With Wilson being the expert of the framers on the laws of nature, how could Scalia not read Wilson? Violations of fundamentals are not left to the States. Here, is Scalia:
What does it mean to be a Catholic law school? There is no such thing as Catholic law. The law is no different for a Catholic than it is for a Jew any more than it is different for a woman or a man or a white man or a black.

Thus it is that I am sometimes embarrassed when sincere opponents of abortion sometimes thank me for championing their cause. ... I do not champion their cause. The Constitution addresses the subject not at all, which means that it is left up to the states.

Tuesday, September 27, 2011

Friday, September 23, 2011

Evangelical Christian Fundamentalist Rev. Samuel Cooper

Samuel Cooper's Dad, William Cooper, was a zealous Calvinist who died young of apoplexy. Samuel took over Brattle Street Church once his dad passed away in 1743. A Secularist website, American Creation, has fellow former blogger Jon Rowe commenting about Samuel Cooper:
John Adams' list of those most responsible for American Independence: Samuel Cooper, Jonathan Mayhew, Charles Chauncy, and George Whitefield. He calls them all ministers of the gospel and all Christians. In reality ONLY WHITEFIELD was a "Christian" as evangelicals define and understand the term. The others, including J. Adams were Trinity deniers..But America's key Founders and the notable patriotic preachers they followed (Revs. Mayhew, Chauncy, Cooper and others) disbelieved in central Christian tenets like original sin, trinity, incarnation, and atonement, such that they are disqualified as "Christians" in the eyes of large sectors of believers in historic traditional Christianity.
However, as I have discovered, Cooper was an evangelical, who believed in Original Sin, the Vicarious Blood Atonement, eternal judgment, and justification by grace:
[A]nd at last redeemed the Church by his own Blood..Love, by the Example of the compassionate Redeemer, who takes “the Lambs in his Arms; ”and who when He dwelt among us in Flesh..The knowledge we are to dispense to others is chiefly to be drawn from the Holy Spriptures; and by conversing with them, we become acquainted with the pecular doctrines of Christianity: such as the apostacy of human nature; the guilt and condemnation into which all men have fallen; the person and offices of the Redeemer; our pardon and justification through his obedience and sacrifice; the conditions of the covenant of grace; the nature and extent of that holiness without which no man shall see the Lord; and the necessity of the influences of the Holy Spirit to form us to it...Your Discourses will be evangelical and instructive, warm and persuasive.

--A Sermon preach'd April 9, 1760 at the ordination of the Reverened Mr. Joseph Jackson, to the pastoral care of the church in Brooklinp. 24, 33, 38

Perry is for Dream Act, Romney is for Amnesty

Romney is blasting Perry for his Dream Act, and rightfully so, however Romney is for Amnesty for illegal immigrants. Both men are unqualified to be President.

Thursday, September 22, 2011

EVERYONE SHOULD LISTEN TO THIS SWEDISH MP!

Nice speech. If only the rest of Europe would make a stand.
Brilliant. This is a powerful, thoughtful, and important speech by a Swiss Member of Parliament  who lays out precisely how Islamists intend to dominate Europe and the western world.   Not every day that you see a pony-tailed MP denouncing “power lusting holy warriors with social benefits.”  He not only explains the threat,  but makes clear that we will not give up without a fight.

The Orthodox William Livingston

William Livingston was a Calvinist, from a Calvinist family, who graduated Yale in 1741. Not only did he have to pledge loyalty to the Westminster Confession, and Biblical inerrancy, he was buying sermons from Whitefield and his compatriots:
On the 19th of April, the Rev. Ebenezer Pemberton (Harv. 1721), pastor of the Presbyterian Church in New York City, and a zealous partisan of Whitefield, preached a sermon (from 1 Cor. ii, 2) in the College Hall, which was published at New London the same year (160, pp. 30). Appended to this sermon is an interesting list of 100 subscribers, most of them students, who take from 3 to 12 copies each; in this list appear the names of all the members of the Senior and Sophomore Classes, and all but three (William P. Smith, Leverett and John Hubbard) of the other classes in College; it is probable that some or all of the three just named were not then in residence.
--Biographical Sketches of the Graduates of Yale College with Annals of the ...
 By Franklin Bowditch Dexter

Fellow Calvinist Timothy Dwight had a high regard for him--that he was attentive to the things of God:

The talents of Governor Livingston were very various. His imagination was brilliant, his wit sprightly and pungent, his understanding powerful, his taste refined, and his conceptions bold and masterly. His views of political subjects were expansive, clear, and just, Of freedom, both civil and religious, he was a distinguished champion. To his other excellencies, Governor Livingston added that of piety.
One of Livingston's critics called the Calvinist Livingston, a bigot--not a liberal:
[I]n Judge Thomas Jones's History of New York during the Revolutionary War (i, 3) :

Of this young triumvirate [Livingston, Wm. Smith, Jr., and John Morin Scott], then first verging upon the stage of life, William Livingston bore the character of a sensible, cunning, shrewd fellow; well versed in the law, though a very indifferent speaker; of an ill-natured, morose, sullen disposition; satirical and abusive in his writings; violent in his conversation; a bigot in religion; wanton, cruel, and unfeeling in his temper; ungenerous in his sentiments; uncouth in his manners; impatient of contradiction; and of a savage, persecuting spirit.
Online biographies list Livingston as a Calvinist:
Associated with the Calvinists in religion, he opposed the dominant Anglican leaders in the colony and wielded a sharply satirical pen in verses and broadsides.
Not to mention, he called his daughter a Presbyterian, and had is oldest son personally educated by a Calvinist--John Witherspoon.

