Washington (CNN) -- A federal judge temporarily blocked enforcement of a tough immigration law in Alabama on Monday.
Opponents of the measure -- including state church leaders, the U.S. Justice Department and the American Civil Liberties Union-- had asked U.S. Judge Sharon Lovelace Blackburn to stop the law, which was scheduled to go into effect Thursday.
State officials argue the law would help Alabama and not violate civil rights.
In her two-page order, the judge said there was not enough time before Thursday to address all the legal arguments from various parties over the law's constitutionality. "It is hereby ordered that Act 2011-535 is temporarily enjoined, and may not be executed or enforced," wrote Blackburn.
Showing posts with label federalist. Show all posts
Showing posts with label federalist. Show all posts
Monday, August 29, 2011
Judge temporarily blocks tough Alabama immigration law
CNN reports the tough Alabama Immigration Law was supposedly struck down by a federal judge today. Alabama should ignore her ruling as Thomas Jefferson ignored the Sedition Act, as Andrew Jackson ignored the Constitutionality of the Bank of the United States, and as Abraham Lincoln ignored the Supreme Court's Dred Scott decision, giving the Emancipation Proclamation. I believe the States should not reject a Federal Law, but reject a Judicial opinion that violates Article I, section 8 of the Constitution--The Law of Nations.
Friday, July 2, 2010
Timothy Dwight, And The Moderate Calvinist Battle Against Unitarianism
The theological fight between Orthodox Christians and Unitarians took center stage in mid to late 18th Century America. Moderate, Orthodox Calvinists such as: Timothy Dwight, Abiel Holmes, Ashbel Green, Samuel Langdon, Ezra Stiles, Joseph Bellamy, Jedidiah Morse, Nathan Strong et al., battled unitarians: Jonathan Mayhew, Ebenezer Gay, Charles Chauncy, Simeon Howard, and Samuel West. These leaders in the Church, fought like cats and dogs in various periodicals, and in the pulpits, over the fundamentals of Christianity, and what was literal and allegory. Timothy Dwight was the leader, and promoter of today's Evangelical movement. For the next one-hundred years and beyond, Dwight's Theology was study material in every Protestant college in the world, going through twelve editions. Dwight is the Father of Modern Evangelicalism.
Dwight, and the Evangelicals halted unitarianism, deism, and other forms of Pelagianism to the inner Boston, Massachusetts area:
Furthermore, independent periodicals echoed the same point:
That unitarianism was limited to a small area reflects the influence it had on the population. Make no mistake, there were many Unitarians at Harvard, however, "only one man: John Clark of Boston, an overseer of the college disagreed with David Tappan's election as Professor of Divinity in 1793." (Bentley, Diary, III, p. 38). Dwight's battle with the unitarians started in 1783 as the minister in "Greenfield Hill," a congregational church in Fairfield, Connecticut. "Dwight had a genius for recognizing able proteges — among them Lyman Beecher, Nathaniel W. Taylor, and Leonard Bacon, all whom would become major religious leaders and theological innovators in the ante bellum decades." Having graduated from Yale in 1769, Dwight made Yale the "largest institution of higher education in North America." Dwight took over Yale from Evangelical Clergyman Ezra Stiles, the President from (1778-1795) and Pastor of Second Congregational Church in Newport, R. I. from (1755-1777).
Not a few historians label Stiles an innocent bystander in this Puritan battle against pelagianism, which may have been the case publicly, however his diary paints a different picture. If Stiles did not join this quarrel in print, he joined the Orthodox in the pulpit. His diary gives many examples of his opinion of heresy.
Dwight, and the moderates employed Old Calvinists to spread a moderate, almost Arminian form of Calvinism.
Along with Jedidiah Morse in Massachusetts, the New Divinity combined all Calvinists to defeat the unitarian influence. Morse, with the Hopkinsians, formed Andover Theological Seminary, that survives to this very day. Furthermore, the battle against heresy was not as some would suggest:
In New England, Jeffersonians had several papers as well, including The Aurora and American Mercury. Their rhetoric included calling Dwight, "Pope of Connecticut" and a diatribe in the Mercury, attacking the Standing Order of Connecticut:
But Dwight had history on his side. "To the orthodox mind, religion was the chief agency of social control." Berk, p. 142. In defense of Connecticut's Standing Order, Dwight wrote:
At the end of the day, Harvard did not officially became Unitarian until Henry Ware was appointed Hollis Professor of Divinity in 1803, by succeeding David Tappan, who defended historical Puritanism. Unitarianism never even gained ground in outer Massachusetts. Many Politicians, such as, Josiah Bartlett, Benjamin Rush et al., became universalists, yet, never departed from Historical Christian Orthodoxy.
Dwight, and the Evangelicals halted unitarianism, deism, and other forms of Pelagianism to the inner Boston, Massachusetts area:
By the 1830's, evangelicals had successfully contained Unitarianism within the Boston area and the West had become the new battleground for Orthodoxy.-Stephen E. Berk, Calvinism Versus Democracy. Anchron Books, 1974, p. 199.
Furthermore, independent periodicals echoed the same point:
Unitarians, who are principally confined to Boston and its vicinity.
-Boston Patriot, May 13, 1815.
That unitarianism was limited to a small area reflects the influence it had on the population. Make no mistake, there were many Unitarians at Harvard, however, "only one man: John Clark of Boston, an overseer of the college disagreed with David Tappan's election as Professor of Divinity in 1793." (Bentley, Diary, III, p. 38). Dwight's battle with the unitarians started in 1783 as the minister in "Greenfield Hill," a congregational church in Fairfield, Connecticut. "Dwight had a genius for recognizing able proteges — among them Lyman Beecher, Nathaniel W. Taylor, and Leonard Bacon, all whom would become major religious leaders and theological innovators in the ante bellum decades." Having graduated from Yale in 1769, Dwight made Yale the "largest institution of higher education in North America." Dwight took over Yale from Evangelical Clergyman Ezra Stiles, the President from (1778-1795) and Pastor of Second Congregational Church in Newport, R. I. from (1755-1777). Not a few historians label Stiles an innocent bystander in this Puritan battle against pelagianism, which may have been the case publicly, however his diary paints a different picture. If Stiles did not join this quarrel in print, he joined the Orthodox in the pulpit. His diary gives many examples of his opinion of heresy.
May God defeat these insidious Machiavellian hellish designs against his Chh [Church] in New England.Stiles had many, less than Orthodox friends, such as Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson. Stiles once had dinner in Scotland with Franklin, and David Hume. However, he was an evangelical:
-Diary, Vol I, p. 587.
[M]ay I be quickened to greater fidelity..to press home Evangelical Truths..reprehending with all authority, not shuning to declare the whole truth.His Diary presents short entries of debate that never appear to escalate detailing Christian doctrine:
-Diary, Oct. 22, 1769.
He [Abraham Redwood] has a peculiar notion about sin--that there is no Imputation of sin from Adam, but God created every man a Sinner..I objected this made G[o]d the Author of Sin.Stiles died in 1795, and Dwight personally led Yale in training men to carry out the fight against heresy. Dwight engineered the Second Great Awakening (1802-1810), aligning Old Calvinists by planning to spread Orthodoxy throughout New England. Among these Calvinists Dwight joined forces with, were Hopkinsians, after Rev. Samuel Hopkins, D. D. pastor of the First Congregational Church at Newport, Rhode Island. Hopkinsians were remnants of the Edwardians, after the great Theologian Jonathan Edwards; the main theologian of the Great Awakening, that spread from New England to Georgia. Towards the end of Edwards' life, he strayed into meta-physical doctrine, attempting to "combine his theory of cause & effect with Newtonian Cosmology." The staunch Calvinist that he was, Edwards did not believe in self-determination; this tended to mis-lead his later followers that God was vengeful, wanting to punish everyone. Rigid discipline, and too much emphasis on human depravity pushed parishoners away. Here is an example of Edwards' thoughts:
-Diary, May 9, 1770.
No energy is self-generating, so the actions of human will must be determined from outside oneself.
-Edwards, Stephen E. Berk, Calvinism Versus Democracy. Achron Books, 1974.Contrast Edwards with Dwight and the moderate Calvinists:
God's foreknowledge has not the remotest influence on the agent, or his action.Dwight used "means" to nurture one's spiritual conversion, through prayer, education, and church attendance. The Old Calvinists meta-physical doctrines stifled evangelism, but Dwight understood they were a vital group, with a large base, that also disliked heterodox doctrine calling itself Christianity. Yet, the Scriptures are simple; for simple people. The Church has long delineated what is literal and what is allegory. Here, in Luke 17: 26-30, Jesus affirms the flood, the story of Abraham, Lot, and the destruction of the cities of the plain:
-Dwight, Theology I.
And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man. They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all. Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded; But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all. Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed. [italics mine]Notice, Jesus says, "[A]s it was in the days of Noe." Unitarians and/or rationalists, proclaim they adhere to inerrancy, yet, denial of these obvious literal passages leave no excuse.
Dwight, and the moderates employed Old Calvinists to spread a moderate, almost Arminian form of Calvinism.
Along with Jedidiah Morse in Massachusetts, the New Divinity combined all Calvinists to defeat the unitarian influence. Morse, with the Hopkinsians, formed Andover Theological Seminary, that survives to this very day. Furthermore, the battle against heresy was not as some would suggest:
Contrary to publicized orthodox opinion, the great majority of Jeffersonians were in fact Trinitarian Protestants.
-Stephen E. Berk, Calvinism Versus Democracy. Anchron Books, 1974, p.150In my opinion, Dwight and the Modern Calvinists did a dis-service, sometimes viciously attacking the Jeffersonians throughout New England. These attacks by Federalists, no doubt hurt the party, losing the 1800 election to Thomas Jefferson; linked "Jeffersonian leaders with the illuminati" in the Connecticut Courant, Berk, p. 131. Yes, the Jeffersonians attacked the Standing Order of Connecticut Gentry, however, writing these falsehoods didn't help the Federalists. Dwight even advised spurning democratic members of Puritan families. The Connecticut Courant, edited by Dwight's brother, Theodore, had the nerve to ask Jefferson to sign the Apostles Creed.
In New England, Jeffersonians had several papers as well, including The Aurora and American Mercury. Their rhetoric included calling Dwight, "Pope of Connecticut" and a diatribe in the Mercury, attacking the Standing Order of Connecticut:
"...an union of church & state--an union which the experience of all countries has proved to be incompatible with civil & religious liberty."It reads like James Madison. If it is him, it's another example of Madison's inconsistency, having fought against Virginia's assessment for Christian teachers, yet, he wrote any State can form whatever religion they like:
-American Mercury, Sept. 25, 1800.
