The President of Congress Affirming The DOI Was Ratified

John Jay believed in the principles of the Declaration:

On the 4th of July, 1776, your representatives in Congress, perceiving that nothing less than unconditional submission would satisfy our enemies, did, in the name of the people of the Thirteen United Colonies, declare them to be free and independent States; and “for the support of that declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, did mutually pledge to each other their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honour.” Was ever confederation more formal, more solemn, or explicit? It has been expressly assented to, and ratified by every State in the Union. Accordingly, for the direct support of this declaration, that is, for the support of the independence of these States, armies have been raised, and bills of credit emitted, and loans made to pay and supply them. The redemption, therefore, of these bills, the payment of these debts, and the settlement of the accounts of the several States, for expenditures or services for the common benefit, and in this common cause, are among the objects of this Confederation; and, consequently, while all or any of its objects remain unattained, it cannot, so far as it may respect such objects, be dissolved consistently with the laws of God or man.

--John Jay, Sept. 13, 1779

Another Secularist Argument

I wanted to post Secularist Jon Rowe's argument on World Net Daily from the other day, which shows some of the errors secularists are known for--if he is representative of them:

JG [me] has no evidence for his assertion. He (wrongly) assumes if you can't prove with smoking guns like there are with Jefferson, J. Adams, and Franklin (all three of whom btw had nominal connections to orthodox churches) the Founders were fundamentalists like him. He also uses his own abitrary standards to exclude folks as not Founders. Yes, in addition to the unitarian "key Founder" (Jefferson, J. Adams, and Franklin) there were DEISTS Founders -- Thomas Paine, Ethan Allen and Elihu Palmer. Likewise, there may not be "smoking guns" with Washington and Madison, but on balance, they seem closer to Jefferson, J. Adams, and Franklin than the "orthodox."

This blog is filled with evidence supporting my assertions. Moreover, I never called all the framers fundamentalists like me. Arbitrary standards? Is someone who helped draft, ratify, or exert significant influence in the founding of our country arbitrary standards? A pastor must exert significant influence, such as Samuel Cooper to be considered a founder. Was Elihu Palmer a Founding Father?

This blog has been quite cordial in showing the blatant mis-representations Jon Rowe has made pigeon-holing our founding fathers. For years, he claimed William Livingston was a unitarian--this blog refuted that. He claimed Samuel West was a unitarian--wrong again. He claimed Samuel Cooper was not orthodox--same story. Add to the others, claiming John Lathrop was likely a unitarian, refuted earlier on this blog. There are many other gaffes, including his claim there is no fundamental difference in The Laws of Nature and The Laws of Nature's God in the Declaration, when James Wilson, et al. specifically differentiated God and Nature, posted on this blog. Most of these incorrect assumptions happened because he didn't check the sources well enough.

But Elihu Palmer takes the cake. Palmer was born in 1764, graduated Dartmouth in 1787--the same year the Constitution was written! He never even pastored a church. Yet this guy was a "founder?" Did he help found the nation, some govt. dept. in some way I don't know about? He did nothing of significance to influence the founding. If influencing the founding was the criteria, then every senior pastor of every church was a founder, since they influenced entire churches that shaped religion, where Palmer, was blind by 30, dead at 42 years old.

James Madison is closer to Thomas Jefferson or Ben Franklin than to GW? These statements are mind-boggling. James Madison affirmed the Deity of Jesus Christ:

"Christ's divinity appears by St. John, ch. XX. v. 28."

"Resurrection testified and witnessed by the Apostles. Acts, ch. IV. v. 33."

--Madison's "Notes on Commentary on the Bible" found in The Papers of James Madison, p. 51-59. Vol. I. 16 Mar 1751 - 16 Dec. 1779.

In light of the above quotes, how is JM closer to TJ?

The King's Death Sentence to Samuel Adams and John Hancock

I do hereby, in his majesty's name, offer and promise his most gracious pardon to all persons, who shall forthwith lay down their arms, and return to the duties of peaceable subjects: excepting only from the benefits of such pardon, SAMUEL ADAMS and JOHN HANCOCK, whose offenses are of too flagitious a nature to admit of any other consideration but that of condign punishment. 