Here, Livingston affirms His God, as the Laws of God in the DOI. The following piece written by him is completely Calvinist--supporting Calvinist Dartmouth, etc:
After having forsaken houses and lands, and the most tender connections, with everything dear and estimable amongst human kind, tor the undisturbed fruition of the rights of private judgment, sacred by the laws of God and of nature, they had to encounter, without the protection of the government.
--A Letter to the Right Reverend Father in God, John, Lord Bishop of Landaff; occasioned by some passages in His Lordship's sermon, on the 20th of February, 1767, in which the American colonies are loaded with great and undeserved reproach. / By William Livingston. New-York: Printed for the author; and to be sold by Garrat Noel, near the coffee-house, MDCCLXVIII. 1768

Here's the kicker--Livingston calling Arminianism heresy:
BUT in what sense my lord, did those adventurers abandon their native religion? If your lordship means by their native religion, the doctrines of christianity as contained in the thirty-nine articles of your church;. they were so far from abandoning it, that it were to be wished it to be inviolably preserved by those they left behind. These were the very doctrines which they, in their time, universally believed, constantly taught, and warmly inculcated. These are the doctrines which their posterity, to this day, believe, teach, and inculcate. Nay, they believe, teach and inculcate them, in the same scriptural and unadulterated sense, in which they were believed, taught, and inculcated at the time of the reformation. They believe, teach, and inculcate them, without those sophisticating glories, by which they have since, in the mother-country, been wrested to favor the heresy of Arminius.
This is great! Later, Livingston destroys the basis of Arminianism--"garments of salvation out of filthy rags [works]."

Tuesday, September 20, 2011

The Apparent Ecumenist David Barton Commenting About Glenn Beck

Mr. Barton has taken some heat from Christians; for instance, dropping him from radio programs, as he believes Glenn Beck is a Christian, although Beck says he's a Mormon. Mormons deny all the fundamentals of Christianity taught in the New Testament. As this blog as previously shown, Mormonism is the most blashemous of all the Cults, claiming The Father had sexual relations--as if that could happen--with Mary, to form the Spirit being Jesus. They believe that because they say the Father was a man who became God. Only a demonic mind could inspire that because it isn't in the Bible.

David Barton is treading on dangerous ground. People claim they have a relationship with Jesus every day, however, it is a special relationship by Grace through faith and repentence, where God makes alive our spirit, by his Spirit--which was dead from sin--making us a New Creation in Christ Jesus for good works, to make us born again Christians. God will convert those by the way He has ordained in His Word. The Book of Mormon and "Pearl of Great Price" contradicts the Bible. Thus, The Holy Spirit will not make alive that which rejects what He has inspired.

How can David Barton not understand it is the religion of Ecumenism that anti-christ will bring to the world?  Beck specifically said the God of the DOI is not the Christian God, which contradicts all our history. Barton should sit Beck down and ask him if he is born again. If he is clueless what that is, he is not a recipient of it.

Key Founding Father and Father of American Jurisprudence: Chancellor James Kent

Chancellor Kent is historically associated with the unitarians, however, later in life, Kent links Christ's Merits with the Atonement:
Shortly before my father's death," records Judge William Kent, "the conversation having turned upon the foreign custom of attending places of amusement on Sunday, my father said, 'I am by no means an ascetic in religion as you know, yet I was brought up strictly to regard the Sabbath, and I should like my children always to regard it.
His manner became serious, and after a few minutes he went on:
My children, I wish to talk to you. During my early and middle life I was, perhaps, rather sceptical with regard to some of the truths of Christianity. Not that I did not have the utmost respect for religion, and always read my Bible, but the doctrine of the atonement was one I never could understand, and I felt inclined to consider as impossible to be received in the way divines taught it. I believe I was rather inclined to Unitarianism; but of late years my views have altered. I believe in the doctrines of the prayer- books, as I understand them, and hope to be saved through the merits of Jesus Christ.

--Memoirs of James Kent

Another Evangelical Key Founder: John Hancock

John Hancock was perhaps the most ardent Statesman to promote governmental support of Christianity. He was the first man to sign the Declaration of Independence, the President of Congress while it was framed, long standing Governor of Massachusetts, and a devout Christian.
To the Honourable the Senate and the Honourable House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

The Society for propogating the Gospel  among the Indians and others, in North America, beg leave to show, That one design of our venerable Fathers in emigrating to this land, was professedly to extend the knowledge of our Glorious Redeemer among the savage natives, that this design was expressed and adjoined under both the charters, granted by the patent state to this colony, and is, in the opinion of the Society, necessary and fastable (sp?) at all times to be persued, by a people who profess Christianity..The want of funds alone prohibits them from exerting themselves in propagating the Gospel among the Indians, and extending the means of Christian knowledge among those of the inhabitants of this land, who are now destitute of them. They humbly request your Honours, to recommend to his Excellency the Governour, to issue a Brief to be read in all the Churches of this Commonwealth, requesting the aid of all piously disposed persons, in carrying out this truely benevolent design, and taking their contributions, in Specie, Public Securities, or any other property, to enable the Society to send the knowledge of our Glorious Redeemer, among those who are now perishing for lack of vision, and to extend the means of instruction to our fellow citizens in the western and other parts of the State, who are now destitute of them. [bold face mine]
--A Brief, Signed and promoted to the various Churches by Gov. John Hancock, June 20, 1788. Written by Francis Dana, Wigglesworth, and Thacher.

The following Thanksgiving Proclamation is very orthodox. 18th Century unitarians never understood Jesus Christ as Mediator, or a High Priest, but a man whom God showed His mercy through. Whenever you read the words: Mediator, Merits, Redeemer, that person is orthodox. In signifying Christ's Godhead, Hancock capitalizes Lord. LORD in the Bible is for Father:
Hereby calling upon Ministers and people of every Denomination to assemble on the said day--and in the name of the GREAT MEDIATOR, devoutly and sincerely offer to ALMIGHTY GOD..And above all, not only to continue to us the enjoyment of our civil rights and liberties; but the great and most important Blessing, the Gospel of JESUS CHRIST..I do earnestly commend, that we may join the penitent confession of our Sins..that all my bow to the Scepter of our LORD JESUS CHRIST, and the whole earth be filled with HIS Glory. 
--John Hancock, A Proclamation for a Day of Public Thanksgiving, October 5, 1791.

