AC on Jonah Golberg of National Review

Over at American Creation blog, Jonathan Rowe wrote a post of a few ideas from Jonah Golberg. Here is a taste: “Because God says so” is the greatest appeal to authority, and the appeal to authority is a classic logical fallacy, effective only for those who are pre-committed to that authority."

Before I get to Rowe's response, most secular authors, who make serious mistakes about our founding, make statements of biblical doctrine that makes sense only to themselves, and these men are less authoritative or knowledgeable on this subject than the ones Greg Bahnsen used to teach and lecture  through debate.

The bible is not a fallacy at all, given its revelation proves itself accurate through: predictive prophecy, among many other factors. Along with no inherent contradictions, Christ and His inspired revelation, cannot be compared to the flawed inconsistencies, and immorality of other religions. Christianity is Christ, and Him Crucified; giving the exact date of Christ's Crucifixion in Daniel 9; the Virgin Birth in Isaiah 7, and David's vivid description of the Lord's death in Psalm 22. The other religions cannot compare.

To disbelieve the bible has nothing to do with it's inspiration or validity.

Then, Rowe writes, "Even though the Declaration of Independence is a theistic document, it is not a biblical one. The "unalienable rights" in the DOI are anchored to God to make them non-negotiable; but such are, as the doctrine goes, discovered by reason, not revealed directly by God and recorded in a holy book. A generic monotheistic God, though, seems to exist as a necessary given part of the equation."

The DOI is proven to be a Christian document and Nature's God as the Divine Person, Christ Jesus, by two prayers. One before the DOI and one after. The first one is 47 days before Hancock signed the Declaration before anyone else. Both prayers mention God through the mediator Christ; meaning Nature's God cannot be anyone else but Christ:

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

The founding fathers used the word "Merits" quite often, having its etymology in old Anglican and Catholic sources. It definitely refers to the Lord's crucifixion for sin. The second prayer by Congress is obviously after the DOI and again, God is referenced through Christ and His atoning work on the Cross.

"[W]ith their sincere acknowledgments and offerings, they may join the penitent confession of their manifold sins, whereby they had forfeited every favor, and their humble and earnest supplication that it may please God, through the merits of Jesus Christ, mercifully to forgive and blot them out of remembrance; that it may please him graciously to afford his blessings on the governments of these states respectively, and prosper the public council of the whole; to inspire our commanders both by land and sea, and all under them, with that wisdom and fortitude which may render them fit instruments, under the providence of Almighty God.
--Continental Congress, November 1, 1777. National Thanksgiving Day Proclamation; as printed in the Journals of Congress. 


Moreover, the Ratifiers of the Constitution and Bill of Rights had these prayers, and others, before them while they deliberated. The idea God changed is ridiculous and promulgated by people who know little of the founding. Rowe, again, "The "unalienable rights" in the DOI are anchored to God to make them non-negotiable; but such are, as the doctrine goes, discovered by reason, not revealed directly by God and recorded in a holy book.

However, Our unalienable rights are taken from the Bible:

II. The Rights of the Colonists as Christians..
These may be best understood by reading and carefully studying the institutes of the great Law Giver and Head of the Christian Church, which are to be found clearly written and promulgated in the New Testament.

--Samuel Adams, The Report of the Committee of Correspondence to the Boston Town Meeting. November 20, 1772.

It is the Christian religion that secures unalienable rights:

[T]he Christian religion is the most important and one of the first things in which all children under a free government ought to be instructed. No truth is more evident than that the Christian religion must be the basis of any government intended to secure the rights and privileges of a free people.

-Noah Webster, REVOLUTIONARY SOLDIER; JUDGE; LEGISLATOR; EDUCATOR; “SCHOOLMASTER TO AMERICA” A Collection of Papers on Political, Literary, and Moral Subjects (New York: Webster and Clark, 1843), p. 291, from his “Reply to a Letter of David McClure on the Subject of the Proper Course of Study in the Girard College, Philadelphia. New Haven, October 25, 1836.”



Here is another part of the prayer, but it references the Holy Ghost, proving the founders were Trinitarians. In 1776, the Unitarians were a very small minority, did not publicize themselves and were given an undue concession. In fact, unitarians did not mention the Holy Ghost due to the conflict of their beliefs and the orthodox:


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


This information also proves the Articles of Confederation was ratified under the name of Christ, written during the same Second Continental Congress. Moreover, I can prove Christ is the God of the Constitution due to the fact the Congress after the Second Continental Congress; the Congress of the Confederation, lasted from 1781 to 1789, which in the time frame the Congress wrote the Constitution:

The goodness of the Supreme Being to all his rational creatures, demands their acknowledgments of gratitude and love; his absolute government of this world dictates, that it is the interest of every nation and people ardently to supplicate his mercy favor and implore his protection. When the lust of dominion or lawless ambition excites arbitrary power to invade the rights, or endeavor to wrench wrest from a people their sacred and unalienable invaluable privileges, and compels them, in defence of the same, to encounter all the horrors and calamities of a bloody and vindictive war; then is that people loudly called upon to fly unto that God for protection..that He would incline the hearts of all men to peace, and fill them with universal charity and benevolence, and that the religion of our Divine Redeemer, with all its benign influences, may cover the earth as the waters cover the seas. (bold mine)

-Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789 TUESDAY, MARCH 19, 1782



Notice, the "Supreme Being" and the Redeemer, being Divine. This is the first time I know of, anyone has tied the Constitution with the Congress that drafted it. Unitarians would not have written this.

New release from Dreisbach and Hall

Their new collaboration is due for release April 1, 2014. Faith and the Founders of the American Republic will hopefully provide more evidence of Calvinist faith from the Founding Fathers. The book has a section on Gouverneur Morris, written by Gregg Frazer. Here is one of Frazer's questionable comments:

Like the Deists, Morris and the other theistic rationalists used generic "God words" rather than specifically Christian terms for God (p. 214).  

Yet, Calvinists used this classical terminology, including Samuel Adams, William Livingston, John Witherspoon and many others. How can this understanding be used to claim someone wasn't orthodox when the orthodox used it? The fact is Morris called himself a Christian.

The problem with many historians like Frazer is the Natural Law tradition. Because many framers referred to Natural Law, scholars believe these men gave a higher respect for reason than they really did. Taken from the Scriptures, John Calvin himself promoted this tradition. Further, Montesquieu and Locke understood the Natural Law tradition from Calvin and the Reformers. Morris rejected the authority of human reason for the Kingship of Christ:

Those who slaughtered their prince and made havoc of each other; those who endeavored to dethrone the King of Heaven and establish the worship of human reason, who placed, as representative on the altar which piety had dedicated to the holy virgin, and fell down and paid to her their adoration, were, at length, compelled to see and to feel, and, in agony, to own that there is a God. I cannot proceed. My heart sickens at the recollection of those horrors which desolated France. [bold face mine] 

--An oration, delivered on Wednesday, June 29, 1814, at the request of a number of citizens of New-York : in celebration of the recent deliverance of Europe from the yoke of military despotism.

A man who believed in total depravity, as Morris did would not exalt man's reason as the rationalists did:

Your history of the two Barons is very amusing ; but when
you take occasion to pity the infirmity of human nature, be-
cause of their attachment to a trivial decoration, you assail
the wisdom of Providence in his moral government of the
world. [bold face mine]

--TO JOHN PARISH. February 18th, 1806.

The above quote refers to God's moral authority of the world. This is precisely the statement of Grotius and the Christians who denied the correct biblical atonement for the moral atonement theory Grotius and the Arminians believed.

Another comment made in the book referring to Hamilton says:

Although a consistent spokesman for Enlightened principles in politics (p. 22).

However, Hamilton rejected Enlightenment principles. He believed in Calvin's Total Depravity and rejected any human exaltation by learning:

"Experience is a continual comment on the worthlessness of the human race; and the few exceptions we find have the greater right to be valued in proportion as they are rare."