If there were a majority of one sect, a bill of rights would be a poor protection for liberty. Happily for the states, they enjoy the utmost freedom of religion...Fortunately for this commonwealth, a majority of the people are decidedly against any exclusive establishment. There is not a shadow of right in the general government to intermeddle with religion. Its least interference with it would be a most flagrant usurpation. I can appeal to my uniform conduct on this subject, that I have warmly supported religious freedom. It is better that this security should be depended upon from the general legislature, than from one particular state. A particular state might concur in one religious project. But the United States abound in such a variety of sects, that it is a strong security against religious persecution; and it is sufficient to authorize a conclusion, that no one sect will ever be able to outnumber or depress the rest. [italics mine]Dwight viewed religion (Orthodox Christianity) the basis for liberty, as Puritanism had protected their rights, and provided happiness for nearly two centuries. Dwight was correct; there was no discrimination of any sects, nor a union of church and state. Dwight claimed the Jeffersonians wanted a pluralistic society, that always leads to infidelity:
-James Madison, June 12, 1788. Elliot's Debates In the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution (Virginia).
Requiring citizens to support religion is not only consistent with freedom, but the primary cause of it.In light of the happiness and liberty religion had brought to New England, the Jeffersonians arrogantly labeled Congregational missionary work as a "Priestly Conspiracy." Berk, p. 163. and "the usual alliance of church & state." Mercury, July 2, 1801; and June 27, 1805.
-Woods, History of Andover, p. 106.
But Dwight had history on his side. "To the orthodox mind, religion was the chief agency of social control." Berk, p. 142. In defense of Connecticut's Standing Order, Dwight wrote:
The whole history of the heathen world furnishes not a single reason to believe, that its teachings ever reformed one individual, either among the teachers, or among the disciples.Because God demands obedience to governmental authorities, this obedience is the basis for social virtue. To the Federalists, democracy served to destroy social harmony and a disrespect for authority.
-Sermons I, On Revelation, p. 103.
At the end of the day, Harvard did not officially became Unitarian until Henry Ware was appointed Hollis Professor of Divinity in 1803, by succeeding David Tappan, who defended historical Puritanism. Unitarianism never even gained ground in outer Massachusetts. Many Politicians, such as, Josiah Bartlett, Benjamin Rush et al., became universalists, yet, never departed from Historical Christian Orthodoxy.
Monday, August 31, 2009
The Calvinist, James Madison
From Madison's Memorial and Remonstrance, and his contribution in the Federalist, he was, at this time, no doubt a Calvinist, adhereing to total depravity. His three main teachers in his education were all Calvinist Clergyman. Does not sin corrupt the whole lump, or only parts of the lump? Yes, man can be good; that is not the issue, rather, man is prone to sin, and requires many checks that Calvinism supplies:
"The first is an arrogant pretension falsified by the contradictory opinions of Rulers in all ages, and throughout the world: the second an unhallowed perversion of the means of salvation...Because the establishment proposed by the Bill is not requisite for the support of the Christian Religion. To say that it is, is a contradiction to the Christian Religion itself, for every page of it disavows a dependence on the powers of this world: it is a contradiction to fact; for it is known that this Religion both existed and flourished, not only without the support of human laws, but in spite of every opposition from them, and not only during the period of miraculous aid, but long after it had been left to its own evidence and the ordinary care of Providence. Nay, it is a contradiction in terms; for a Religion not invented by human policy, must have pre-existed and been supported, before it was established by human policy. It is moreover to weaken in those who profess this Religion a pious confidence in its innate excellence and the patronage of its Author; and to foster in those who still reject it, a suspicion that its friends are too conscious of its fallacies to trust it to its own merits...Because the policy of the Bill is adverse to the diffusion of the light of Christianity. The first wish of those who enjoy this precious gift ought to be that it may be imparted to the whole race of mankind. Compare the number of those who have as yet received it with the number still remaining under the dominion of false Religions; and how small is the former! Does the policy of the Bill tend to lessen the disproportion? No; it at once discourages those who are strangers to the light of revelation from coming into the Region of it; and countenances by example the nations who continue in darkness, in shutting out those who might convey it to them." [bold face mine]
-James Madison, Memorial and Remonstrance, 1785.
http://www.auok.org/original_intent_2.htm
Madison believed salvation was by grace through faith; a gift, that cannot be earned, not that salvation was by character, as Unitarians, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and Benjamin Franklin believed.
"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."
-Madison, Federalist #37.
Madison understood what depravity was, and how man acquired it.
"The first is an arrogant pretension falsified by the contradictory opinions of Rulers in all ages, and throughout the world: the second an unhallowed perversion of the means of salvation...Because the establishment proposed by the Bill is not requisite for the support of the Christian Religion. To say that it is, is a contradiction to the Christian Religion itself, for every page of it disavows a dependence on the powers of this world: it is a contradiction to fact; for it is known that this Religion both existed and flourished, not only without the support of human laws, but in spite of every opposition from them, and not only during the period of miraculous aid, but long after it had been left to its own evidence and the ordinary care of Providence. Nay, it is a contradiction in terms; for a Religion not invented by human policy, must have pre-existed and been supported, before it was established by human policy. It is moreover to weaken in those who profess this Religion a pious confidence in its innate excellence and the patronage of its Author; and to foster in those who still reject it, a suspicion that its friends are too conscious of its fallacies to trust it to its own merits...Because the policy of the Bill is adverse to the diffusion of the light of Christianity. The first wish of those who enjoy this precious gift ought to be that it may be imparted to the whole race of mankind. Compare the number of those who have as yet received it with the number still remaining under the dominion of false Religions; and how small is the former! Does the policy of the Bill tend to lessen the disproportion? No; it at once discourages those who are strangers to the light of revelation from coming into the Region of it; and countenances by example the nations who continue in darkness, in shutting out those who might convey it to them." [bold face mine]
-James Madison, Memorial and Remonstrance, 1785.
http://www.auok.org/original_intent_2.htm
Madison believed salvation was by grace through faith; a gift, that cannot be earned, not that salvation was by character, as Unitarians, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and Benjamin Franklin believed.
"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."
-Madison, Federalist #37.
Madison understood what depravity was, and how man acquired it.
Saturday, July 25, 2009
Orthodox Christianity Left To The States
Why was our nation formed on Orthodox Christian, and not heretical principles? First, Christianity was left to the States to practice as they wished, however, heterodox Christian principles were never a part of the incorporation of legal Christianity, neither in the State or Federal Documents; the heterodox were given freedom of conscience like everyone else, but their minority, at this time, had no inclusion in ANY founding government document.
The various State Constitutions were Orthodox in nature; the heterodox minority in Massachusetts were years away from the Dedham decision of 1820. The majority understood Unitarianism was not part of the Protestant Reformation, having been kicked to the curb by Luther and Calvin, and forever cast out by the Synod of Dort in 1619. Furthermore, the Reformation denounced all forms of Unitarianism, Arianism, and Socinianism, starting with the Gnostics, which were never considered Christian. The majority "Protestant" framers of Massachusetts understood their history. Yes, it's true, a Unitarian wrote most of the 1780 Massachusetts Constitution, however John Adams is only one man, while the ratifiers of that Constitution are most important.
Notice the State Constitution of a Mid-Atlantic State where heterodoxy was a small minority, perhaps non-existent:
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].
Not only were the vast majority of Founding Fathers Orthodox, the majority philosophers they studied were as well, including: Arminianist Hugo Grotius, Sir William Blackstone, Richard Hooker, Samuel de Puffendorf, and perhaps John Locke. Yes, Arminius believed in Total Depravity. His only beef with Calvin was free will.
It's true, Locke failed to espouse Church Creeds, or essentials, but so did the Apostles. At Pentecost, there was no Westminster Confession, only faith in Jesus as the Messiah. Clarification of Church Doctrine wasn't made until the 2nd to 3rd Centuries. Notice, Jared Sparks, the former President of Harvard, and his opinion of Locke's faith:
"And Locke must still be considered a Unitarian, till he can be proved a Trinitarian ; a task, which it is not likely you will soon undertake. At all events, he had no faith in the assemblage of articles which you denominate the essence of christianity, and without believing which, you say, no one can be called a Christian. His whole treatise on the Reasonableness of Christianity bears witness to this truth. For the leading object of that work is to show, that "the Gospel was written to induce men into a belief of this proposition, 'that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah,' which if they believed, they should have life."* He says nothing about total depravity, the atonement, the "sanctifying spirit of an Almighty Surety," nor any of your peculiar doctrines. Yet who has done more to elucidate the sacred Scriptures, or to prove the consistency and reasonableness of the religion of Jesus? Your rule, however, will take from him the Christian name."[bold face mine]
Sparks shows his understanding of Christian Theology. The Apostles had no assemblage of articles, and "without believing", has nothing to do with salvation, rather, it's the rejection of certain articles the indwelt Holy Spirit cannot affirm.
Did Locke have some unorthodox views regarding the unessential state of nature? Yes. Did he believe in inerrancy? Yes. Did he indirectly defend the Trinity? Yes. Furthermore, Locke could be a heretic, but more serious inquiry is needed to make a clear declaration as to John Locke's faith.
The various State Constitutions were Orthodox in nature; the heterodox minority in Massachusetts were years away from the Dedham decision of 1820. The majority understood Unitarianism was not part of the Protestant Reformation, having been kicked to the curb by Luther and Calvin, and forever cast out by the Synod of Dort in 1619. Furthermore, the Reformation denounced all forms of Unitarianism, Arianism, and Socinianism, starting with the Gnostics, which were never considered Christian. The majority "Protestant" framers of Massachusetts understood their history. Yes, it's true, a Unitarian wrote most of the 1780 Massachusetts Constitution, however John Adams is only one man, while the ratifiers of that Constitution are most important.
Notice the State Constitution of a Mid-Atlantic State where heterodoxy was a small minority, perhaps non-existent:
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].
Not only were the vast majority of Founding Fathers Orthodox, the majority philosophers they studied were as well, including: Arminianist Hugo Grotius, Sir William Blackstone, Richard Hooker, Samuel de Puffendorf, and perhaps John Locke. Yes, Arminius believed in Total Depravity. His only beef with Calvin was free will.
It's true, Locke failed to espouse Church Creeds, or essentials, but so did the Apostles. At Pentecost, there was no Westminster Confession, only faith in Jesus as the Messiah. Clarification of Church Doctrine wasn't made until the 2nd to 3rd Centuries. Notice, Jared Sparks, the former President of Harvard, and his opinion of Locke's faith:
"And Locke must still be considered a Unitarian, till he can be proved a Trinitarian ; a task, which it is not likely you will soon undertake. At all events, he had no faith in the assemblage of articles which you denominate the essence of christianity, and without believing which, you say, no one can be called a Christian. His whole treatise on the Reasonableness of Christianity bears witness to this truth. For the leading object of that work is to show, that "the Gospel was written to induce men into a belief of this proposition, 'that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah,' which if they believed, they should have life."* He says nothing about total depravity, the atonement, the "sanctifying spirit of an Almighty Surety," nor any of your peculiar doctrines. Yet who has done more to elucidate the sacred Scriptures, or to prove the consistency and reasonableness of the religion of Jesus? Your rule, however, will take from him the Christian name."[bold face mine]
Sparks shows his understanding of Christian Theology. The Apostles had no assemblage of articles, and "without believing", has nothing to do with salvation, rather, it's the rejection of certain articles the indwelt Holy Spirit cannot affirm.
