Massachusetts Unitarians And The Laws of Nature

Massachusetts Unitarians: John Adams, Thomas Cushing, and Robert Treat Paine (although Paine was a Calvinist early on) understood The Laws of Nature, unless enumerated, included the Scriptures. The four men from Massachusetts Bay listed below, were the most respected men in the Colony. Here, in the Provincial Congress of Massachusetts Bay, these Founding Fathers, with John Hancock as President, show us the distinction; again, proving The Laws of Nature in the Declaration of Independence is the Christian God:

Province of the Massachusetts Bay

In Provincial Congress Cambridge
December 5th 1774.

Resolved, that the proceedings of the American continental Congress held at Philadelphia, on the fifth day of September last, and Reported by the honble Delegates from this Colony, have with the deliberation due to their high importance been considered by us; and the American Bill of rights therein contained, appears to be formed with the greatest Ability and Judgment; to be founded on the immutable Laws of Nature and reason, the principles of the English constitution, and respective Charters and constitutions of the Colonies, and to be worthy of their most vigorous support, as essentially necessary to liberty. Likewise the ruinous and eniquitous measures, which, in violation of these RIGHTS, at present convulse and threaten destruction to America, appear to be clearly pointed out, and judicious plans adopted for defeating them.

Resolved, That the most grateful acknowledgments are due to the truly honorable and patriotic Members of the Continental Congress, for their wise and able exertions in the cause of American Liberty; and this Congress, in their own Names, and in behalf of this Colony, do hereby, with the utmost Sincerity, express the same.

Resolved, That the Hon. John Hancock, Hon. Thomas Cushing, Esquires, Mr. Samuel Adams, John Adams, and Robert Treat Paine, Esquires, or any three of them, be, and they hereby are appointed and authorized to represent this Colony, on the tenth of May next, or sooner if necessary, at the American Congress, to be held at Philadelphia, with full power, with the Delegates from the Other American Colonies, to concert, agree upon, direct and order such farther measures, as shall to them appear to be best calculated for the recovery and establishment of American rights and Liberties, and for restoring harmony between Great-Britain and the Colonies. [bold face mine]

A true copy of record,

Benjamin Lincoln, Secretary.1
[Note 1: 1 The original is in the Papers of the Continental Congress, Massachusetts, Credentials of Delegates.]

Furthermore, the Unitarians of the 18th Century adhered to Biblical Inspiration, differing from most of their 19th Century counterparts who believed the Bible was not inspired. The term "of God and Nature" was in common use by Christian Philosophers and the Founding Fathers:

The least of men is a man as well as a giant: And those in the West-Indies who have not above twenty or thirty subjects able to bear arms, are kings as well as Xerxes. Every nation may divide itself into small parcels as some have done, by the same law they have restrained or abolished their kings, joined to one another, or taken their hazard of subsisting by themselves; acted by delegation, or retaining the power in their own persons; given finite or indefinite powers; reserved to themselves a power of punishing those who should depart from their duty, or referred it to their general assemblies. And that liberty, for which we contend as the gift of God and nature, remains equally to them all."

--Algernon Sidney, Discourses Concerning Government, Section 44: No People That Is Not Free Can Substitute Delegates, [1698]. Ed. Thomas G. West (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund 1996).

John Adams also wrote of "God and Nature"

The Revolutionary Diplomatic Correspondence of the United States, Volume 3
J. Adams to the President of Congress.*
[Note *: * MSS. Dep. of State; 3 Sparks' Dip. Rev. Corr., 137, with verbal changes.]
Paris, June 16, 1780

..."With the independence of America," says he, "we must give up our fisheries on the bank of Newfoundland and in the American seas." Supposing this to be true, which it is in part, but not in the whole, if Great Britain loses her fisheries, does not America gain them? Are they not an object then to America as important and desirable as to Great Britain? Has not America then at least as strong and pressing a motive to fight for them as Great Britain? The question then is reduced to another--Which has the best prospect of contending for them successfully? America, favored by all the world, or Great Britain, thwarted and opposed by all the world. And to whom did God and nature give them? The English lay great stress upon the gifts of God and nature, as they call the advantage of their insular situation, to justify their injustice and hostilities against all the maritime powers of the world. Why should the Americans hold the blessings of Providence in a lower estimation, which they can enjoy, without doing injury to any nation or individual whatsoever? ....

John Adams uses the phrase again to Presbyterian William Livingston:

Be assured that when contemptible discord, with its odious attendants, artifice and imposture, could effectuate nothing, absolutely nothing, at the moment when the present war broke out, to prejudice in the least the fidelity of the citizens of the Amstel, or to shake them in the observation of their duties, the inconveniences and the evils that a war naturally and necessarilly draws after it, will not produce the effect neither; yes, we will submit more willingly to them, accordingly as we shall perceive that the means that God and nature have put into our hands are more and more employed to reduce and humble a haughty enemy."

--John Adams, letter to Livingston*, March 19, 1782, The Revolutionary Diplomatic Correspondence of the United States, Vol. 5. [* - MSS. Dep. of State; 3 Sparks' Dip. Rev. Corr., 562.]

Also, the foremost authority on the Laws of Nature understood the distinction by using the of "God and Nature" This proves James Wilson, in his "Lectures on Law" viewed God's word superior to Natural Law,which many have apparently missed from his writings. There are those who claim Wilson believed Revelation could not supercede Reason. Here Wilson destroys that argument, as he writes God first, then reason, as though reason could be superior to God:

But however great the variety and inequality of men may be with regard to virtue, talents, taste, and acquirements; there is still one aspect, in which all men in society, previous to civil government, are equal. With regard to all, there is an equality in rights and in obligations; there is that "jus aequum," that equal law, in which the Romans placed true freedom. The natural rights and duties of man belong equally to all. Each forms a part of that great system, whose greatest interest and happiness are intended by all the laws of God and nature. These laws prohibit the wisest and the most powerful from inflicting misery on the meanest and most ignorant; and from depriving them of their rights or just acquisitions. By these laws, rights, natural or acquired, are confirmed, in the same manner, to all; to the weak and artless, their small acquisitions, as well as to the strong and artful, their large ones. If much labour employed entitles the active to great possessions, the indolent have a right, equally sacred, to the little possessions, which they occupy and improve. [bold face mine]

--James Wilson, 1791, "Lectures on Law". [The Works of James Wilson. Edited by Robert Green McCloskey. 2 vols. Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1967.]

Unitarians respected probable unitarian, John Locke:

The obligations of the law of nature cease not in society, but only in many cases are drawn closer, and have by human laws known penalties annexed to them, to inforce their observation. Thus the law of nature stands as an eternal rule to all men, legislators as well as others. The rules that they make for other men's actions, must, as well as their own and other men's actions, be conformable to the law of nature, i.e. to the will of God, of which that is a declaration, and the fundamental law of nature being the preservation of mankind, no human sanction can be good, or valid against it. [bold face mine]

--John Locke, "The Second Treatise of Government" - Chapter 11 - Of the Extent of the Legislative Power. (1690).

The Father of the Bill of Rights declared the distinction in a Court of Virginia:

The laws of nature are the laws of God, whose authority can be superseded by no power on earth.