-To Colonel Richard K. Meade, Albany, August 27, 1782.

Hamilton even mentions the enlightenment with disdain by clarifying man becomes more wicked the more he learns:

"As riches increase and accumulate in few hands; as luxury prevails in society; virtue will be in a greater degree considered as only a graceful appendage of wealth, and the tendency of things will be to depart from the republican standard. This is the real disposition of human nature: It is what, neither the honorable member nor myself can correct. It is a common misfortune, that awaits our state constitution, as well as all others..It is a harsh doctrine, that men grow wicked in proportion as they improve and enlighten their minds. Experience has by no means justified us in the supposition, that there is more virtue in one class of men than in another. Look through the rich and the poor of the community; the learned and the ignorant. Where does virtue predominate? The difference indeed consists, not in the quantity but kind of vices, which are incident to the various classes; and here the advantage of character belongs to the wealthy. Their vices are probably more favorable to the prosperity of the state, than those of the indigent; and partake less of moral depravity. "[bold face mine]

--Alexander Hamilton, New York Ratifying Convention 21 June 1788. Papers 5:36--37, 40--43.

The kicker for rejecting Frazer's opinion is eyewitness testimony from one of Morris's best friends, who was an evangelical and claimed Morris was saved, Oct 28, 1816.
                                                                 

Gregg Frazer's New Book

Gregg Frazer teaches up the road at Master's College, and has a new book out, where he claims the Founding Fathers believed in a hybrid religion called "theistic rationalism." He's pushed this for a while now. Frazer believes the Founding Fathers rejected historical Christianity, to cherry pick, according to what is rational, what parts of the Bible were legit and what weren't. On the surface, his premise appears contradictory, and untenable, given the framers believed man's reasoning was depraved by Sin, limiting their ability to determine ultimate truth in the first place. The Founding Fathers always belittled man's reason:

Experience is a continual comment on the worthlessness of the human race; and the few exceptions we find have the greater right to be valued in proportion as they are rare.

--Alexander Hamilton to Colonel Richard K. Meade, Albany, August 27, 1782.

The great Deist slayer John Leland echos my point in 1737:

Thus I have considered what this author offers with regard to the proofs or evidences of divine revelation in general, in which his design is plainly to show that there can be no proper proofs or evidences of divine revelation to any but the persons immediately receiving it, and yet at the same time he affects to own the great usefulness of revelation in the present corrupt and degenerate state of mankind.

--DIVINE AUTHORITY OF THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENT ASSERTED. WITH A PARTICULAR VINDICATION OF THE CHARACTER OF MOSES, AND THE PROPHETS, OUR SAVIOUR JESUS CHRIST, AND HIS APOSTLES. BY JOHN LELAND, D. D. LONDON
PRINTED FOR T. TEGG AND SON, CHEAPSIDE; R. GRIFFIN AND CO., GLASGOW; T. T. AND II. TEGG, DUBLIN: ALK> J. AND 5. A. TEOO, SYDNEY AND WOBART TOWN.

Moreover, in his audio of 2003, Frazer's errors abound, including the framers borrowed from the Enlightenment (the use of reason with education to enlighten society). Alexander Hamilton--who Frazer references in his book--refutes his claim:

This is the real disposition of human nature: It is what, neither the honorable member nor myself can correct. It is a common misfortune, that awaits our state constitution, as well as all others..It is a harsh doctrine, that men grow wicked in proportion as they improve and enlighten their minds. Experience has by no means justified us in the supposition, that there is more virtue in one class of men than in another. Look through the rich and the poor of the community; the learned and the ignorant. Where does virtue predominate? The difference indeed consists, not in the quantity but kind of vices, which are incident to the various classes; and here the advantage of character belongs to the wealthy. Their vices are probably more favorable to the prosperity of the state, than those of the indigent; and partake less of moral depravity. 

 --Alexander Hamilton, New York Ratifying Convention 21 June 1788. Papers 5:36--37, 40--43.


The framers believed our founding was based on Scripture, explained through men of the Protestant Reformation--Calvin, Luther, Sidney, Rutherford, Grotius, Hooker, Locke, Puffendorf, Ponet, etc:

The philosophical examination of the foundations of civil society, of human governments, and of the rights and duties of men, is among the consequences of the Protestant Reformation..The principles of Sidney and of Locke, constitute the foundation of the North American Declaration of Independence, and together with the subsequent writings of Montesquieu and Rousseau, that of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and of the Constitution of the United States.

--John Q. Adams, 6th President of the U.S.A, Author of the Monroe Doctrine and our Foreign Policy. A Lecture DELIVERED BEFORE THE FRANKLIN Lyceum AT PROVIDENCE, Ro 10, NOVEMBER 25, 1842.

John Calvin and Martin Luther espoused reasoning into civil government one hundred years before the enlightenment. The promotion of education, science, astronomy, etc,. was exalted due to Reformers: Calvin, Pascal, Kepler, Luther, Erasmus, Copernicus, Galileo, Boyle, et al. 


Furthermore, 18th Century Deists were not theistic rationalists! Deists believed in miracles. Ben Franklin was not a Deist, rather, he believed Moses parted the Red Sea, and the Flood and Sodom and Gommorrah:

[T]he Deity sometimes interferes by his particular Providence, and sets aside the Events which would otherwise have been produc’d in the Course of Nature..If you say he has in the Beginning unchangeably decreed all Things….[but] he has divested himself of all further Power, he has done and has no more to do, he has ty’d up his Hand and has now no greater Power than an Idol of Wood or Stone; nor can there be any more Reason for praying to him or worshipping of him. It is true that if another deluge should happen wherein the windows of heaven are to be opened, such pipes may be unequal to the falling quantity; and if God for our sins should think fit to rain fire upon us, as upon some cities of old, it is not expected that our conductors of whatever size, should secure our houses against a miracle.

--Benjamin Franklin, “On the Providence of God in the Government of the World,” in The Papers of Benjamin Franklin, ed. Leonard W. Labaree, (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1963), vol. 1, p. 267-8. "Experiments Supporting the Use of Pointed Lightning Rods" Printed in Benjamin Vaughan, ed., Political, Miscellaneous, and Philosophical Pieces...by Benj. Franklin... (London, 1779), pp. 487-99: French translation in Jacques Barbeu-Dubourg, Oeuvres de M. Franklin... (2 vols., Paris, 1773), I, 289-300; ADS (lacking the conclusion of the published version): Bibliothèque de Genève; AD (fragment Of the published conclusion): American Philosophical Society. Aug. 27 [i.e., 18?], 1772.

Was God's destruction of Sodom and Gommorrah reasonable to a Dissenter? Franklin's Deity was Yahweh:

"History will also afford frequent Opportunities of showing the Necessity of a Publick Religion, from its Usefulness to the Publick; the Advantage of a Religious Character among private Persons..and the Excellency of the Christian religion above all others antient or modern. God governs in the affairs of man. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? Sir, that we have not hitherto once thought of humbly applying to the Father of lights [James 1:17] to illuminate our understandings? In the beginning of the contest with G. Britain, when we were sensible of danger we had daily prayer in this room for the Divine Protection. -- Our prayers, Sir, were heard, and they were graciously answered...I have lived, Sir, a long time and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth -- that God governs in the affairs of men..We have been assured in the Sacred Writings that except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it. I firmly believe this. I also believe that, without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel." [bold face mine]


--Proposals Relating to the Education of Youth in Pennsylvania. Philadelphia, 1749. and the Const. Convention.


Franklin tells Paine he intimates he believes a specific, personal, Deity (Yahweh), not a general Deity:

By the argument [Age of Reason] it contains against a particular Providence, though you allow a general Providence, you strike at the foundations of all religion. For without the belief of a Providence, that takes cognizance of, guards, and guides, and may favor particular persons, there is no motive to worship a Deity, to fear his displeasure, or to pray for his protection.

--To Thomas Paine, in 1790. The Works of Franklin. Sparks.