Here is another Orthodox Fast Day Proclamation Calvinist in its obligatory duty to God:
It being the incumbent duty of a people believing in the over-ruling Providence of God..Calling upon Ministers and Christians of every denomination, to assemble on that Day, and devoutly to offer to ALMIGHTY GOD, a sacrifice acceptable to HIM, through the Merits of JESUS CHRIST..And that we enjoy, not only our civil rights and liberties--but that great and important blessing, the Gospel of JESUS CHRIST..affording HIS influence in the ensuing elections..and above all, that HE would revive the Spirit of Christianity in all nations professing the same; and that the Spiritual KINGDOM OF OUR LORD AND SAVIOUR JESUS CHRIST may be continually increasing until the whole earth shall be filled with HIS GLORY. 
--John Hancock, October 29, 1788

Debunking the Palestine Lie

Publius' Forum is saying what I have been saying for years.

There has NEVER been such a people as the Palestinians. And those that wanted their own nation have been little else but murderers, racists, and hatemongers since the 1920s and before!

This video does a great job explaining the REAL history of these murderous, monstrous, haters.
                                             

Is Obama Taxing The Wrong Income?

Eisenhower had the capital gains rate at 91%, Kennedy at 70%, Carter at 70%, and Reagan had it at 50% until 1986 when he dropped it to 28% and caused a recesssion. Furthermore, Mitt Romney claims "Corporations are people too" trying to support the claim of rights. Are corporations made in the image of God?
Those making $100,000 to $125,000 paid on average 9.9 percent in federal income taxes. Those making $50,000 to $60,000 paid an average of 6.3 percent.


Obama's claim hinges on the fact that, for high-income families and individuals, investment income is often taxed at a lower rate than wages. The top tax rate for dividends and capital gains is 15 percent. The top marginal tax rate for wages is 35 percent, though that is reserved for taxable income above $379,150.

Monday, September 19, 2011

Evangelical Christian Fundamentalist Richard Henry Lee

As the Lord is the Disposer of human events, it is ironic the fate that prohibited Richard Henry Lee from writing the Declaration of Independence. Lee had given the formal declaration to break free from Britain, therefore would have been given the task of primary draughtsman, however his wife was sick, forcing Lee to leave for Virginia. Lee's misfortune was Thomas Jefferson's gain. Lee may have been President, and Jefferson perhaps forgotten among the A-list founding fathers. I look forward to asking Mr. Lee about the day he left for Virginia.

Lee, who ratified the Constitution, and helped draft the Bill of Rights, was an Orthodox Christian:
For six months before his death, Mr. Lee was almost entirely confined to his house. He saw his end approaching, and through faith in the merits of the Redeemer, viewed it with tranquil firmness. He had well fulfilled all the duties of life. As a patriot, as a friend to the liberty of mankind, as a parent, friend, and neighbour, he, like the younger Cato, whose character he much resembled, could say, "let guilt or fear disturb man's conscience, Cato knows neither of them;" and that "nature, worn out with care, sunk down to rest." It was the rest, prepared for those, whose virtues the great Parent of good, has approved; and which will be enjoyed by all, who devote their lives to the happiness of their fellow men, and to the duties they owe to their saving God.

Mr. Lee had early studied the evidences of the Christian religion, and had, through life, avowed his belief in its divine origin. He admired the perfection of its morality, and the sublimity of its peculiar theology. He was a member of the Episcopal Church; and although a hearty friend to all who professed the Gospel, he was strongly attached to the Church to which he belonged. The author found amongst his manuscripts, two votes passed by the two first meetings of the general convention of that Church, in the United States, in which their thanks are returned to Mr. Lee, for the interest he had taken in its prosperity.

Let not the infidel say, that Mr. Lee's assent to the truths of Christianity, was given in the twilight of his reason, and proclaimed at the approach of death. In the vigour of his mind, amid the honours of the world and its enjoyment, he had declared his belief, in Jesus Christ, as the saviour of men! For many years of his life, he had partaken, in public, of the emblems of that propitiatory atonement, which he made upon the cross, "for the sin of the world."

The eloquent Erskine has truly said, after reviewing a glorious list of believers in Christianity, "Thus we find all that is great, or wise, or splendid, or illustrious, amongst created beings, all the minds gifted beyond ordinary nature, if not inspired by their Universal Author, for the advancement and dignity of the world, though divided by distant ages, and by the clashing opinions distinguishing them from one another, yet joining, as it were, in one sublime chorus, to celebrate the truths of Christianity, and laying upon its holy altars, the neverfading fruits of their immortal wisdom." To that list may be added the name of Richard Henry Lee.
--Memoir of the life of Richard Henry Lee, and his correspondence ..., Volume 1
  By Richard Henry Lee

Tuesday, September 13, 2011

John Adams and Ben Franklin Write The Law of Nature is The God of the Bible

First, Adams writes his cousin Samuel Adams first presented the principles in the Declaration of Independence:
As you justly observe, there is not an idea in it [the Declaration of Independence] but what had been hackneyed in Congress two years before. The substance of it is contained in the Declaration of Rights, and the Violations of those Rights, in the journals of Congress in 1774. Indeed, the essence of it is contained in a pamphlet voted and printed by the town of Boston before the first Congress met, composed by James Otis, as I suppose, in one of his lucid intervals, and pruned and polished by Samuel Adams." (John Adams's Works, II. 514).
Franklin approved Samuel Adams' Rights of the Colonists:
To the sentiments expressed in the report of the committee, and adopted by the inhabitants of the town, he fully assented. This is proved by his sending a copy of the proceedings to the press, as soon as he received it in London, with a prefatory notice written by himself. The pamphlet was entitled "The Votes and Proceedings of the Freeholders and other Inhabitants of the Town of Boston, in Town Meeting assembled, according to Law. Published by Order of the Town." -- Sparks.
Here, John Adams writes Christianity is The Law of Nature. Likewise, Yahweh is the Law of Nations in Article 1, section 8 of the Constitution:

One great advantage of the Christian religion is that it brings the great principle of the law of nature and nations...
--Adams Diary, August 24, 1796.

