AC on Jonah Golberg of National Review

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

However, Our unalienable rights are taken from the Bible:

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

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

It is the Christian religion that secures unalienable rights:

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

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



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


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


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

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

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



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

Daniel Dreisbach on Thomas Jefferson and the First Amendment

Here is historian Daniel Dreisbach's opinion of Thomas Jefferson and separation of church and state. Dreisbach says:

Jefferson firmly believed that the First Amendment, with its metaphoric "wall of separation," prohibited religious establishments by the federal government only.

Does Dreisbach believe the modern notion of establishment is what Jefferson believed? That isn't what TJ believed nor is it what he practiced. Jefferson used the historical definition of establishment used by the other framers that was defined by the Toleration Act of 1689, although the definition was common knowledge years before that. Modern liberals and conservatives are still getting TJ's separation letter to the Danbury Baptists confused. While TJ was President, there were worship services in many government buildings, including the House of Representatives. His letter to the Baptists was to protect the church from the state, not the state from the church. Here is the ultimate violation of modern separation dogma found in a government document:

And whereas, The greater part of the said tribe [Kaskaskia Indians] have been baptised and received into the Catholic church to which they are much attached, the United States will give annually for seven years one hundred dollars towards the support of a priest of that religion, who will engage to perform for the said tribe the duties of his office and also to instruct as many of their children as possible in the rudiments of literature. And the United States will further give the sum of three hundred dollars to assist the said tribe in the erection of a church.

Liberals come up with all kinds of excuses for this one, that because they were Indians, we could give them money and they could establish and evangelize whatever faith they wanted, with our money! The fact is, the founding fathers believed the Law of Nature applies to all peoples at all times. Secularists even claim the catholic priest will not evangelize, as if they know what a catholic priest does. Warren Throckmorton is another fake Christian, who promotes homosexual sin in his writing and distorts the truth of the Kaskaskia Treaty TJ signed, by writing, "The Kaskaskia were already Catholic converts." Yet the treaty says, "The greater part of the said tribe have been baptised and received into the Catholic church." The point is not that they were all Catholics or not; it's what the treaty says. They weren't all Catholics and it's no different than in our nation, where almost everyone were Christians, so why not promote Christianity?

Liberals want it both ways. Throckmorton's next sentence is just as misleading, writing:

Nothing is said directly about evangelizing, and is an inference. Nothing in the treaty required the priest to attempt to make converts.

Does that mean they won't evangelize? Of course they will evangelize. That's what they do. It's another smokescreen. And then he makes a stupid assumption, "He certainly could have involved himself in numerous other pastoral duties to the already converted."

Whether TJ wanted to evangelize the Kaskaskia is irrelevant. The point is TJ violated the first amendment given the fact he didn't believe he violated it. The law of nature applies to everyone:

[A] Bill of Rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth, general or particular; and what no just government should refuse.

--TJ to James Madison, December 20, 1787.

If Throckmorton is correct, TJ contradicted himself here by interfering with the Kaskaskia's religion:

I presume the views of the society are confined to our own country, for with the religion of other countries, my own forbids intermedling. I had not supposed there was a family in this state not possessing a bible and without having the means to procure one. when, in earlier life I was intimate with every class, I think I never was in a house where that was the case. however, circumstances may have changed, and the society I presume have evidence of the fact. I therefore inclose you chearfully an order on Messrs Gibson and Jefferson for 50.D.

--TJ to Samuel Greenhow, January 31, 1814.

TJ did not feel he could intervene with other nations and their religion because those rights are inerrant in the Law of Nature. James Madison believed the same thing:

[E]very government should be disarmed of powers which trench upon those particular rights.

--JM. Annals of Congress, June 8, 1789.

John Adams' Supposed Heterodox Theology

     I can't remember I've seen many other secularists trod out this letter except for Jon Rowe on the American Creation blog, so I thought I would give my interpretation of John Adams' 1813 letter to Thomas Jefferson, if only because the context appears so clear. The fact this letter was written when John Adams was retired and not representative of the people makes it irrelevant to the founding, but I'll play along. Here is the entire part of the letter and contains the context.