On to Frazer's audio. He says "the founding fathers believed this hybrid." Not just a few, but all of them. "Christian america only read you some of the quotes..they don't show all the evidence..they shared beliefs with Deists..that all religion leads to the same god." Frazer uses the wrong definition of Deism anyway, and not even Franklin shared beliefs with Deists. If all roads lead to God, and being good is the goal, why did they preach the Gospel to the Indians? The Gospel means "good news" not "being good." The founding fathers preached the Gospel to save souls from the penalty of Sin, not to be good people. The Founding Fathers believed everyone was bad--no one was good. No doubt the Indians believed they were good people already. Frazer says they believed "the wicked are punished temporarily..they didn't believe Jesus was God?" They believed in purgatory? Where is the documentation on that? This blog quotes James Madison claiming Jesus is God. Can he quote Madison recanting that?


Frazer continues, "they believed reason determines what was true revelation." But the only written evidence is they believed their reasoning was depraved. Frazer would have a firmer foundation if they did not believe their minds were corrupted. Frazer claims, "they had bad things to say about Calvinism." Where did James Wilson, Hamilton, Madison and Morris write against Calvinism? Continuing on, "Jefferson, Adams and Franklin wrote the Declaration." No. Jefferson wrote the rough draft, which was corrected by the Congress. John Adams wrote its principles were already written. Frazer repeats,  "George Washington  never took Communion." Yet, on this blog there are eyewitness accounts from Christians, that he did take Communion. Were those Christians lying? Were they too old to be credible witnesses?


Frazer claim's George Washington never called himself a Christian. He does here:

[I] inclose you a copy of Mr. Cary's last Acct. currt. against me, which upon my honr and the faith of a Christian is a true one, and transmitted to me with the additional aggravation of a hint at the largeness of it.

--GW to ROBERT STEWART April 27, 1763.

Who's neglecting all the evidence? GW's quote below caught my attention, and might be cause for concern if GW hadn't called himself a Christian, took Communion, was a Vestryman, referred to Jesus as Divine, and believed the Bible was inspired:

Being no bigot myself to any mode of worship, I am disposed to indulge the professors of Christianity in the church, that road to Heaven, which to them shall seem the most direct plainest easiest and least liable to exception. [bold face mine]

--To the Marquis de Lafayette, August 15, 1787.

Referring to Christians as "them" is strange, but doesn't prove GW isn't a Christian. Bishop Meade was an eyewitness to Episcopalians sometimes skipping Communion--giving a more valid explanation. Christianity is based on faith. Theoretically, Christianity could be wrong. Frazer then claims GW was a Mason, etc. However, 18th century American Masons were Trinitarians.


At the end of the audio, Frazer asks if the Constitution is based on the Bible, why isn't it quoted? David Barton gives the correct answer in Original Intent. He should read it.

Not to ignore his attack on David Barton. In Frazer's Preface, he writes:

My frustration with the lack of an accurate record grew each time someone passed me a video of Christian America advocate David Barton.

Frazer mocks David Barton over an accurate record, and saying he dodged him for a debate? If isn't that the pot calling the kettle black. With all Frazer's inaccuracies, I know someone he would not want to debate.  Finally, it is the secularists goal to mis-represent the Founding Fathers with a handful of the least orthodox framers in order to rig the narrative in their favor. In fact, there are no "key founders." The Founding Fathers unanimously believed the Ratifiers were more important than the drafters of the Constitution, and the ratifiers are all equal.

Secularist reasoning and Judge William Blackstone

This blog, along with its author, take the typical secularist view of James Wilson and the Founding Fathers with respect to Judge William Blackstone. Rowe writes:

However, Blackstone was an Tory who argued for the doctrine of absolute supremacy of the law of England. Of Parliament's power, he famously noted:

It can, in short, do every thing that is not naturally impossible; and therefore some have not scrupled to call it's power, by a figure rather too bold, the omnipotence of parliament. True it is, that what they do, no authority upon earth can undo.

However, James Wilson never believed what Rowe and Van Dyke--later down the thread--claim about Blackstone. The quote Rowe uses is Blackstone's summation of its practical application, and perhaps only in the context of their nation, "But if the parliament will positively enact a thing to be done, which is unreasonable; I know of no power that can control it" not what Blackstone believed was superior--parliament or Scripture. In fact, there are many earthly authorities that can undo what parliament has ordained. Wilson understood that Blackstone believed Scripture was theoretically supreme to parliament--which was subservient to Divine Law:

Accordingly, Sir William Blackstone, on the principles of his system, expresses himself in the following manner, remarkably guarded and circumspect, as to the extent of the parliamentary power. "If there arise out of acts of parliament, collaterally, any absurd consequences, manifestly contradictory to common reason; they are, with regard to those collateral consequences, void. I lay down the rule with these restrictions; though I know it is generally laid down more largely ― that acts of parliament contrary to reason are void. But if the parliament will positively enact a thing to be done, which is unreasonable; I know of no power that can control it: and the examples usually alleged in support of this sense of the rule do none of them prove, that, where the main object of a statute is unreasonable, the judges are at liberty to reject it: for that were to set the judicial power above that of the legislature, which would be subversive of all government." "No court has power to defeat the intent of the legislature, when couched in such evident and express words, as to leave no doubt concerning its intention."

--Wilson, Works.

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.

The Greatest Influence to Thomas Jefferson

Founding Father Thomas Jefferson claimed Francis Bacon was the greatest man that ever lived. It is ironic TJ put Bacon at the top of a circled Trinity with Locke and Newton beneath him, in view of the fact TJ was a unitarian and Bacon a Trinitarian. Bacon was a devout Anglican, who, it would appear, believed in all the fundamentals of Christianity. His rejection of Aristotle's philosophy for empiricism, and Locke's blank slate theory, for the more correct Original Sin doctrine, by man's erroneous understanding of initial information is refreshing, given Bacon had such an effect on the primary draughtsman of the Declaration of Independence.

The most influential man the world has ever known according to the rationalist Thomas Jefferson, was an Orthodox Christian. How poetic.

Dennis Prager, God, Liberals and Liberty

Dennis Prager's recent post about Liberty and God differentiates rights from Christianity and Islam. It is vitally important to understand the identity of the God that gave us our rights. The Declaration of Independence tells us who the God of our liberty and rights is; His name is "The Laws of Nature and the Laws of Nature's God." This appellation is attributed to no other God in history than the God of the Bible. In fact, the Founding Fathers understood this name as passed down from the Scriptures to Protestant Reformers: John Calvin, and Martin Luther, to English and Catholic Elites: John Locke, Richard Hooker, William Blackstone, Francis Bacon, and Thomas Aquinas.

Happy Birthday Thomas Jefferson; Hypocrite

Today, April 13th, is the 267th birthday of Founding Father Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826). The man who had the audacity to personally slander President George Washington, while working for him! Yes, it's true. Only an arrogant fool would attempt such a thing; only Thomas Jefferson. The principal author of the Declaration of Independence, but by the deferral of John Adams, hired James Madison's college buddy, Philip Freneau as his assistant to write public slanders against George Washington.

According to renowned biographer Paul Leicester Ford; the biographer of Washington, and excellent editor of Jefferson's works, the French Minister claimed the most slanderous public attacks were done by Jefferson himself! Late in life, Freneau claimed some of the attacks were written by the Secretary of State.

How unbelievable? Washington appoints him Secretary of State, even though he's from the opposite party, then, TJ begins to publicly slander the President who appointed him.

Another bit of sad commentary on this event, has James Madison in on the entire episode.

Immanent Frame's Claude S. Fischer writes about Christian America

Over at Immanent Frame, Claude S. Fisher, a Professor of Sociology at the University of California, Berkeley, has written a small post claiming, "American was not born Christian, but grew to be very Christian centuries later."[bold face mine]

Why a liberal, sociology professor would dare write about our founding is beyond me. It's easy pickins even by a cursory examination of this blog. Immanent Frame, do yourself a favor, employ persons who understand the Founding Fathers. I've read some of your posts on Christianity in relation to our nation, and it's less than satisfactory. Let's get something clear right now. When the framers spoke of Protestant religion, they are referring to the Protestant Reformation, and they knew exactly what the Reformers preached. They did not preach heterodoxy. The Protestant Religion did not include unitarianism, or any other pelagianism; all of that heresy was kicked to the curb at the Synod of Dort in 1618-1619.

