Post on 12-Nov-2014
transcript
Page 1 of 36
Faith of Our Fathers: Christianity and the Founding of Our Republic
Was America founded on Christian principles? Not according to some modern writers.
For example, one person writes that “the men responsible for building the foundation of the
United States had little use for Christianity, and many were strongly opposed to it….They were
Deists who did not believe the bible was true.”1 The writer then supports his position with a list
of “anti-Christian” quotations from the Founders. Our conclusions about the Founders’ beliefs,
however, must not be based merely on a list of their quotations. Quotations, taken out of
context, cannot give us a full picture of the Founders’ beliefs.
Rather, we should determine the Founders’ overall worldviews. One’s worldview shapes
everything he does, so if the Founding Fathers’ worldviews were Christian, the country they
founded was founded on Christian principles. We should therefore trace the development of their
worldviews by looking at the political theorists who influenced them and analyze the founding
documents they penned. After we have done this, we may carefully examine their private
correspondence for corroboration of that worldview. We will then see that America was indeed
founded on Christian principles.
First we should consider what we mean by the term, “Founding Fathers.” A strict
definition would include only the fifty-five delegates who attended the Constitutional
Convention. This definition, however, excludes men such as Thomas Jefferson, Samuel Adams,
Patrick Henry, and John Adams – men critical to the founding of our nation. To determine if
America was founded on Christian principles, our definition of “Founding Fathers” must include
all the men who directly impacted the founding of American government. We will look at the
worldviews of not only the signers of the Constitution, but also the signers of the Declaration of
Independence, state constitutions, and other founding documents.
Page 2 of 36
We will first trace the formation of the Founders’ worldviews. Most seventeenth-century
political theorists believed that the king received his authority from God and that, as God’s
appointed regent, he was above the law. They believed that God had given this authority to
Adam, that Adam’s heirs had inherited it, and that the king was Adam’s rightful heir. Sir Robert
Filmer, the prototype of this class of political thinkers, expressed that philosophy in his 1628
book Patriarcha, or, the Natural Power of Kings. He argued that “as kingly power is by the law
of God, so it hath no inferior power to limit it.”2 More specifically, he believed that the “king
must of necessity be above the laws.”3
Samuel Rutherford was the first to refute this philosophy, and he did so in his book Lex,
Rex or, the Law and the Prince (1644). He agreed with earlier theorists that “the kingly or royal
office is from God by divine institution,”4 but he argued that the logical conclusion of this is that
the king is the “keeper, preserver, and avenger of God’s law.”4 As such, the king’s conscience
and the “conscience of the inferior judges are equally under immediate subjection to the King of
kings; for there is here a coordination of consciences, and no subordination, for it is not in the
power of the inferior judge to judge…as the king commandeth him, because the judgment is
neither the king’s nor any mortal man’s, but the Lord’s.”5 In other words, the king was under –
not above – the law.
Even more controversially, Rutherford believed that God granted the people power to
choose their form of government. He wrote that the “kingly office…floweth from the people,
not by formal institution, as if the people had by an act of reason devised and excogitated such a
power: God ordained the power.”6 More specifically, he believed that “the power of creating a
man a king is from the people.”6
Page 3 of 36
Rutherford’s book was revolutionary. Lex, Rex was banned in Scotland and burned in
England. Rutherford himself was placed under house arrest and commanded to appear before
the Scottish Parliament, although he died before he could do so. Lex, Rex lived on, however, to
have a profound influence on later political thought – and that influence was clearly Bible-based.
Lex, Rex had a particularly strong influence on John Locke, whose ideas formed the basis for the
Declaration of Independence. Locke’s Two Treatises on Civil Government contained the same
principles and refuted the same arguments as were contained and refuted by Lex, Rex.
Like Lex, Rex, Locke’s first treatise on civil government dealt with the divine right of
kings (and specifically, Filmer’s Patriarcha). Locke specifically attacked the idea that the king
possessed absolute authority as Adam’s heir. He argued that God had not given the right to
govern strictly to Adam, but to mankind in general, because “all men by nature are equal.”7 He
argued that even if Adam had possessed sole governmental authority, his heirs would have no
right to it, and that even if his heirs did have a right to it, it would be impossible to determine
which living person was the heir. Locke believed that God had given governmental authority to
mankind in general, and that the “Law of Nature,” or the teaching that “no one ought to harm
another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions”8, is to guide man in exercising that authority.