--George Mason, 1772 [Robin v. Hardaway, General Court of Virginia]

Revolutionary General Arthur Lee differentiates the two components of The Laws of Nature:

"...At the same time he trusts that the Spanish nation will receive no inconsiderable retribution from the freedom of that commerce the monopoly of which contributed so much to strengthen and aggrandize her rival and her foe; nor can anything give more lasting satisfaction to the royal mind than the reflection of having employed those means which God has put into his hands in assisting an oppressed people to vindicate those rights and liberties which have been violated by twice six years of incessant injuries and insulted supplications; those rights which God and nature, together with the convention of their ancestors and the constitution of their country, gave to the people of the States. Instead of that protection in those rights which was the due return for sovereignty exercised over them, they have seen their defenseless towns wantonly laid in ashes, their unfortified country cruelly desolated, their property wasted, their people slain; the ruthless savage, whose inhuman war spares neither age nor sex, instigated against them; the hand of the servant armed against his master by public proclamation, and the very food which the sea that washes their coast furnishes forbidden them by a law of unparalleled folly and injustice. Proinde quasi injuriam facere id demure esset imperio uti. Nor was it enough that for these purposes the British force was exhausted against them, but foreign mercenaries were also bribed to complete the butchery of their people and the devastation of their country. And that nothing might be wanting to make the practices equivalent to the principles of this war, the minds of these mercenaries were poisoned with every prejudice that might harden their hearts and sharpen their swords against a people who not only never injured or offended them, but who have received with open arms and provided habitations for their wandering countrymen. These are injuries which the Americans can never forget. These are oppressors whom they can never again endure. The force of intolerable and accumulated outrages has compelled them to appeal to God and to the sword. The King of Spain, in assisting them to maintain that appeal, assists in vindicating the violated rights of human nature. No cause can be more illustrious, no motive more magnanimous. [bold face mine]

--Arthur Lee, March 17, 1777, Letter to Florida Blanca, [The Revolutionary Diplomatic Correspondence of the United States, Volume 2]

Again, the Continental Congress differentiating the laws of Revelation and the law of Nature:

Friends and Countrymen: Three years have now passed away, since the commencement of the present war: a war without parallel in the annals of mankind. It hath displayed a spectacle, the most solemn that can possibly be exhibited. On one side, we behold fraud and violence laboring in the service of despotism; on the other, virtue and fortitude supporting and establishing the rights of human nature...Trust not to appearances of peace or safety. Be assured that, unless you persevere, you will be exposed to every species of barbarity. But, if you exert the means of defence which God and nature have given you, the time will soon arrive when every man shall sit under his own vine and under his own fig-tree, and there shall be none to make him afraid...." [bold face mine]

--AN ADDRESS OF THE CONGRESS TO THE INHABITANTS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. MAY 8, 1778.

Even Deists, like James Monroe make the distinction:

Letters of Delegates to Congress: Volume 22
James Monroe to Joseph Brant
Dear Sir,(1) (Copy) New York. Febry. 5th. 1785

It is the earnest disposition of the States to cultivate the friendship of the Indians, and of course, the less they are connected with other powers, the more agreeable it will be to them; and the greater confidence they will be able to place in them. Examine your own situation; look to the Powers of Europe; mark their objects and progress on this Continent; then look to the united States; with whom does the powerful impulse of nature, or the God of nature bid you ally yourselves!

Israel seizes ship with Iran arms for Gaza-Netanyahu

Israel seizes ship with arms from Iran headed for Gaza.

It is amazing the Israeli's still want to make peace with Muslim nations. The Jews have to know Muslims want to destroy them; but they continue to deal with them. The United States being a guilty party putting pressure on Israel to deal with these pirates:

Nine years ago, Israeli forces intercepted the merchant ship Karine-A in the Red Sea and brought it to the Israeli port of Eilat, where the military displayed 50 tonnes of weapons, including rockets, which Israel said Iran had sent to Palestinian militants.

It never ceases to end. Century after century, Muslims attempting to destroy Israel, and they continue to allow the United States to broker a Palestinian State for a better concerted attack against Israel.

Christian Preferences Of The 2012 Republican Nomination

The Barna Group has completed a poll of Christian preferences for the 2012 Republican Nomination.

Concerning Catholics, it looks good for Huck, who make up a large amount of Independents. From a previous poll, Huck has already won the South; that is, all of the South, including Florida and Gingrich's home state Georgia. Christians will not vote for Gingrich. He's been married three times, had affairs on two of his wives, delivering divorce papers to his first wife at the hospital while she had cancer, having two children with his high school math teacher, whom he married at 19.

Huck should take FL, OH, NC, VA, and IN. Obama took those States because McCain would not take private money. It is probable once the budget woes get better in WI, he should win that State too.

Counting the States McCain won, he will have 270 electoral votes.

"The Unions are Big Money"

I would urge everyone to check out this website:

The unions are big money. Five of the top ten contributors to congressional and presidential campaigns since 1989 are labor unions according to the Center for Responsive Politics. In the last election, 10 of the top 20 PACs were union PACs.


More importantly, it's not as if Big Labor is balancing out the rest of "big money." Does Krugman know that all of the top ten industries contributing to the 2010 elections gave more money to Democrats than to Republicans? That's right: Lawyers, Health Professionals, Securities & Investment, Real Estate, Insurance, Lobbyists, Pharma, Government Unions, Entertainment, and Electric Utilities all favored Democrats in 2010.

I never understood the Unions, not the Corporations give the most money--and they give to the Democratic Party.

Another Attack, However Subtle, Against "The Christian Nation Thesis"

John Fea has a new book out called "Was America Founded as a Christian Nation?" However, he has written a post on his blog indicative of his book's theme; rejecting the United States was formed a Christian Nation. If Fea doesn't accept the framers' proclaiming we are a Christian Nation, he must reject the type of Christianity the Colonists formed, in otherwords, reject the framers were Orthodox.

It is already a proven fact, without any dispute whatsoever, the Founding Fathers considered us a Christian Nation. They wrote it several times in public pronouncements, and formed the States establishing Christianity:

If the public homage of a people can ever be worthy the favorable regard of the Holy and Omniscient Being to whom it is addressed, it must be that in which those who join in it are guided only by their free choice, by the impulse of their hearts and the dictates of their consciences; and such a spectacle must be interesting to all Christian nations as proving that religion, that gift of Heaven for the good of man, freed from all coercive edicts, from that unhallowed connection with the powers of this world which corrupts religion into an instrument or an usurper of the policy of the state...Upon these principles and with these views the good people of the United States are invited, in conformity with the resolution aforesaid, to dedicate the day above named to the religious solemnities therein recommended. [bold face mine]

--Given at Washington, this 23d day of July, A. D. 1813.[seal.] JAMES MADISON

Note, Madison--the Orthodox Christian--like all his references about religion early in life, refers to religion as only Christianity.

Here is John Adams claiming we are a Christian people:

[T]hat they may consider what further measures the honor and interest of the Government and its constituents demand; if a resolution to do justice as far as may depend upon me, at all times and to all nations, and maintain peace, friendship, and benevolence with all the world; if an unshaken confidence in the honor, spirit, and resources of the American people, on which I have so often hazarded my all and never been deceived; if elevated ideas of the high destinies of this country and of my own duties toward it, founded on a knowledge of the moral principles and intellectual improvements of the people deeply engraven on my mind in early life, and not obscured but exalted by experience and age; and, with humble reverence, I feel it to be my duty to add, if a veneration for the religion of a people who profess and call themselves Christians, and a fixed resolution to consider a decent respect for Christianity among the best recommendations for the public service, can enable me in any degree to comply with your wishes, it shall be my strenuous endeavor that this sagacious injunction of the two Houses shall not be without effect.

--First Inaugural, In the City of Philadelphia, Saturday, March 4, 1797.

This proves beyond any doubt Nature's God in the Declaration of Independence was the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Adams helped draft the Declaration. When Virginia and Massachusetts formed Christianity as the established religion of their respective States, it wasn't Unitarianism they had in mind; it was what they allowed. In Massachusetts, the Unitarian Adams was part of the secret minority in 1780 who personally understood Christian Unitarianism was Christianity. Anyway, here is Fea:

When we think of the defenders of a Christian America today, the Christian Right immediately comes to mind. We think of people like Glenn Beck (who despite his Mormonism has joined forces with many Christian nationalists), David Barton, Peter Marshall and David Manuel, or Newt Gingrich. All of these public figures have championed the idea that the United States was founded as a Christian nation. Their careers have been defined by the belief that this country needs to return to its Christian roots in order to receive the blessings of God. Rarely, if ever, do we hear the name Martin Luther King, Jr., included in this list of apologists for Christian America. Yet he was just as much of an advocate for a "Christian America" as any who affiliate with the Christian Right today.

Without getting into the subject of Martin Luther King Jr, who wasn't even a Christian, (He denied Biblical Inerrancy, The Deity of Jesus Christ, et al.) therefore he is irrelevant as any other heterodox framer, like Benjamin Franklin, in claiming we were formed a Christian Nation. Biblically speaking, King and Franklin's Christianity is not Christian. Politically speaking, Unitarianism or Arianism, may have been accepted under the umbrella of Christianity, however, the vast majority of Colonial Protestants were Orthodox, thus, the governing documents reflected their Orthodox sentiments, not those of Arianism or any other ism.