James Oglethorpe, Founding Vision for Georgia (1733).

At the founding of Georgia, Christianity was its religion and morality:
CHRISTIANITY will be extended by the execution of this design; since, the good discipline established by the Society, will reform the manners of those miserable objects, who shall be by them subsisted; and the example of a whole Colony, who shall behave in a just, moral, and religious manner, will contribute greatly towards the conversion of the Indians, and taking off the prejudices received from the profligate lives of such who have scarce any thing of Christianity but the name.

Statutes of the College of William and Mary (1727)

There are three things which the Founders of this College proposed to themselves, to which all its Statutes shall be directed. The First is, That the Youth of Virginia should be well educated to Learning and good Morals. The Second is, That the Churches of America, especially Virginia, should be supplied with good Ministers after the Doctrine and Government of the Church of England; and that the College should be a constant Seminary for this Purpose. The Third is, That the Indians of America should be instructed in the Christian Religion, and that some of the Indian Youth that are well-behaved and well-inclined, being first well prepared in the Divinity School, may be sent out to preach the Gospel to their Countrymen in their own Tongue, after they have duly been put in Orders of Deacons and Priests....

Monday, September 12, 2011

George Washington's Masonry

Contrary to popular secular belief, 18th Century American Masonry, contradistinguished from the English Lodges, was Trinitarian Christian. 18th century Masonry is a tell-tale into George Washington's faith. Washington took Communion and was Baptized outside of the Anglican Church, not to be identified with the King's religion. What then of Rev. Abercrombie affirming GW never took communion from a U.S. Senator? The context appears to be that of his church. Thus, the secret of GW getting baptized and taking communion outside of his church.

If GW was not a Christian, why would he be a member of a Christian society that promoted the Trinity? Yet, GW wrote, "I shall always be happy to advance the interests of the society." Here is what 18th century Masonry believed:

The British troops evacuated Philadelphia and the campaign of 1778 closed with the contending armies in nearly the same position as they were in the summer of 1776. In the latter part of Decernber, Washington visited Philadelphia, where Congress was in session; and while there the Grand Lodge of Pennsylvania celebrated the festival of St. John the Evangelist. Washington was present on the occasion, and was honored with the chief place in the procession, being supported on his right by the Grand Master, and on his left by the Deputy Grand Master. More than three hundred brethren joined in the procession. They met at nine o'clock, at the college, and being properly clothed, the officers in the jewels of their office and other badges of their dignity, the procession moved at eleven o'clock and proceeded to Christ Church where a Masonic sermon for the benefit of the poor was preached by the Rev. Brother William Smith, D.D., Grand Secretary of the Grand Lodge of Pennsylvania.But I will detain you no longer, Brethren !—You all pant to have a Foretaste of the Joy of Angels, by calling forth into immediate Exercise this heavenly Virtue of Charity; whereby you will give Glory to the THRICE BLESSED THREE, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, one God over all! At the Word 'Glory,' the Brethren rose together; and, in reverential Posture, on pronouncing the Names of the TRI-UNE GOD, accompanied the same by a correspondent Repitition of the Ancient Sign or Symbol of Divine Homage and Obeisance; concluding with the following Response— 'Amen I So let it ever be !
Most, if not all the Masons were Orthodox Christians. Why would a unitarian be a member of a Trinitarian society?  Soon after this event, the Masons wanted to make GW head of Masonry. Here is another poem of apparent Orthodox Christian Masonry:
An ode commemorative of Washington's participation in the ceremonies, and the position he occupied, was written a few months afterwards by Colonel John Park, a distinguished member of American Union Lodge, addressed to Colonel Proctor, of Pennsylvania, bearing date, February 7, 1779, in which he says:

See Washington, he leads the train,
'Tis he commands the grateful strain;
Sec, every crafted son obeys,
And to the godlike brother homage pays.

Let fame resound him through the land,
And echo, Tis Out Master Grand!
'Tis he our ancient craft shall sway, Whilst we, with three times three, obey.
The early leaders of North Carolina were Masons. Gov. Samuel Johnston, Signer of the DOI, William Hooper, and Richard Caswell, were all Christians. Hooper's Dad was Reverend of Trinity Church.

Saturday, September 10, 2011

Our Covenant Political Theology

The basis for Revolution is part and parcel of the political and social theology of the United States. All the ideas of republican government, including Revolution were clearly enumerated and brought to light for the American colonists and western civilization through the Protestant Reformation.Those at American Creation would have you believe this idea of revolution was espoused to the colonists through a heretic philosopher named John Locke. In fact, Locke was only repeating the Reformers, no different than quoting them today, except I'm not aware Locke quoted Rutherford or Calvin, although he could have. This is precisely the reason the speaker for the revolutionaries; Samuel Adams quoted Locke and the social compact. Adams and Locke took their ideas from the same source; the Reformers. Since Samuel Adams was a Calvinist, when he quoted the social compact, he was not thinking of Locke or Rousseau, rather, the colonists understood Adams was referring to the Solemn League and Covenant. This agreement was written by Adams and Warren after the 17th century covenant between the Scottish Presbyterians and the English Parliamentarians.

The Declaration of Independence was founded on a Puritan Solemn League and Covenant. Yes, rights were part of the idea, but not the main reason for revolution. Adams and Dr. Joseph Warren wrote the Solemn League document that was far from the secular compact of John Locke. In fact, Locke was only repeating Rutherford, who was repeating Calvin, including the Natural Law tradition, taken from Romans 2:14-15, and enumerated in a more excellent light, whereby Hooker, Pufendorf et al., built upon, guiding the patriot preachers to exposite the Natural rights of the colonists, preceding the American Revolution. Unitarian preachers (Samuel West) are the minority and do not represent the biblical view of Romans 13 nor the views in the declaration of independence.