--General Gage
 

Another Orthodox Patriot Preacher

Rev. John Lathrop

John Lathrop was born in 1740, graduated from Princeton in 1763, and was Pastor of the Second Church of Boston. This preacher was a prolific writer throughout his life. Unitarians wish to claim him as their own, but his words portray a different result. He was an early Calvinist. Here is some evidence supporting Lathrop's Calvinism:

To mention that you hear that the Convention of Ministers in the Province have actually voted to lay aside all creeds and confessions. I wish there was not too much occasion for such a report. They did not actually vote to lay aside creeds and confessions. They have been pretty generally laid aside; and the motion was to revive them, and that candidates should be examined and introduced in the manner they are in Connecticut. This was urged by Dr. Sewall and Mr. Pemberton; it was also opposed by others; but, the forenoon being spent, a vote was desired whether the matter should be considered again after dinner, and passed quite full that it should not..You mention my being fixed in the midst of a crooked, fkc. generation. I assure you, it is a matter of wonder with me that the clergy are not farther from the character of Gospel ministers; and I apprehend, if some reform is not come into a few genrations, if salaries being small should not prevent it, the pulpits will frequently be filled not only with Arminians, but professed Arians, Socinians, and even Deists themselves.

--January 20th, 1769

Only God can be perfect, unless he became what he denounced--an arian, or idolator, believing Christ divine, yet having a different nature than the father. Unitarians did not believe Christ was perfect:

Jesus Christ also, with the perfect feelings of a perfect man, loved his country..

--A Discourse Delivered Appointed by the President.. April 13, 1815

No hint of arminianism in the below quote:

I can but think good Van Mastrich is right in his sentiments about Regeneration — it is a subject of great importance: I wish to understand it well, and constantly to feel that Divine power which alone is sufficient to produce the change, operating on my heart.

--Boston, 1 August, 1771.

Lathrop used orthodox Christian terms and quoted biblical verses clearly promoting Original Sin and Christ's Deity. Since when did unitarians believe God indwelt Christ?

While discoursing on the blessings of peace, our thoughts, as it is highly proper, will be first turned to the gospel, where we have a view of the foundation, which the mercy of God prepared for peace between heaven and earth ; peace between the Sovereign of the universe and his revolted subjects...Christ is our peace :—He came and preached peace to those who were afar off."—Thus wrote the Apostle Paul: "All things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation; to wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation. Now then, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us, we pray you in Christ's stead be reconciled to God [2 Cor 5:19]...Let us endeavour, therefore, to do good unto all. And finally, may we unite with the general assembly and church of the Most High, in offering praise and thanksgiving to God, our heavenly Father, and to his son Jesus Christ, our Lord and Redeemer. [bold face mine]

--A Discourse Delivered in Boston on the Day of Public Thanksgiving in the State of Massachusetts Nov 21, 1811.

Below is a first hand account of orthodoxy:

I never saw him after this, but when I became associated in the ministry with his relative, the Rev. Dr. Lathrop, [Calvinist] of West Springfield, I often heard him speak of him in terms of affectionate regard, and he was never willing to admit that he had departed much, if at all, from the accredited standard of orthodoxy.

--FROM THE REV. CHARLES LOWELL, D. D.
Cambridge, February 28, 1853

Warren Throckmorton's Post on David Barton's New Book

I have yet to get an answer to my latest post on his blog. Here it is:

Article 3 Kaskaskia Treaty

the United States will give annually for seven years one hundred dollars towards the support of a priest of that religion, who will engage to perform for the said tribe the duties of his office and also to instruct as many of their children as possible in the rudiments of literature. And the United States will further give the sum of three hundred dollars to assist the said tribe in the erection of a church.

Above is a clear violation of modern separation doctrine, and along with my previous quote, TJ contadicts it, and he believed a State could form whatever religion they wanted:

I consider the government of the United States as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises. This results not only from the provision that no law shall be made respecting the establishment or free exercise of religion, but from that also which reserves to the States the powers not delegated to the United States. Certainly, no power to prescribe any religious exercise, or to assume authority in religious discipline, has been delegated to the General Government. It must then rest with the States, as far as it can be in any human authority..Every religious society has a right to determine for itself the times for these exercises, and the objects proper for them, according to their own particular tenets; and this right can never be safer than in their own hands..But I have ever believed, that..what might be a right in a State government, was a violation of that right when assumed by another.
–to Rev. Samuel Miller, January 23, 1808

Ultimately, TJ is violating the Indian’s rights even if the tribe was all catholic, which they weren’t. Your rebuttal that the tribes are a sovereign nation does not refute the plain language in the Article, given TJ founded his justification on Natural Rights–that applied to everyone.