It was claimed by the framers themselves, not just David Barton, et al; that by violating the Scriptures, not only would the Blessings cease, but judgment was just around the corner:

As nations can not [sic] be rewarded or punished in the next world they must be in this. By an inevitable chain of causes & effects[,] providence punishes national sins, by national calamities.

--The Father of the Bill of Rights. The Constitutional Convention. Robert A. Rutland, ed., The Papers of George Mason (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1970), p.966.

George Mason was an Evangelical--as nearly all of them were--Christian Fundamentalist, who partook of the Communion elements that signified his belief in Christ's Vicarious Blood Atonement for Sin.

Noah Webster and James Madison were emphatic in defining terms correctly, otherwise subverting the Constitution could ensue. The Christian States allowed any practicing faith, Christian or not, that did not violate public order or the Scriptures.

Without showing my hand--something left for a book--the Founding Fathers wrote our governing documents in Orthodox language.

Was the Father of Virginia Orthodox?

George Wythe was the intellectual Giant of Virginia. He trained Thomas Jefferson, John Marshall, James Monroe, and Henry Clay. His reputation was impeccable, yet not much is known about his faith. Mr. Munford, who gave his eulogy, and had lived with him stated he was a Christian:

He made no public confession of his religious faith ; and, as Mr. Jefferson has observed respecting him that "that religion must be good which could produce a life of such exemplary virtue," there have been doubts of his belief in the Christian system; but these are at once and forever dispelled by the declarations of Mr. Munford, who stated, in his eulogy pronounced over the corpse of Wythe in the Hall of the House of Delegates, that prayers for the mercies of his Redeemer were among his most fervent and latest aspirations.

--THE VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1776. A DISCOURSE// DELIVERED BEFORE THE VIRGINIA ALPHA or THE PHI BETA KAPPA SOCIETY, IN THE CHAPEL OF WILLIAM AND MAKY COLLEGE, IN THE CITY OF WILLIAMSBURG, ON THE AFTERNOON OF JULY THE 3rd, 1855. BY HUGH BLAIR GRIGSBY. [published By A Resolution Of The Society] J. W. RANDOLPH, * 121 MAIN STREET, RICHMOND, VA. 1855.

Without reading his biography, Wythe was not as hostile to fundamental Christianity as his friend Thomas Jefferson:

At this period he acquired that attachment to the Christian religion, which, though his faith was afterwards shaken by the difficulties suggested by sceptical writers, never altogether forsook him, and towards the close of his life was renovated and firmly established. Though he never connected himself with any sect of Christians, yet for many years he constantly attended church, and the bible was his favourite book.

--The American Law Journal and Miscellaneous Repertory, p. 93-94. Vol III. By John Elihu Hall. PHILADELPHIA: PUBLISHED BY FARRAND AND NICHOLAS. Also by Philip H. Nicklin & Co. Balt1more; D. W. Farrand & Green, Alban; D. Mallory .\ Co. Boston; Lyman, Hall k Co. Portland; Swift & Chipman, Middlcbury, (Vt.); Patterson and Hopkins, Pittsburg; and J. W. Campbell, Petersburg, Virginia.Try & Kammerer, Printers.1810.

A better perusal of his faith is needed. However, Chris Rodda repeats Bishop Meade's assertion Wythe was hostile to Christianity, linking him with Thomas Jefferson. Most likely Bishop Meade considered Wythe and Jefferson two peas in a pod, which may or may not have been the case. Wythe was silent regarding faith, and a close friend with the infidel Thomas Jefferson. However, Wythe never had the reputation of hostility against Christianity as TJ did. The evidence supports an active church membership early in life, his lukewarm faith by the time of the Revolution, then his subsequent return to fervent faith.

Wythe's attorney wrote "he had declared to him his firm belief in Christianity."

Did George Washington Commune?

John Fea posted an opinion piece about George Washington's faith on AOL. There is a reference concerning accounts GW communed. These accounts are from Clergy and a respected military officer (whose good character and memory is testified to by Bishop Meade) not from persons wanting their names in the paper. Yes, communion accounts are not in GW's handwriting. However, there are countless Orthodox Christian Fundamentalists that have no written accounts of communion.

The account of James Abercrombie--the Asst. Rector of Christ's Church in Philadelphia--of GW walking out of communion may be due to an ulterior motive. GW may have had an issue with him, or his Church, thus, Bishop White and James Abercrombie never saw him commune. As to GW walking out of communion, Bishop Meade gives a probable reason:

[I]n former days there was a most mistaken notion, too prevalent both in England and America, that it was not so necessary in the professors of religion to communicate at all times, but that in this respect persons might be regulated by their feelings, and perhaps by the circumstances in which they were placed. I have had occasion to see much of this in my researches into the habits of the members of the old Church of Virginia. Into this error of opinion and practice General Washington may have fallen, especially at a time when he was peculiarly engaged with the cares of government and a multiplicity of engagements, and when his piety may have suffered some loss thereby.

First, here is a first-hand account witnessing GW taking communion:

Extract From Major Popham's Letter To Mrs. Jane Washington

New York, March 14, 1839. My Dear Madam: You will doubtless be not a little surprised at receiving a letter from an individual whose name may possibly never have reached you; but an accidental circumstance has given me the extreme pleasure of introducing myself to your notice. In a conversation with the Reverend Doctor Berrian, a few days since, he informed me that he had lately paid a visit to Mount Vernon, and that Mrs. Washington had expressed a wish to have a doubt removed from her mind, which had long oppressed her, as to the certainty of the General's having attended the communion while residing in the city of New York subsequent to the Revolution. As nearly all the remnants of those days are now sleeping with their fathers, it is not very probable that at this late day an individual can be found who could satisfy this pious wish of your virtuous heart except the writer. It was my great good fortune to have attended St. Paul's Church in this city with the General during the whole period of his residence in New York as President of the United States. The pew of Chief-Justice Morris was situated next to that of the President, close to whom I constantly sat in Judge Morris's pew, and I am as confident as a memory now laboring under the pressure of fourscore years and seven can make me, that the President had more than once—I believe I may say often—attended at the sacramental table, at which I had the privilege and happiness to kneel with him. And I am aided in my associations by my elder daughter, who distinctly recollects her grandmamma—Mrs. Morris —often mentioned that fact with great pleasure. Indeed, I am further confirmed in my assurance by the perfect recollection of the President's uniform deportment during divine service in church. The steady seriousness of his manner, the solemn, audible, and subdued tone of voice in which he read and repeated the responses, the Chrisitan humility which overspread and adorned the native dignity of the saviour of his country, at once exhibited him a pattern to all who had the honor of access to him. It was my good fortune, my dear madam, to have had frequent intercourse with him. It was my pride and boast to have seen him in various situations—in the flush of victory, in the field, and in the tent—in the church and at the altar, always himself, ever the same. [bold face mine]

--Bishop Meade, Old Churches Vol. II. p. 490. George Washington The Christian by William J. Johnson. Andover-Harvard Theological Library Cambridge, Mass. 1919.

Notice his daughter--having a better memory than him--seconds the account by remembering her grandmother affirming the event. This cannot be swept under the rug. Furthermore, Major Popham served under Washington and was married into the Morris family; a distinguished family GW knew. The Major writes he sometimes sat in Judge Morris's pew, next to Washington.

It appears this is an authentic first hand account of a man--vouched for by Bishop Meade--testifying he communed with George Washington at St. Paul's Church in New York. This is important because Abercrombie was pastoring Christ's Church in Philadelphia.

Here is second-hand account of Washington Taking Communion:

I have the following anecdote," says Dr. Coxe, "from unquestionable authority. It has never, I think, been given to the public; but I received it from a venerable clergyman [Dr. Hillyer], who had it from the lips of the Rev. Dr. Jones [Johnes] himself. To all Christians, and to all Americans, it cannot fail to be acceptable:

"While the American army, under the command of Washington, lay encamped at Morristown, New Jersey [winter of 1776-7], it occurred that the service of the communion [then observed semiannually only] was to be administered in the Presbyterian church of that village. In a morning of the previous week the General, after his accustomed inspection of the camp, visited the house of the Rev. Doctor Jones [Johnes], then pastor of the church, and, after the usual preliminaries, thus accosted him: "'Doctor, I understand that the Lord's Supper is to be celebrated with you next Sunday. I would learn if it accords with the canon of your church to admit communicants of another denomination?' "The Doctor rejoined, 'Most certainly; ours is not the Presbyterian table, General, but the Lord's table; and we hence give the Lord's invitation to all his followers, of whatever name.' "The General replied, 'I am glad of it; that is as it ought to be; but, as I was not quite sure of the fact, I thought I would ascertain it from yourself, as I propose to join with you on that occasion. Though a member of the Church of England, I have no exclusive partialities.' "The Doctor reassured him of a cordial welcome, and the General was found seated with the communicants the next Sabbath."