Here is Professor and British historian Jack Richon Pole:
It isn't surprising to claim the idea of popular sovereignty and representative government by the Colonists of the 1760's was not influenced, as is generally believed, by the political theology of John Locke..Very little evidence exists to suggest that Locke exerted any effective influence on the political thought of the Colonists until Thomas Jefferson came to draft the Declaration of Independence.
-Political representation in England and the origins of the American Republic (Macmillan 1966). H. Trevor Colborum, Thomas Jefferson's Use of the Past, "William and Mary Quarterly" Jan. 1958, 56-70. 
Modern philosophers see Locke to be the inspiration behind the DOI in spite of its Calvinist foundation. Furthermore, there is a connection between Locke and Rutherford. Locke met him, most likely many times and knew him intimately because Locke's dad was Rutherford's friend. This post written last year by David Kopel is another example of Locke's connection to Rutherford. Locke read Lex Rex, then secularized his views, removing the covenantal structure the founding fathers put into the declaration of independence. Rutherford's influence is seen through Witherspoon and Adams, just as Francis Schaeffer writes.

As to empiricism, Schaeffer destroyed Locke's argument just as Berkeley did in the 18th century. Locke contradicted himself by removing the biblical basis for government in exchange for empiricism, yet if experience doesn't come from inside man, it must come from where everyone else found it; and Locke rejected that source, killing his own argument. Locke's empiricism ignored the very foundation of natural rights. Schaeffer was just repeating what Berkeley found in Locke's flawed reasoning.

Moreover, by 1681, Locke himself owned a copy of Vindiciae Contra Tyrannos and most other Calvinistic resistance tracts. (Hall. A Heart Promptly Offered, p. 297).

It was Covenantal Puritanism that was the basis of the DOI, given the document itself claims the King abdicated because he broke the covenant between himself and the people, as well as violated their natural rights. Here, is the noted former Emeritus Professor at Columbia:

From the Bay Colony came the great intellectual leaders, the theologians who became the leaders … in the establishment of New England colonies… Nor was its influence restricted to New England, for its ideals and aspirations… became the dominant influence in the development of the United States.
--Joseph Dorfman, The Economic Mind in American Civilization, vol. 1, ch.3

Even Robert N. Bellah notes, Puritanism was the foundation for our constitutionalism; what he coined, our "civil religion."

Prominent 19th Century historian Alex d'Tocqueville did not give Enlightenment Rationalism, or John Locke the foundation, but understood Puritan Covenant Theology that spread throughout the new nation:
In was in the English colonies… better known as the states of New England, that the two or three main principles now forming the basic social theory of the United States were combined. New England principles spread first to the neighboring states and then…to those more distant, finally penetrating everywhere… Their influence now extends beyond its limits over the whole American world…”
--Alex d’Tocqueville, Democracy in America, Book I, ch. 2.

Is it no less a surprise that the political leader of the Revolution was a Calvinist Puritan, speaking for the new nation?
The people of this country, alone, have formally and deliberately chosen a government for themselves, and with open and uninfluenced consent bound themselves into a social compact. Here no man proclaims his birth or wealth as a title to honorable distinction, or to sanctify ignorance and vice with the name of hereditary authority. He who has most zeal and ability to promote public felicity, let him be the servant of the public. This is the only line of distinction drawn by nature.
--Samuel Adams, An ORATION Delivered at the State-House, In PHILADELPHIA, To A Very Numerous AUDIENCE; On THURSDAY the 1st of AUGUST 1776.

Friday, September 9, 2011

Unitarian Federalist Josiah Quincy's Scathing Rebuke of Thomas Jefferson

Josiah Quincy (1772-1864), was one of the last Hi-Federalists who happened to be Unitarian. Quincy had a clear revulsion for the infidel jacobite Thomas Jefferson, and history has proved his concerns true. Not only did Jefferson accuse Federalist Republicans were Monarchists, wanting a King, etc. he wrote personal attacks in newspapers against his friend George Washington, at the same time working for him. Imagine a friend doing that:
During my preparatory studies for public life I had imbibed an impression concerning Mr. Jefferson little less than antipathetic. I found that he had no sooner entered Washington's Cabinet, as Secretary of State, than he commenced insidious attacks upon the leaders of the Federal party, — particularly upon Adams and Hamilton. To the former he well knew he had been selected as the rival for the successorship of Washington. The great and overwhelming talents of the latter he both envied and feared. He began at the same period to assail the whole Federal party, calling them ' Tories,' 'enemies of republicanism,'' British partisans,' and charged them with being actuated by a settled design to change the Federal Constitution into a monarchy. It was well known that, from the first, his language and letters contained unceasing charges of this kind against that whole party; at the same time, as said Hamilton, 'he arraigned to every man that approached him the principal measures of government with undue warmth.' Nor did he fail to insinuate against such men as Adams, Jay, Hamilton, Knox, and many others, the design of introducing changes into the government of this country, and making way for a king, lords, and commons! Calumnies false, injurious, and absurd, for there was no material out of which such a form of government could have been wrought. Yet were they the subject of his open conversation, of his private letters, and, as often as he dared, in the public prints. His assiduity in this course was apparent and undisguised, the end he had in view plain, and the object and result in his own elevation undeniable. I regarded him, in respect of Washington's administration, and indeed of the Federal party, as a snake in the grass, — the more dangerous from the oily, wily language with which he lubricated his victims and applied his venom, — the more seductive and influential from the hollow pretences of respect, and, in regard to Adams, even of affection, with which he accompanied them. "I came to Washington with an abhorrence of Jefferson's political character. I had no desire to make my course upward in political life, and holding my public station only as a means and opportunity of serving my country, with no wish or intention of continuing in it one moment longer than it was the unsolicited wish of my fellow-citizens, I had not the usual motives of public men to seethe friendship and favor of men in power. I therefore declined several invitations to dine at the White House, which, with some Congressional demonstrations of mine, made Mr. Jefferson understand that I had no wish for their renewal. The developments which subsequent years have made of his course and language at that period amply justify these feelings, if they do not my mode of expressing them. The Federal party have of late years received a full answer to the prayer of Job, ' O that mine enemy had written a book!' This Jefferson has done, and Henry G. Randall has published it. A memoir more suicidal of character was OF THE PUBCHASE OF LOUISIANA, never written, nor one which established by more unquestionable evidence every ill opinion previously entertained of its subject. It will have its effect, all the efforts of the biographer to whitewash the character of Jefferson, and to support his calumnies, to the contrary notwithstanding.
--Life of Josiah Quincy of Massachusetts, p. 87, By Edmund Quincy, 1867.