Did Locke have some unorthodox views regarding the unessential state of nature? Yes. Did he believe in inerrancy? Yes. Did he indirectly defend the Trinity? Yes. Furthermore, Locke could be a heretic, but more serious inquiry is needed to make a clear declaration as to John Locke's faith.
Thursday, December 27, 2007
The Founding Fathers' Belief in Freewill and the New Birth in Jesus Christ
It is interesting how appellations have been applied to our Founding Fathers, regarding their religious beliefs; some of these terms are used by secularists, who redefine them. These terms include: arminianism, enlightenment, freedom of conscience, and Christianity. The secularists understanding of enlightenment, or scottish-enlightenment theory, applied to framers such as: John Witherspoon, Benjamin Rush, and James Madison, etc. is not only incorrect, but the world continues to believe this deceit from these pseudo-philosophers. Spiritual liberty was translated into Political liberty in our founding documents, written by men such as Founding Father John Jay:
"On this topic the gospel is explicit. It commands us to obey the higher powers or ruler. It reminds us that “he beareth not the sword in vain”; that “he is the minister of God, and a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.” Now, if he is not to bear the sward in vain, it follows that he is to use it to execute wrath on evildoers, and consequently to draw blood and to kill on proper occasions. As to the second species of warfare, it certainly is as reasonable and as right that a nation be secure against injustice, disorder, and rapine from without as from within; and therefore it is the right and duty of the government or ruler to use force and the sword to protect and maintain the rights of his people against evildoers of another nation. The reason and necessity of using force and the sword being the same in both cases, the right or the law must be the same also."
http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=64
As the framers believed in liberty of conscience, so they believed in freedom of oppression, and injustice.
The Scottish Enlightenment was more radical than that of Europe, because of its denial of the supernatural by Scots such as David Hume, and Francis Hutcheson. Because of this denial, we can exclude from this group, all the Founding Fathers, including John Locke, and the European Christian Theologians, who, without a doubt, believed in the supernatural. So what is enlightenment thought?
It is rule where reason is the ultimate standard, where man is the ultimate arbiter of truth. The other aspect of enlightenment thought that secularists apply to the framers is freewill; that this freedom of conscience originated out of the rationale of man's reason. Nothing could be farther from the truth, which is why the Founding Fathers rejected such utter nonsense.
The proof that the Founding Fathers rejected the enlightenment(rationalism) is their acceptance of the supernatural, and their understanding that freewill in man comes from the Bible, not from the mind of rationalist philosophers like David Hume, who, our framers, including Thomas Jefferson, rejected.
In my opinion, as well as that of Christian Theologians, including: John Calvin, Jonathan Edwards, John Wesley, Richard Hooker, John Witherspoon, Samuel von Pufendorf and Martin Luther; freewill, is laden throughout the New Testament, with The Saviour, Jesus Christ the greatest promoter of this fact. Contrary to the opinion of John Calvin, who, with the others affirmed Political Liberty, but denied Spirtual Freewill.
"A Christian man is the most free lord of all, and subject to none; a Christian man is the most dutiful servant of all, and subject to every one...Yea, the more of a Christian any man is, to so many the more evils, sufferings, and deaths is he subject, as we see in the first place in Christ the first-born, and in all His holy brethren."
Martin Luther-On Christian Freedom, 1520
http://www-personal.ksu.edu/~lyman/english233/Luther-CF.htm
"When a man-made law is imposed upon the soul to make it believe this or that as its human author may prescribe, there is certainly no word of God for it. If there is no word of God for it, then we cannot be sure whether God wishes to have it so, for we cannot be certain that something which he does not command is pleasing to him."
Martin Luther, Luther's Works, Christian in Society II, Vol, 45, 1523. edited by Jaroslav Pelikan et al)
http://books.google.com/books?id=At8kLNZSawoC&pg=PP1&ots=cjXvFGHcY_&dq=isbn:0800603451&sig=YKDybG8G5RpWzTGjo1FneMrnN2o#PPA6,M1
"By this procedure no one is compelled to believe, for he can still believe what he will; but he is forbidden to teach and to blaspheme."
(LW, Vol. 13, 61-62) edited by Jaroslav Pelikan et al
Here James Madison affirms Luther's leading the way in governments removal on the mind of man:
It illustrates the excellence of a system which, by a due distinction, to which the genius and courage of Luther led the way, between what is due to Caesar and what is due God, best promotes the discharge of both obligations. The experience of the United States is a happy disproof of the error so long rooted in the unenlightened minds of well-meaning Christians, as well as in the corrupt hearts of persecuting usurpers, that without a legal incorporation of religious and civil polity, neither could be supported.
TO F. L. SCHAEFFER Montpellier, Dec. 3rd ,1821
http://personal.pitnet.net/primarysources/madisonluther.html
If anyone has granted freedom of conscience to the people, it is Christian people. Luther believed in freedom of conscience, but affirmed the penalties for breaking Biblical Law. I disagree with Luther's proposed penalties apart from murder. The Founding Fathers' upholding of the second table of the law, minus the tenth commandment, is obvious and right; the first two commandments cannot be mandated, yet alone, are contrary to freedom of conscience; the just punishments to the crimes, made by the framers, I concur with.
Another interesting aspect to the enlightenment theory, as applied to the morality, and penalty to the minds of the Founding Fathers, had a non-existent effect. The Bible trumped enlightenment thought, with the death penalty for adultery not lessened until the 1780's. The fact is, the death penalty "was standard for a laundry list of crimes--from adultery to murder, from arson to stealing horses." Robbery and Counterfeiting were also capital offenses.
The Death Penalty: An American History by Stuart Banner
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbninquiry.asp?ean=9780674010833&z=y#TABS
Contrary to enlightenment philosophers, here are some of Jesus' words affirming freewill:
John 4:14
"But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life."
John 6:40,47,51,54
"And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day."
"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life."
"I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever:"
"Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day."
John 7:37
"In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink."
John 8:51
"Verily, verily, I say unto you, If a man keep my saying, he shall never see death."
John 11:26
"And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?"
This is just one book of the Bible; Paul, James, Luke, Jude, and Peter affirmed the same doctrine. The Bible teaches freewill for salvation; practically all of the founding fathers believed this doctrine, as well as the early church fathers, and Christian Theologians.
Pufendorf, on the Bible's superiority, and man's reason:
"For this reason in Scripture too the law is said to be "written in the hearts" of men.[4] [Romans, ii, 15.]...so that man would not be sociable either, if not imbued with religion; and since reason alone cannot go further in religion than in so far as the latter subserves the promotion of peace and sociability in this life. For, in so far as religion promotes the salvation of souls, it proceeds from a special divine revelation."
CHAPTER III On Natural Law, THE TWO BOOKS ON THE DUTY OF MAN AND CITIZEN ACCORDING TO THE NATURAL LAW
Pufendorf believed, as did the framers, man's reason could not save anyone, or reveal who God is.
The founders employed freedom of conscience into Political Liberty, the system John Witherspoon taught James Madison and other students at Princeton.
Witherspoon's students included, in addition to a president and vice-president of the United States, nine cabinet members, twenty-one senators, thirty-nine congressmen, three justices of the Supreme Court, and twelve state governors. Five of the nine Princeton graduates among the fifty-five members of the Constitutional Convention of 1787 were students of Witherspoon.
Witherspoon, John Locke, the Christian Philosophers, and our founding fathers, received the politically couched freedom of conscience from the Bible, not from enlightenment philosophers.
As to the doctrine of the New Birth(being born again) as a child of God, its reference is in John 3:7-8:
"On this topic the gospel is explicit. It commands us to obey the higher powers or ruler. It reminds us that “he beareth not the sword in vain”; that “he is the minister of God, and a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.” Now, if he is not to bear the sward in vain, it follows that he is to use it to execute wrath on evildoers, and consequently to draw blood and to kill on proper occasions. As to the second species of warfare, it certainly is as reasonable and as right that a nation be secure against injustice, disorder, and rapine from without as from within; and therefore it is the right and duty of the government or ruler to use force and the sword to protect and maintain the rights of his people against evildoers of another nation. The reason and necessity of using force and the sword being the same in both cases, the right or the law must be the same also."
http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=64
As the framers believed in liberty of conscience, so they believed in freedom of oppression, and injustice.
The Scottish Enlightenment was more radical than that of Europe, because of its denial of the supernatural by Scots such as David Hume, and Francis Hutcheson. Because of this denial, we can exclude from this group, all the Founding Fathers, including John Locke, and the European Christian Theologians, who, without a doubt, believed in the supernatural. So what is enlightenment thought?
It is rule where reason is the ultimate standard, where man is the ultimate arbiter of truth. The other aspect of enlightenment thought that secularists apply to the framers is freewill; that this freedom of conscience originated out of the rationale of man's reason. Nothing could be farther from the truth, which is why the Founding Fathers rejected such utter nonsense.
The proof that the Founding Fathers rejected the enlightenment(rationalism) is their acceptance of the supernatural, and their understanding that freewill in man comes from the Bible, not from the mind of rationalist philosophers like David Hume, who, our framers, including Thomas Jefferson, rejected.
In my opinion, as well as that of Christian Theologians, including: John Calvin, Jonathan Edwards, John Wesley, Richard Hooker, John Witherspoon, Samuel von Pufendorf and Martin Luther; freewill, is laden throughout the New Testament, with The Saviour, Jesus Christ the greatest promoter of this fact. Contrary to the opinion of John Calvin, who, with the others affirmed Political Liberty, but denied Spirtual Freewill.
"A Christian man is the most free lord of all, and subject to none; a Christian man is the most dutiful servant of all, and subject to every one...Yea, the more of a Christian any man is, to so many the more evils, sufferings, and deaths is he subject, as we see in the first place in Christ the first-born, and in all His holy brethren."
Martin Luther-On Christian Freedom, 1520
http://www-personal.ksu.edu/~lyman/english233/Luther-CF.htm
"When a man-made law is imposed upon the soul to make it believe this or that as its human author may prescribe, there is certainly no word of God for it. If there is no word of God for it, then we cannot be sure whether God wishes to have it so, for we cannot be certain that something which he does not command is pleasing to him."
Martin Luther, Luther's Works, Christian in Society II, Vol, 45, 1523. edited by Jaroslav Pelikan et al)
http://books.google.com/books?id=At8kLNZSawoC&pg=PP1&ots=cjXvFGHcY_&dq=isbn:0800603451&sig=YKDybG8G5RpWzTGjo1FneMrnN2o#PPA6,M1
"By this procedure no one is compelled to believe, for he can still believe what he will; but he is forbidden to teach and to blaspheme."
(LW, Vol. 13, 61-62) edited by Jaroslav Pelikan et al
Here James Madison affirms Luther's leading the way in governments removal on the mind of man:
It illustrates the excellence of a system which, by a due distinction, to which the genius and courage of Luther led the way, between what is due to Caesar and what is due God, best promotes the discharge of both obligations. The experience of the United States is a happy disproof of the error so long rooted in the unenlightened minds of well-meaning Christians, as well as in the corrupt hearts of persecuting usurpers, that without a legal incorporation of religious and civil polity, neither could be supported.