Locke believed that government derived its powers from the people, to whom God had given the
authority to give the government this power.
Many today would argue that Locke was a secular humanist, a product of the
Enlightenment, but this is far from the truth. Locke believed that God was ultimately the source
of civil authority; his entire theory was in fact based on Scripture. For example, he wrote that the
law of Nature was the result of man’s equal creation. He believed that all men are created equal
because men, being “all the workmanship of one omnipotent and infinitely wise Maker; all the
Page 4 of 36
servants of one sovereign Master, sent into the world by His order and about His business; they
are His property, whose workmanship they are made to last during His, not one another’s
pleasure.”9 He specifically stated that “the prejudices of our own ill-grounded opinions, however
by us called probable, cannot authorise us to understand Scripture contrary to the direct and plain
meaning of the words.”10
The theories of John Locke and Samuel Rutherford formed the philosophy behind the
Founders’ view of civil government. Another political theorist, Charles de Montesquieu,
influenced the Founders on a more practical level. In his most famous work, The Spirit of Laws,
Montesquieu introduced the idea of separation of powers, or the division of government into a
legislative, executive, and judicial branch. Montesquieu’s Spirit of Laws (1748) also contained
the concepts of representative government, freedom of speech and religion, and freedom from
overly cruel punishments. The Founding Fathers implemented all of these ideas into America’s
system of government. Montesquieu was a key factor in shaping the worldviews of these men.
Montesquieu wrote that “The Christian religion, which ordains that men should love each
other, would, without doubt, have every nation blest with the best civil, the best political laws;
because these, next to this religion, are the greatest good that men can give and receive.”11
Montesquieu specifically stated that law was “established by God,” whom he described as the
“Creator and Preserver” of the universe.11 Montesquieu also wrote that that “law which,
impressing on our minds the idea of a Creator, inclines us towards Him, is the first in
importance…”12 Montesquieu’s ideas, which directly influenced the Founders, were clearly
based on Christian principles.
Sir William Blackstone was another political theorist who influenced the Founding
Fathers. His Commentaries on the Laws of England, written in the 1760s, formed the basis for
Page 5 of 36
America’s perspective of law from the late 1700s until well into 1800s. By the time of the
signing of the Declaration of Independence, it is estimated that at least as many copies of the
Commentaries were sold in America as were sold in England.13 Blackstone believed that the
source of law is God Himself. He wrote that “Man, considered as a creature, must necessarily be
subject to the laws of his creator,…and consequently, as man depends absolutely upon his maker
for every thing, it is necessary that he should in all points conform to his maker’s will. This will
of his maker is called the law of nature.”14 In addition to the law of nature, Blackstone described
a second type of law, which he termed “revealed law.”14 Revealed law is “to be found only in
the holy scriptures.”14
Blackstone believed that natural law and revealed law should form the basis for all
human laws. Of natural law, he wrote that “this law of nature, being coeval with mankind and
dictated by God himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other – It is binding over all
the globe in all countries, and at all times; no human laws of are of any validity, if contrary to
this: and such of them as are valid derive all their force, and all their authority, mediately or
immediately, from this original.” Yet Blackstone believed that revealed law, or the Bible itself,
is even more authoritative. He wrote that “undoubtedly the revealed law is of infinitely more
authenticity than…natural law” because we, with our corrupted reasoning, may have mistaken
views of natural law. Blackstone wrote that “upon these foundations, the law of nature and the
law of revelation, depend all human laws; that is to say, no human laws should be suffered to
contradict these”14 [emphasis added]. Blackstone’s Commentaries placed God and the Bible as
supreme authority over human laws.
Christian principles unequivocally influenced the Founders through the ideas of
Rutherford, Locke, Montesquieu, and Blackstone. Each of these political theorists based his
Page 6 of 36
philosophies of law and government on God and the Bible. Rutherford and Locke believed that
government derived its power from the people; the people received authority to give the
government this power directly from God. Montesquieu believed that laws are established by
God and should be founded on Christianity. Blackstone believed that God is the source of and
supreme authority over human laws. This philosophical background formed the basis for the
Founding Fathers’ worldviews. It was with this background that the Founders established
America, and it is with this in mind that we must view the foundational documents they wrote.
