Was Penman of the Revolution John Dickinson an Orthodox Christian?

It is the example of him, who being in the form of God, came down from heaven for our sakes, took upon him the form of a servant and sealed his love to us by greater suffering than any man ever endured for his friend."

--John Dickinson, Undated note, R.R. Logan Papers, Historical Society of Pennsylvania.

TEXAS FAITH: Is America a "Christian Nation" and what does that mean?

Dallas News.com posted some interesting words from Christians, a rabbi, a pluralist, and a catholic, as to the Founding Fathers and the Christian Nation thesis:

Do you agree with those religious leaders who say that America is a "Christian nation" or a "Judeo-Christian nation?" and what does that mean in practice? Our Texas Faith panel weighs in.

The Christianity of John Locke, Part II

As it is fairly quiet as to the religion of the framers in the blogosphere, except, if we are to include, secularists pummeling Michele Bachmann for claiming God is judging our nation because of our National Sins. Are these people are not aware the framers thought the same as Bachmann? Anyway, Jon Rowe referenced me and my earlier post on John Locke. Jon's first point of contention is this:

Locke was not provably Christian (and I doubt he was under this definition).

My simple response is Locke was not provably non-Christian.

Locke is a tricky character, given he abstained on certain fundamentals. These fundamentals Locke calls "Mysteries."

Another leap Rowe takes is this:

Locke is important because if modern liberal democracy is to have any kind of Christian political theology, it is of the Lockean understanding.

There should be many academics that dispute this, including modern Evangelicals. Christian political theology is founded in the Scriptures, thus you have the Reformers and pre-reformers who founded practical Republican government reference the Bible. These men include Christian Philosophers: Richard Hooker, and Thomas Aquinas. Likewise, Founding Father Richard Henry Lee rejected Locke was the foundation for the Declaration of Independence, and James Madison thought Locke's mind was "warped."

Jon bases this quote on Locke rejecting Christ's satisfaction for sin, but is that what Locke says?

If you will have the Truth of it, Sir, there is not any such Word in any one of the Epistles, or other Books of the New Testament, in my Bible, as Satisfying or Satisfaction made by our Saviour, and so I could not put it into my Christianity as delivered in the Scripture. If mine be not a true Bible, I desire you to furnish me with one that is more Orthodox; or if the Translators have bid that main Article of the Christian. Religion, they are the Betrayers of Christianity, and Condemners of the Epistles, who did not put it there; and not I, who did not take a Word from thence, which they did not put there. For truly, I am not a Maker of Creeds; nor dare add either to the Scripture, or to the Fundamental Articles of the Christian Religion.

From below, Locke's words have a quite different meaning. Locke is only claiming the word "Satisfying" or "Satisfaction" is not in the New Testament. Locke goes on to say he DOES speak of satisfaction, but in different words:

This Rejection of the Doctrines contained in the Epistles, was the not mentioning the Satisfaction of Christ, amongst those Advantages I fhew'd, that the World received by his Coming. This appears by the Words he here quotes, as my Excuse for that Omission. In which Place, I also produced some Passages in my Book which sounded like it, some Words of Scripture that are used to prove it; but this will not content him: I am, for all that, a Betrayer of Christianity, and Contemner of the Epistles. Why? Because I did not out of them name Satisfaction. If you will have the Truth of it, Sir, there is not any such Word and so I could not put it into my Christianity as delivered in the Scripture. If mine be not a true Bible, I desire you to furnish me with one that is more Orthodox; or if the Translators have bid that main Article of the Christian. Religion, they are the Betrayers of Christianity, and Contemncrs of the Epistles, who did not put it there i and not I, who did not take a Word from thence, which they did not put there. For truly, I am not a Maker of Creeds; nor dare add either to the Scripture, or to the Fundamental Articles of the Christian Religion. But you will say, Satisfaction, though not named in the Epistles, yet may plainly be collected out of them. And so it may out of several Places in my Reasonableness of Christianity, some whereof, which I took out of the Gospels, I menrion'd in my Vindication, p. 546, and others of them, which I took out of the Epistles, I shall point out to you now: As p. 490. I say the Design of our Saviour's. Coming was to be OFFERED up; and p. 508. I speak of the Work of our REDEMPTION. Words which in the Epistles are taken to imply Satisfaction And therefore if that be enough, I see not, but I may be free from betraying Christianity; but if it be necesiary to name the Word Satisfaction and he that does not so is a Betrayer of Christianity, you will do well to consider how you will acquit the Holy Apostles from that bold Imputation; which if it be extended as far as it will go, will scarce come short of Blasphemy: For I do not remember that our Saviour has any where named Satisfaction imply'd it plainer in any Words than those I have quoted from him; and he, I hope, will 'scape the Intemperance of your Tongue. [bold face mine] 