This account is from a Clergyman to another Clergyman. Who would claim their testimony is not valid? Also, in the account is more testimony to support this event.

This doesn't mean Washington was a Christian. But it doesn't mean he wasn't a Christian either. The fact he never mentioned his faith in Christ is not evidence for or against. Many people do not wear their religion on their sleeve, yet alone write about it.

Although GW walked out of communion for many years, based on this testimony, this is a foundation for making the claim George Washington was a Christian.

James Madison Quoting The Trinity

As the days go by, the Christian Orthodoxy of the Founding Fathers looms ever larger. As with previous posts concerning Alexander Hamilton quoting the Trinity, President John Quincy Adams, and Chief Justice John Marshall spurning the Unitarians for a neutral position on points of Christian Orthodoxy-- the Orthodoxy of President James Madison was consistent his entire life. Yes, there are some comments JM made that lend support against Orthodoxy, but that evidence is limited, and would succumb to the majority evidence.

Important to note, the preponderance of the evidence supports Madison never changed his views. In his childhood he had witnessed the persecution by the Anglican establishment, and therefore had a strict view of separation of church/state relations, voicing his opinion vociferously at Princeton. This view never left him--even after he retired. These separation views should not be construed to conflict with his faith in Jesus Christ; The One he believed is God:

Gospels.

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

"Omnisciency--God's foreknowledge doth not compel, but permits to be done." Acts, ch. II. v. 23.

"Christ's divinity appears by St. John, ch. XX. v. 28."
"Resurrection testified and witnessed by the Apostles. Acts, ch. IV. v. 33."

-Madison's "Notes on Commentary on the Bible" found in The Papers of James Madison, p. 51-59. Vol. I. 16 Mar 1751 - 16 Dec. 1779. Edited by William T. Hutchinson and William M. E. Rachal. 1962, by the University of Chicago Press.

As I mentioned earlier in this post, there is no substantial evidence that James Madison changed these beliefs: The Deity of Christ, Tri-Unity of God, Original Sin, and Pre-destination. If there are, they haven't been discovered yet. His writings about separation doctrine begin at Princeton University; at that time, the most Orthodox Seminary in the World.

Now that we understand not to confuse his views on separation doctrine with his faith, let us look at the minority evidence against James Madison's Orthodoxy. Here is James Madison in an address to the Cherokee Indians in 1812:

The Great Spirit has given you, like your white brethren, good heads to contrive, and strong arms, and active bodies. Use them like your white brethren of the eighteen fires, and like them, your little sparks will grow into great fires. You will be well fed, dwell in good houses, and enjoy the happiness for which you, like them, were created. These are the words of your father to his red children. The Great Spirit who is the father of us all, approves them. Let them pass through the ear in to the heart. Carry them home to your people; and as long as you remember this visit to your father of the eighteen fires, remember these are his last and best words to you!

This statement can barely prove Madison retracted his views of Christ; His name isn't even mentioned. Furthermore, JM wrote all other religions besides Christianity were false:

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.

-Memorial and Remonstrance, June 20, 1785.

Here, is another account referring to JM's heterodoxy:

I found the President more free and open than I expected, starting subjects of conversation and making remarks that sometimes savored of humor and levity. He sometimes laughed, and I was glad to hear it ; but his face was always grave. He talked of religious sects and parties, and was curious to know how the cause of liberal Christianity stood with us, and if the Athanasian creed was well received by our Episcopalians. He pretty distinctly intimated to me his own regard for the Unitarian doctrines.

— TICKNOR, GEORGE, 1815, Letter to his Father, Jan. 21 ; Life, Letters and Journals, vol. I, p. 30.

The problem is these words are not from the pen of James Madison, nor do they refer to the person of Jesus Christ.

Lastly, Madison refers to an Arian, Samuel Clarke, while defending God created the universe:

I have duly recd the copy of your little tract on the proofs of the Being & Attributes of God. To do full justice to it, would require not only a more critical attention than I have been able to bestow on it, but a resort to the celebrated work of Dr. Clarke, which I read fifty years ago only, and to that of Dr. Waterland also which I never read..But whatever effect may be produced on some minds by the more abstract train of ideas which you so strongly support, it will probably always be found that the course of reasoning from the effect to the cause, "from Nature to Nature's God," Will be the more universal & more persuasive application.

-To Frederick Beasley (Nov. 20, 1825), in 9 The Papers of James Madison, 1819-1836, at 229 (Gaillard Hunt ed., 1910).

Again, no mention of the person of Jesus Christ. He had not read Clarke in fifty years, which would be 1775, a time when he was affirming Pre-destination to his Presbyterian friend, Stanley Stanhope Smith! Hardly evidence rejecting Orthodoxy. It could be Madison never knew Clarke was an Arian. Also, the context of the quote is The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, given JM quotes the God of the Bible, whom the Founding Fathers, and Christian philosophers, including: Francis Bacon (Thomas Jefferson's idol), Montesquieu, Blackstone, et al. penned as "Nature's God."

The Real Rebel Yell

Not you Billy Idol. One day I would like to visit the Museum of the Confederacy. They have actual recordings of the Rebel Yell from Confederate Vets in the 1920's. These yells are magnified to that of hundreds of men onto a CD. I can see these rebels scaring the wits out of those Yankees. It sounds like they got this from the Indians.

Was Chief Justice John Marshall Orthodox?

From the below letter, we know John Marshall became an Orthodox Christian, believing in the Vicarious Blood Atonement for Sin by Jesus Christ upon the Cross. The Bible leaves  man no excuse as to what atones for sin. Romans 3: 23-25 literally says "faith in His blood":

For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God. [bold face mine]

On a side note, I know for a fact James Madison read this chapter because he quoted Romans 5 in his Memorial and Remonstrance, in which Paul says in v 8-9 the same thing about blood:

But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.

It is safe to say Marshall and the other Founding Fathers read the entire book of Romans at least once. It was probably mandatory reading in college, most likely they had to translate into Greek from the English.

Back to Marshall. There appears to be some confusion from the below statement from Rev. Norwood and an earlier testimony on Marshall, most likely in 1830. Here is the letter from Rev. Norwood:

As to the religious opinions of Judge Marshall the following extract from a letter of the Rev. Mr. Norwood may be entirely relied on:

I have read some remarks of yours in regard to C hief Justice Marshall, which have suggested to me to communicate to you the following facts, which may be useful should you again publish anything in relation to his religious opinions. I often visited Mrs. Gen'l Harvie during her last illness. From her I received this statement. She was much with her father during the last months of his life, and told me that the reason why he had never communed was that he was Unitarian in opinion, though he never joined their society. He told her, that he believed in the truth of the Christian revelation, but not in the divinity of Christ, therefore he could not commune in the Episcopal Church. But during the last months of his life, he read Keith on Prophecy, where our Saviour's divinity is incidentally treated, and was convinced by his work, and the fuller investigation to which it led, of the supreme divinity of the Saviour. He determined to apply for admission to the communion of our Church—objected to commune in private, because he thought it his duty to make a public confession of the Saviour—and while waiting for improved health to enable him to go to Church for that purpose, he grew worse and died without ever communing. Mrs. Harvie was a lady of the strictest probity, the most humble piety, and of a clear, discriminating mind, and her statement, the substance of which I give you accurately (having reduced it to writing), may be entirely relied upon. I remember to have heard Bishop Moore repeatedly express his surprise (when speaking of Judge Marshall), that, though he was so punctual in his attendance at church and reproved Mr. , and Mr. , and Mr. when they were absent, and knelt during the prayers and responded fervently, yet he never communed. The reason was that which he gave to his daughter, Mrs. Harvie. She said he died an humble, penitent believer in Christ, according to the orthodox creed of the Church. Very truly your friend and brother in Christ,