Politically speaking, some forms of pelagianism was allowed, and considered Christian, although it carried little weight, as unitarians needed to keep their views secret; heretical pastors hid their views. Theologically speaking, the majority understood orthodoxy from the Reformers, and by reading the Scriptures themselves.

Returning to Mr. Fischer, listing the State Constitutions is enough to keep Mr. Fischer in his day job:

Constitution of the State of North Carolina (1776), stated: There shall be no establishment of any one religious church or denomination in this State in preference to any other. Article XXXII That no person who shall deny the being of God, or the truth of the Protestant religion, or the divine authority of the Old or New Testaments, or who shall hold religious principles incompatible with the freedom and safety of the State, shall be capable of holding any office or place of trust or profit in the civil department within this State. (until 1876)[bold face mine]

Constitution of the State of Maryland (August 14, 1776), stated: Article XXXV That no other test or qualification ought to be required, on admission to any office of trust or profit, than such oath of support and fidelity to this State and such oath of office, as shall be directed by this Convention, or the Legislature of this State, and a declaration of a belief in the Christian religion.” That, as it is the duty of every man to worship God is such a manner as he thinks most acceptable to him; all persons professing the Christian religion, are equally entitled to protection in their religious liberty; wherefore no person ought by any law to be molested… on account of his religious practice; unless, under the color [pretense] of religion, any man shall disturb the good order, peace or safety of the State, or shall infringe the laws of morality… yet the Legislature may, in their discretion, lay a general and equal tax, for the support of the Christian religion.(until 1851)[bold face mine]

Constitution of the State of New Hampshire (1784,1792), required senators and representatives to be of the: Protestant religion. (in force until 1877)The Constitution stipulated: Article I, Section VI. And every denomination of Christians demeaning themselves quietly, and as good citizens of the state, shall be equally under the protection of the laws. And no subordination of any one sect of denomination to another, shall ever be established by law.[bold face mine]

Constitution of the State of Delaware (until 1792) stated: Article XXII Every person who shall be chosen a member of either house, or appointed to any office or place of trust… shall… make and subscribe the following declaration, to wit:“I, _______, do profess faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ His only Son, and in the Holy Ghost, one God, blessed forevermore; I do acknowledge the holy scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by divine inspiration.”

Constitution of the State of Connecticut (until 1818), contained the wording: The People of this State… by the Providence of God… hath the sole and exclusive right of governing themselves as a free, sovereign, and independent State… and forasmuch as the free fruition of such liberties and privileges as humanity, civility, and Christianity call for, as is due to every man in his place and proportion… hath ever been, and will be the tranquility and stability of Churches and Commonwealth; and the denial thereof, the disturbances, if not the ruin of both.[bold face mine]

NEW YORK 1777 (until 1821) That all such parts of the said common law, and all such of the said statutes and acts aforesaid, or parts thereof, as may be construed to establish or maintain any particular denomination of Christians or their ministers, or concern the allegiance heretofore yielded to, and the supremacy, sovereignty, government, or prerogatives claimed or exercised by, the King of Great Britain and his predecessors, over the colony of New York and its inhabitants, or are repugnant to this constitution, be, and they hereby are, abrogated and rejected.[bold face mine]

NEW JERSEY 1776 (until 1844) XIX. That there shall be no establishment of any one religious sect in this Province, in preference to another; and that no Protestant inhabitant of this Colony shall be denied the enjoyment of any civil right, merely on account of his religious principles; but that all persons, professing a belief in the faith of any Protestant sect, who shall demean themselves peaceably under the government, as hereby established, shall be capable of being elected into any office of profit or trust, or being a member of either branch of the Legislature, and shall fully and freely enjoy every privilege and immunity, enjoyed by others their fellow subjects.[bold face mine]

Here is more of a taste of Mr. Fischer:

Over the wider American landscape, however, colonists were notably “unchurched” and “un-Christian.” Scattered around in separate households (unlike the Puritans who concentrated in villages), most Americans had no church to go to and little connection to what we would call organized religion. Even where there were churches to attend, many went either irregularly or simply because the church was one of the rare places—along with the tavern—to see people in a sparsely-developed society.

Then why do all the states mandate Christianity, and why did nearly every state mandate the death penalty for homosexuality? The people obviously understood their faith from the Bible. Here is more:

Such waves of enthusiasm (“Awakenings”) in some places and at some times rallied some people to faith, but the clergy generally despaired of the heathens who had settled the new continent.

The Great Awakening went from New Hampshire to Georgia! It went not into some places, it went everywhere, and entire communities were affected.

Most early Americans were not believers in the sense that affirming Christians are today. They were likelier to understand spells, potions, and omens than theological doctrines.

Spells? Potions? Omens? If they weren't Christians as today, why did the vast majority take communion in the Church to identify with Christ?

The colonial elites, some of whom became Founding Fathers, themselves tended to be vaguely Christian. Even John Adams, a cultural conservative who struggled against the radical Thomas Jefferson, was “only” a Unitarian.

Only a small minority were Unitarians; this is why Adams and others kept their views secret.

Alexander Hamilton; The Calvinist, Part II

Continuing my post on Alexander Hamilton leaves no doubt his belief in Calvinism. As with James Madison et al. AH remained a partial Calvinist his entire life. Contrary evidence from their writings has yet to be found, apart from, in Madison's case, irrelevant 19th Century religious inclinations. In Hamilton's case, there is no evidence he departed from belief in the Total Depravity of John Calvin. From my previous posts on James Madison, belief in human depravity demands belief in man bearing God's image, hence they are both founded on the principle of imputation; imputed from Adam. Also, from a letter by Stanley Stanhope Smith, it appears JM believed in pre-destination, not the freewill of hyper-arminianism. I cannot make that claim for AH; pre-destination is not derived from imputation.

Furthermore, JM cannot be considered a Unitarian; 18th Century unitarians, including the "Old Lights," rejected God's Grace; JM affirmed Grace in his Memorial and Remonstrance. Many bloggers confuse 18th, with 19th Century Unitarianism. They are not the same. William Ellery Channing's 19th Century unitarianism allowed for Grace that the Old Lights did not.

Much has been said about Hamilton never joining a church; this claim, made with other various heterodox christian labels, is un-factual.

Hamilton rented Pew 92 at Trinity Church as early as 1790. Further detail into Hamilton's church attendance, and if he communed, needs to be done. His wife Elizabeth is listed as a communicant in Rev. Moore's record book. Interesting to note, Hamilton provided legal counsel regarding the independent incorporation of St. Mark’s Church-in-the-Bowery, a complex issue that arose in the late 1790s.

Is there a doubt Hamilton went to church after his son died, mandating his son go to church every sunday?

"On Sunday he will attend the morning church."

-Rules for Philip Hamilton, 1804. Works of Hamilton.

Knowing Hamilton's character, would he allow his children to do what he did not approve of? Hamilton's notion of human depravity resonate through his writings:

"But I reverence humanity, and would not wish to pour a blush upon the cheeks of its advocates. Were I inclined to make a satire upon the species I would attempt a faithful description of your heart. It is hard to conceive, in theory, one of more finished depravity."

-Publius, November 16, 1778. New York Journal, and the General Advertiser

Regarding the Caesar Letters of 1787, we do not know for sure if Hamilton wrote them. However, if they are attributed to him, Hamilton used a Biblical description for God while forming the Constitution, refuting many skeptics who claim God is absent. Hamilton stopped short of claiming the Constitution is inspired:

"For my own part, I sincerely esteem it [The Constitution] a system, which, without the finger of God, never could have been suggested and agreed upon by such a diversity of interested I will not presume to say that a more perfect system might not have been fabricated; but who expects perfection at once?" [bold face mine]

-Caesar II, October 17, 1787. For the Daily Advertiser.