The word "Satisfaction" could also refer to "the penalty." But I doubt Locke is referring to the duration of the penalty for Sin because Christ himself says the penalty is eternal in several passages, and that is different than blood atonement anyway. Furthermore, Locke had to take Communion as he was a High-Anglican. This contention may truly be a matter of semantics.

Judge temporarily blocks tough Alabama immigration law

CNN reports the tough Alabama Immigration Law was supposedly struck down by a federal judge today. Alabama should ignore her ruling as Thomas Jefferson ignored the Sedition Act, as Andrew Jackson ignored the Constitutionality of the Bank of the United States, and as Abraham Lincoln ignored the Supreme Court's Dred Scott decision, giving the Emancipation Proclamation. I believe the States should not reject a Federal Law, but reject a Judicial opinion that violates Article I, section 8 of the Constitution--The Law of Nations.

Washington (CNN) -- A federal judge temporarily blocked enforcement of a tough immigration law in Alabama on Monday.

Opponents of the measure -- including state church leaders, the U.S. Justice Department and the American Civil Liberties Union-- had asked U.S. Judge Sharon Lovelace Blackburn to stop the law, which was scheduled to go into effect Thursday.

State officials argue the law would help Alabama and not violate civil rights.

In her two-page order, the judge said there was not enough time before Thursday to address all the legal arguments from various parties over the law's constitutionality. "It is hereby ordered that Act 2011-535 is temporarily enjoined, and may not be executed or enforced," wrote Blackburn.

Thomas Jefferson Was Against Modern Separation of Church and State

Supporting the view Thomas Jefferson promoted modern separation doctrine is not an easy task. TJ gave tax-payer money to the Kaskaskia Indian Tribe for their Priest, and to help establish their church that were not all Catholic, violating their Natural Rights, thus violating his own words:

What is true of every member of the society, individually, is true of them all collectively; since the rights of the whole can be no more than the sum of the rights of the individuals.

--TJ TO JM 1789.

Was John Locke a Christian?

Whether John Locke denied the Christian fundamentals, I do not believe anyone knows. From below, it seems clear Locke viewed the Tri-unity of God as a mystery, not denying it, but rather having no clear knowledge it is true. Unless someone has proof Locke rejected Communion, what is the basis to not call him a Christian? Yes, Locke ignored the Book of Hebrews, and may have said "the bible says nothing of Christ's satisfaction for sin" however, this point needs to be examined further. Rejecting Original Sin may not necessarily mean rejecting the Deity of Jesus Christ. He rejected being called a unitarian in his reply to the Lord Bishop of Dorcester, "In these words therefore, above quoted, I am to find the satisfaction your lordship has promised, as to the occasion why your lordship made me one of the gentlemen of the new way of reasoning, and in that joined me with the unitarians, and the author of Christianity not mysterious. But I crave leave to represent to your lordship, wherein the words above quoted come short of giving me satisfaction." In his first letter to the Lord Bishop, he sounds like a philosopher, speaking of essence, nature, person, etc. and refrains from being dogmatic on Christian mysteries"