I have examined all, as well as my narrow sphere, my straitened means, and my busy life would allow me ; and the result is, that the Bible is the best book in the world. It contains more of my little philosophy than all the libraries I have seen; and such parts of it as I cannot reconcile to my little philosophy, I postpone for future investigation. Priestley ought to have given us a sketch of the religion and morals of Zoroaster, of Sanchoniathon, of Confucius, and all the founders of religions before Christ, whose superiority would, from such a comparison, have appeared the more transcendent. Priestley ought to have told us that Pythagoras passed twenty years in his travels in India, in Egypt, in Chaldea, perhaps in Sodom and Gomorrah, Tyre and Sidon. He ought to have told us, that in India he conversed with the Brahmins, and read the Shasta, five thousand years old, written in the language of the sacred Sanscrit, with the elegance and sentiments of Plato. Where is to be found theology more orthodox, or philosophy more profound, than in the introduction to the Shasta? "God is one, creator of all, universal sphere, without beginning, without end. God governs all the creation by a general providence, resulting from his eternal designs. Search not the essence and the nature of the Eternal, who is one; your research will be vain and presumptuous. It is enough, that, day by day and night by night, you adore his power, his wisdom, and his goodness, in his works. The Eternal willed, in the fulness of time, to communicate of his essence and of his splendor, to beings capable of perceiving it. They as yet existed not. The Eternal willed, and they were. He created Birma, Vitsnow, and Sib." These doctrines, sublime, if ever there were any sublime, Pythagoras learned in India, and taught them to Zaleucus and his other disciples. He there learned also his metempsychosis; but this never was popular, never made much progress in Greece or Italy, or any other country besides India and Tartary, the region of the grand immortal Lama. And how does this differ from the possessions of demons in Greece and Rome, from the demon of Socrates, from the worship of cows and crocodiles in Egypt and elsewhere? After migrating through various animals, from elephants to serpents, according to their behavior, souls that, at last, behaved well, became men and women, and then, if they were good, they went to Heaven. All ended in Heaven, if they became virtuous. Who can wonder at the widow of Malabar ? Where is the lady who, if her faith were without doubt that she should go to Heaven with her husband on the one hand, or migrate into a toad or a wasp on the other, would not lie down on the pile, and set fire to the fuel ? Modifications and disguises of the metempsychosis had crept into Egypt, and Greece, and Rome, and other countries. Have you read Farmer on the demons and possessions of the New Testament? [bold face mine]

As anyone can see, this quote throws a wrench into Jon's narrative about the founding and a generic god as God of the DOI. Adams says the religion of Christ is superior to all the others. Moving to the other part in bold, Adams quotes the intro to the Shasta? I've never read it, but it's clear Adams is saying this part is just as orthodox as the Bible, which it is, especially if you are a unitarian like Adams. This quote by itself doesn't have anything to do with the equality of Christianity, as he's already said Christ is superior.

As Bill Fortenberry says, "Now, you said that Adams does the "SAME THING" with the Hymn to Zeus that he did to the Hindu Shastra, and I agree. Adams recognized in the Hymn to Zeus a certain agreement with Christian doctrine, and in the Hindu Shastra, he also found certain agreements with Christianity. In the former he discovered an agreement in regards to the devotion that man owes to God, and in the latter he saw agreement in the concept that God is both one and three at the same time." All is well until that last part.

Bill gives the correct context for the below quote:

It has pleased the Providence of the first Cause, the Universal Cause, that Abraham should give religion not only to Hebrews but to Christians and Mahomitans, the greatest part of the modern civilized world.

– John Adams to M.M. Noah, July 31, 1818.

In regards to Adams' letter to M. M. Noah, the comment which you quoted is nothing more than a statement of fact. All three of those religions trace their origin to Abraham. The Christians trace their religion through Christ, the Jewish through Isaac and the Muslims through Ishmael. There is much in the Bible about God's blessing on the nations that are now predominantly Muslim beginning with God's promise to bless Ishmael at Abraham's request in Genesis 17:20. Of course, this does not mean that the Muslim religion is correct, but it does show that the statement made by Adams is accurate.

The Christian nation thesis is again, above reproach to any secular darts thrown its way.

New release from Dreisbach and Hall

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Another comment made in the book referring to Hamilton says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gregg Frazer's New Book

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

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


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


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


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

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

--GW to ROBERT STEWART April 27, 1763.

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Secularist reasoning and Judge William Blackstone

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

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

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

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

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

--Wilson, Works.

Throckmorton Contradicts Himself

I found a contradiction among Warren Throckmorton's posts over at his blog. The below post contradicts most of his other posts and one which I responded to about his claim for modern separation of church and state. He claimed Jefferson did not subvert separation doctrine by meddling with religious affairs of the Indians, but he does here:

I presume the views of the society are confined to our own country, for with the religion of other countries, my own forbids intermedling. I had not supposed there was a family in this state not possessing a bible and without having the means to procure one. when, in earlier life I was intimate with every class, I think I never was in a house where that was the case. however, circumstances may have changed, and the society I presume have evidence of the fact. I therefore inclose you chearfully an order on Messrs Gibson and Jefferson for 50.D.