Alexander Hamilton; The Calvinist, Part I

Scholars that claim Alexander Hamilton was less than a Christian may be hard-pressed. However, neither Hamilton, Gouverneur Morris, nor George Washington should be labeled rationalists. The correct definition of "rationalist" as Wilkipedia explains, says "reason is king." A rationalist denies the supernatural, and anything unreasonable to the enlightened man. All three believed human nature was depraved, by none other than The Fall. Original Sin is unreasonable to rationalists, which exempts all three men from the label. Calvinist Professor Gregg Frazer, claim these men are a special kind of Theistic Rationalist; one that can pick and choose what miracles; apparently biblical, are legitimate. However, Hamilton goes so far as to claim miracles are possible apart from Biblical Revelation, or Right Reason, casting further doubt on his thesis. Here is a taste of Frazer's thesis:

"They [Founding Fathers] similarly felt free to define God according to the dictates of their own reason and to reject Christian doctrines which did not seem to them to be rational..Theistic rationalists generally disdained doctrines or dogmas. They found them to be divisive, speculative, and ultimately unimportant since many roads lead to God."

Granted, there may have been some framers who denied the supernatural; Thomas Jefferson, and Thomas Paine come to mind, however Alexander Hamilton is not one of them. Is Original Sin a divisive doctrine? Many would claim it is a fact of everyday life.

"And making the proper deductions for the ordinary depravity of human nature, the number must be still smaller of those who unite the requisite integrity with the requisite knowledge." [bold face mine]

-Hamilton, FEDERALIST No. 78

Thus, unlike, the rationalists, he did not believe learning and the enlightenment would cause virtue, but only that the depravity would change its form. Hamilton knew he couldn't change his condition, because it was inherrant:

"As riches increase and accumulate in few hands; as luxury prevails in society; virtue will be in a greater degree considered as only a graceful appendage of wealth, and the tendency of things will be to depart from the republican standard. This is the real disposition of human nature: It is what, neither the honorable member nor myself can correct. It is a common misfortune, that awaits our state constitution, as well as all others..It is a harsh doctrine, that men grow wicked in proportion as they improve and enlighten their minds. Experience has by no means justified us in the supposition, that there is more virtue in one class of men than in another. Look through the rich and the poor of the community; the learned and the ignorant. Where does virtue predominate? The difference indeed consists, not in the quantity but kind of vices, which are incident to the various classes; and here the advantage of character belongs to the wealthy. Their vices are probably more favorable to the prosperity of the state, than those of the indigent; and partake less of moral depravity." [bold face mine]

-Alexander Hamilton, New York Ratifying Convention 21 June 1788. Papers 5:36--37, 40--43
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch13s38.html

Gouverneur Morris; the Penman of the Constitution, cannot be considered a Rationalist either. He never exalted reason over revelation; however, he did attack it, hence Morris lived in Paris at the height of the French Revolution:

"Those who slaughtered their prince and made havoc of each other; those who endeavored to dethrone the King of Heaven and establish the worship of human reason, who placed, as representative on the altar which piety had dedicated to the holy virgin, and fell down and paid to her their adoration, were, at length, compelled to see and to feel, and, in agony, to own that there is a God. I cannot proceed. My heart sickens at the recollection of those horrors which desolated France." [bold face mine]

-An oration, delivered on Wednesday, June 29, 1814, at the request of a number of citizens of New-York : in celebration of the recent deliverance of Europe from the yoke of military despotism.

What is interesting in Morris' quote is his mention of the Holy Virgin. If Morris didn't believe what he wrote, why even mention it? Also, this quote proves Morris could not be a rationalist, as he says the King of Heaven is superior to reason, that the French tried to establish Reason over Christianity. One can only imagine what Morris saw in that dreadful time.

Morris, like Hamilton, Madison, Washington, et al. believed in human depravity:

"Your history of the two Barons is very amusing ; but when
you take occasion to pity the infirmity of human nature, be-
cause of their attachment to a trivial decoration, you assail
the wisdom of Providence in his moral government of the
world." [bold face mine]

-TO JOHN PARISH. February 18th, 1806.

Morris claimed to be a Christian, not a rationalist:

"As a good Christian I pray not to be led into it..."
-The diary and letters of Gouverneur Morris, Minister of the United States to France. Vol II.

Finally, To The Blogosphere; James Madison's Notes On The Bible Part II

It is an understatement that the general public has never seen many early writings of James Madison. Indeed, their importance is magnified, by the lack of visibility they are given. However, the underlying influence to JM happens to be the same influence of our founding. Many of his personal letters to and from his family, and most notably to his best friend William Bradford, after 1775, are lost. R. C. Weightman, who collaborated with William C. Rives; the first Madison biographer, explains "some of JM's letters to Bradford were probably dated at the time of the Constitutional Convention of 1787" but they haven't been found. In reality, James Madison destroyed most of his private correspondence he thought not important. The remainder of his private letters were scattered to his friends and family.

Whatever the reason he destroyed his private correspondence, this blog has sufficiently shown, prior to the 19th Century, James Madison was a Calvinist. Several of his letters from 1773 to 1775 appear similar in style to any Calvinist clergyman; sometimes with more zeal (emphasis mine).

For instance, this letter in 1773 could have been written by a Genevan legislator in the 16th Century:

"[B]ut I find them [book reviews] loose in their principles[,] encourage[r]s of free inquiry even such as destroys the most essential Truths, Enemies to serious religion..." [bold face mine]

-To William Bradford, Dec. 1, 1773. The Papers of James Madison, Vol. I. 16 Mar 1751 - 16 Dec. 1779. Edited by William T. Hutchinson and William M. E. Rachal. 1962, by the University of Chicago Press.

*[Editors Note] Students' notes taken between 1772 and 1775 on Witherspoon's "Moral Philosophy, Rhetoric and Eloquence" lectures, now preserved in the Princeton University Library, include warnings against reading ephemeral works dangerous to sound religion and morality.

Madison is refering to writers who promote Heterodox Christianity, of which he veheminately attacked. JM understood the difference between Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy:

"At the same time his ingenious and plausible defence of parliamentary authority carries in it such defects and misrepresentations, as confirm me in political orthodoxy—after the same manner as the specious arguments of Infidels have established the faith of inquiring Christians. [bold face mine]

-To William Bradford Jr., July 1, 1774.

Did JM mean some Christians were being influenced by infidels? What kind of heterodoxy was he refering to? Here, the Orthodox Bradford reassures his friend about the importance of Orthodoxy:

"I went yesterday to hear our classmate McCorkle predicate: & I assure you his sermon was very orthodox: The point he chiefly Laboured to prove was "that the Laws of God were superior in wisdom to the Laws of men"; & I think his arguments on this part were in a gr[e]at measure unanswerable; the rest had a great deal of chronology but very little instruction in it." [bold face mine]

-To James Madison, Oct 17, 1774.

It appears Bradford is assuring JM that their friend, McCorkle, remained orthodox, or else why write this if JM wasn't orthodox?

This next quote highlites the Calvinism he learned at Princeton:

"Little did I ever expect to hear that Jeremiah's Doctrine that "the heart of man is deceitful above all things & desperately wicked"[Jer 17:9] was exemplified in the celebrated Dr Franklin, & if the suspicions against him be well founded it certainly is remarkably exemplified. Indeed it appears to me that the bare suspicion of his guilt amounts very nearly to a proof of its reality."

-To William Bradford, June 19th, 1775.

The Total Depravity of man was adhered to by almost every Founding Father, excepting unitarian Clergyman, who had the audacity to claim their virtue could meet God's standards; at this very day, an unbelievable, and hopeless act of arrogance.