Your lordship has been pleased to favour me with some thoughts of yours in this kind, in your late learned “Discourse, in Vindication of the Doctrine of the Trinity;” and, I hope, I may say, have gone a little out of your way to do me that kindness; for the obligation is thereby the greater. And if your lordship has brought in the mention of my book in a chapter, intitled, “Objections against the Trinity, in Point of Reason, answered;” when, in my whole Essay, I think there is not to be found any thing like an objection against the Trinity: I have the more to acknowledge to your lordship, who would not let the foreignness of the subject hinder your lordship from endeavouring to set me right, as to some errours your lordship apprehends in my book; when other writers using some notions like mine, gave you that which was occasion enough for you to do me the favour to take notice of what you dislike in my Essay...This seems, to me, the natural conclusion flowing from your lordship’s words; which seem here to suppose clear and distinct apprehensions (something like clear and distinct ideas) necessary for the avoiding unintelligible talk in the doctrine of the Trinity. But I do not see your lordship can, from the necessity of clear and distinct apprehensions of nature and person, &c. in the dispute of the Trinity, bring in one, who has perhaps mistaken the way to clear and distinct notions concerning nature and person, &c. as fit to be answered among those who bring objections against the Trinity in point of reason. I do not see why an unitarian may not as well bring him in, and argue against his Essay, in a chapter that he should write, to answer objections against the unity of God, in point of reason or revelation: for upon what ground soever any one writes in this dispute, or any other, it is not tolerable to talk unintelligibly on either side. If by the way of ideas, which is that of the author of the Essay of Human Understanding, a man cannot come to clear and distinct apprehensions concerning nature and person; if, as he proposes from the simple ideas of sensation and reflection, such apprehensions cannot be got; it will follow from thence, that he is a mistaken philosopher: but it will not follow from thence, that he is not an orthodox Christian, for he might (as he did) write his Essay of Human Understanding, without any thought of the controversy between the trinitarians and unitarians: nay, a man might have writ all that is in his book, that never heard one word of any such dispute.

--A LETTER TO THE RIGHT REVEREND EDWARD, LORD BISHOP OF WORCESTER, CONCERNING SOME PASSAGES RELATING TO MR. LOCKE’S ESSAY OF HUMAN UNDERSTANDING. IN A LATE DISCOURSE OF HIS LORDSHIP’S, IN VINDICATION OF THE TRINITY. - John Locke, Works of John Locke, vol. 3 [1696]

POSTCRIPT

If your lordship had showed me any thing in my book, that contained or implied any opposition in it to any thing revealed in holy writ concerning the Trinity, or any other doctrine contained in the bible, I should have been thereby obliged to your lordship for freeing me from that mistake, and for affording me an opportunity to own to the world that obligation, by publicly retracting my errour. For I know not any thing more disingenuous, than not publicly to own a conviction one has received concerning any thing erroneous in what one has printed; nor can there, I think, be a greater offence against mankind, than to propagate a falsehood whereof one is convinced, especially in a matter wherein men are highly concerned not to be misled.


The holy scripture is to me, and always will be, the constant guide of my assent; and I shall always hearken to it, as containing infallible truth, relating to things of the highest concernment. And I wish I could say, there were no mysteries in it: I acknowledge there are to me, and I fear always will be. But where I want the evidence of things, there yet is ground enough for me to believe, because God has said it: and I shall presently condemn and quit any opinion of mine, as soon as I am shown that it is contrary to any revelation in the holy scripture. But I must confess to your lordship, that I do not perceive any such contrariety in any thing in my Essay of Human Understanding.

--Oates, Jan. 7, 1696-7

Quote of the Day

But while I assert the rights of religious liberty, I would not deny that the civil power has a right, in some cases, to interfere in matters of religion. It has a right to prohibit and punish gross immoralities and impieties; because the open practice of these is of evil example and detriment. For this reason, I heartily approve of our laws against drunkenness, profane swearing, blasphemy, and professed atheism.

--Landholder VII, Oliver Ellsworth, December 17, 1787, U.S. Senator 1789-1796, Chief Justice 1796-1800, Author of the Judiciary Act of 1789

If only Ellsworth could see us now.

Cato Institutes Jeffrey A. Myron on Why Warren Buffet is Wrong

I agree with much of what Mr. Myron writes, however I don't feel as secure about not taxing corporations their fair share. Let's not forget, the income tax rate was 91% under IKE, 70% under JFK, and Carter, and 50% under Reagan until 1986, when his decision to lower the rate to 28%? caused an immediate recession. Besides, can Mr. Myron show us the jobs the wealthy corporations are creating with their billions earned? They have 1.3 trillion dollars sitting offshore waiting for a tax holiday?

The first problem with Buffett's view is that the number of super-rich is too small for higher rates to make much difference to our budget problems.

In 2009, the income earned by the 236,833 taxpayers with more than $1 million in adjusted gross income was about $727 billion. Imposing a 10% surcharge on this income would generate at most $73 billion in new revenue — only about 2% of federal spending. And $73 billion is optimistic; the super-rich will avoid or evade much of the surcharge, significantly lowering its yield.

Bad government policies play a major role in generating inappropriately high incomes, but singling out the super-rich is misguided.