TO F. L. SCHAEFFER Montpellier, Dec. 3rd ,1821
http://personal.pitnet.net/primarysources/madisonluther.html
If anyone has granted freedom of conscience to the people, it is Christian people. Luther believed in freedom of conscience, but affirmed the penalties for breaking Biblical Law. I disagree with Luther's proposed penalties apart from murder. The Founding Fathers' upholding of the second table of the law, minus the tenth commandment, is obvious and right; the first two commandments cannot be mandated, yet alone, are contrary to freedom of conscience; the just punishments to the crimes, made by the framers, I concur with.
Another interesting aspect to the enlightenment theory, as applied to the morality, and penalty to the minds of the Founding Fathers, had a non-existent effect. The Bible trumped enlightenment thought, with the death penalty for adultery not lessened until the 1780's. The fact is, the death penalty "was standard for a laundry list of crimes--from adultery to murder, from arson to stealing horses." Robbery and Counterfeiting were also capital offenses.
The Death Penalty: An American History by Stuart Banner
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbninquiry.asp?ean=9780674010833&z=y#TABS
Contrary to enlightenment philosophers, here are some of Jesus' words affirming freewill:
John 4:14
"But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life."
John 6:40,47,51,54
"And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day."
"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life."
"I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever:"
"Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day."
John 7:37
"In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink."
John 8:51
"Verily, verily, I say unto you, If a man keep my saying, he shall never see death."
John 11:26
"And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?"
This is just one book of the Bible; Paul, James, Luke, Jude, and Peter affirmed the same doctrine. The Bible teaches freewill for salvation; practically all of the founding fathers believed this doctrine, as well as the early church fathers, and Christian Theologians.
Pufendorf, on the Bible's superiority, and man's reason:
"For this reason in Scripture too the law is said to be "written in the hearts" of men.[4] [Romans, ii, 15.]...so that man would not be sociable either, if not imbued with religion; and since reason alone cannot go further in religion than in so far as the latter subserves the promotion of peace and sociability in this life. For, in so far as religion promotes the salvation of souls, it proceeds from a special divine revelation."
CHAPTER III On Natural Law, THE TWO BOOKS ON THE DUTY OF MAN AND CITIZEN ACCORDING TO THE NATURAL LAW
Pufendorf believed, as did the framers, man's reason could not save anyone, or reveal who God is.
The founders employed freedom of conscience into Political Liberty, the system John Witherspoon taught James Madison and other students at Princeton.
Witherspoon's students included, in addition to a president and vice-president of the United States, nine cabinet members, twenty-one senators, thirty-nine congressmen, three justices of the Supreme Court, and twelve state governors. Five of the nine Princeton graduates among the fifty-five members of the Constitutional Convention of 1787 were students of Witherspoon.
Witherspoon, John Locke, the Christian Philosophers, and our founding fathers, received the politically couched freedom of conscience from the Bible, not from enlightenment philosophers.
Here, Witherspoon affirms, total depravity, the supernatural, original sin, and Supreme Authority of Scripture:
"When I say it is a supernatural change, I mean that it is what man cannot by his own power effect without superior or divine aid. As we are by nature in a state of enmity against God, so this is what we cannot "of ourselves" remove or overcome. The exercise of our own rational powers, the persuasion of others, the application of all moral motives of every kind, will be ineffectual, without the special operation of the Spirit and Grace of God." John Witherspoon, Works, Section IV http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&id=07Ji84GdfMAC&dq=the+works+of+john+witherspoon&printsec=frontcover&source=web&ots=XxXlSuuHCf&sig=leZSRSgk3I-CqQk3VJf8vHcZumw#PPA14,M1
Thomas Aquinas spoke of Natural Law, primacy of reason in human affairs, five-hundred years before Deist Benjamin Franklin. Man's reason, freedom of conscience, science, and Natural Law are Biblical concepts; ascribing these theories to the enlightenment is false. Enlightenment theory, denied the supernatural, nothing more.As to the doctrine of the New Birth(being born again) as a child of God, its reference is in John 3:7-8:
"Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. The wind bloweth where it listeth...so is every one that is born of the Spirit."
All the founding fathers that learned at Princeton, James Madison referenced earlier, was taught this New Birth that Jesus speaks of. Princeton alum, Benjamin Rush(1760), who served in the Adams, Jefferson, and Madison administrations, was taught the same thing:
"But inhabiting this earthly body is the body spiritual, immortal, the essence of our Heavenly Father, which expressed the Holy Spirit. It is the awakening of this Spirit which our Saviour refers to when He tells us that we must be born again." Benjamin Rush, The Road to Fulfillment, The Law of New Birth, p.85, Harper & Brothers, 1942, New York and London.
As far as morality goes, Rush was only against the death penalty, not because of enlightenment humanitarism, but to make punishment more efficient, and better.
No doubt, there are countless other framers who believed this doctrine, including ministers: Robert Treat Paine, Lyman Hall, and Abraham Baldwin.
Belief in predestination, espoused by John Calvin, seems to be adhered to by a small percentage of founding fathers, freewill, was the pervading viewpoint. The use of philosophical language by Born Again Founding Fathers, proves the language was common by everyone, not evidence of belief in heterodoxy.
Saturday, October 6, 2007
The Christian Foundation of Republican Government
For decades now, secular revisionists continue to deny the United States was founded a Christian nation; rejecting the Common Law foundation of Republican Government; Common Law, found in the Bible, is no longer a mystery; brought to light to refute the disingenuous agenda of the American secularist order. Common knowledge, and research of the Founding Fathers' writings shows the Republican Government of the United States was based on the political system of England. Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution, guarantees the United States shall guarantee every State in this Union a Republican form of Government.
The foundation of Republican Government is Law, Common Law. The basis of the Constitution's Republican Government, and Common Law, is without a doubt, The Ten Commandments from Yahweh, the God of Israel. It is an indisputable fact the Founding Fathers believed this(emphasis added). God ordained Republican Government three-thousand five-hundred years ago, albeit not formed as a theocracy, the Founding Fathers started a Constitutional Republic, based on representatives ruling for the people. It is irrelevant the differences in government, and manner the representatives came about to rule, Biblical Law is the standard, and in both cases the people agreed to the choosen Representatives:
Deuteronomy 1 (King James Version)
14And ye answered me, and said, The thing which thou hast spoken is good for us to do.
15So I took the chief of your tribes, wise men, and known, and made them heads over you, captains over thousands, and captains over hundreds, and captains over fifties, and captains over tens, and officers among your tribes.
Like I said, whether the representatives were selected or elected is irrelevant, this is only a diversion to reject the Biblical foundation. Secularists distort the issue by claiming Republican Government is where citizens elect representatives to actually govern, and authority is derived from the citizens or their elected representatives.This is an incorrect assertion; no where did the Christian Philosophers(Aquinas, Calvin, Locke, Blackstone, Montesquieu, etc.) believe electing representatives was the foundation of Republicanism. Law(Biblical Law) is the foundation of Republicanism; how representatives are elected is not mandatory. The only mandatory aspect of Republicanism is the acceptance of the people to form a government that has representatives, which is true of ancient Israel, and the United States.
From the Holy Bible, we see the conscience(reason) of man, and The Ten Commandments(Divine Law), is the foundation of Law in a Republican Government; this being clearly revealed to the world in the New Testament by the Apostle Paul in Romans 2:14-15:
"For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another."
Thomas Aquinas did not need to bypass the New Testament, and employ Aristotle's theories into the church, that was an error; the sacred oracles in man(conscience) were designed in man by the true God, Jesus Christ, not the "thought thinking self" of Aristotle.
The Founding Fathers rejected every other Republican Government, except that of the English, as James Madison explains:
"Sparta, Rome, and Carthage...These examples, though as unfit for the imitation, as they are repugnant to the genius, of America, are, notwithstanding, when compared with the fugitive and turbulent existence of other ancient republics, very instructive proofs of the necessity of some institution that will blend stability with liberty. I am not unaware of the circumstances which distinguish the American from other popular governments, as well ancient as modern; and which render extreme circumspection necessary, in reasoning from the one case to the other."
James Madison, Federalist #63
http://www.llpoh.org/federalist/63.html
The moral laws of the states prove their law was Biblical Law, and no other.
England is the main example of Republican Government to the Founding Fathers; the celebrated Montesquieu, their main authority on the matter. How did the English acquire Republican Government for their nation? Montesquieu explains:
"In perusing the admirable treatise of Tacitus On the Manners of the Germans, we find it is from that nation the English have borrowed the idea of their political government."
Book XI. Of the Laws Which Establish Political Liberty, with Regard to the Constitution 6. Of the Constitution ofEngland.
However, in my opinion, Sir William Blackstone provides a better explanation:
"there never was any formal exchange of one system of laws for another: though doubtless by the intermixture of adventitious nations, the Romans, the Picts, the Saxons, the Danes, and the Normans, they must have insensibly introduced and incorporated many of their own customs with those that were before established; thereby in all probability improving the texture and wisdom of the whole, by the accumulated wisdom of divers particular countries. Our laws, saith lord Bacon, are mixed as our language: and, as our language is so much the richer, the laws are the more complete.
And indeed our antiquaries and early historians do all positively assure us, that our body of laws is of this compounded nature. For they tell us, that in the time of Alfred, the local customs of the several provinces of the kingdom were grown so various, that he found it expedient to compile his dome-book, or liber judicialis, for the general use of the whole kingdom. This book is said to have been extant so late as the reign of king Edward the fourth, but is now unfortunately lost. It contained, we may probably suppose, the principal maxims of the common law, the penalties for misdemesnors, and the forms of judicial proceedings. Thus much may at least be collected from that injunction to observe it, which we find in the laws of king Edward the elder, the son of Alfred."
That the Divine Law is The Ten Commandments is clear:
"Divine Providence, which, in compassion to the frailty, the imperfection, and the blindness of human reason, hath been pleased, in sundry times and diverse manners, to discover and enforce it's laws by an immediate and direct revelation. The doctrines thus delivered we call the revealed or divine law, and they are to be found only in the Holy Scriptures" (emphasis added). Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England.
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/blackstone/introa.htm
Yet this rule admits of exception, where the former determination is most evidently contrary to reason; much more if it be dearly contrary to the divine law...And hence it is that our lawyers are with justice so copious in their encomiums on the reason of the common law, that they tell us, that the law is the perfection of reason, that it always intends to conform thereto, and that what is not reason is not law. Blackstone, SECTION THE THIRD. OF THE LAWS OF ENGLAND
http://www.constitution.org/tb/tb-1103.htm
So the immigrants from Europe brought with them their customs and religion; being primarily Christianity with Common Law. The Common Law is no doubt the Divine Law, and the Gospel as Blackstone has said. Christianity had spread into England as early as the first century; Christianity gaining converts throughout England by the beginning of the fourth century. Christianity was known in pagan saxon territory, as well as the rest of England:
"The discovery of the Darenth Bowl (a glass communion chalice c.450 A.D.) discovered by the Dartford District Archaeological Group in a Saxon grave in the grounds of the old Darenth Park Hospital has raised all sorts of questions about the possible survival of Christian belief in and around Dartford."
http://www.dartfordarchive.org.uk/early_history/religion_s.shtml
The Common Law of the Bible was instituted by early Christians, and Christian Kings: Ethelbert, in the sixth century, and in the ninth century under Christian King Alfred the Great, the only English King called the Great. Granted, the Bible was not translated into the common language of the people, but they understood the Gospel; their Common Law is evidence of this fact. So, Christianity is the foundation of Common Law; Republican Government founded on the Law and the Gospel.