JM had a "Commonplace Book" many Founding Fathers kept, including Bradford. This quote in that book is interesting as JM condemns himself. His use of the word "Sinners" and "faults" appear to describe a personal rather than professional depravity:

"I know a Man, reputed moderate, just & devout, who is a Mortal Enemy to Auricular confession. And why? Is he conscious of some extraordinary & atrocious Qualities? or does he desire to appear much better than he really is? People who pretend to Religion cannot help confessing in general that they are Sinners; but they conceal or disown all Particulars. Why should I be so unwilling to confess even my Particular faults to men? Since they have the same faults or Equivalent. They may well admire my Sincerity or (if you will) my Impudence; but they cannot be surprized at my Wickedness. I am Humble before God, but confident before Men."

-Commonplace Book, 1759-1772.

After JM added his words to the Virginia Declaration of Rights in 1776, John Calvin's Pre-destination Theology was still evident in a letter to JM.

Madison's response to Smith is lost, but Smith tells us that Madison rejected moral liberty in favor of John Calvin's(Scripture's) pre-determined will, promoted by Jonathan Edwards and John Knox:

"I have read over your theoretical objections against the doctrine of moral liberty; for practically you seem to be one of its disciples.1 I remember the manner in which you have formerly expressed yourself upon that intricate subject..It was with a view to avoid the objections with which you press me, that I made a distinction betwixt desire, & volition; & supposed that the latter solely regards our actions, & not merely the objects themselves that excite desires the immediate motives of volition...But only that they have such an influence as to prevent any necessary & irresistible effect of their antagonists. The mechanism of the idea is the objection which I make to your illustration of a motive deficient by 1/3 of the force necessary to produce an action--which then would not be commensurate to the effect, & would require some supplement to make up the deficiency. Altho we are not able to explain the idea of moral liberty, & that innate of mind that is involved in it, so as to be exempt from all questioning & doubt, yet we have as clear a sentiment of nature to appeal to, as in the case of colour.4"

-Smith to Madison, September 15, 1778. The Papers of Madison, Vol. 1, William Hutchinson, 1970.

Footnotes:
1. JM's reply to Smith's letter of Nov. 1771-August 1778 (q.v.) is lost, but at least part of what he must have written is implicit, & occasionally explicit, in the present answer.
4. From Smith's rebuttal it would appear that JM had countered Smith's distinction between desire and volition by advancing a staple argument of the opponents of freedom of the will to the effect that desire and volition are both conditioned by a chain of antecedent forces necessarily determing any given choice [PRE-DETERMINED ACTIONS DETERMINE CHOICE]. Another important thread of JM's argument seems to have been an effort to confound Smith's derivation of moral liberty from the multitude of desires, passions, interests, etc., which press upon human beings. JM apparently tried to show by a specific percentage analysis of the contending motives that even the interplay of forces from which Smith derived moral liberty might well be a part of the great chain of events (predeterming) every course of action.

Madison quoted John Calvin as late Feb. 1788:

"It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary."

As Author, David W. Hall explains, Madison sounds not unlike John Calvin:

"If we were all like angels, blameless and freely able to exercise perfect control, we would not need rules or regulations. Why, then, do we have so many laws and statutes? Because of man's wickedness, for he is constantly overflowing with evil; this is why a remedy is required."
-Sermons on Galatians (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1996), 313.
Emphasis Added.

How could JM move from a seemingly orthodox position until 1788, and call the "Great Spirit" of the Indians the "Father of us all?" From his years at Princeton, he knew without a shadow of a doubt, no other belief system could have any purity without Christ; refering to his "The best and purest religion" quote of 1833. Anyway you slice it, there was a change, which begs the question, why did he destroy his personal letters, at a time when he was less orthodox? Could it be he departed from his earlier faith, and didn't want posterity to see how he used to believe? With JM's knowledge of orthodoxy, and Seminary training, he knew precisely what infidelity was, as his early letters support.

No doubt we would all be very surprised to see those lost letters JM destroyed.

Finally, To The Blogosphere; James Madison's Notes On The Bible Part I

When I first saw these notes (and others James Madison wrote attending college), I felt like a kid in a candy store. I knew they were real, however, did his notes present Christian Orthodoxy, as the Bible explains? I have seen some of these quotes, one in particular, that is never sourced. They make their rounds, posted both by Christian Nation, and secularist hounds, who have no gumption to check its authenticity, thereby bringing attention to themselves, rather than to the substance of the quotes.

Before I present Founding Father James Madison's Notes on the Bible, the biggest question I had after reading them, was, did Madison write anything while forming the nation that blatantly contradicts these words from 1770 to 1775? That answer is a resounding no! But, let's face it, that some of the Founding Fathers changed their views is a fact of history. Along with Madison, Robert Treat Paine, John Marshall, James Kent, and John Adams come to mind. I mention John Adams because he also believed in inerrancy of Scripture until after he helped form the nation:

"The idea of infidelity [a disbelief in the inspiration of the Scriptures or the divine origin of Christianity, Websters 1828 Dict.] cannot be treated with too much resentment or too much horror. The man who can think of it with patience is a traitor in his heart and ought to be execrated [denounced] as one who adds the deepest hypocrisy to the blackest treason.

-John Adams to James Warren on August 4, 1778.

A thorough examination of each of their writings, show their fundamental views on religion changed over time. Calling the "Great Spirit" of the Indians the "Father of us all" and Christianity, "The best and purest religion" as Madison did, happened in the 19th century, beyond the time of our founding. Furthermore, Marshall and Kent never departed from inerrancy of the Bible, but Madison's quotes do.

Here are some of 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. Edited by William T. Hutchinson and William M. E. Rachal. 1962, by the University of Chicago Press.

[Th]e Acts

Ch. 20. Grace, it is the free gift of God. Luke. 120 32-v. 32

Ch. 21. Sins, or Faults, committed before conversion should not be related to the prejudice of the late Sinner v. 8

Ch. 22. Carnal Reason, when against the command of God, should be laid by. v. 19

Ch. 23. Conscience[:] it should be inform'd as well as followed. v. 1.
Herod mentioned ib[id].
Sadducees, deny the Resurrection & the existence of Angel or Spirit v. 8

Ch. 26. Unconverted has little reason to expect to convert others by their ministry

Ch. 28. Charity[:] no duty more certainly rewarded in another World; so is it frequently rewarded in this, as was Publius, by the miraculous cure perform'd on his Father for his Charity to Paul. v. 8.

Gospels.

Mat. Ch 1st Pollution[:] Christ did by the power of his Godhead purify our nature from all the pollution of our Ancestors v. 5. &c

Virgin Mary had no other Child (probably) but our Saviour. v. 25

Some Proverbs of Solomon

XX 9 Who can say I have made my Heart clean; I am pure from my sin

In the book of Acts, where the Bereans are mentioned that they searched the scriptures, JM commends their conduct "as a noble example for all succeeding Christians to imitate and follow..."

"Omnisciency--God's foreknowledge doth not compel, but permits to be done." Acts, ch. II. v. 23.
"Christ's divinity appears by St. John, ch. XX. v. 28."
"Resurrection testified and witnessed by the Apostles. Acts, ch. IV. v. 33."

The editor believes these notes, with the exception of the extracts from Proverbs, were quoted from William Burkitt's, Expository Notes, with Practical Observations, on the New Testament of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, printed in London in 1724. JM most likely wrote these notes while a student at the College of New Jersey.

Of course the above sentiments is what JM and his family believed for generations; foreknowledge, depravity, The Trinity, Grace, etc. encommpassed the Calvinist beliefs of James Madison.

JM's Calvinism is written in: The Federalist Papers of 1787-88, and his Memorial and Remonstrance of 1785, evidenced from "that religion or the duty which we owe to our Creator and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction.."..It is unalienable also, because what is here a right towards men, is a duty towards the Creator. It is the duty of every man to render to the Creator such homage and such only as he believes to be acceptable to him. This duty is precedent, both in order of time and in degree of obligation, to the claims of Civil Society."