More Bad News For Obama

As if things couldn't get any worse for Obama, a House Democrat nominee is losing by six points  to a Republican in one of the most liberal places in the world--Weiner's district in New York.
As Alana noted earlier today, Republican Bob Turner holds a six-point lead in next week’s special election to replace former Representative Anthony Weiner, according to a new Siena College poll that “shows voters in the overwhelmingly Democratic district are poised to deliver a stinging rebuke to President Obama and his party.”

Turner leads Democratic Assemblyman David Weprin in the poll, 50 percent to 44 percent, with six percent of likely voters undecided – and Turner has all the momentum. (Four weeks ago, Weprin held a six-point lead). Democrats in the district, located in the Outer Boroughs, hold a three-to-one advantage on the voter rolls.

According to the story, “Discontent with Washington and the president is at the heart of Turner’s shocking upset bid. In a district he won by 11 points just three years ago, Obama’s favorability rating is now upside down in the Siena poll, with 54 percent having an unfavorable opinion of Obama and only 43 percent viewing him favorably. A remarkable 38 percent of Democrats and 68 percent of independents hold an unfavorable view of the president.”

Thursday, September 8, 2011

Christian Theorist Richard Hooker Affirms My Logical Assumption.

Never before did I read from any Christian philosopher, "law is man's reason on paper" until I read Richard Hooker. He says "the reason of man have the names of human laws." History has proved Hi-Anglican John Locke and Founding Father James Wilson were his biggest fans. Wilson referred to him as, "the sagacious Hooker" "the judicious Hooker" and "the sublime language of the most excellent Hooker." It is an indisputable fact, the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and our entire system of Law is founded on the Bible. The Scripture is superior over reason as Hooker affirms:

And, therefore, "To refuse the conduct of the light of Nature," saith St. Augustine, " is not folly alone, but accompanied with impiety." The greatest amongst the school divines, studying how to set down by exact definition the nature of a human law (of which nature all the Church's constitutions are), found not which way better to do it than in these words, " Out of the precepts of the law of Nature, as out of certain common and undemonstrable principles, man's reason doth necessarily proceed unto certain more particular determinations, which particular determinations being found out according unto the reason of man, they have the names of human laws so that such other conditions be therein kept as the making of laws doth require," that is if they whose authority is thereunto required do establish and publish them as laws. And the truth is that all our controversy in this cause concerning the orders of the Church is, what particulars the Church may appoint. That which doth find them out is the force of man's reason. That which doth guide and direct his reason is, first, the general law of Nature, which law of Nature and the moral law of Scripture are in the substance of law all one. But because there are also in Scripture a number of laws particular and positive, which being in force may not by any law of man be violated, we are in making laws to have thereunto an especial eye. [bold face mine],
--The laws of ecclesiastical polity, Books 1-4, p.202.

Here is Sidney claiming liberty is from the Scriptures first:

And that liberty, for which we contend as the gift of God and nature, remains equally to them all.
--Algernon Sidney, Discourses Concerning Government, Section 44: No People That Is Not Free Can Substitute Delegates, [1698]. Ed. Thomas G. West (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund 1996).

John Adams also wrote of "God and Nature"

The Revolutionary Diplomatic Correspondence of the United States, Volume 3, J. Adams to the President of Congress. [Note *: * MSS. Dep. of State; 3 Sparks' Dip. Rev. Corr., 137, with verbal changes.]
Paris, June 16, 1780
The question then is reduced to another--Which has the best prospect of contending for them successfully? America, favored by all the world, or Great Britain, thwarted and opposed by all the world. And to whom did God and nature give them? The English lay great stress upon the gifts of God and nature, as they call the advantage of their insular situation, to justify their injustice and hostilities against all the maritime powers of the world. Why should the Americans hold the blessings of Providence in a lower estimation, which they can enjoy, without doing injury to any nation or individual whatsoever?"
Here is Wilson:
The natural rights and duties of man belong equally to all. Each forms a part of that great system, whose greatest interest and happiness are intended by all the laws of God and nature. These laws prohibit the wisest and the most powerful from inflicting misery on the meanest and most ignorant; and from depriving them of their rights or just acquisitions. By these laws, rights, natural or acquired, are confirmed, in the same manner, to all; to the weak and artless, their small acquisitions, as well as to the strong and artful, their large ones. If much labour employed entitles the active to great possessions, the indolent have a right, equally sacred, to the little possessions, which they occupy and improve
 --James Wilson, 1791, "Lectures on Law". [The Works of James Wilson. Edited by Robert Green McCloskey. 2 vols. Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1967.]