Focusing on the super-rich also fosters a counterproductive attitude toward material success. The way to promote a hard-working, entrepreneurial and innovative society is to celebrate great wealth so long as it has been earned by legitimate means. When this is not the case, policy should target the wrongdoing directly, not demonize everyone who hits it big.

Most importantly, singling out the super-rich distracts from the real problem: the myriad policies that make no sense in the first place because they inhibit economic growth and that simultaneously redistribute from low-income households to the middle and upper classes.

James Madison's Opinion of John Locke

There is a reason why James Madison rarely quoted John Locke--JM's belief Locke was "warped" by England's government. Many believe Locke's work was the foundation of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Neither is true, especially the latter. Locke's Social Compact theory is enumerated in the Book of Exodus, based on  "Consent of the Governed." Likewise, Locke's understanding of the Laws of Nature come from a Calvinist Anglican named Richard Hooker. Here is Madison's unflattering words about John Locke:

Writers, such as Locke, and Montesquieu, who have discussed more the principles of liberty and the structure of government, lie under the same disadvantage, of having written before these subjects were illuminated by the events and discussions which distinguish a very recent period. Both of them, too, are evidently warped by a regard to the particular government of England, to which one of them owed allegiance1; and the other professed an admiration bordering on idolatry. Montesquieu, however, has rather distinguished himself by enforcing the reasons and the importance of avoiding a confusion of the several powers of government, than by enumerating and defining the powers which belong to each particular class. And Locke, notwithstanding the early date of his work on civil government, and the example of his own government before his eyes, admits that the particular powers in question, which, after some of the writers on public law he calls federative, are really distinct from the executive, though almost always united with it, and hardly to be separated into distinct hands. Had he not lived under a monarchy, in which these powers were united; or had he written by the lamp which truth now presents to lawgivers, the last observation would probably never have dropped from his pen. But let us quit a field of research which is more likely to perplex than to decide, and bring the question to other tests of which it will be more easy to judge.


1. The chapter on prerogative shows, how much the reason of the philosopher was clouded by the royalism of the Englishman.

--James Madison, Letters of Helvidius, nos. 1--4, 24 Aug. -- 14 Sept. 1793
Writings 6:138--77 No. I.

FL-2012 President: 49% Romney (R), 39% Obama (D) (Magellan 8/16-18)

The news for Obama is getting worse every day. If Pennsylvania is 54% against Obama, Florida has to be higher than that.

Florida 2012 President
49% Romney (R), 39% Obama (D)
43% Bachmann (R), 42% Obama (D)
46% Perry (R), 39% Obama (D)

Obama's HHS: 'Children Are Sexual Beings'

As if the Church needed more proof Barack Obama is not a Christian. Some of his henchmen--head of human health services, Kathleen Sebelius for one--are downright disgraceful. Take a look at the HHS website. I can't believe the Church doesn't call out the government in every service:

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is offering advice to parents and teens about sex education, including assurances that teens may “experiment” with homosexuality as part of “exploring their own sexuality,” and that masturbation should be of concern only “if a child seems preoccupied with it to the exclusion of other activities.”

The information, located on a “Questions and Answers About Sex” link on the “Quick Guide to Healthy Living” portion of the HHS Web site, also describes children and infants as “sexual beings.”

A link at the bottom of the Q&A page, entitled “Sexual Attraction and Orientation,” includes information on sexual experimentation, including homosexuality.

“Thinking sexually about both the same sex and the opposite sex is quite common as teens sort through their emerging sexual feelings,” the page says. “This type of imagining about people of the same or opposite sex doesn't necessarily mean that a person fits into a particular type of sexual orientation.”

“Some teens may also experiment with sexual experiences, including those with members of the same sex, during the years they are exploring their own sexuality,” the page reads. “These experiences, by themselves, do not necessarily mean that a teen is gay or straight.”

 


 

Poll Results Show Signs of Trouble in Florida for President Obama

Right now, Barack Obama would lose re-election. At this moment, he would lose Florida, Pennsylvania, and many of the States McCain lost in 2008. Floridians are upset with Obama that he doesn't want to help job creators.
 

TALLAHASSEE – Poll results released today by Associated Industries of Florida (AIF) demonstrate Floridians’ increasing dissatisfaction with President Obama’s policies and may signal a tough reelection for the President in the Sunshine State. More than half (54 percent) of those polled believe President Obama’s policies have hurt Florida’s economy. A majority of Independents and Ticketsplitters (54 percent and 51 percent respectively) felt these policies have harmed the state, as did nearly a third of all Democrats.