The Founding Fathers were correct in claiming Common Law is founded on Christianity; if not for the sinfulness of man, what was the reason for the separation of powers in a Republican Government? There is no other reason for the separation of powers other than sin, and wickedness of man; the Founding Fathers knowing this full well.
"If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself."
James Madison, Federalist #51.
"Republican government loses half of its value where the moral and social duties are...negligently practiced. To exterminate our popular vices is a work of far more importance to the charachter and happiness of our citizens, than any other improvements in our system of education. [T]he moral principles and precepts contained in the Scriptures ought to form the basis of all our civil constitutions and laws....All the miseries and evils which men suffer from vice, crime, and ambition, injustice, oppression, slavery and war, proceed from their despising or neglecting the precepts contained in the Bible." History, p. 339. Noah Webster
"[O]ur citizens should early understand that the geniune source of correct republican principles is the Bible, particularly the New Testament, or the Christian religion." Noah Webster, History of the United States (New Haven: Durrie & Peck, 1832), p. 6.
Webster understood where true Liberty and Free Government lies:
[T]he religion which has introduced civil liberty is the religion of Christ and his apostles...and to this we owe our free constitutions of government." History, p. 300,
John Adams understood our Republican Government is based on Law, Common Law of the Bible:
"No good government but what is republican...the very definition of a republic is'an empire of laws, and not of men.'' "Thoughts on Government" January, 1776
Baron Charles Secondat de Montesquieu was the main influence on the Founding Fathers regarding Republican Government, his Spirit of Laws published in 1752, was studied intensely by the framers; proclaiming Christianity the foundation of Republican Law, agreeing that law and religion are twin sisters, to form the greatest government of mankind:
"The Christian religion, which ordains that men should love each other, would without doubt have every nation blest with the best civil, the best political laws; because these, next to this religion, are the greatest good that men can give and receive." - United States Founding Influences, Baron Charles Secondat de Montesquieu, "Spirit of Laws", (Philadelphia: Isaiah Thomas, 1802), Vol. II, pp. 125-126
Book XXIV.Of Laws in relation to Religion Considered in Itself,and in its Doctrines1. Of Religion in General. 3. "That a moderate Government is most agreeable to the Christian Religion, and a despotic Government to the Mahometan. The Christian religion is a stranger to mere despotic power. The mildness so frequently recommended in the Gospel is incompatible with the despotic rage with which a prince punishes his subjects, and exercises himself in cruelty."
"Society notwithstanding all its revolutions, must repose on principles that do not change." - United States Founding Influences, Baron Charles Secondat de Montesquieu, "Spirit of Laws", (Philadelphia: Isaiah Thomas, 1802), Vol. I, p. 18, ad passim
Secularists try to claim Montesquieu did not use biblical examples for Republican Government; diverting the important point of Law as its foundation; the author giving examples of pagan government is not claiming they are the originators of it. To the Founding Fathers, religion and government are to work together, worthy of the peoples support, as Thomas Jefferson explains:
"No nation has ever existed or been governed without religion. Nor can be. The Christian religion is the best religion that has been given to man and I, as Chief Magistrate of this nation, am bound to give it the sanction of my example." Hutson (see n. 8) at p. 96, quoting from a handwritten history in possession of the Library of Congress, “Washington Parish, Washington City,” by Rev. Ethan Allen.
Critics believe this is a spurious quote because of the early age of the Reverend, but many framers had diaries and writings when they were young; the quote also has confirmation from another witness; the quote was not disputed when it was published, and is harmonious with the views of other framers:
"[W]e can only depend on the all powerful influence of the Spirit of God, whose Divine aid and assistance it becomes us as a Christian people most devoutly to implore. Therefore I move that some minister of the Gospel be requested to attend this Congress every morning during the sessions in order to open the meeting with prayer." Elias Boudinot, Acting President of the United States, Chairman of the House Committee which Drafted the Bill of Rights. Member of the Continental Congress (1778-79, 1781-84). The Life, Public Service, Addresses, and Letters of Elias Boudinot, LL.D., President of the Continental Congress, J. J. Boudinot, editor (Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co., 1896), Vol. I, p. 21, to the First Provincial Congress of New Jersey.
"Sensible of the importance of Christian piety and virtue to the order and happiness of a state, I cannot but earnestly commend to you every measure for their support and encouragement. . . . [T]he very existence of the republics . . . depend much upon the public institutions of religion." John Hancock, member of the Continental Congress (1774-78) where he was the first signer of the Declaration of Independence (1776) and Acting President of the United States (1774-77); Senior Major-General of Massachusetts Militia (1778); delegate to the State constitutional convention (1779); and he was Governor of Massachusetts (1780-85, 1787-93). Independent Chronicle (Boston), November 2, 1780, last page; see also Abram English Brown, John Hancock, His Book (Boston: Lee and Shepard, 1898), p. 269.
"[A] free government. . . . can only be happy when the public principle and opinions are properly directed. . . . by religion and education. It should therefore be among the first objects of those who wish well to the national prosperity to encourage and support the principles of religion and morality." Abraham Baldwin, Signer of the Constitution, A Framer of the Bill of Rights in the First Congress. Charles C. Jones, Biographical Sketches of the Delegates from Georgia to the Continental Congress (Boston: Houghton, Mifflin, and Company, 1891), pp. 6-7.
The laws spoken of, are the Law and the Gospel found in the Bible; these laws are the liberty spoken of in the Bible, it is pure liberty, as the framers prohibited man from abrogating them. Most of the states laws on morality are straight from the bible, for instance laws against blasphemy, and profanity come from the bible, "...continued well beyond the Founding Era. It subsequently appeared in the 1784 laws in Connecticut, the 1791 laws of New Hampshire, the 1791 laws of Vermont, the 1792 laws of Virginia, the 1794 laws of Pennsylvania, the 1821 laws of Maine, the 1834 laws of Tennessee, the 1835 laws of Massachusetts, the 1836 laws of New York, etc.
Judge Zephaniah Swift, author in 1796 of the first legal text published in America, explained why civil authorities enforced the Decalogue prohibition against blasphemy and profane swearing: Crimes of this description are not punishable by the civil arm merely because they are against religion. Bold and presumptuous must he be who would attempt to wrest the thunder of heaven from the hand of God and direct the bolts of vengeance where to fall. The Supreme Deity is capable of maintaining the dignity of His moral government and avenging the violations of His holy laws. His omniscient mind estimates every act by the standard of perfect truth and His impartial justice inflicts punishments that are accurately proportioned to the crimes. But short-sighted mortals cannot search the heart and punish according to the intent. They can only judge by overt acts and punish them as they respect the peace and happiness of civil society. This is the rule to estimate all crimes against civil law and is the standard of all human punishments. It is on this ground only that civil tribunals are authorized to punish offences against religion.
Notice how Christian Judge Swift used philosophical language in his assessment.
In 1824, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania (in a decision subsequently invoked authoritatively and endorsed by the U. S. Supreme Court ) reaffirmed that the civil laws against blasphemy were derived from divine law: The true principles of natural religion are part of the common law; the essential principles of revealed religion are part of the common law; so that a person vilifying, subverting or ridiculing them may be prosecuted at common law.The court then noted that its State's laws against blasphemy had been drawn up by James Wilson, a signer of the Constitution and original Justice on the U. S. Supreme Court:
The late Judge Wilson, of the Supreme Court of the United States, Professor of Law in the College in Philadelphia, was appointed in 1791, unanimously by the House of Representatives of this State to “revise and digest the laws of this commonwealth. . . . ” He had just risen from his seat in the Convention which formed the Constitution of the United States, and of this State; and it is well known that for our present form of government we are greatly indebted to his exertions and influence. With his fresh recollection of both constitutions, in his course of Lectures (3d vol. of his works, 112), he states that profaneness and blasphemy are offences punishable by fine and imprisonment, and that Christianity is part of the common law. It is vain to object that the law is obsolete; this is not so; it has seldom been called into operation because this, like some other offences, has been rare. It has been retained in our recollection of laws now in force, made by the direction of the legislature, and it has not been a dead letter. http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=101
This point also indicates James Wilson helped form the laws prohibiting, and penalizing homosexuality. Here Wilson differentiates rape with consensual homosexuality:
A rape is an irreparable and a most atrocious aggression on the right of personal safety. Besides the thousand excruciating, but nameless circumstances by which it is aggravated, some may be mentioned with propriety. It is a crime committed not only against the citizen, but against the woman; not only against the common rights of society, but against the peculiar rights of the sex: it is committed by one from whom, on every virtuous and manly principle, her sex is entitled to inviolable protection, and her honour to the most sacred regard. This crime is one of the selected few, which, by the laws of the Saxons, were punished with death. The same punishment it still undergoes in the commonwealth of Pennsylvania. On this subject, for an obvious reason, particular observations will not be expected from a lecture in the hall: they are fit for the book and the closet only: for even the book and the closest they are fit, only because they are necessary.
The crime not to be named, I pass in a total silence.
"OF CRIMES AGAINST THE RIGHT OF INDIVIDUALS TO PERSONAL SAFETY." http://www.constitution.org/jwilson/jwilson3.htm
It seems Wilson helped write the Pennsylvania laws on morality.
Regarding the separation of powers doctrine, it was spoken about in the Bible over twenty-five hundred years ago:
Isaiah 33:22 (King James Version)For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our king; he will save us.
A Constitutional Republic has the same foundation as a Theocracy; Law. A Theocracy and Republic differ in that God's law is supreme in a Theocracy; the people, not God, are sovereign in a Republic; our framers understanding consent of the governed is consistent with the Law of Nature's free will in man. If a people can keep a Republic, the Divine Law is superior in all cases enumerated. Sir William Blackstone explains:
To instance in the case of murder: this is expressly forbidden by the Divine. . . . If any human law should allow or enjoin us to commit it we are bound to transgress that human law. . . . But, with regard to matters that are . . . not commanded or forbidden by those superior laws such, for instance, as exporting of wool into foreign countries; here the . . . legislature has scope and opportunity to interpose. William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England (Philadelphia: Robert Bell, 1771), Vol. I, pp. 42-43.
Because the Constitution is exempt in matters of religion, religion is left to the states; the framers then, formed Christian states. So, the Britons, including saxons, were converted to Christianity by the Apostles(Simon the Zealot in the first century), and missionaries, these Britons employed Common Law(Ten Commandments) of the Bible into their government, hence, the Founding Fathers of the United States used the same Republicanism, but varied. Despite the secularist claim, the United States was founded a nation of Christian states.