Here is Locke:

The obligations of the law of nature cease not in society, but only in many cases are drawn closer, and have by human laws known penalties annexed to them, to inforce their observation. Thus the law of nature stands as an eternal rule to all men, legislators as well as others. The rules that they make for other men's actions, must, as well as their own and other men's actions, be conformable to the law of nature, i.e. to the will of God, of which that is a declaration, and the fundamental law of nature being the preservation of mankind, no human sanction can be good, or valid against it.
--The Reasonableness of Christianity

And, the Continental Congress differentiating God and Nature:
Friends and Countrymen: Three years have now passed away, since the commencement of the present war: a war without parallel in the annals of mankind. It hath displayed a spectacle, the most solemn that can possibly be exhibited. On one side, we behold fraud and violence laboring in the service of despotism; on the other, virtue and fortitude supporting and establishing the rights of human nature...Trust not to appearances of peace or safety. Be assured that, unless you persevere, you will be exposed to every species of barbarity. But, if you exert the means of defence which God and nature have given you, the time will soon arrive when every man shall sit under his own vine and under his own fig-tree, and there shall be none to make him afraid...."
----AN ADDRESS OF THE CONGRESS TO THE INHABITANTS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. MAY 8, 1778.

Tuesday, September 6, 2011

Baron Von Steuben The Christian

The testimony of Von Steuben's Christianity is well documented. From his first biographer:
It is most probable that Steuben would have passed the rest of his life in this unprofitable retirement had he not happened to excite against him the animosity of certain Popish priests who — the religion of the court being also Catholic — were constantly plotting and intriguing against him after his return from France. As Steuben was a firm adherent to the tenets of the Protestant church, he was, of course, obnoxious to the priesthood, who were jealous of his growing influence over the prince and the other members of the court. Steuben seeing that this state of things, if prolonged, could only lead to disagreeable results for lura, and perhaps cause dissension between the prince and himself, decided to retire. That this dissension did not arise from any serious cause, is proved by the fact that Steuben continued to be a great favorite of the prince, and kept up friendly intercouise with him even after his arrival in America.
--Life of Frederick William von Steuben: Major General in the Revolutionary Army/Author: Kapp, Friedrich, 1824-1884. New York: Mason Brothers, 1859.

Moreover, below is a primary source document as to von Steuben's Christianity:
Some few years previous to the Baron's death, a pious gentleman of the city of New York, who had a great affection for him, told me, with strong marks of joy, that they had passed the evening, and a part of the last night together—that the Baron confessed his full belief in Jesus Christ, with sure and certain hope, through him, of a blessed immortality. 'From the life our dear friend has led, in camps and in the gay world,' said the good man, 'I feared; and you do not know what joy I feel, in the belief that he will be well to all eternity!' The Baron was a member of the Reformed German Church, in New York.
--A MILITARY JOURNAL DURING THE AMERICAN REVOLUTIONARY WAR, FROM 1775 TO 1783; DESCRIBING INTERESTING EVENTS AND TRANSACTIONS OF THIS PERIOD; WITH NUMEROUS HISTORICAL FACTS AJfD ANECDOTES, FROM THE ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPT. TO WHICH IS ADDED, AN APPENDIX, CONTAINING BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCHES or SEVERAL GENERAL OFFICERS. BY JAMES THACHER, M. D. LATE SURGEON In THE AMERICAN ARMT. SECOND EDITION. REVISED AND CORRECTED, BOSTON: PUBLISHED BY COTTONS & BARNARD, 184, WASHINGTON-STREET. John Cotton, printer. 1827.

I can only infer the homosexuality rumor is based on the word "gay" being used. You would think modern secular scholarship would be better than that.

Did 18th Century Unitarian Clergy Believe Biblical Inerrancy?

Jon Rowe from American Creation website makes this comment:
Many of those "New England" clergy referred to were, like Jonathan Mayhew, theological unitarians. And they didn't proof quote the Bible as final trumping authority when asserting the "rights," similar to or the same as those found in the DOI. The Bible was referenced as authority. And so was the book of Nature. These "rational Christian" clergy thought the two needed to work together for ultimate Truth discovery (they were not Sola Scriptura evangelical Protestants).
My research has shown there were not many "New England" clergy like Jonathan Mayhew, but only a handful, and only limited within the Boston area:
Unitarians, who are principally confined to Boston and its vicinity.
-Boston Patriot, May 13, 1815.

Even later on, Yale President Timothy Dwight, and Jedidiah Morse had led the defense against the spread of Unitarianism:
By the 1830's, evangelicals had successfully contained Unitarianism within the Boston area and the West had become the new battleground for Orthodoxy.
-Stephen E. Berk, Calvinism Versus Democracy. Anchron Books, 1974, p. 199.

Likewise, in the afore-mentioned quote from Rowe, Unitarians rejected Biblical Inerrancy "final trumping authority". However, every unitarian periodical of the period adhered to Sola Scriptura. It was not until Henry David Thoreau hi-jacked unitarianism with transcendentalist views in the 1840's and 1850's, that it departed from Biblical Inerrancy.

The "rational christians" were Sola Scriptura Christians that employed man's reason, including: Samuel Adams, Richard Henry Lee, Timothy Dwight, Jedidiah Morse, and Ezra Stiles. Thus, you have these Evangelicals always quote man's reason.

Here is more:
And as I observe, most of the relevant "rights" came from Nature, not the Bible; though after discovering the rights in Nature, the Bible was then referenced for support. And sometimes those discoveries in Nature (like the right to rebel against tyrants!) were used to interpret or otherwise explain away parts of the Bible that seemed to teach otherwise (like Romans 13).
Logically, rights cannot have their authority in nature (See Adams' Rights of the Colonists). As soon as these rights become useful to society, they must become written law. Once they are on paper, they become the work of man; inferior to the Divine Law (Hamilton through Blackstone), never able to govern man as John Adams clarifies:
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. [bold face mine] 
--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), 49.
The Form of Government, which you admire, when its Principals are pure is admirable indeed. It is productive of every Thing, which is great and excellent among Men. But its Principles are as easily destroyed, as human Nature is corrupted. Such a Government is only to be supported by pure Religion, or Austere Morals. Public Virtue cannot exist in a Nation without private, and public Virtue is the only Foundation of Republics. There must be a possitive Passion for the public good, the public Interest, Honour, Power, and Glory, established in the Minds of the People, or there can be no Republican Government, nor any real Liberty. [bold face mine]
-John Adams to Mercy Warren, April 16, 1776.