The Mayflower Compact was one of first governing documents in America, described by
William Bradford as “the first foundation of their government in [Plymouth]”15. Its signers left
no doubt as to their purpose in founding that government: “for the Glory of God and
advancement of the Christian Faith and Honour of our King and Country.” They cited God as
their witness in the signing of the Compact, saying that they “solemnly and mutually in the
presence of God and one other, Covenant and Combine ourselves together into a Civil Body
Politic.”16 The Mayflower Compact was clearly based on Christian principles. Its historical
significance makes this particularly important. As one of the first governing documents in
America, the Mayflower Compact laid the foundation for future charters, compacts, and
constitutions.
The first American constitutions – state constitutions – continued to establish God as the
foundation for civil government. This is significant because, like the Mayflower Compact, state
constitutions set important precedents for future foundational documents. After all, the Founders
wrote from what they knew and were familiar with. As Thomas Jefferson himself wrote, the
“object of the Declaration of Independence,” for example, was “not to find out new principles, or
new arguments, never before thought of,… [but] to be an expression of the American mind.”17
Page 7 of 36
The state constitutions were also themselves part of the founding of the United States, since they
formed the state governments. Furthermore, the signers of the U. S. Constitution accepted the
state constitutions as they stood, without attempting to remove the Christian principles they
contained. For these three reasons, the state constitutions’ unapologetically Christian stance is
irrefutable evidence for the Christian founding of America.
The Fundamental Orders of Connecticut (1639), the first of the state constitutions, was
especially clear in establishing God as the foundation for civil government. Its signers wrote that
“for as much as it hath pleased Almighty God by the wise disposition of his divine providence so
to order and dispose of things” such that they were living in Connecticut, and that they “well
knew” that “where a people are gathered together the word of God requires that to maintain the
peace and union of such a people there should be an orderly and decent Government established
according to God,” they bound themselves into a “one Public State or Commonwealth.”18
The Founders wrote that their purpose in signing the Fundamental Orders was to
“maintain and preserve the liberty and purity of the Gospel of our Lord Jesus which we now
profess, as also, the discipline of the Churches, which according to the truth of the said Gospel is
now practiced amongst us.” The constitution dictated that six magistrates, in addition to a
governor, be chosen each year to “administer justice according to the Laws here established, and
for want thereof, according to the Rule of the Word of God.”18 America’s first constitution
founded a community solidly based on Christian principles.
Later state constitutions were no different. Delaware’s constitution (1776) required
officials to “make and subscribe the following declaration, to wit: “I, A. B. do profess faith in
God the Father, and in Jesus Christ His only Son, and in the Holy Ghost, one God, blessed for
evermore; and I do acknowledge the holy scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given
Page 8 of 36
by divine inspiration.” It also provided for freedom of religion, dictating that “there shall be no
establishment of any one religious sect in this State in preference to another.”19 The Constitution
of North Carolina (1776) contained a similar religious freedom clause, and also stated that “all
men have a natural and unalienable right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of
their own consciences.” In addition, North Carolina’s constitution dictated that “no person, who
shall deny the being of God or the truth of the Protestant religion, or the divine authority either of
the Old or New Testaments… shall be capable of holding any office or place of trust or profit in
the civil department within this State.”20
The Constitution of New Jersey (1776) provided that “no person shall ever, within this
Colony, be deprived of the inestimable privilege of worshipping Almighty God in a manner,
agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience; nor, under any presence whatever, be compelled
to attend any place of worship, contrary to his own faith and judgment.” It also provided 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.”21
The Constitution of Virginia (1776) stated that “religion, or the duty which we owe to our
Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by
force or violence; and therefore all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion,
according to the dictates of conscience.”22 The Constitution of Vermont (1777) “confess[ed] the
goodness of the Great Governor of the universe” and required public officials to “solemnly
Page 9 of 36
swear, by the ever living God” or to “solemnly affirm in the presence of the Almighty God” that
they would execute their duties justly. Because “all men have a natural and unalienable right to
worship ALMIGHTY GOD, according to the dictates of their own consciences and
understanding, regulated by the word of GOD,” the constitution dictated that “no man…who