William Norwood


Chief Justice John Marshall

 

From the below anecdote, it would appear Rev. Norwood's account is a bit mis-leading. Marshall did not reject the Trinity and Atonement, rather, he didn't believe in it; similar to the faith of John Quincy Adams, maybe John Jay, and perhaps George Washington, et al. The preface in the below anecdote from the Winchester Republican is May 1831. This account is most likely from or before 1830. And you can be assured the first attack on Christianity these lawyers made was at the Trinity:

He was once travelling in the northern part of Virginia, and about night-fall arrived at the village of Winchester, in Frederick County. He drove to what was then known as M'Guire's hotel. What occurred there has been thus related : —
' It is not long since a gentleman was travelling in one of the counties of Virginia, and, about the close of the day, stopped at a public house to obtain refreshment, and spend the night. He had been there but a short time, before an old man alighted from his gig, with the apparent intention of becoming his fellowguest at the same house. As the old man drove up, he observed that both the shafts of his gig were broken, and that they were held together by withes formed from the bark of a hickory sapling. Our traveller observed further, that he was plainly clad, that his knee-buckles were loosened, and that something like negligence pervaded his dress. Conceiving him to be one of the honest yeomanry of our land, the courtesies of strangers passed between them, and they entered the tavern. It was about the same time that an addition of three or four young gentlemen was made to their number—most, if not all of them, of the legal profession. As soon as they became conveniently accommodated, the conversation was turned by the latter upon an eloquent harangue which had that day been displayed at the Bar. It was replied by the other, that he had witnessed, the same day, a degree of eloquence no doubt equal, but that it was from the pulpit. Something like a sarcastic rejoinder was made to the eloquence of the pulpit; and a warm and able altercation ensued, in which the merits of the Christian religion became the subject of discussion. From six o'clock until eleven, the young champions wielded the sword of argument, adducing, with ingenuity and ability, everything that could be said pro and con. During this protracted period, the old gentleman listened with all the meekness and modesty of a child; as if he was adding new information to the stores of his own mind ; or perhaps he was observing, with philosophic eye, the faculties of the youthful mind, and how new energies are evolved by repeated action; or, perhaps, with patriotic emotion, he was reflecting upon the future destinies of his country, and on the rising generation upon whom these future destinies must devolve; or, most probably, with a sentiment of moral and religious feeling, he was collecting an argument which — characteristic of himself—no art would be " able to elude, and no force resist." Our traveller remained a spectator, and took no part in what was said.

1 Howe's Virginia Historical Collections, page 266.
2 Richmond in By-gone Days, p. 64.

' At last one of the young men, remarking that it was impossible to combat with long established prejudices, wheeled around, and with some familiarity exclaimed, "Well, my old gentleman, what think you of these things ?" If, said the traveller, a streak of vivid lightning had at that moment crossed the room, their amazement could not have been greater than it was with what followed. The most eloquent and unanswerable appeal was made for nearly an hour, by the old gentleman, that he ever heard or read. So perfect was his recollection, that every argument urged against the Christian religion was met in the order in which it was advanced. Hume's sophistry on the subject of miracles was, if possible, more perfectly answered than it had already been done by Campbell. And in the whole lecture there was so much simplicity and energy, pathos and sublimity, that not another word was uttered. An attempt to describe it, said the traveller, would be an attempt to paint the sunbeams. It was now a matter of curiosity and inquiry who the old gentleman was. The traveller concluded it was the preacher from whom the pulpit eloquence was heard; but no, it was the Chief Justice of the United States.'l [bold face mine]

1 This anecdote was originally published in the Winchester Republican, but preserved in durable form by being printed in Howe's Virginia Historical Collections, p. 275.

There seem to be some confusion in both accounts. Are they contradictory accounts?

My Post On Acton Institute About Ronald Reagan

I remember when I was a kid, people scoffed at the name of Ronald Reagan. He was not respected as he is today in Conservative circles. History proves Reagan was the most liberal President of all time. As to his faith, the evidence supports he failed to accept Jesus Christ as His Saviour. His actions and writings to his family members support these conclusions. Given Reagan is exalted this past week, below is my post to Acton Institute:

As a Christian, I am interested in Reagan's faith. If Reagan had personal convictions about Jesus Christ as His Saviour, I haven't seen them.

The fact is, he spurned the moral majority that got him elected. Not once did he lobby Congress for one pro-life bill when he promised to do so. As Governor in 1967, Reagan signed an abortion law that resulted in over a million abortions.

He married Nancy Davis, a pagan stargazer, and had no clue the faith of his daughter. How can a person be a Christian and not preach Christianity to his family, and know their faith?

According to his memoirs, Reagan thought he could avert Biblical prophecy by getting rid of nuclear weapons because of his reading of the Book of Revelation. Thus, he tried to eliminate nuclear weapons.

Reagan gave amnesty to 3 million undocumented immigrants, violating Article I, section 8 of the Constitution, and the Law of Nations. He even vetoed an anti-aparteid law, which was overidden by the Senate.

As to Reagan's tax policy, he was the most liberal President in History; much more than Obama or Clinton. He raised taxes 11 times in 8 years. As governor of California, Reagan “signed into law the largest tax increase in the history of any state up till then. In 81 he lowered taxes on the wealthy and corporations, sending us into the worse recession since the 1930's. In 82 he raised taxes on cigarettes and gasoline. In 83, he signed the biggest payroll tax increase in history. He actually was the first President to tax unemployment benefits, and he raised the self-employment tax up to 66%! The self-employed businessman got screwed. Under Reagan, the deficit tripled in part because of defense spending, which doesn't excuse his raising rates on the poor and middle class. In 86 was the worst to come.

Reagan actually lowered the top tax rate, and raised the bottom tax rate from 11% to 15%. He was literally taking from the poor to give to the rich to promote the "trickle down theory." To top it off, he lowered capital gains taxes for corporations, who were already making billions, and through greed, gave them the impetus to send our jobs overseas. Under Reagan, 3 tillion in wealth was transfered from the poor and middle class to the rich to spur the economy! The jobs it created were few and far between, and because of his lower taxes to corporations, those jobs are now in China and India! If Alexander Hamilton was here today, he would make Corporations pay huge taxes for taking jobs out of the country!

Reagan's wealth distribution dwarfs FDR's!

If anyone was a socialist, it was Reagan. But he did it the opposite way; he took from the poor and middle class to give to the rich.

He may have been a nice guy, but he didn't champion any true Christian causes; such as promoting life at conception, protecting the sovereignty of our borders, vociferously attacking homosexuality, which the Founding Fathers said would destroy our nation, lowering our taxes for our families, and promoting private Christian schools, which is what we need right now. Instead he failed miserably trying to curb the Dept. of Education.

Reagan illegally funneled weapons to Iran. Reagan and other senior U.S. officials secretly sold arms to officials in Iran, which was subject to a an arms embargo at the time, in exchange for American hostages. Some funds from the illegal arms sales also went to fund anti-Communist rebels in Nicaragua — something Congress had already prohibited the administration from doing.

Reagan helped create the Taliban and Osama Bin Laden. Reagan fought a proxy war with the Soviet Union by training, arming, equipping, and funding Islamist mujahidin fighters in Afghanistan. Reagan funneled billions of dollars, along with top-secret intelligence and sophisticated weaponry to these fighters through the Pakistani intelligence service. The Taliban and Osama Bin Laden — a prominent mujahidin commander — emerged from these mujahidin groups Reagan helped create, and U.S. policy towards Pakistan remains strained because of the intelligence services’ close relations to these fighters. In fact, Reagan’s decision to continue the proxy war after the Soviets were willing to retreat played a direct role in Bin Laden’s ascendancy.

If Alexander Hamilton Was Not Orthodox, Why Did He Quote The Trinity?

My buddie Jon has written a post on AC about Alexander Hamilton's faith. Because AH quoted the Trinity, unless he rejected the Trinity later in life, this is prima facie evidence supporting Orthodox Christian faith: 

AH! whither, whither am I flown,
A wandering guest in worlds unknown?
What is that I see and hear?
What heav'nly music fills mine ear?
Etherial glories shine around;
More than Arabias sweets abound.