The foundation of Republican Government is Law, Common Law. The basis of the Constitution's Republican Government, and Common Law, is without a doubt, The Ten Commandments from Yahweh, the God of Israel. It is an indisputable fact the Founding Fathers believed this(emphasis added). God ordained Republican Government three-thousand five-hundred years ago, albeit not formed as a theocracy, the Founding Fathers started a Constitutional Republic, based on representatives ruling for the people. It is irrelevant the differences in government, and manner the representatives came about to rule, Biblical Law is the standard, and in both cases the people agreed to the choosen Representatives:
Deuteronomy 1 (King James Version)
14And ye answered me, and said, The thing which thou hast spoken is good for us to do.
15So I took the chief of your tribes, wise men, and known, and made them heads over you, captains over thousands, and captains over hundreds, and captains over fifties, and captains over tens, and officers among your tribes.
Like I said, whether the representatives were selected or elected is irrelevant, this is only a diversion to reject the Biblical foundation. Secularists distort the issue by claiming Republican Government is where citizens elect representatives to actually govern, and authority is derived from the citizens or their elected representatives.This is an incorrect assertion; no where did the Christian Philosophers(Aquinas, Calvin, Locke, Blackstone, Montesquieu, etc.) believe electing representatives was the foundation of Republicanism. Law(Biblical Law) is the foundation of Republicanism; how representatives are elected is not mandatory. The only mandatory aspect of Republicanism is the acceptance of the people to form a government that has representatives, which is true of ancient Israel, and the United States.
From the Holy Bible, we see the conscience(reason) of man, and The Ten Commandments(Divine Law), is the foundation of Law in a Republican Government; this being clearly revealed to the world in the New Testament by the Apostle Paul in Romans 2:14-15:
"For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another."
Thomas Aquinas did not need to bypass the New Testament, and employ Aristotle's theories into the church, that was an error; the sacred oracles in man(conscience) were designed in man by the true God, Jesus Christ, not the "thought thinking self" of Aristotle.
The Founding Fathers rejected every other Republican Government, except that of the English, as James Madison explains:
"Sparta, Rome, and Carthage...These examples, though as unfit for the imitation, as they are repugnant to the genius, of America, are, notwithstanding, when compared with the fugitive and turbulent existence of other ancient republics, very instructive proofs of the necessity of some institution that will blend stability with liberty. I am not unaware of the circumstances which distinguish the American from other popular governments, as well ancient as modern; and which render extreme circumspection necessary, in reasoning from the one case to the other."
James Madison, Federalist #63
http://www.llpoh.org/federalist/63.html
The moral laws of the states prove their law was Biblical Law, and no other.
England is the main example of Republican Government to the Founding Fathers; the celebrated Montesquieu, their main authority on the matter. How did the English acquire Republican Government for their nation? Montesquieu explains:
"In perusing the admirable treatise of Tacitus On the Manners of the Germans, we find it is from that nation the English have borrowed the idea of their political government."
Book XI. Of the Laws Which Establish Political Liberty, with Regard to the Constitution 6. Of the Constitution ofEngland.
However, in my opinion, Sir William Blackstone provides a better explanation:
"there never was any formal exchange of one system of laws for another: though doubtless by the intermixture of adventitious nations, the Romans, the Picts, the Saxons, the Danes, and the Normans, they must have insensibly introduced and incorporated many of their own customs with those that were before established; thereby in all probability improving the texture and wisdom of the whole, by the accumulated wisdom of divers particular countries. Our laws, saith lord Bacon, are mixed as our language: and, as our language is so much the richer, the laws are the more complete.
And indeed our antiquaries and early historians do all positively assure us, that our body of laws is of this compounded nature. For they tell us, that in the time of Alfred, the local customs of the several provinces of the kingdom were grown so various, that he found it expedient to compile his dome-book, or liber judicialis, for the general use of the whole kingdom. This book is said to have been extant so late as the reign of king Edward the fourth, but is now unfortunately lost. It contained, we may probably suppose, the principal maxims of the common law, the penalties for misdemesnors, and the forms of judicial proceedings. Thus much may at least be collected from that injunction to observe it, which we find in the laws of king Edward the elder, the son of Alfred."
That the Divine Law is The Ten Commandments is clear:
"Divine Providence, which, in compassion to the frailty, the imperfection, and the blindness of human reason, hath been pleased, in sundry times and diverse manners, to discover and enforce it's laws by an immediate and direct revelation. The doctrines thus delivered we call the revealed or divine law, and they are to be found only in the Holy Scriptures" (emphasis added). Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England.
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/blackstone/introa.htm
Yet this rule admits of exception, where the former determination is most evidently contrary to reason; much more if it be dearly contrary to the divine law...And hence it is that our lawyers are with justice so copious in their encomiums on the reason of the common law, that they tell us, that the law is the perfection of reason, that it always intends to conform thereto, and that what is not reason is not law. Blackstone, SECTION THE THIRD. OF THE LAWS OF ENGLAND
http://www.constitution.org/tb/tb-1103.htm
So the immigrants from Europe brought with them their customs and religion; being primarily Christianity with Common Law. The Common Law is no doubt the Divine Law, and the Gospel as Blackstone has said. Christianity had spread into England as early as the first century; Christianity gaining converts throughout England by the beginning of the fourth century. Christianity was known in pagan saxon territory, as well as the rest of England:
"The discovery of the Darenth Bowl (a glass communion chalice c.450 A.D.) discovered by the Dartford District Archaeological Group in a Saxon grave in the grounds of the old Darenth Park Hospital has raised all sorts of questions about the possible survival of Christian belief in and around Dartford."
http://www.dartfordarchive.org.uk/early_history/religion_s.shtml
The Common Law of the Bible was instituted by early Christians, and Christian Kings: Ethelbert, in the sixth century, and in the ninth century under Christian King Alfred the Great, the only English King called the Great. Granted, the Bible was not translated into the common language of the people, but they understood the Gospel; their Common Law is evidence of this fact. So, Christianity is the foundation of Common Law; Republican Government founded on the Law and the Gospel.
The Founding Fathers were correct in claiming Common Law is founded on Christianity; if not for the sinfulness of man, what was the reason for the separation of powers in a Republican Government? There is no other reason for the separation of powers other than sin, and wickedness of man; the Founding Fathers knowing this full well.
"If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself."
James Madison, Federalist #51.
"Republican government loses half of its value where the moral and social duties are...negligently practiced. To exterminate our popular vices is a work of far more importance to the charachter and happiness of our citizens, than any other improvements in our system of education. [T]he moral principles and precepts contained in the Scriptures ought to form the basis of all our civil constitutions and laws....All the miseries and evils which men suffer from vice, crime, and ambition, injustice, oppression, slavery and war, proceed from their despising or neglecting the precepts contained in the Bible." History, p. 339. Noah Webster
"[O]ur citizens should early understand that the geniune source of correct republican principles is the Bible, particularly the New Testament, or the Christian religion." Noah Webster, History of the United States (New Haven: Durrie & Peck, 1832), p. 6.
Webster understood where true Liberty and Free Government lies:
[T]he religion which has introduced civil liberty is the religion of Christ and his apostles...and to this we owe our free constitutions of government." History, p. 300,
John Adams understood our Republican Government is based on Law, Common Law of the Bible:
"No good government but what is republican...the very definition of a republic is'an empire of laws, and not of men.'' "Thoughts on Government" January, 1776
Baron Charles Secondat de Montesquieu was the main influence on the Founding Fathers regarding Republican Government, his Spirit of Laws published in 1752, was studied intensely by the framers; proclaiming Christianity the foundation of Republican Law, agreeing that law and religion are twin sisters, to form the greatest government of mankind:
"The Christian religion, which ordains that men should love each other, would without doubt have every nation blest with the best civil, the best political laws; because these, next to this religion, are the greatest good that men can give and receive." - United States Founding Influences, Baron Charles Secondat de Montesquieu, "Spirit of Laws", (Philadelphia: Isaiah Thomas, 1802), Vol. II, pp. 125-126
Book XXIV.Of Laws in relation to Religion Considered in Itself,and in its Doctrines1. Of Religion in General. 3. "That a moderate Government is most agreeable to the Christian Religion, and a despotic Government to the Mahometan. The Christian religion is a stranger to mere despotic power. The mildness so frequently recommended in the Gospel is incompatible with the despotic rage with which a prince punishes his subjects, and exercises himself in cruelty."
"Society notwithstanding all its revolutions, must repose on principles that do not change." - United States Founding Influences, Baron Charles Secondat de Montesquieu, "Spirit of Laws", (Philadelphia: Isaiah Thomas, 1802), Vol. I, p. 18, ad passim
Secularists try to claim Montesquieu did not use biblical examples for Republican Government; diverting the important point of Law as its foundation; the author giving examples of pagan government is not claiming they are the originators of it. To the Founding Fathers, religion and government are to work together, worthy of the peoples support, as Thomas Jefferson explains:
"No nation has ever existed or been governed without religion. Nor can be. The Christian religion is the best religion that has been given to man and I, as Chief Magistrate of this nation, am bound to give it the sanction of my example." Hutson (see n. 8) at p. 96, quoting from a handwritten history in possession of the Library of Congress, “Washington Parish, Washington City,” by Rev. Ethan Allen.
Critics believe this is a spurious quote because of the early age of the Reverend, but many framers had diaries and writings when they were young; the quote also has confirmation from another witness; the quote was not disputed when it was published, and is harmonious with the views of other framers:
"[W]e can only depend on the all powerful influence of the Spirit of God, whose Divine aid and assistance it becomes us as a Christian people most devoutly to implore. Therefore I move that some minister of the Gospel be requested to attend this Congress every morning during the sessions in order to open the meeting with prayer." Elias Boudinot, Acting President of the United States, Chairman of the House Committee which Drafted the Bill of Rights. Member of the Continental Congress (1778-79, 1781-84). The Life, Public Service, Addresses, and Letters of Elias Boudinot, LL.D., President of the Continental Congress, J. J. Boudinot, editor (Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co., 1896), Vol. I, p. 21, to the First Provincial Congress of New Jersey.
"Sensible of the importance of Christian piety and virtue to the order and happiness of a state, I cannot but earnestly commend to you every measure for their support and encouragement. . . . [T]he very existence of the republics . . . depend much upon the public institutions of religion." John Hancock, member of the Continental Congress (1774-78) where he was the first signer of the Declaration of Independence (1776) and Acting President of the United States (1774-77); Senior Major-General of Massachusetts Militia (1778); delegate to the State constitutional convention (1779); and he was Governor of Massachusetts (1780-85, 1787-93). Independent Chronicle (Boston), November 2, 1780, last page; see also Abram English Brown, John Hancock, His Book (Boston: Lee and Shepard, 1898), p. 269.