professes the protestant religion, [can] be justly deprived or abridged of any civil right” because
of his religion. Nevertheless, “every sect or denomination of people” was to “observe the
Sabbath…and support, some sort of religious worship, which to them shall seem most agreeable
to the revealed will of GOD.”23
The Constitution of Pennsylvania (1776) began by expressing the purpose of government,
which was to enable men to “enjoy their natural rights, and the other blessings which the Author
of existence has bestowed upon man.” The constitution stated that “all men have a natural and
unalienable right to worship Almighty God according to the dicates of their own conscience and
understand: And that…[no] man, who acknowledges the being of God, [can] be justly deprived
or abridged of any civil right as a citizen, on account of his religious sentiments or peculiar mode
of religious worship.” Each member of the House of Representatives was to “make and
subscribe the following declaration, viz: I do believe in one God, the creator and governor of the
universe, the rewarder of good and the punisher of the wicked. And I do acknowledge the
Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by Divine inspiration.”24
The Constitution of Massachusetts (1780) was established with the “people of
Massachusetts acknowledging, with grateful hearts, the goodness of the great Legislator of the
universe, in affording us, in the course of His providence” the opportunity to write that
constitution. They were “devoutly imploring His direction in so interesting a design” as they did
so. The constitution stated that “it is the right as well as the duty of all men in society, publicly,
Page 10 of 36
and at stated seasons to worship the Supreme Being, the great Creator and Preserver of the
universe.” The constitution actually allowed the people to “invest their legislature with power…
to make suitable provision, at their own expense, for the institution of the public worship of God,
and for the support and maintenance of public Protestant teachers of piety, religion, morality, in
all cases where such provision shall not be made voluntarily.”25
The legislature was afforded this power because “the happiness of a people, and the good
order and preservation of civil government, essentially depend upon piety, religion and morality”
and these cannot be “diffused through a community, but by the institution of the public worship
of God, and of public instructions in piety, religion and morality.” However, the constitution
provided that “every denomination of Christians, demeaning themselves peaceably…shall be
equally under the protection of the law: and no subordination of any one sect or denomination to
another shall ever be established by law.”25
The Constitution of Maryland (1776) also allowed for a tax to support Christianity:
“That, as it is the duty of every man to worship God in such manner as he thinks most acceptable
to him; all persons, professing the Christian religion, are equally entitled to protection in their
religious liberty;…yet the Legislature may, in their discretion, lay a general and equal tax for the
support of the Christian religion; leaving to each individual the power of appointing the payment
over of the money, collected from him, to the support of any particular place of worship or
minister, or for the benefit of the poor of his own denomination, or the poor in general of any
particular county.”26 In addition, the Constitution of Maryland required public officials to make
a “declaration of belief in the Christian religion”26 as part of their oaths of office.
The Constitution of South Carolina (1778) actually established a state religion. It stated
that “all persons and religious societies who acknowledge that there is one God, and a future
Page 11 of 36
state of rewards and punishments, and that God is publicly to be worshipped, shall be freely
tolerated. The Christian Protestant religion shall be deemed, and is hereby constituted and
declared to be, the established religion of this State. That all denominations of Christian
Protestants in this State…shall enjoy equal religious and civil privileges.”27 The constitution
listed the basic tenets of the established religion as follows:
1st. That there is one eternal God, and a future state of rewards and punishments.
2nd. That God is publicly to be worshipped.
3rd. That the Christian religion is the true religion.
4th. That the holy scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are of divine inspiration, and
are the rule of faith and practice.27
Members of the Senate and House of Representatives were also required to be Protestant.
Many of the state constitutions excluded members of the clergy from holding a public
office. The Constitution of New York (1777) explained the reason for this, that “whereas the
ministers of the gospel are, by their profession, dedicated to the service of God and the care of
souls, and ought not to be diverted from the great duties of their function; therefore, no minister
of the gospel, or priest of any denomination whatsoever, shall…be capable or holding, any civil
or military office or place within this State.”28 In other words, the exclusion of clergy members
from the government was not designed to facilitate separation of church and state, but to enable
the clergy to better perform their “great duties.”