Hark! hark! a voice from yonder sky!
Methinks I hear my Saviour cry,
Come gentle spirit come away,
Com to thy Lord without delay;
For thee the gates of bliss unbar'd
Thy consant virtue to reward.


I come oh Lord! I mount, I fly,
On rapid wings I cleave the sky;
Stretch out thine arm and aid my flight;
For oh! I long to gain that height,
Where all celestial beings sing
Eternal praises to their King.


O Lamb of God! thrice gracious Lord
Now, now I feel how true thy word;
Translated to this happy place,
This blessed vision of thy face;
My soul shall all thy steps attend
In songs of triumph without end.

--Soul Ascending into Bliss, October 17, 1772

"Although it is impossible to determine beyond dispute that Hamilton was the author of this poem, it is attributed to him by J. C. Hamilton (John Church Hamilton, a son of Alexander Hamilton), who refers to it as 'a hymn,' but ascribes it to the period when Hamilton attended school in Elizabethtown, New Jersey (The Life of Alexander Hamilton, Hamilton, J.C., vol. I, 10 and The Works of Alexander Hamilton, editor Hamilton, J.C., vol. I, 48). In the Hamilton Papers, Library of Congress, there is a copy of an unidentified writing of the first three verses of this poem. At the end of the third verse is written in the same hand: "Written by A.H. when 18 years old." At the bottom of the page in still another handwriting is written: "This is a copy in pencil by Alex: Hamilton, my uncle – P.S." The "P.S" presumably refers to the Philip Schuyler who was the son of George L. Schuyler. George L. Schuyler had married Hamilton's granddaughter, Mary Hamilton, daughter of James A. Hamilton. The Alexander Hamilton who copied the poem was probably the son of James A. Hamilton, brother-in-law of George Schuyler and uncle of Philip Schuyler." --from The Papers of Alexander Hamilton, volume 1

Hercules Mulligan gives a short commentary on the poem, presenting Hamilton's familiarity with Revelation 4:8. I am not sure this is a clear correlation; what I do know, is his faith was not temporary, to which his roommate in college (Robert Troup) testifies:

At this time,' Troup relates, 'the "General" was attentive to public worship, and in the habit of praying on his knees night and morning. I lived in the same room with him for some time, and I have often been powerfully affected by the fervor and eloquence of his prayers. He had read many of the polemical writers on religious subjects, and he was a zealous believer in the fundamental doctrines of Christianity. I confess that the arguments with which he was accustomed to justify his belief, have tended in no small degree to confirm my own faith in revealed religion.

Also, Hamilton rented Pew 92 at Trinity Church as early as 1790, affirming his church attendance. As to taking Communion, he had desired it in the past, yet accomplished it on his death bed. Hamilton's death-bed statement proves he believed in Christ's Atonement years before his death:

It has for some time past been the wish of my heart, and it was my intention to take an early opportunity of uniting myself to the church, by the reception of that holy ordinance [Communion].

Furthermore, he despised the Enlightenment ideal, that man would get better with time:

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

Back to the post on Hamilton:
 
"I disagree that "nothing like it" appears in Hamilton's record. If that's your standard for what constitutes an "ass," other things Hamilton said during that period arguably merit him that label. For instance, when speaking on what he values in a military chaplain, in a letter to Anthony Wayne July 6, 1780, Hamilton said:

“He is just what I should like for a military parson except that he does not whore or drink. He will fight, and he will not insist upon your going to heaven whether you will or not."

Here is Hercules Mulligan's interpretation of Hamilton's words: 

If, however, the phrase does exist in Hamilton's original letter, this letter is poor evidence against his Christianity, for the following reasons. First of all, what idiot would seriously expect a military chaplain, of all people, to practice those things? The style of Hamilton's letter implies that he is writing somewhat humorously. Hamilton's reference(s) may be a rather exaggerated way of referring to the parson's abstinence from drinking wine and attending balls, which were part of the circle of life at Washington's headquarters, and since Washington was particularly hospitable to chaplains, he no doubt would have invited the chaplain to participate in the few relaxations and luxuries available at his headquarters. If the parson declined, he probably would have done so with Hamilton's knowledge, since Hamilton was one of Gen. Washington's closest aides-de-camp. Hamilton then, may be giving an impression of the parson's aversion to those things on account of their abuses.


In addition, Hamilton's statement “he will not insist upon your going to heaven whether you will or not” does not at all indicate impiety or heterodoxy on Hamilton's part. This sentence begins with “He will fight,” and then continues as quoted above. Hamilton is not saying that the parson is neglectful of the souls of the troops, but merely that he is willing to stand with them and defend their lives rather than allow them to die. Hamilton's words, paraphrased, would say something like, “This man will stand and fight, instead of saying 'If we die, it's just as well -- at least we'll all get to heaven more quickly!' (Going to heaven of course, would depend upon the cases of individual soldiers.).”


Notice also, that Hamilton's letter indicates ("whether you will or not") that he doesn't believe that all people are going to Heaven automatically; he is obviously not of the universalist mindset. Hamilton believes in Heaven, and that God requires people to satisfy certain criteria; given Hamilton's Christian youth, and no evidence of change, it is reasonable to conclude that he accepted the Scriptural standard of a Christian. We see then, that the evidence thrown as objections to Hamilton's faith and morals are rather weak when given a closer look.

The post continues with Hamilton's letter to John Laurens:


"Likewise when noting what he was looking for in a wife, to John Laurens, December, 1779, Hamilton writes:

"In politics I am indifferent what side she may be of. I think I have arguments that will easily convert her to mine. As to religion a moderate stock will satisfy me. She must believe in God and hate a saint. But as to fortune, the larger stock of that the better. You know my temper and circumstances and will therefore pay special attention in the treaty. Though I run no risk of going to Purgatory for my avarice, yet as money is an essential ingredient to happiness in this world, as I have not much of my own, and as I am very little calculated to get more either by my address or industry, it must needs be that my wife, if I get one, bring at least a sufficiency to administer to her own extravagancies."

"Notice how Hamilton cares more about the specifics of his political creed than his religious creed. He cares about converting his future wife to his politics; but as to religion, she has to merely "believe in God and hate a saint." We see no, "I have arguments that will easily convert my wife to Christianity because I can show her the evidences of its historical truth."

"Given his wife turned out to be an orthodox Christian, it's likely that she converted him at the end of his life."

First, his wife did not turn out to be an orthodox Christian, she already was an orthodox Christian! Mulligan explains, "[h]e apparently didn't mind a “devoted stock” either! So much for his aversion to religion!"

Furthermore, from Hamilton's death-bed statement, it is impossible for his wife to have converted him at the end of his life; he was already converted from his previous wish to commune. Hamilton's actions marrying an Orthodox Christian outweigh his words; thus, Hercules Mulligan hits the nail on the head:

This passage also fails to provide those who claim that Hamilton's faith diminished during this period that he ever changed his religious beliefs.

My New List

When I look back at my earlier list of greatest Founding Fathers I see a discrepancy which I believe I made. To be labeled the greatest Founding Father, I am referring to someone's participation in our structural design. He can't just be a Line Officer or leader. The formation of our government was already complete by the end of the Adams administration. Twelve years is long enough to establish the three branches of government.

Given after twelve years our government structure was complete. I do not feel John Marshall should get credit for being Chief Justice after the fact. George Washington was merely a leader, and did not play a major part in establishing the doctrine for our nation. I believe this list is more correct than the last one:

1. Roger Sherman-He is the only man to sign all the documents of government: Articles of Association, Confederation, The Declaration and The Constitution. He also helped structure the Northwest Ordinance that prohibited the advancement of slavery. Not only a signer, but very involved in the formation of these documents. Was largely responsible for the Bill of Rights; presented the Great Compromise of 1787 resulting in two houses of Congress; Ratified the Constitution, and was U.S. Senator.

2. George Washington-General of Continental Army; First President of United States, no doubt largely responsible for the Executive Department; President of the Constitutional Convention.

3. Alexander Hamilton-A great warrior, and perhaps the greatest administrator that ever lived. Our financial system is from his mind. Revolutionary Captain; head of the storming party at Yorktown; Secretary of the Treasury; principal author of the Federalist Papers; second in command of the Army 1798.

4. John Adams. Richard Stockton called him the "Atlas of Independence" was 2nd President of the United States; helped form the three branches of government; 1st Vice-President; signed the Bill of Rights, and Declaration of Independence; Minister to Great Britain, leader of the Revolution.