Obama’s Poor Ratings in Pennsylvania

The subject of my earlier post about the political landscape in Wisconsin is happening before our eyes in Pennsylvania. As with Wisconsin, right now Pennsylvania will vote Republican. If things stay the same, any candidate, including Ron Paul would win the Presidency in a landslide.

President Obama’s approval rating dropped to 35 percent approval among Pennsylvania’s registered voters, according to the most recent Muhlenberg College poll. This is a state Obama carried in 2008 by 10.4 percent (54.7 percent v. 44.3 percent for John McCain). It is hard to envision a scenario in which Obama can win the presidency without Pennsylvania. The Keystone State, in fact, has voted for the Democratic nominee in every election since 1992. But right now, in the summer of his third year in office, Obama is almost 20 points below the percentage he won in 2008. I wonder how long this will go on before Democrats understand the Obama Era may turn out to be among the most brutal the Democratic Party has ever experienced.

Beck Turns To ADL-Condemned David Barton To Promote His Israel Rally

Media Matters has it in for David Barton again. This time reporting the Anti-Defamation League's attack of Barton for working with a group with questionable beliefs about liberty, and racism, that Barton was not aware of. They also condemn Barton as anti-gay--again. What did Jesus say about the Divine Law?

More Evidence of George Washington's Faith

The faith of the Founding Fathers has been debated for two-hundred years. The faith of George Washington seems to get the most air-time. He is after all the Father of our Country, the one most indispensable to our successful Revolution and formation of government. Historians DO have a "smoking gun" as to his faith, even though there is no direct quote from his pen affirming Jesus Christ as his Saviour. Taking Communion with other believers in Jesus Christ is the smoking gun. The contrary evidence is not as convincing as secularists make it out to be. If this was a golf tournament, people for the evidence against labeling GW a true Christian would miss the cut. Consider this: Washington read the Bible every day [his daily practice], most of his devotions during the Revolutionary War were twice a day. He prayed constantly, called Jesus Divine [God], took Communion identifying himself with Christ's Atonement for Sin, called himself a Christian, his close friends and family members claimed he was a Christian, was Baptized during the Revolutionary War outside his affiliated church, and lived the life of a Christian that he said an immoral man could not live.

What is the evidence against him? The main accusation is he used classical words for God, although Pastors of the day used the same terms, perhaps even "The Great Spirit" used by the Indians. Very simply, GW acknowledged The Great Spirit was the Father of us all, in his mind the Biblical God. Likewise, secularists claim GW walked out of the Lord's Table. Which, as I summize, resulted in his disdain for the King, the head of his denomination--the same reason eyewitnesses claim he was baptized with a different denomination in the Revolutionary War.

Eyewitness testimony affirms GW's correct summation of the ordinance--that the Lord's table is not limited within certain sects:

Doctor, I understand that the Lord's Supper is to be celebrated with you next Sunday. I would learn if it accords with the canon of your church to admit communicants of another denomination?' "The Doctor rejoined, 'Most certainly; ours is not the Presbyterian table, General, but the Lord's table; and we hence give the Lord's invitation to all his followers, of whatever name.' "The General replied, 'I am glad of it; that is as it ought to be; but, as I was not quite sure of the fact, I thought I would ascertain it from yourself, as I propose to join with you on that occasion. Though a member of the Church of England, I have no exclusive partialities.

GW did not abide by the demand of Anglican oaths to certain liturgy. He showed no hypocrisy by failing to abide by the oaths, explaining every man is "protected, in worshipping the Deity according to the dictates of his own conscience." Historian, Bishop Meade gives his reasons for Anglicans walking out of Communion, but I don't think he hit the nail on the head. Those Anglicans walked out of Communion because of their disdain for the King--not from personal lack of virtue, or being pressed for time.

Here is a second witness of an earlier testimony I posted earlier in the year about GW taking Communion.

The Rev. Dr. Richards, of Auburn, in a letter to the author, referring to a report of Washington's having partaken of the communion at Morristown, in New-Jersey, while the army was encamped there in 1780 [1777], thus writes: "I became a resident in that town in the summer of 1794. * * * The report that Washington did actually receive the communion from the hands of Dr. Johnes was universally current during that period, and so far as I know, never contradicted. I have often heard it from the members of Dr. Johnes family. * * * It is scarcely possible that they should have been deceived, and their characters are too well known to suppose them willing to deceive others.