The state constitutions established governments solidly founded on Christian principles.
The Founding Fathers who signed them often expressed the belief that an orderly community
depends on religion. Their concept of religious freedom was not freedom from religion, but the
freedom to worship God – God, and not Allah, or Buddha, or Krishna – according to the dictates
Page 12 of 36
of conscience. The state constitutions were unambiguously Christian. Since the state
constitutions influenced other founding documents and were themselves founding documents,
this alone is reason to believe that America was founded on Christian principles. No other
evidence is necessary to prove that the Founders’ worldviews were Christian.
Nevertheless, there is an abundance of additional evidence for the Christian worldviews
of the Founders. Records of the Second Continental Congress, a particularly important group of
Founding Fathers, could also stand alone as supporting evidence. The Second Continental
Congress actually governed America from 1775 until the ratification of the Constitution in 1788.
It issued the Declaration of Independence, organized the Revolutionary War, negotiated the
signing of the Treaty of Paris with England, and functioned as the federal government under the
Articles of Confederation. The Second Continental Congress literally founded America. It
established America as an independent nation, as the United States instead of the colonies of
Great Britain. It founded that nation on Christian principles.
One of the most important acts of the Second Continental Congress was the drafting of
the Declaration of Independence. Some would attempt to dismiss its significance by saying that
“we are not governed by the Declaration of Independence-- it is a historical document, not a
constitutional one.”29 On the contrary, the Declaration is far more than a mere historical
document. It is highly indicative of the Founders’ worldviews, and it was itself a significant
foundational document. It formed the foundation for American government by formalizing the
split between the colonies and Great Britain, and providing the moral justification for that split.
This obviously important document conveys a distinctly Christian worldview. It began
with the famous words, “When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one
people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume…
Page 13 of 36
the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature, and of Nature’s God entitle them, a
decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which
impel them to the separation”30 [emphasis added].
Locke’s Two Treatises explains what the Founders meant by the “Laws of Nature.”
(Jefferson himself, the author of the Declaration of Independence, cited Locke as one of the men
on whose writings “all [the Declaration’s] authority rests.”17) As we saw, the Laws of Nature
were based on the fact that men are “all the workmanship of one omnipotent and infinitely wise
Maker.”9 The Declaration’s mention of the Laws of Nature, together with the mention of
Nature’s God, is of the utmost importance. The Founders were citing God as the justification for
their actions. They were saying that God and His laws entitled them to independence. They
were basing America’s independence on God’s laws. They were therefore placing God at the
very foundation of American government.
The Founding Fathers continued to display this worldview in the remainder of the
Declaration. The next paragraph began, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are
created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights…”30
[emphasis added]. They went on to explain that the object of government was to preserve these
God-given rights. This is one of the most important concepts in the Declaration. The Founders
were publicly declaring that the purpose of the government they were founding was to secure the
rights of the people. These rights must of necessity be given by God, because if the state gave
the rights, the state could also take them away. They would therefore no longer be “inalienable.”
This was the foundation of American government, and without this foundation, American
government would be without a purpose. America was clearly being founded on Christian
principles.
Page 14 of 36
In the next sentence, the Founders stated “to secure these Rights, Governments are
instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that
whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the
People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundations on such
Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect
their Safety and Happiness.”30 In other words, the people give government its power and have
the right to choose their government. This view was borrowed directly from Locke, who argued
that God gave the people the authority to give the government this power. Even this seemingly
Enlightenment doctrine was solidly based on Christianity.
The Founders ended the Declaration by “appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for
the rectitude of our intentions.” The last sentence says, “And for the Support of this Declaration,
with a firm Reliance on the Protection of Divine Providence, we mutually Pledge to each other
our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.”30 They supported their actions with an appeal to
God. They so relied on his protection that they were willing to pledge their very lives and honor.
The Declaration provides clear evidence that the Founders’ worldview was Christian and that
they intended to found America on Christian principles.