5. John Jay-He would have signed the Declaration of Independence, but was busy writing the Constitution of New York. He served as President of the Continental Congress 1778-79, which served as Chief Justice, President, and Secretary of State at once. He convinced Spain to give us $170,000 dollars for the revolution. Jay was one of the men who signed the Treaty of Paris on June 23, 1782. Was Secretary of State from 1784-1790; 1st Chief Justice 1789-1795, and Governor of New York.

6. James Wilson-First Associate Justice of the Supreme Court 1789-1798; 2nd Choice for Chief Justice. One of only six men to sign both the Declaration and Constitution. 2nd most active participant at the Convention; wrote most of the 1790 Pennsylvania Constitution; first Professor of the Law of Nature in America.

7. Benjamin Franklin-Leader of the Revolution; secured vital aid from France, one of only six men to sign both the Declaration and Constitution, having a major role in the Declaration.

8. Samuel Adams-The "Father of the Revolution" The British pardoned only two men during the Revolution; Samuel Adams and John Hancock. His circular letter of 1768 led to the Boston Massacre of 1770. He organized the Boston Tea Party, signed the Declaration, helped draft the Articles of Confederation, and ratified the Constitution.

9. John Dickinson-The "Penman of the Revolution" What Samuel Adams did by action, Dickinson employed with the pen. He wrote the colonists' legal justification to break from Great Britain. Upon receiving news of his death, President Thomas Jefferson recognized him as being "among the first of the advocates for the rights of his country when assailed by Great Britain" whose "name will be consecrated in history as one of the great worthies of the revolution." He was the principal author of our first Constitution, that lasted from 1777 to 1790. He was the most famous man in the colonies, who would have wrote the Declaration of Independence had he not been for reconciliation. Dickinson was the Governor of two states.
 
10. Thomas McKean-Was the only man to be concurrent office holder in two states; Governor of two states; Chief Justice of Pennsylvania; Signed the Declaration; helped write the Articles of Confederation; helped author the Delaware Constitution; was acting President of the United States (1781), Proposed the voting procedure of one State, one vote, under the Articles of Confederation. There he largely set the rules of justice for revolutionary Pennsylvania. According to biographer John Coleman, "only the historiographical difficulty of reviewing court records and other scattered documents prevents recognition that McKean, rather than John Marshall, did more than anyone else to establish an independent judiciary in the United States. As chief justice under a Pennsylvania constitution he considered flawed, he assumed it the right of the court to strike down legislative acts it deemed unconstitutional, preceding by ten years the U.S. Supreme Court's establishment of the doctrine of judicial review."

Jefferson and Madison are not on the list because their Presidency's were after the formation of our government. TJ had nothing to do with the Constitution or Bill of Rights, and lamented his being a "Draughtsman" of the Declaration. Madison was a junior member of Congress that helped form the Constitution, and Bill of Rights. His title "Father of the Constitution" should go to Charles Pinckney, whose draft of the Constitution is very similar to the actual document.

Founding Father John Quincy Adams Cont.

Continuing on the topic of John Q. Adams' faith. Paul C. Nagel's book is a good read into Adams' personal views. His faith in the Atonement, the most important in salvation, was not unlike his views on the Tri-Unity of God. He could not understand, which he should have, that blood, which comprises the life of all flesh, makes atonement for sin. The concept being "Dark and Dubious" not giving his opinion, when pressed that he needed to believe it for salvation.

However, later in life Adams used the word "Redeemer" more often, to which designates a "buying back." No where in the Scriptures is death the buy-back for sin. That blood is what redeems man from sin is too obvious to defend. It's redeeming quality is interspersed in the Scriptures, every Protestant council or Synod, and The Book of Common Prayer that every Anglican, or Catholic, including Republican Whigs, understood.

His thoughts on nullification are interesting in light of current political events.

Founding Father John Quincy Adams

Much has been said about the faith of John Q. Adams, whom the Father of our Country called "our greatest diplomat." Adams' faith was much like mine, and most every other Orthodox Christian; even his view on the Trinity:

The last was from Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, dated the 7th instant, and announced the very sudden decease there, on the evening of the 6th, of Mr. Robert Little, the minister of the Unitarian church at Washington. He died, after an illness of little more than twenty-four hours, of an inflammation of the brain, after having preached morning and evening at Harrisburg, on Sunday, the 5th, the day before his death. This is an event deeply to be lamented by his congregation, of whom I was one. I had constantly attended on his ministration for the last seven years, though I had never formally joined his society. I did not subscribe to many of his doctrines, particularly not to the fundamental one of his Unitarian creed. I believe in one God, but His nature is incomprehensible to me, and of the question between the Unitarians and Trinitarians I have no precise belief, because no definite understanding.

-John Q. Adams, 6th President of the United States, Secretary of State, U.S. Senator 1803-1808, Minister to Holland, Russia, Portugal, Prussia, and Minister to Great Britain where he was Chief Negotiator for the Treaty of Ghent to end the War of 1812. Wrote the Monroe Doctrine. Memoirs of John Quincy Adams, comprising portions of his diary ..., Volume 7. Aug. 13, 1827 [bold face mine]

His thoughts are not different from fundamentalist Christians today. Thinking about the Tri-unity of God can drive you nuts. It is no use to try and figure it out. This understanding is beyond our comprehension; as Adams fully attested. It is the rejection of that doctrine that is important. Much to my delight, Adams believed in Christ's Deity:

In the evening I attended again, at Mr. Little's, and heard him from Acts xvii. 11: "And searched the Scriptures daily, whether those things were so." He digressed from the historical narrative of the rise and progress of Christianity to discuss the question whether the doctrine of the Trinity had any warrant in Scripture. He chiefly considered Matthew xxviii. 19, and the first chapter of St. John's Gospel. But neither this, 1 See vol. iii. p. 370, note. nor any other argument that I ever heard, can satisfy my judgment that the doctrine of the Divinity of Christ is not countenanced by the New Testament. As little can I say that it is clearly revealed. It is often obscurely intimated; sometimes directly, and sometimes indirectly, asserted; but left, on the whole, in a debatable state, never to be either demonstrated or refuted till another revelation shall clear it up.

-Memoirs of John Quincy Adams, comprising portions of his diary ..., Volume 7. Feb. 18, 1827. P. 228-229. [bold face mine]

From these comments, Adams was an Orthodox Christian, not a Unitarian. If he had no trouble with Christ's Deity, neither should he have of the Atonement. Without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin. The Last Supper is in three of the four Gospels, with the atonement doctrine started by Abraham then Moses, although only a "covering". Besides Jesus claiming Deity, can someone without sin not be God and thus pay the penalty for violating God's Laws? Only a sinless man could be a sin-bearer. If blood does not atone for sin, what does? Works? The Founding Fathers believed "Merits" of a mediator cleansed man from sin. Did Calvinist Samuel Adams refer to works that took away our sin?

Merits must then refer to the Crucifixion.

Founding Father George Read

George Read (1733-1798) is one of our greatest men. He was one of only six men to sign both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. He was elected a U.S. Senator from 1789-1793. Read was the President of the Delaware State Constitutional Convention, where he wrote the rough draft of the State Constitution in 1776. A High-Federalist, Read wanted a strong central government, with a Constitution that strictly protected States' Rights. Once the Constitution granted his requests, his state was the first to ratify. Read was an Orthodox Christian, who died three days after his 65th birthday, and was buried at Immanuel Episcopal Churchyard.

Among Mr. Read's papers I find a document in his handwriting, indorsed "Original Draft of the System of Government of the Delaware State, with Amendments," which makes it certain that he framed this first Constitution of Delaware. These amendments are four in number, one of them being the paragraph of Article 22, requiring all officers, before entering on the execution of their offices, to make and subscribe a declaration of their faith in the doctrines of the trinity in unity, and the divine inspiration of the Holy Scriptures.  

-Life and Correspondence of George Read : A Signer of the Declaration of Independence; with notices of some of his contemporaries / by his grandson, William Thompson Read. P. 186-187. Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott & Co., 1870.