--TJ to Samuel Greenhow, January 31, 1814

Judge temporarily blocks tough Alabama immigration law

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

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

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

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

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

Did The Founding Fathers Execute Homosexuals?

What a paradox it would be if the framers executed homosexuals, given that today, the people want to legalize it. I have no doubt our people would persecute Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, and the other framers for their views on homosexual sin. The answer is yes, the framers did execute at least one person for homosexuality. It was done in Pennsylvania, December, 1785. Guess who was President of Pennsylvania? Benjamin Franklin. Although Franklin wasn't present that day, his VP, Charles Biddell and Founding Father Peter Muhlenburg were there, and offered no pardon.

This narrative must start at the definition of terms; buggery, sodomy, and rape. All three terms were used in 18th century America. All three are defined by Webster's 1828, yet, buggery and sodomy were interchangable terms, and buggery included bestiality. Yet Sodomy and Buggery clearly referred to man on man, while rape referred to a woman.

Regarding this subject, expert John Murrin indicates Bestiality was basically non-existent due to the horror of the crime. Bestiality was synonimous to witchcraft, especially among women. Prior to the Revolution, no one was executed for bestiality in New England, mainly from lack of evidence. Bestiality is clearly from the 17th century, and not part of the founding milieu.

The Founding Fathers did execute one man for bestiality; Connecticut hanged Gideon Washburn the third friday, in January, 1800.

As to States, the Framers in Virginia, kept the Death Penalty for Buggery:

That if any do commit the detestable and abominable vice of Buggery, with man or beast, he or she so offending, shall be adjudged a felon, and shall suffer death, in the case of felony, without the benefit of Clergy.

-A Collection of All Acts of the General Assembly of Virginia 1802, (Richmond:Pleasance and Price, 1803), page 179, ch. C [50], enacted Dec. 10, 1792.

The other states emphasized the Biblical laws contained in the Common Law of England:

The first reported sodomy case in Maryland also was the first known reported case in the United States. In 1810, the Court of Appeals decided Davis v. State. By a vote of 4-1, the Court upheld an indictment that charged that Davis, "not having the fear of God before his eyes, but being moved and seduced by the instigation of the Devil, on &c. with forms and arms at, &c. in and upon one W C, a youth of the age of 19 years, in the peace of God, and the state of Maryland, then and there being, did make an assault, and him the said W C, then and there did beat, would, and ill-treat, with an intent that most horrid and detestable crime (among christians not to be named,) called Sodomy, with him the said W C, and against the order of nature, then and there feloniously, wickedly and devilishly, to commit and do, to the great displeasure of Almighty God, contrary to the act of assembly in such case made and provided, and against the peace, government, and dignity of the state." [Emphasis the Court’s].

The word Buggery was eventually forgotten, "sodomy" took its place, evidence that the issue of buggery in the 18th century, unless specifically enumerated, was homosexuality. Furthermore, besides Gideon Washburn, there were no bestiality crimes in the founding generation, thus the execution of Joseph Ross of Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania, had to be for homosexuality, approved by Benamin Franklin. The history of buggery sentences show the other partner was also punished; usually whipped.

The Greatest Influence to Thomas Jefferson

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

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

Dennis Prager, God, Liberals and Liberty

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

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:

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.

-Diary, Vol I, p. 587.

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:

[M]ay I be quickened to greater fidelity..to press home Evangelical Truths..reprehending with all authority, not shuning to declare the whole truth.

-Diary, Oct. 22, 1769. 

His Diary presents short entries of debate that never appear to escalate detailing Christian doctrine:

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.

-Diary, May 9, 1770.

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:

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, Theology I.

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:

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.150

In 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."

-American Mercury, Sept. 25, 1800.

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:

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]

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

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:

Requiring citizens to support religion is not only consistent with freedom, but the primary cause of it.

-Woods, History of Andover,  p. 106.

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.

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.

-Sermons I, On Revelation, p. 103.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here is more of a taste of Mr. Fischer:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alexander Hamilton; The Calvinist, Part II

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

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

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

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

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

"On Sunday he will attend the morning church."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alexander Hamilton; The Calvinist, Part I

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

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

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

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

-Hamilton, FEDERALIST No. 78

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-TO JOHN PARISH. February 18th, 1806.

Morris claimed to be a Christian, not a rationalist:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-To James Madison, Oct 17, 1774.

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

This next quote highlites the Calvinism he learned at Princeton:

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

-To William Bradford, June 19th, 1775.

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

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

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

-Commonplace Book, 1759-1772.

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

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

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

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

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

Madison quoted John Calvin as late Feb. 1788:

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

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

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

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

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