Other acts of the Second Continental Congress continued to demonstrate this worldview.
The Second Continental Congress maintained paid chaplains, whom it elected, and provided
chaplains for the military as well.31 It also required soldiers to maintain moral standards, because
“true religion and good morals are the only solid foundations of public liberty and happiness.”32
Congress also “earnestly recommended” that the soldiers “diligently … attend divine services.”
If any commissioned officer behaved “indecently, or irreverently, at any place of divine
worship,” he would be “brought before a general court-martial, there to be publicly and severely
Page 15 of 36
reprimanded by the president.”33 Non-commissioned officers were fined, imprisoned, or both for
such behavior.
In September 1777, the Second Continental Congress resolved to “order the Committee
of Commerce to import twenty thousand copies of the Bible.” They did this because the “use of
the Bible is so universal, and its importance so great.”34 Although the twenty thousand Bibles
were never imported, Congress actually sponsored the publication of a Bible in 1782. Robert
Aitken, a printer, had published an edition of the Bible, and submitted it to Congress for its
approval. Congress “recommended it to the two chaplains of Congress to examine.” The
chaplains, Rev. William White and Rev. George Duffield, reported that the Bible was “executed
with great accuracy,” and that, as they were themselves “witnesses of the demand for this
invaluable book,” they “rejoice[d] in the present prospect of a supply.”35 Congress therefore
“recommend[ed] this edition of the Bible to the inhabitants of the United States”36 A few copies
of the “Bible of the American Revolution,” as the Aitken Bible was called, still survive.
On October 30, 1778, Congress issued a manifesto to Great Britain. Great Britain had
issued its own manifesto earlier in the month, protesting America’s recent alliance with France
and offering severe threats if the colonies refused to surrender.37 The October 30 manifesto was
Congress’s response to Great Britain’s threats. It stated that the colonies knew their cause was
just, because Great Britain had been “oppressive” and “tyrannous.” It protested the actions of
“those serving under the king of Great Britain,” including their “mock of religion by impious
appeals to God, whilst in violation of his sacred commands.” The manifesto warned that if the
British “presume[d] to execute their threats, or persist in their present career of barbarity,”
America would “take such exemplary vengeance as shall deter others from a like conduct.”
Congress concluded the manifesto with an “appeal to that God who searcheth the hearts of men,
Page 16 of 36
for the rectitude of [their] intentions: and in his holy presence we declare, that as we are not
moved by any light and hasty suggestions of anger or revenge…we will adhere to this our
determination.”38 The Founders believed that their cause – independence from Great Britain –
was just before God.
The Second Continental Congress again demonstrated its Christian worldview in its
handling of western lands. It mandated several times that a certain lot in each township be
“given perpetually for the purposes of Religion.”39 In the Northwest Ordinance, issued July 13,
1787, Congress stated that “religion, morality and knowledge being necessary to good
government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be
encouraged” [emphasis added]. One of the purposes of the Northwest Ordinance was to
“[extend] the fundamental principles of civil and religious liberty, which form the basis whereon
these republics, their laws and constitutions are erected” and to “fix and establish those
principles as the basis of all laws, constitutions and governments, which…shall be formed in the
said territory.”40 Congress specifically stated that religion is necessary for “good government.”
The Founders were more than simply tolerating religion; they were advocating it.
Congress even ordered that Christianity be shared with the Native Americans; in fact,
they hired missionaries to do so. They “employ[ed], for reasonable salaries, a minister of the
gospel, to reside among the Delaware Indians, and instruct them in the Christian religion.”41
Congress also “authorized and directed” the “Secretary at war” to “purchase a number of books
on morality and religion not exceeding the sum of fifty dollars and present the same in the name
of the United States in Congress assembled to the remnants of several tribes of Indians settled at
Brotherton on the lands of the Oneidas.”42
Page 17 of 36
Perhaps the strongest evidence for the Christian worldview of the Second Continental
Congress was its regular proclamations of national days of “humiliation, thanksgiving, and
prayer.” According to the Library of Congress, the Second Continental Congress proclaimed
such days at least twice a year for the duration of the war; in fact, at least sixteen different
proclamations are found in the Journals of the Continental Congress alone. The March 1776
proclamation read, “In times of impending calamity and distress…it becomes the indispensable
duty of these hitherto free and happy colonies… publickly to acknowledge the ruling providence
of God; to confess and deplore our offences against him; and to supplicate his interposition for
averting the threatened danger….