65% of Doctors Surveyed Believe Healthcare Bill Bad

Would the Founding Fathers approve of mandating Americans to purchase health insurance? There is much pressure on changing the healthcare bill, however the Tea Party is determined to scrap it:

NEW YORK, NY and DARIEN, CT--(Marketwire - January 18, 2011) - The newly released 2011 Thomson Reuters - HCPlexus National Physicians Survey (NPS) links doctors' fears that their pay will go down under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), commonly called Healthcare Reform Act (HCRA), with their concerns that the quality of care will also deteriorate. The study includes responses from 2,958 doctors of varying specialties and practice types, from all 50 states plus the District of Columbia.

The NPS is the most comprehensive survey of physicians surrounding their thoughts on the future of healthcare, including ideas on the PPACA, Electronic Medical Records (EMR), and Accountable Care Organizations (ACO). Lower Pay Means Lower Quality Care. The NPS data show doctors' fear that the quality of care will deteriorate under PPACA and that their reimbursements (pay) will go down as well. When asked about the quality of healthcare in the U.S. over the next five years, 65 percent of the doctors believed it would deteriorate with only 18 percent predicting it would improve. Interestingly, consumer perception is far more optimistic, with close to 30 percent of consumers believing care will improve under PPACA.

Was Baron Von Steuben a Christian?

I read a history about Von Steuben, then stumbled across a quote I have never seen before concerning Timothy Pickering. Pickering was a unitarian, and Von Steuben is falsely linked to him. The author of this post did not invent this quote, but it is making the rounds.

Timothy Pickering, began to doubt his Puritan theology when he heard General von Steuben say that he would sooner believe in an absurdity than in the Trinity.

This quote is from:
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&source=hp&q=von%20steuben%20pickering%20the%20trinity%20absurdity&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wp

It doesn't give any source, but I found the real quote from the Works of Pickering, Vol I. Here, is the actual quote absolving Von Steuben:

At that time the Trinitarian controversy had npt engaged the attention of Mr. Pickering. He had been brought up in the belief of the doctrine of the Trinity, and never heard the truth of it called in question until after he had joined the army in 1777; when one day he was startled by the remark of the late Peter S. Du Ponceau, on some questionable statement, that " he would as soon believe the doctrine of the Trinity." This induced Mr. Pickering to read on the subject and he thereupon became, and continued through life, a Unitarian. Without bigotry, he was a reverent believer in Christianity, never trifling with things sacred.

Just what was the faith of the Baron?

Philip Livingston: Excellence In Dignity

The Elegant Livingston

Philip Livingston (15 Jan. 1716-12 June 1778), was born into wealth and privilege by Calvinist parents, "the son of Philip Livingston, a merchant and proprietor of "Livingston Manor," and Catrina Van Brugh." Like his brothers, Livingston was a conservative whig, who feared chaos as a result from rebelling against Great Britain. He was:

An elder and a deacon of the Dutch Reformed church, Livingston was also a benefactor of New York's Anglican King's College and of the city's Presbyterian and Methodist congregations.

-Cynthia A. Kierner, Traders and Gentlefolk: The Livingstons of New York, 1675-1790 (1992)

The Livingston's supported Calvinism:

Cadwalader Colden was not the only Tory politician to observe with some asperity that all the popular leaders of his day were both lawyers and Presbyterians. That supreme conception of law and justice which is inherent in the creed of Calvin was the mainspring of the whole popular party in New York, just as it was the mainspring of the whole polity in New England. Without this leaven, New York colonial politics would have lacked form and direction and would have been little more than a puerile scramble of petty oligarchies..In ecclesiastical matters, the Livingstons and their comrades were sturdy Calvinists.

-Levermore, Charles H. The Whigs of Colonial New York American Historical Review 1 (January 1896): 238-50

It makes perfect sense, as pre-eminent 19th Century secular historian, George Bancroft declared, "Calvin founded America." Government in New York or anywhere, without the ideals promoted by Puritan Republicanism, could have squelched the Revolution. Calvin brought about: written constitutions, separation of powers, regular elections, the secret ballot, the federalist principle, religious toleration and separation of church and state.

He signed the Declaration of Independence, yet, did not live to see a free United States.

The First Amendment: A Christian Document on American Creation

American Creation blog did a post, unlike the majority of their posts, that reject the Founding Fathers were Orthodox Christian fundamentalists for heterodox men of the Enlightenment. Below, are some remarks from the post.

In fact, John Locke and James Madison even say that an atheist has no right to religious freedom, because he doesn't believe in the God who granted that freedom in the first place.

This is not an exaggeration, since no other religion gives religious freedom. This is a very important point secularist's fail to recognize. For the first 150 years, State courts were the authority in cases regarding the Bill of Rights. This is because the Bill of Rights were never applied to the States except starting in the mid-twentieth century. It follows there are few Federal court cases regarding the Bill of Rights. And when the feds ruled on a case they were quick to cite State courts. For instance, Updegraph v The Commonwealth (1824) Supreme Court of Pennsylvania was the first case cited in Holy Trinity:

In this the Constitution of the United States has made no alteration nor in the great body of the laws which was an incorporation of the common-law doctrine of Christianity. No free government now exists in the world unless where Christianity is acknowledged and is the religion of the country...Its foundations are broad and strong and deep...it is the purest system of morality, the firmest auxiliary, and only stable support of all human laws.

The author of the post's interpretation is correct. Even the morality of the nation was strictly Christian, as the courts proclaimed.

If the First Amendment enshrines religious liberty (which is doubtful, as I show above, regarding states v. the federal government), then the First Amendment is itself a Christian document.

The Father of the Bill of Rights tells us the context of the First Amendment:

[A]ll men have an equal, natural and unalienable right to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that no particular sect or society of Christians ought to be favored or established by law in preference to others.

-Col. George Mason. Kate Mason Rowland, The Life of George Mason (New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1892, Vol. I, p.28.

The States already have control of establishment, and Christianity was the established religion:

In the minds of many, therefore, the purpose of the First Amendment was not to protect Jews or Muslims, but rather, to protect Protestants, by allowing them to continue to retain the power they already had on the state level, and to prevent any Protestant sects from competing for control of the national government's power over religion, which is to say, to equalize them all on the national level, but not on the state level.

The context then for the First Amendment must be Christianity, as Joseph Story explained, because no religion other than Christianity could have gained establishment. Quoting the Romans, or Greeks, does not diminish the influence of Christianity, rather, the framers believed Cicero, Aristotle, et al. aligned with Christianity. The framers did not included Roman or Greek philosophy in any part of the founding:

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

Below, the author cites is eliminating God from the equation:

The Protestants could not limit themselves purely to social contract, because they refused to totally distance themselves from a view that all laws and morality come from God. They did not want to be pure legal positivists, that whatever the state says, goes. Over time, they grew to accept people who were not of the covenant, but they could never hold a purely secular view of social contract, that entirely divorces God altogether. Even Madison cited Martin Luther.

Was Gouverneur Morris A Rationalist?

Much has been said about the debauchery of Founding Father Gouverneur Morris. Until, his retirement, he did not live like a Christian, yet he called himself one:

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.

Morris was not shy to give his true beliefs for the Enlightenment's exaltation of man's reason:

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.

Morris believed in the Virgin Birth, with Reason subservient to the King of Heaven.

Here, is another quote I found from Morris, that shows his religion is beyond the scope of reason:

 ..Mr. Henry is most warm and powerful in Declamation being perfectly master of action Utterance and the Power of Speech to stir Men's Blood yet the Weight of Argument is so strong on the Side of Truth as wholly to destroy even on weak Minds the effects of his Eloquence but there are as you well know certain dark Modes of operating on the Minds of Members which like contagious Diseases are only known by their Effects on the Frame and unfortunately our moral like our ph[y]sical Doctors are often mistaken in their Judgment from Diagnostics..My Religion steps in where my Understanding falters and I feel Faith as I lose confidence. [Italics Mine]

-To Hamilton, June 13, 1788.     

A more closer look at this quote reveals his understanding the mind is flawed, and his religion begins where his reason cannot attain. The Enlightenment proclaimed reason and understanding over faith. The Gospel is for men like Morris, where works cannot accomplish, God gave Grace, through faith.

I am not aware of any proclamation in his later years affirming Christ. He obviously believed in the supernatural aspects of Christianity. However, did his head knowledge lead to faith and a virtuous life? How does his Last Will and Testament read?