The gallant Struggle in America, is founded in Principles so indisputable, in the moral Law, in the revealed Law of God, in the true Constitution of great Britain, and in the most apparent Welfare of the Nation as well as the People in America, that I must confess it rejoices my very Soul.
--Clarendon letter as printed in the Boston Gazette, 20, Jan. 1766.
Statesmen, my dear Sir, may plan and speculate for Liberty, but it is Religion and Morality alone, which can establish the Principles upon which Freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free Constitution is pure Virtue, and if this cannot be inspired into our People in a greater Measure than they have it now, They may change their Rulers and the forms of Government, but they will not obtain a lasting Liberty. They will only exchange Tyrants and Tyrannies.[bold face mine]
--Letter to Zabdiel Adams (1776-06-21)

Reformed theologians, who the framers borrowed from, believed in Sola Scriptura. 18th Century Unitarians used Natural Law to support--as I do--Sola Scriptura. Abdication has its roots in the Old Testament, and Romans 13 is not clear-cut doctrine, nor fundamental. 18th Century Unitarians--with the Evangelicals--quoted: John Locke, Richard Hooker, Blackstone, Montesquieu, Grotius, and Puffendorff.

Friday, September 2, 2011

The Religion of Founding Father William Cushing

Cushing was a Unitarian, who was nominated for Chief Justice by George Washington after John Rutledge was rejected by the Senate. Cushing declined and his friend Oliver Ellsworth was nominated. Cushing's pastor was Samuel Deane--a Unitarian, who pastored one of the first churches to officially become unitarian
He was a learned theologian; well acquainted with the controversies of the day, and though far from gathering heat in those controversies, he was conspicuously on the side of liberal Christianity. He used to speak of his acquaintance with Dr. Priestley, as a happy era of his life, and to read and talk of his works with approbation.'4
          4 Deane's History of Scituate, pp. 257, 258.



Thursday, September 1, 2011

George Washington's Opinion of True Islam--Crush Them!!!

Let me ask you, my dear marquis, in such an enlightened, in such a liberal age, how is it possible that the great maritime powers of Europe should submit to pay an annual tribute to the little piratical states of Barbary? Would to Heaven we had a navy able to reform those enemies to mankind or crush them into non-existence.
--GW to Lafayette, Aug 15, 1786

Algernon Sidney Believed John Calvin Supported Abdication

Algernon Sidney 1623-1683, was an Orthodox Christian Political Theorist who promoted the Social Contract theory based on the Biblical Covenant the Founding Fathers wrote in the Declaration of Independence. Although history promotes Locke's theory behind the DOI:
In summary, it is the Old Testament that interested Algernon Sidney in his refutation of Filmer. His stated reason is that, like Roman history, the sage of the Hebrews "is best known to us."  More particularly, a distinct inclination toward the Covenant theology of the Pentateuch, especially the codes of Deuteronomy is noticeable. While it was shown previously that Sidney used the Greeks and Romans to buttress his ideal of virtue, in the covenants of the Old Testament his objective was to justify the essence of the contract. Indeed, the link with covenant theology is too close to ignore. To put it another way, the ancient Hebrews were practicing and symbolically celebrating--via their political literature--what at least one seventeenth-century political thinker identified as the social contract.   
--The Discourses of Algernon Sidney, By Scott A. Nelson

Likewise, Sidney read Calvin to favor deposing Princes through abdication, just as Witherspoon did:

Significantly, the topic in this section has to do with whether people are at liberty to depose their princes. Sidney ascribed a positive endorsement to both Calvin and Bellarmine, and openly proclaimed allegiance with them against the likes of Filmer.

Oliver Ellsworth, and the Senate, View 1st Amendment's "Respecting" as Only "Establishing" of National Religion

From Oliver Ellsworth's writings condoning taxpayer support for Christianity, we have proof from Ellsworth's leadership in the Senate, and as prime mover in Washington's government, the 1st Amendment refers only to an establishment of a National Christian Church, given the Senate's understanding, otherwise Ellsworth and Fisher Ames--author of the House language-- contradicted their own decrees. "Respecting" is clearly referring to "articles of faith" that can only be done by a church:
Journal of the House of Representatives of the United States, 1789-1793

FRIDAY, AUGUST 21, 1789
The House resumed the consideration of the amendments made by the Committee of the Whole House to the report from the committee of eleven, to whom it was referred to take the subject of amendments to the Constitution of the United States, generally, into their consideration; and, the said amendments being partly agreed to, and partly disagreed to,
The House proceeded to consider the original report of the committee of eleven, consisting of seventeen articles, as now amended; whereupon the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, tenth, eleventh, twelfth, thirteenth, fourteenth, fifteenth, and sixteenth articles being again read and debated, were, upon the question severally put thereupon, agreed to by the House, as follows, two-thirds of the members present concurring, to wit:

3. Congress shall make no law establishing religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, nor shall the rights of conscience be infringed.
Journal of the Senate of the United States of America, 1789-1793

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 9, 1789.
The Senate assembled: present as yesterday.
Proceeded in the consideration of the resolve of the House of Representatives of
the 24th of August, on "Articles to be proposed to the legislatures of the several states as amendments to the constitution of the United States;" and,

On motion to amend article the third, to read as follows: "Congress shall make no law establishing articles of faith or a mode of worship, or prohibiting the free exercise of religion, or abridging the freedom of speech, or the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and petition to the government for the redress of grievances"[bold face mine]

It passed in the affirmative.

Journal of the Senate of the United States of America, 1789-1793

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 24, 1789.
The Senate assembled: present as yesterday.
Mr. Ellsworth, on behalf of the managers of the conference, on "Articles to be proposed to the several states as amendments to the constitution of the United States," reported as follows:

That it will be proper for the House of Representatives to agree to the said amendments, proposed by the Senate, with an amendment to their fifth amendment, so that the third article shall read as follows: 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble; and petition the government for a redress of grievances;'