The Worship of God, (in its Christian context), is not a choice, but a duty, brought on by the conscience.

In part II, I'll discuss JM's later Calvinist writings.

Human Depravity, James Madison, and The Founding Fathers

David W. Hall's excellent book, "Genevan Reformation And The American Founding" provides excellent insight into Calvin's Influence on the Founding Fathers and in the formation of the United States. Here is Google's overview of the book:

"Calvinism's insistence on human rulers' tendency to err played a significant role in the founders' prescription of limited government and fed the distinctly American philosophy in which political freedom for citizens is held as the highest value. Hall's timely work countervails many scholars' doubt in the intellectual efficacy of religion by showing that religious teachings have led to such progressive ideals as American democracy and freedom."

As I have mentioned in earlier posts, this tendency to err on the part of human beings is encompassed in Calvin's exposition on human depravity. This condition, derived from Original Sin in the Scriptures, is imputed to all humanity by the fall of Adam. Nearly all our Founding Fathers adhered to Human Depravity; from Federalists George Washington to Democratic Republicans such as, James Madison.

Not to say Washington, or Madison for that matter, adhered to all tenets of Calvinism; but human depravity never left them. Madison quoted Calvin as late Feb. 1788:

"It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary."

As David W. Hall explains, Madison sounds not unlike John Calvin:

"If we were all like angels, blameless and freely able to exercise perfect control, we would not need rules or regulations. Why, then, do we have so many laws and statutes? Because of man's wickedness, for he is constantly overflowing with evil; this is why a remedy is required."
-Sermons on Galatians (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1996), 313.
Emphasis Added.

The best example of James Madison's adherance to human depravity is from a letter by a Presbyterian named Samuel Stanhope Smith. Madison's response to Smith is lost, but Smith tells us that Madison rejected moral liberty in favor of John Calvin's predetermined will, promoted by Jonathan Edwards and John Knox:

"I have read over your theoretical objections against the doctrine of moral liberty; for practically you seem to be one of its disciples.1 I remember the manner in which you have formerly expressed yourself upon that intricate subject..It was with a view to avoid the objections with which you press me, that I made a distinction betwixt desire, & volition; & supposed that the latter solely regards our actions, & not merely the objects themselves that excite desires the immediate motives of volition...But only that they have such an influence as to prevent any necessary & irresistible effect of their antagonists. The mechanism of the idea is the objection which I make to your illustration of a motive deficient by 1/3 of the force necessary to produce an action--which then would not be commensurate to the effect, & would require some supplement to make up the deficiency. Altho we are not able to explain the idea of moral liberty, & that innate of mind that is involved in it, so as to be exempt from all questioning & doubt, yet we have as clear a sentiment of nature to appeal to, as in the case of colour.4"
-Smith to Madison, September 15, 1778. The Papers of Madison, Vol. 1, William Hutchinson, 1970.

Footnotes:
1. JM's reply to Smith's letter of Nov. 1771-August 1778 (q.v.) is lost, but at least part of what he must have written is implicit, & occasionally explicit, in the present answer.
4. From Smith's rebuttal it would appear that JM had countered Smith's distinction between desire and volition by advancing a staple argument of the opponents of freedom of the will to the effect that desire and volition are both conditioned by a chain of antecedent forces necessarily determing any given choice. Another important thread of JM's argument seems to have been an effort to confound Smith's derivation of moral liberty from the multitude of desires, passions, interests, etc., which press upon human beings. JM apparently tried to show by a specific percentage analysis of the contending motives that even the interplay of forces from which Smith derived moral liberty might well be a part of the great chain of events (predeterming) every course of action.

It was a delight finding Hutchinson's volumes of Madison's papers. In light of Madison's other writings on depravity, the editor hit the nail on the head. Ultimately, Madison believed external(supernatural) forces determine our choices. He could only be referring to two causes; God or Satan. Defending Calvinism by percentage analysis is not influence at all, but evidence of his faith.

Calvin employed predestination directly from the scriptures:

"For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren."
-Ro 8:29.

"Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will."
-Eph 1:5.

Madison again, explaining the heart, in general terms, is depraved:

"The genius of republican liberty seems to demand on one side, not only that all power should be derived from the people, but that those intrusted with it should be kept in independence on the people, by a short duration of their appointments; and that even during this short period the trust should be placed not in a few, but a number of hands...The history of almost all the great councils and consultations held among mankind for reconciling their discordant opinions, assuaging their mutual jealousies, and adjusting their respective interests, is a history of factions, contentions, and disappointments, and may be classed among the most dark and degraded pictures which display the infirmities and depravities of the human character."[bold face mine]
-Federalist #37.

Madison believed, along with the other Calvinists, that whatever decisions humans make, God already foreknew those decisions. Whatever volition we make was God's will.

What does this say about Madison's belief in Calvin's unconditional election? If he believed our choices were pre-determined, it follows he believed in predestination, which is based on the same argument he was making to Rev. Smith. Is it not an inconsistency to believe our choices are predestined, and not our souls?

Madison's biographer Ralph Ketcham, here and author Mark Noll, here, affirm Madison adhered to Calvin's doctrine of human depravity. It's Calvin's doctrine, as the word "depravity" isn't found in the Bible of the framers.

That James Madison has been labeled a "rationalist" in any meaningful sense, should be forever abandoned. The evidence now supports Madison believed in a form of predestination, and the depravity of human nature. Furthermore, in a recent post, I declared Madison was most likely not a unitarian in the way his elite contemporaries, such as: Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and Benjamin Franklin were. Madison had a Calvinist education; Jefferson, his southern compatriot, did not. Madison believed in God's Grace; Jefferson did not. And Madison believed in the supernatural; which Jefferson rejected. It wasn't until the 19th Century that Unitarian intellectuals, from Jared Sparks, to William Ellery Channing, who, proclaimed more accomodating views toward the essentials of the Christian Faith. Enlightenment Unitarians of the 18th Century, here, and in Europe, abandoned all foundational Christian fundamentals, such as: Original Sin, Total Depravity, Grace, and the Vicarious Blood Atonement of Jesus Christ. However, Orthodox Christianity starts with human depravity, of which is the basis of Original Sin. Upon this depravity, the Blood Atonement of Jesus Christ is the logical cure. The concept of the Blood Atonement is precisely the same as that of Original Sin(Human Depravity), that is, imputation; sin imputed to man, man's sin imputed to Christ, and Christ's righteousness imputed to man. This is the Bible, and Calvinism; all consistent, of which Madison was taught.

The rationalists believed God saved souls by a works doctrine by character; read Jonathon Mayhew, Joseph Priestley, Thomas Paine, and Thomas Jefferson.
The following are only a couple of quotes by Founding Fathers; the orthodox such as: Mason, Jay, Stockton [who tutored Law to Boudinot and Paterson], Wolcott, Webster, Trumbull, Boudinot, Witherspoon, King, Marshall, Lee, Pendleton, Sherman, Ellsworth, Dickinson, Rush, Laurens, Johnston, Read, McKean, Huntington, Hancock, and Samuel Adams, no doubt believed in one or more of John Calvin's Theology.