"[A] free government. . . . can only be happy when the public principle and opinions are properly directed. . . . by religion and education. It should therefore be among the first objects of those who wish well to the national prosperity to encourage and support the principles of religion and morality." Abraham Baldwin, Signer of the Constitution, A Framer of the Bill of Rights in the First Congress. Charles C. Jones, Biographical Sketches of the Delegates from Georgia to the Continental Congress (Boston: Houghton, Mifflin, and Company, 1891), pp. 6-7.
The laws spoken of, are the Law and the Gospel found in the Bible; these laws are the liberty spoken of in the Bible, it is pure liberty, as the framers prohibited man from abrogating them. Most of the states laws on morality are straight from the bible, for instance laws against blasphemy, and profanity come from the bible, "...continued well beyond the Founding Era. It subsequently appeared in the 1784 laws in Connecticut, the 1791 laws of New Hampshire, the 1791 laws of Vermont, the 1792 laws of Virginia, the 1794 laws of Pennsylvania, the 1821 laws of Maine, the 1834 laws of Tennessee, the 1835 laws of Massachusetts, the 1836 laws of New York, etc.
Judge Zephaniah Swift, author in 1796 of the first legal text published in America, explained why civil authorities enforced the Decalogue prohibition against blasphemy and profane swearing: Crimes of this description are not punishable by the civil arm merely because they are against religion. Bold and presumptuous must he be who would attempt to wrest the thunder of heaven from the hand of God and direct the bolts of vengeance where to fall. The Supreme Deity is capable of maintaining the dignity of His moral government and avenging the violations of His holy laws. His omniscient mind estimates every act by the standard of perfect truth and His impartial justice inflicts punishments that are accurately proportioned to the crimes. But short-sighted mortals cannot search the heart and punish according to the intent. They can only judge by overt acts and punish them as they respect the peace and happiness of civil society. This is the rule to estimate all crimes against civil law and is the standard of all human punishments. It is on this ground only that civil tribunals are authorized to punish offences against religion.
Notice how Christian Judge Swift used philosophical language in his assessment.
In 1824, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania (in a decision subsequently invoked authoritatively and endorsed by the U. S. Supreme Court ) reaffirmed that the civil laws against blasphemy were derived from divine law: The true principles of natural religion are part of the common law; the essential principles of revealed religion are part of the common law; so that a person vilifying, subverting or ridiculing them may be prosecuted at common law.The court then noted that its State's laws against blasphemy had been drawn up by James Wilson, a signer of the Constitution and original Justice on the U. S. Supreme Court:
The late Judge Wilson, of the Supreme Court of the United States, Professor of Law in the College in Philadelphia, was appointed in 1791, unanimously by the House of Representatives of this State to “revise and digest the laws of this commonwealth. . . . ” He had just risen from his seat in the Convention which formed the Constitution of the United States, and of this State; and it is well known that for our present form of government we are greatly indebted to his exertions and influence. With his fresh recollection of both constitutions, in his course of Lectures (3d vol. of his works, 112), he states that profaneness and blasphemy are offences punishable by fine and imprisonment, and that Christianity is part of the common law. It is vain to object that the law is obsolete; this is not so; it has seldom been called into operation because this, like some other offences, has been rare. It has been retained in our recollection of laws now in force, made by the direction of the legislature, and it has not been a dead letter. http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=101
This point also indicates James Wilson helped form the laws prohibiting, and penalizing homosexuality. Here Wilson differentiates rape with consensual homosexuality:
A rape is an irreparable and a most atrocious aggression on the right of personal safety. Besides the thousand excruciating, but nameless circumstances by which it is aggravated, some may be mentioned with propriety. It is a crime committed not only against the citizen, but against the woman; not only against the common rights of society, but against the peculiar rights of the sex: it is committed by one from whom, on every virtuous and manly principle, her sex is entitled to inviolable protection, and her honour to the most sacred regard. This crime is one of the selected few, which, by the laws of the Saxons, were punished with death. The same punishment it still undergoes in the commonwealth of Pennsylvania. On this subject, for an obvious reason, particular observations will not be expected from a lecture in the hall: they are fit for the book and the closet only: for even the book and the closest they are fit, only because they are necessary.
The crime not to be named, I pass in a total silence.
"OF CRIMES AGAINST THE RIGHT OF INDIVIDUALS TO PERSONAL SAFETY." http://www.constitution.org/jwilson/jwilson3.htm
It seems Wilson helped write the Pennsylvania laws on morality.
Regarding the separation of powers doctrine, it was spoken about in the Bible over twenty-five hundred years ago:
Isaiah 33:22 (King James Version)For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our king; he will save us.
A Constitutional Republic has the same foundation as a Theocracy; Law. A Theocracy and Republic differ in that God's law is supreme in a Theocracy; the people, not God, are sovereign in a Republic; our framers understanding consent of the governed is consistent with the Law of Nature's free will in man. If a people can keep a Republic, the Divine Law is superior in all cases enumerated. Sir William Blackstone explains:
To instance in the case of murder: this is expressly forbidden by the Divine. . . . If any human law should allow or enjoin us to commit it we are bound to transgress that human law. . . . But, with regard to matters that are . . . not commanded or forbidden by those superior laws such, for instance, as exporting of wool into foreign countries; here the . . . legislature has scope and opportunity to interpose. William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England (Philadelphia: Robert Bell, 1771), Vol. I, pp. 42-43.
Because the Constitution is exempt in matters of religion, religion is left to the states; the framers then, formed Christian states. So, the Britons, including saxons, were converted to Christianity by the Apostles(Simon the Zealot in the first century), and missionaries, these Britons employed Common Law(Ten Commandments) of the Bible into their government, hence, the Founding Fathers of the United States used the same Republicanism, but varied. Despite the secularist claim, the United States was founded a nation of Christian states.
Friday, September 28, 2007
Vote is in for Greatest Founding Father...not Alexander Hamilton
The vote is over for considering who the greatest founding father is; Thomas Jefferson and George Washington each received seven votes, Madison, Hamilton, and Samuel Adams each had one vote. Maybe Jefferson's reputation helped him, but Washington lead the vote count up until the end. Washington was an upright man, with the integrity, and character Jefferson lacked. Despite Jefferson having nothing to do with the formation or ratification of the Constitution, his popularity continues to grow.
I agree with Hercules Mulligan that Washington had the universal confidence and respect from the other framers to be first President of the early Republic; from President James Monroe's testimony, without Washington's leadership, the Constitutional Convention would have likely failed.
I have questions regarding Washington's Christianity; unlike Alexander Hamilton, whose writings tell us he believed the Christian Religion Divine, amidst his personal failures. In comparing Washington's simple genius with the brilliance of Alexander Hamilton, my allegiance is with the latter.
From his birth in the West Indies, he overcame adversity Washington, or any other framer never experienced. He also had to deal with prejudice from some framers who were born with silver spoons in their mouths, some launching assaults at his birth out of wedlock.
He was, as John Adams later claimed, "the bastard brat of a Scottish peddler." Hamilton, at the age of 13, had to prevail when his mother, who had pieced together a livelihood as a retailer, died. He prevailed again when his guardian, a distant relative named Peter Lytton, committed suicide the following year.
At 19, in the United States, Hamilton put a brigade together on his own, getting his troops and supplies himself, while being appointed a captain of the New York Artillery. Hamilton and his men fought bravely in several early battles, including the unsuccessful attempt to hold Manhattan from the British. Hamilton and his unit covered Washington's retreat across New Jersey. In the sharpest exchanges, Hamilton's artillery kept the British at bay while the bulk of the American forces crossed first the Raritan River and later the Delaware. Hamilton also took part in the successful, and famous, counterattacks at Trenton and Princeton in the winter of 1776–77.
Hamilton was not only a military genius, he was an administrative, legal, economic, and political genius as well. Washington recognized his talent, giving ever-increasing responsibility to the young officer, now a lieutenant colonel. During the next few years of fighting, when desertion was all too common, Hamilton stayed loyally by his commander's side. He was there for the frozen winters at Valley Forge and Morristown; the military disasters like the abandonment of New York City in 1776 and the subsequent retreat across New Jersey; the real treacheries of Benedict Arnold, and the perceived treacheries of an impotent Continental Congress; and the failed opportunities like Monmouth, when he was at Washington's side when the Virginia gentleman lambasted General Charles Lee in mid-battle for gross misconduct. And Hamilton was with Washington during the good times, the infrequent victories, and the secret march to trap Cornwallis at Yorktown.
http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/910687.html
Hamilton was also the first man over the wall at Yorktown, defeating the British, showing his undaunted bravery. His genius started during the Revolutionary War, when he first thought of the National Bank. Central to Hamilton's early plans were several key provisions of what would later be the hallmarks of his financial program: foreign loans, partial government ownership of a national bank, and use of that bank to provide the national government with short-term loans.
Hamilton's thought was often far in advance of that of most of his contemporaries. This is not to say that he could see the future but rather that he took positions that remained unpopular or misunderstood until well into the nineteenth century. Two episodes in 1784 demonstrate his prescience. First, Hamilton established a private commercial bank. The innovation came not so much from the bank itself, which closely followed the procedures established by its predecessor, the Bank of North America. Rather, the innovation came from the way in which the bank, the very same Bank of New York that still graces Wall Street, found legal life. The New York legislature was against his idea, so he by-passed them and started it himself; the most essential advantages of his idea: joint-stock form, negotiable shares, status as a legal entity, and limited liability. So the Bank of New York formed and began business anyway, under private "articles of association" instead of a special legislative act. Hamilton used the same technique again with the Merchants' Bank in the early nineteenth century.
Hamilton presented several monumental state papers that, when combined with the entrepreneurial talents and self-interested desires of thousands of Americans, forged a national financial system: The Report on Public Credit (January 9, 1790), The Report on the Bank (December 13, 1790), The Establishment of a Mint (January 28, 1791), and The Report on Manufactures (December 5, 1791). Taken together, Hamilton's reports were nothing short of a strategic outline for the establishment of a thriving economy rooted solidly in the bedrock of sound fiscal management, a stable monetary system, extensive short-term commercial credit, and long-term development capital. On the grandest scale, the secretary's policies helped to solidify the new government by creating incentives for wealthy individuals to invest in it, directly through ownership of its bonds and indirectly through ownership of shares in the Bank of the United States. He surmised, correctly as it turned out, that the financial system would be "the powerful cement of our Union."
His ideas on the National Bank Jefferson and Madison despised, making Virginia pay the debts of other states, as well as a threat to Republican Government. Hamilton had no loyalty to any state, but to the Constitution. Hamilton saw paying the debt a blessing rather than a burden, in addition to aligning the interests of the wealthy with those of the government, his funding plan would increase the nation's credit overseas, making it cheaper and easier for both the government and private enterprises to obtain foreign financing. Finally, funding would create a form of liquid capital that would help the economy to allocate resources more efficiently.