Putnam and the "Great Spirit" Part Deux

I don't want to spend too much time on this, but Jon Rowe wrote this in response to my previous post about Rufus Putnam and the Great Spirit:

Goswick seems to suggest that unconverted Natives really DIDN'T worship the God of the Bible with men like Washington and Putnam in knowledge of this. What would that make them then? Manipulative hypocrites when dealing with Natives. Suggesting unconverted Natives worship the same God Christians do, while not believing it, reeks of the same charge of hypocrisy that some secular nationalist scholars make when they claim the early Presidents were cold deists (or atheists) who may have publicly spoken as though they believed in Providence or something closer to Christianity to placate the masses over whom they ruled.

I don't see any hypocrisy at all considering Putnam started and was the President of the original Ohio Bible Society, and perhaps a member of the Society For Propagating the Gospel To The Indians. They weren't missionaries preaching the Gospel--this was diplomacy. If Rowe is correct, Putnam--and all of the Bible societies and missionary organizations--had his people go to the Indians and say, "The Great Spirit so loved the World that he gave his only begotten Great Spirit that whosoever believes in Him has everlasting life...he that believes on the Great Spirit has life, he that has not the Great Spirit has not life?" Don't think so. None of the framers, minus Thomas Jefferson, were ecumenists.

I am confident I can find other evangelicals using that term--most likely members of the societies to promote the Gospel, as Putnam did. I'm fairly certain Congress supported The society for propogating the Gospel to the Indians. That means it was everyone.

In 1798, he was the prime mover in establishing in Marietta the first academy of learning; in 1807, he planned and superintended the building of the church still used by the Congregational Society there; in 1812, he organized there the first Bible Society west of the mountains; in 1817, the first Sunday school and he was the largest subscriber to the funds of each.

--Putnam's Journal

"The Great Spirit" of the Indians

Gen. Rufus Putnam

I thank Jon Rowe, blogging at American Creation, for posting some interesting words by orthodox Christian Founding Father, Rufus Putnam. By reading Putnam's will, he was most likely an Evangelical in the mold of myself or Roger Sherman. You see there is a difference in the terms: orthodox and evangelical. Yes, the word Evangelical was in use in the 18th Century. An orthodox Christian is someone that generally adheres to all the Creeds of the Historic Christian Church without labeling that person part of a particular sect, such as Greek Orthodox. An Evangelical is someone that believes in Biblical Inerrancy over any man-made creed. A Creed is not Inspired as the Bible is.

Rowe quotes Gen. Putnam:

I thank the great Spirit who has inclined our Hearts to do good; and to establish a Peace between You and the United States — Brothers...I propose to send one Speech more requesting them to open a Road to some place or other, where we may meet and Speak to one another; And I trust with Your assistance, that the great Spirit will cause this good Work to succeed--

His point is most likely to link Putnam with the other infidel framers: George Washington, and James Madison, who used the same term referring to the Indian "Great Spirit." I call them infidels because that is what they would be if they considered the Indian god--or any god--the same as the Biblical God. The Bible says at least one thousand times, He is the Only God, the God of the Israel.

Not only is Rowe's implication far-fetched, it would make George Washington a very ignorant man, given a Christian high schooler understands the difference. That Putnam and Washington are placating diplomatically to the Indians by referring to God in their terms is obvious--however Putnam was an Evangelical. The only reason an Evangelical would link the Indian Great Spirit with the God of the Bible is to be diplomatic and accomodating. Here is Putnam:

[F]irst, I give my soul to a holy, sovereign God Who gave it in humble hope of a blessed immortality through the atonement and righteousness of Jesus Christ and the sanctifying grace of the Holy Spirit. My body I commit to the earth to be buried in a decent Christian manner. I fully believe that this body shall, by the mighty power of God, be raised to life at the last day; ‘for this corruptable (sic) must put on incorruption and this mortal must put on immortality.’ [I Corinthians 15:53]

--Will of Rufus Putnam

 My point is supported by GW changing the word "God", to "Great Spirit" while writing to the Indians. He wanted to make sure he was as diplomatic as possible. Moreover, Joseph Story--deceived about the person of Christ--affirmed Biblical Inerrancy, used "The Great Spirit" when referring to the Indians.