The eyewitness testimony of Evangelicals from GW's close friends also supports the Christian label. Here are a few testimonies:

To crown all these moral virtues, he had the deepest sense of religion impressed on his heart; the true foundation-stone of all the moral virtues. This he constantly manifested on all proper occasions. He was a firm believer in the Christian religion; and, at his first entrance on his civil administration, he made it known, and adhered to his purpose, that no secular business could be transacted with him on the day set apart by Christians for the worship of the Deity. Though he was, from principle, a member, of the Episcopal church, he was candid and liberal in the highest degree, not only to all sects and denominations of Christians, but to all religions, where the professors were sincere, throughout the world. He constantly attended the public worship of God on the Lord's day, was a communicant at His table, and by his devout and solemn deportment, inspired every beholder with some portion of that awe and reverence for the Supreme Being, of which he felt so large a portion." [bold face mine]

--Eulogy by Jonathan Mitchell Sewall, Attorney, Poet, and Close friend of George Washington, December 31, 1799.

Another second hand account of GW taking Communion from a Rev. Dr. Chapman of Portland:

From the lips of a lady of undoubted veracity, yet living, and a worthy communicant of the church, I received the interesting fact, that soon after the close of the revolutionary war, she saw him partake of the consecrated symbols of the body and blood of Christ, in Trinity Church, in the city of New-York.

More accounts of Washington taking Communion:

I have heard her [my mother, Eleanor Calvert-Lewis who lived at Mt. Vernon for 2 yrs until 1776 with Mrs. Washington's son, John Parke Custis] say that General Washington always received the sacrament with my grandmother before the revolution.

--Nelly Custis-Lewis (Washington's adopted daughter) to Jared Sparks 26 February, 1833.

Washington called Jesus Divine, having fully understood what the appellation meant. The word Divine at that time meant exactly what his Pastor in Philadelphia, Rev. Abercrombie, said it did, "That Washington was a professing Christian is evident from his regular attendance in our church ; but, Sir, I cannot consider any man as a real Christian who uniformly disregards an ordinance so solemnly enjoined by the divine Author of our holy religion, and considered as a channel of divine grace." There is no evidence GW believed Divine meant anything less than Divine:

I make it my earnest prayer, that God would have the Governors, and the States over which they preside, in his holy protection..that he would most graciously be pleased, to dispose us all to do justice, to love mercy, and to demean ourselves with that charity, humility, and pacific temper of mind, which were the characteristics of the Divine Author of our blessed religion, and without an humble imitation of whose example in these things, we can never hope to be a happy nation.

--GW, 1783.

Besides from Rev. Abercrombie, where are the other eyewitness claims to the contrary? Is Thomas Jefferson's second hand account honest? In my opinion, Thomas Jefferson's account SHOULD NOT be taken seriously as he was an immoral man, having written the most flagrant attacks against GW, while he was his employee. Also, the accusation Jefferson made was denied by Bishop White and Asa Green, the man TJ claimed started the rumor. Walking out of Communion isn't grounds for making that claim anyway. GW's close friends are in the best position to make an estimation, including his close friend Chief Justice John Marshall:

[W]ithout making ostentatious professions of religion, he (Washington) was a sincere believer in the Christian faith and a truly devout man.

--Marshall's life of Washington, vol. II. p. 445, abridged edition.

There are many testimonies affirming he was a Christian, including the Orthodox Jeremiah Smith:

In our country there are few who will hesitate to acknowledge the obligations we are under to make the concerns of another world the governing principle of our lives in this; and that Christianity is the highest ornament of human nature. Washington practised upon this belief. He publicly professed the religion in which he was educated; and his life affords the best evidence of the purity of his principles, and the sincerity of his faith. He had all the genuine mildness of Christianity with all its force. He was neither ostentatious nor ashamed of his Christian profession. He pursued in this, as in every thing else, the happy mean between the extremes of levity and gloominess, indifference and austerity. His religion became him. He brought it with him into office, and he did not lose it there.