Madison's solution on paying the debt was insufficient, and discriminatory; Madison wanted to group the original debt holders at the expense of current debt holders; Hamilton eventually crushed the discrimination argument with his usual barrage of logic and first principles. The debt instruments were simply a species of property, the value of which fluctuated with the government's fortunes and interest rates. They were, moreover, fully negotiable instruments. In other words, exchanging them was perfectly legal. The original holders had not been coerced into selling and had received a valuable consideration for the ownership of the obligations. Only the current owners of the bonds, Hamilton concluded, could be compensated. For those who could not follow his reasoning, Hamilton offered the Continental Congressional resolution of April 26, 1783, authored ironically enough by Madison, that solemnly pledged that there would be no discrimination against those who obtained government debt in the secondary market.
Thinking through the matter of the Bank being owned and operated by the government, or being privitized, in Hamilton's view, independent managers would prevent abuse by the government and provide a necessary check against its possible perfidy, much like judicial review did for courts and legislatures. The private status of the Bank would ensure that the government could never use it as a tool of oppression. As Hamilton noted, governments were never "blessed with a constant succession of upright and wise Administrators." But the Bank, as a private institution, would have a "magnetic sense" of its "own interest ... the prosperity of the institution" and thereby prevent the government from succumbing to "the temptations of momentary exigencies."
http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/910687.html
Today's corruption, and greed of man is a totally different animal compared to 18th century America. It seems the longer the nation exists, the more wicked it becomes, throwing off the Biblical fundamentals the Founding Fathers grew up with. Of Hamilton,
Chancellor James Kent called him, a lawyer that had no superior. (emphasis added)
Politically, if he would have been more sympathetic, and understanding, the Federalists would not have lost the Presidency of 1800. If he could have united the Federalists, rather than splitting them up, Adams would have beaten Jefferson in 1800; even with Hamilton's death, the Federalists would still have been the most powerful party. But Hamilton had enemies, and helped divide the party.
In the end, Hamilton fell mortally wounded on the dueling grounds at Weehawken, the financial system was thriving. Joint-stock banks were rapidly multiplying, as were other types of joint-stock companies, not all of which, thanks to Hamilton's insight, needed formal incorporation to begin operations. The credit of the U.S. was among the best in the world; U.S. bonds and stock in the Bank of the United States regularly traded in London as well as in the active securities markets of Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, and Charleston. The nation's credit was so good that it easily borrowed to purchase Louisiana and to fight wars. The first Bank helped to keep the macroeconomy on an even keel by checking the note issue of state banks. The entire nation had a single unit of account, the U.S. dollar, that was firmly defined in terms of gold and silver. Fire and marine insurance was almost fully formed; life insurance lay just over the horizon, as did trust companies, savings banks, and building-and-loans. Great leaps in manufacturing—ultimately funded by banks and capital markets—began just a few years after Hamilton's death. Most importantly, economic growth, increases in real per capita output, was picking up steam, soon literally as well as figuratively.
http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/910687.html
Alexander Hamilton was the creator of the U.S. financial system, the engine of America's remarkable nineteenth-century economic and political transformations. Wall Street, and our modern banking system, was designed by him. His legacy will always be with us. I consider him one of the great geniuses the United States has produced.
"I consider Napoleon, Fox, and Hamilton the three greatest men of our epoch, and if I were forced to decide between the three, I would give without hesitation the first place to Hamilton. He divined Europe." --Charles Maurice de Talleyrand
I agree with Hercules Mulligan that Washington had the universal confidence and respect from the other framers to be first President of the early Republic; from President James Monroe's testimony, without Washington's leadership, the Constitutional Convention would have likely failed.
I have questions regarding Washington's Christianity; unlike Alexander Hamilton, whose writings tell us he believed the Christian Religion Divine, amidst his personal failures. In comparing Washington's simple genius with the brilliance of Alexander Hamilton, my allegiance is with the latter.
From his birth in the West Indies, he overcame adversity Washington, or any other framer never experienced. He also had to deal with prejudice from some framers who were born with silver spoons in their mouths, some launching assaults at his birth out of wedlock.
He was, as John Adams later claimed, "the bastard brat of a Scottish peddler." Hamilton, at the age of 13, had to prevail when his mother, who had pieced together a livelihood as a retailer, died. He prevailed again when his guardian, a distant relative named Peter Lytton, committed suicide the following year.
At 19, in the United States, Hamilton put a brigade together on his own, getting his troops and supplies himself, while being appointed a captain of the New York Artillery. Hamilton and his men fought bravely in several early battles, including the unsuccessful attempt to hold Manhattan from the British. Hamilton and his unit covered Washington's retreat across New Jersey. In the sharpest exchanges, Hamilton's artillery kept the British at bay while the bulk of the American forces crossed first the Raritan River and later the Delaware. Hamilton also took part in the successful, and famous, counterattacks at Trenton and Princeton in the winter of 1776–77.
Hamilton was not only a military genius, he was an administrative, legal, economic, and political genius as well. Washington recognized his talent, giving ever-increasing responsibility to the young officer, now a lieutenant colonel. During the next few years of fighting, when desertion was all too common, Hamilton stayed loyally by his commander's side. He was there for the frozen winters at Valley Forge and Morristown; the military disasters like the abandonment of New York City in 1776 and the subsequent retreat across New Jersey; the real treacheries of Benedict Arnold, and the perceived treacheries of an impotent Continental Congress; and the failed opportunities like Monmouth, when he was at Washington's side when the Virginia gentleman lambasted General Charles Lee in mid-battle for gross misconduct. And Hamilton was with Washington during the good times, the infrequent victories, and the secret march to trap Cornwallis at Yorktown.
http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/910687.html
Hamilton was also the first man over the wall at Yorktown, defeating the British, showing his undaunted bravery. His genius started during the Revolutionary War, when he first thought of the National Bank. Central to Hamilton's early plans were several key provisions of what would later be the hallmarks of his financial program: foreign loans, partial government ownership of a national bank, and use of that bank to provide the national government with short-term loans.
Hamilton's thought was often far in advance of that of most of his contemporaries. This is not to say that he could see the future but rather that he took positions that remained unpopular or misunderstood until well into the nineteenth century. Two episodes in 1784 demonstrate his prescience. First, Hamilton established a private commercial bank. The innovation came not so much from the bank itself, which closely followed the procedures established by its predecessor, the Bank of North America. Rather, the innovation came from the way in which the bank, the very same Bank of New York that still graces Wall Street, found legal life. The New York legislature was against his idea, so he by-passed them and started it himself; the most essential advantages of his idea: joint-stock form, negotiable shares, status as a legal entity, and limited liability. So the Bank of New York formed and began business anyway, under private "articles of association" instead of a special legislative act. Hamilton used the same technique again with the Merchants' Bank in the early nineteenth century.
Hamilton presented several monumental state papers that, when combined with the entrepreneurial talents and self-interested desires of thousands of Americans, forged a national financial system: The Report on Public Credit (January 9, 1790), The Report on the Bank (December 13, 1790), The Establishment of a Mint (January 28, 1791), and The Report on Manufactures (December 5, 1791). Taken together, Hamilton's reports were nothing short of a strategic outline for the establishment of a thriving economy rooted solidly in the bedrock of sound fiscal management, a stable monetary system, extensive short-term commercial credit, and long-term development capital. On the grandest scale, the secretary's policies helped to solidify the new government by creating incentives for wealthy individuals to invest in it, directly through ownership of its bonds and indirectly through ownership of shares in the Bank of the United States. He surmised, correctly as it turned out, that the financial system would be "the powerful cement of our Union."
His ideas on the National Bank Jefferson and Madison despised, making Virginia pay the debts of other states, as well as a threat to Republican Government. Hamilton had no loyalty to any state, but to the Constitution. Hamilton saw paying the debt a blessing rather than a burden, in addition to aligning the interests of the wealthy with those of the government, his funding plan would increase the nation's credit overseas, making it cheaper and easier for both the government and private enterprises to obtain foreign financing. Finally, funding would create a form of liquid capital that would help the economy to allocate resources more efficiently.
Madison's solution on paying the debt was insufficient, and discriminatory; Madison wanted to group the original debt holders at the expense of current debt holders; Hamilton eventually crushed the discrimination argument with his usual barrage of logic and first principles. The debt instruments were simply a species of property, the value of which fluctuated with the government's fortunes and interest rates. They were, moreover, fully negotiable instruments. In other words, exchanging them was perfectly legal. The original holders had not been coerced into selling and had received a valuable consideration for the ownership of the obligations. Only the current owners of the bonds, Hamilton concluded, could be compensated. For those who could not follow his reasoning, Hamilton offered the Continental Congressional resolution of April 26, 1783, authored ironically enough by Madison, that solemnly pledged that there would be no discrimination against those who obtained government debt in the secondary market.
Thinking through the matter of the Bank being owned and operated by the government, or being privitized, in Hamilton's view, independent managers would prevent abuse by the government and provide a necessary check against its possible perfidy, much like judicial review did for courts and legislatures. The private status of the Bank would ensure that the government could never use it as a tool of oppression. As Hamilton noted, governments were never "blessed with a constant succession of upright and wise Administrators." But the Bank, as a private institution, would have a "magnetic sense" of its "own interest ... the prosperity of the institution" and thereby prevent the government from succumbing to "the temptations of momentary exigencies."
http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/910687.html
Today's corruption, and greed of man is a totally different animal compared to 18th century America. It seems the longer the nation exists, the more wicked it becomes, throwing off the Biblical fundamentals the Founding Fathers grew up with. Of Hamilton,
Chancellor James Kent called him, a lawyer that had no superior. (emphasis added)
Politically, if he would have been more sympathetic, and understanding, the Federalists would not have lost the Presidency of 1800. If he could have united the Federalists, rather than splitting them up, Adams would have beaten Jefferson in 1800; even with Hamilton's death, the Federalists would still have been the most powerful party. But Hamilton had enemies, and helped divide the party.
In the end, Hamilton fell mortally wounded on the dueling grounds at Weehawken, the financial system was thriving. Joint-stock banks were rapidly multiplying, as were other types of joint-stock companies, not all of which, thanks to Hamilton's insight, needed formal incorporation to begin operations. The credit of the U.S. was among the best in the world; U.S. bonds and stock in the Bank of the United States regularly traded in London as well as in the active securities markets of Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, and Charleston. The nation's credit was so good that it easily borrowed to purchase Louisiana and to fight wars. The first Bank helped to keep the macroeconomy on an even keel by checking the note issue of state banks. The entire nation had a single unit of account, the U.S. dollar, that was firmly defined in terms of gold and silver. Fire and marine insurance was almost fully formed; life insurance lay just over the horizon, as did trust companies, savings banks, and building-and-loans. Great leaps in manufacturing—ultimately funded by banks and capital markets—began just a few years after Hamilton's death. Most importantly, economic growth, increases in real per capita output, was picking up steam, soon literally as well as figuratively.
http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/910687.html
Alexander Hamilton was the creator of the U.S. financial system, the engine of America's remarkable nineteenth-century economic and political transformations. Wall Street, and our modern banking system, was designed by him. His legacy will always be with us. I consider him one of the great geniuses the United States has produced.
"I consider Napoleon, Fox, and Hamilton the three greatest men of our epoch, and if I were forced to decide between the three, I would give without hesitation the first place to Hamilton. He divined Europe." --Charles Maurice de Talleyrand
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)