Alexander Hamilton, one of the greatest Statesman to ever live, is sometimes labeled a rationalist, however he rejected their views on human nature. Hamilton's views are no different from those of James Madison. For instance, he attacked reason in April 1802, four months after his son died. Although I doubt he ceased to be a rationalist because his son died; more likely, he never was a rationalist. His son's death is not a motive for dropping rationalism to the curb, especially when he attacked reason, and claimed "I will comply with your invitation by submitting some ideas which, from time to time, have passed through my mind." Obviously, supporting the Christian religion had to be one of those ideas, and he is writing this letter to his Orthodox friend. It doesn't appear probable that Hamilton would write to Rev. Bayard, wanting to support a heterodox religion Bayard rejected. Here is Hamilton's rant on reason:

"Nothing is more fallacious than to expect to produce any valuable or permanent results in political projects by relying merely on the reason of men. Men are rather reasoning than reasonable animals, for the most part governed by the impulse of passion. This is well understood by our adversaries, who have practised upon it with no small benefit to their cause; for at the very moment they are eulogizing the reason of men, and professing to appeal only to that faculty, they are courting the strongest and most active passion of the human heart, vanity!"
http://www.reclaimliberty.com/hamiltonplan2009.html

Here is Hamilton's definitive statement on the condition of humanity:

"And making the proper deductions for the ordinary depravity of human nature, the number must be still smaller of those who unite the requisite integrity with the requisite knowledge. [bold face mine]
-FEDERALIST No. 78

Thus, unlike, the rationalists, he did not believe learning and the enlightenment would cause virtue, but only that the depravity would change its form. Hamilton knew he couldn't change his condition, because it was inherrant:

"As riches increase and accumulate in few hands; as luxury prevails in society; virtue will be in a greater degree considered as only a graceful appendage of wealth, and the tendency of things will be to depart from the republican standard. This is the real disposition of human nature: It is what, neither the honorable member nor myself can correct. It is a common misfortune, that awaits our state constitution, as well as all others..It is a harsh doctrine, that men grow wicked in proportion as they improve and enlighten their minds. Experience has by no means justified us in the supposition, that there is more virtue in one class of men than in another. Look through the rich and the poor of the community; the learned and the ignorant. Where does virtue predominate? The difference indeed consists, not in the quantity but kind of vices, which are incident to the various classes; and here the advantage of character belongs to the wealthy. Their vices are probably more favorable to the prosperity of the state, than those of the indigent; and partake less of moral depravity." [bold face mine]
-Alexander Hamilton, New York Ratifying Convention 21 June 1788. Papers 5:36--37, 40--43
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch13s38.html

Hamilton thought the later stages of the French Revolution a prime example of human depravity:

"But though we may find in these causes a solution of the fact calculated to abate our solicitude for the consequences; yet we can not consider the public happiness as out of the reach of danger so long as our principles continue to be exposed to the debauching influence of admiration for an example which, it will not be too strong to say, presents the caricature of human depravity. And the pride of national character at least can find no alleviation for the wound which must be inflicted by so ill-judged so unfortunate a partiality.
If there be anything solid in virtue—the time must come when it will have been a disgrace to have advocated the Revolution of France in its late stages.
-Alexander Hamilton on the French Revolution [bold face mine] [Philadelphia, 1794]
http://chnm.gmu.edu/revolution/d/593/

Not a few Hamilton scholars hold a similar view of his belief in human depravity:

"The effects of what he called “the ordinary depravity of human nature” were everywhere, of “uncontrollable impulses of rage . . . . jealousy. . . . and other irregular and violent propensities.”(18)
Quoted in Adrienne Koch, “Hamilton and Power,” in Cooke, P. 17. Also see idem., Power Morals and the Founding Fathers; Essays in the Interpretation of the American Enlightenment (Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press, 1963), ch. iv., pp. 50-80. Cf-The Federalist No. 15 in Milton Cantor, ed., Hamilton (Prentice-Hall, 1971), pp. 51-53.

Important Founding Father Patrick Henry understood depravity as the others:

"The Northern States will never assent to regulations promotive of southern aggrandizement. Notwithstanding what gentlemen say of the probable virtue of our representatives, I dread the depravity of human nature. I wish to guard against it by proper checks, and trust nothing to accident or chance. I will never depend on so slender a protection as the possibility of being represented by virtuous men."[bold face mine]
-Patrick Henry, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution [Elliot's Debates, Volume 3] Thursday, June 12, 1788

James Wilson, one of the principal builders of the Constitution, and Signer of the Declaration of Independence, appears to have believed that our human nature was corrupted, that man's nature is selfish, a form of depravity, not a grown or learned selfishness, but an inherrant corruption in our nature. The nature of man, refers to the natural tendencies of man.

Wilson said the Scriptures were from God, affirming inerrancy. Claiming inerrancy, refers more so the entire Scripture, as he did not clarify what portions were not inspired. Only the original autographs are inspired, so Wilson may not have referred to the King James Version. Whenever the framers quoted depravity of human nature, or nature, etc., the meaning is inherrant:

"It is the nature of man to pursue his own interest in preference to the public good, and I do not mean to make any personal reflection when I add that it is the interest of a very numerous, powerful and respectable body to counteract and destroy the excellent work produced by the late convention." [bold face mine]
-Pennsylvania State Convention, October 6, 1787
http://www.constitution.org/afp/jwilson0.htm

George Washington also wrote about depravity:

"[F]ew men are capable of making a continual sacrifice of all views of private interest, or advantage, to the common good. It is vain to exclaim against the depravity of human nature on this account; the fact is so, the experience of every age and nation has proved it and we must in a great measure, change the constitution of man, before we can make it otherwise. No institution, not built on the presumptive truth of these maxims can succeed." [bold face mine]
-To THE COMMITTEE OF CONGRESS WITH THE ARMY
[Head Quarters, January 29, 1778.]

and

"Good God! who besides a tory could have foreseen, or a Briton predicted them! were these people wiser than others, or did they judge of us from the corruption, and depravity of their own hearts? The latter I am persuaded was the case, and that notwithstanding the boasted virtue of America, we are far gone in every thing ignoble and bad."[bold face mine]
-To HENRY KNOX, December 26, 1786.

Total depravity of the human heart was adhered to by another Architect of the Constitution; Charles Pinckney:

"To the liberal and enlightened mind, the rest of Europe affords a melancholy picture of the depravity of human nature, and of the total subversion of those rights, without which we should suppose no people could be happy or content."
-The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution [Elliot's Debates, Volume 4][bold face mine]

Influential delegate, and Signer of the Constitution, Luther Martin, admitted his own depravity:

"Why then all this misrepresentation of my absence at Baltimore and New York? Why the attempt to induce a belief that the Convention had been engaged in business from the fourteenth of May, and the insinuation that it might have happened in those periods? And why the charge that in not stating those facts I had withheld from the public information necessary to its forming a right judgment of the credit which ought to be given to my evidence. But, Sir, I am really at a loss which most to admire--the depravity of this writer's heart, or the weakness of his head." [bold face mine]
-Luther Martin's Reply to the Landholder, March 3, 1788. The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787 [Farrand's Records, Volume 3]

Here, a Congressman refers to depravity as common knowledge:

"The President, notwithstanding the supposed depravity of mankind, will hardly remove a worthy officer to make way for a person whom the Senate max reject." [bold face mine]
-Mr. Hartley, House of Representatives, June 16, 1789. The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution [Elliot's Debates, Volume 4]Removal by the President.--On the Bill for establishing an executive Department, to be denominated the Department of Foreign Affairs.

Most of the Ratifiers of the Constitution understood the depravity of human nature:

"We ought to consider the depravity of human nature, the predominant thirst of power which is in the breast of every one, the temptations our rulers may have, and the unlimited confidence placed in them by this system. These are the foundation of my fears, They would be so long in the general government that they would forget the grievances of the people of the states. But it is said we shall be ruined if separated from the other states, which will be the case if we do not adopt."[bold face mine]
-Ratifier of the Constitution, Wm. Lenoir. The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution [Elliot's Debates, Volume 4]DEBATES IN THE CONVENTION OF THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, ON THE ADOPTION OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.

and

"You will feel yourself little obliged to me even now that I draw off your attention from the endearing concerns of private and domestick life, from the recesses of rural and philosophic retirement, to fix it upon scenes that characterise human nature in its most depraved state, and almost tempt a man to arraign providence that he has been cast into being at a time when private & political Vice is at a Crisis & the measure of Iniquity full and overflowing."
-Signer of the Declaration of Independence William Hooper to Samuel Johnston, Sept 26th, 1776.

If the Founding Fathers believed in inherrant depravity of human nature, then, isn't assuming belief in the other mysteries of Revelation, such as the Trinity, and Atonement, within the realm of possibility?