--Jeremiah Smith, Revolutionary Soldier, Governor of New Hampshire

Members of Washington's family, who lived at Mt. Vernon, claim he took Communion:

In regard to Washington's being a communicant—a point about which a good deal of doubt has been expressed—we will give the substance of what is to be found in this book. We may remark, by the way, that the personal opinion of Mr. M'Guire is entitled to more than ordinary weight, from the fact of his being connected by marriage with the family of Washington, and having some special advantages for forming a correct judgment. Besides the statement quoted above, Mr. M'Guire elsewhere says that he " considers it certain that Washington did partake of the Lord's Supper."

Evangelical fundamentalist, and close friend of Washington, Elias Boudinot, believed he was a Christian. Of all Christians, Boudinot knew being born again by the Spirit of God was mandatory, having accepted Christ by George Whitefield in the Great Awakening. Here is an account--seems authentic--of GW's Baptism:

Time magazine, September 5, 1932, on the bicentenary of the birthday of George Washington, carried an article giving the account of General Washington being baptized by immersion by Chaplain Gano. Another account tells of Rev. John Gano having baptized General Washington in the field by immersion, as “Gen. Washington had become dissatisfied with the baptism which had been administered by his own church” (the established Church of England). The baptism of General Washington was performed in the presence of about forty people, according to the same account. “Very little was said about this, as the Rev. Mr. Gano transgressed the rule of his church by baptizing anyone who was outside the pale of his own denomination, but felt that he could not draw church lines too close to the Army, and so all were baptized by immersion who desired.” Rev. John Gano, Baptist preacher, is said to have cut the ice in the river, and baptized the commander-in-chief by immersion in the presence of 42 people, all sworn to secrecy! And this has been confirmed by a grandson of the Rev. Gano in an affidavit made at the age of 83 years!

Even in death, Christians prayed and read the Bible at his bedside. Washington expected to go to heaven:

Mrs. Washington was at the bedside, where she had often been " seen kneeling " with "her head resting upon the Bible ;" Mr. Lear and Dr. Craik were leaning over the bed; and four of the domestics were in the room. "He raised himself up, and casting a look of benignity on all around him, as if to thank them for their kindly attention, he composed his limbs, closed his eyes, and, folding his arms upon his bosom," expired, saying,]

FATHER OF MERCIES, TAKE ME TO THY THYSELF.

In conclusion, many Christians do not have written evidence of Communion, use specific words secularists demand, or wear their Christianity on their sleave. Applying this standard to Washington is unfair, unreasonable, and negates the majority evidence supporting George Washington's Creed.

Quote from Founding Father James Wilson

While we perform our duty, and promote our happiness in this world; shall [w]e bestow no regards upon the next? Does no connexion subsist between the two? From this connexion flows the most important of all the blessings of good government. --- But here let us pause --- unassisted reason can guide us no farther, she directs us to that HEAVEN- DESCENDED SCIENCE, by which LIFE and IMMORTALITY have been brought to light. May we not now say, that we have reason for our joy? But while we cherish the delightful emotion, let us remember those things, which are requisite to give it permanence and stability...With heart felt contentment, INDUSTRY beholds his honest labors flourishing and secure. PEACE walks serene and unalarmed over all the unmolested regions; while LIBERTY, VIRTUE and RELIGION go hand in hand harmoniously, protecting, enlivening and exalting all! HAPPY COUNTRY! MAY THY HAPPINESS BE PERPETUAL!

  --James Wilson, Oration delivered on the Fourth of July, 1788, at the procession formed at Philadelphia to celebrate the adoption of the Constitution of the United States

Was James Madison Against Separation of Church and State?

Most likely James Madison changed his view on this subject, however he appears to be in-line with the other Founding Fathers while a public servant. Did Madison change his views after he retired, rejecting Thomas Jefferson's belief that religion is left to the States?

If there were a majority of one sect, a bill of rights would be a poor protection for liberty. Happily for the states, they enjoy the utmost freedom of religion...Fortunately for this commonwealth, a majority of the people are decidedly against any exclusive establishment. There is not a shadow of right in the general government to intermeddle with religion. Its least interference with it would be a most flagrant usurpation. I can appeal to my uniform conduct on this subject, that I have warmly supported religious freedom. It is better that this security should be depended upon from the general legislature, than from one particular state. A particular state might concur in one religious project. But the United States abound in such a variety of sects, that it is a strong security against religious persecution; and it is sufficient to authorize a conclusion, that no one sect will ever be able to outnumber or depress the rest.

--James Madison, June 12, 1788. Elliot's Debates In the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution(Virginia)