“Congress, therefore…do[es] earnestly recommend, that Friday…be observed by the said
colonies as 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,
appease his righteous displeasure, and, through the merits and mediation of Jesus Christ, obtain
his pardon and forgiveness….”43 Like the other proclamations, it recommended that people
abstain from work and recreation and instead hold a special religious service.
The November 1777 proclamation is another example. It stated that “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, and to implore such
farther blessings as they stand in need of; and it having pleased him in his abundant mercy not
only to continue to us the innumerable bounties of his common providence, but also to smile
upon us in the prosecution of a just and necessary war, for the defence and establishment of our
unalienable rights and liberties…
Page 18 of 36
“It is therefore recommended … to set apart Thursday… for solemn thanksgiving and
praise; that with one heart and one voice the good people may express the grateful feelings of
their hearts, and consecrate themselves to the service of their divine benefactor; and that together
with their sincere acknowledgements and offerings, they may join the penitent confession of
their manifold sins, whereby they had forfeited every favour, 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 blessing on the
governments of these states respectively… 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.’”44
Again, the proclamation of March 1781 declared that “at all times it is our duty to
acknowledge the over-ruling providence of the great Governor of the universe, and devoutly to
implore his divine favour and protection. But in the hour of calamity and impending danger…
we are peculiarly excited, with true penitence of heart, to prostrate ourselves before our great
Creator, and fervently to supplicate his gracious interposition for our deliverance. The United
States in Congress assembled, therefore do earnestly recommend, that Thursday the third day of
May next, may be observed as a day of humiliation, fasting and prayer, that we may, with united
hearts, confess and bewail our manifold sins and transgressions, and by sincere repentance and
amendment of life, appease his righteous displeasure, and through the merits of our blessed
Saviour, obtain pardon and forgiveness.”46
Another excellent example is the October 1782 proclamation. It stated that “it being the
indispensable duty of all nations, not only to offer up their supplications to Almighty God, the
giver of all good, for his gracious assistance in a time of distress, but also in a solemn and public
Page 19 of 36
manner to give him praise for his goodness in general, and especially for great and signal
interpositions of his Providence in their behalf; therefore, the United States in Congress
assembled, taking into their consideration the many instances of divine goodness to these
states…request the several states to interpose their authority in appointing and commanding the
observation of Thursday…as a day of solemn thanksgiving to God for all his mercies: and they
do further recommend to all ranks, to testify their gratitude to God for his goodness, by a
cheerful obedience to his laws, and by promoting, each in his station, and by his influence, the
practice of true and undefiled religion, which is the great foundation of public prosperity and
national happiness.”47
The March 1779 proclamation is probably the most eloquent and powerful of the
thanksgiving proclamations. It read, “Whereas, in just punishment of our manifold
transgressions, it hath pleased the Supreme Disposer of all events to visit these United States
with a calamitous war, through which His divine Providence hath hitherto, in a wonderful
manner, conducted us, so that we might acknowledge that the race is not to the swift, nor the
battle to the strong: and whereas, notwithstanding the chastisements received and benefits
bestowed, too few have been sufficiently awakened to a sense of their guilt, or warmed with
gratitude, or taught to amend their lives and turn from their sins, so that He might turn from His
wrath….Resolved, that it be recommended to the several states to appoint the first Thursday in
May next, to be a day of fasting, humiliation and prayer to Almighty God, that he will be pleased
to avert those impending calamities which we have but too well deserved, that he will grant us
his grace to repent of our sins, and amend our lives, according to his holy word…”48
The proclamation continued, “That he will be a husband to the widow and a father to the
fatherless children, who weep over the barbarities of a savage enemy: that he will grant us
Page 20 of 36
patience in suffering, and fortitude in adversity: that he will inspire us with humility and
moderation, and gratitude in prosperous circumstances: that he will give wisdom to our councils,
firmness to our resolutions, and victory to our arms….that he will … extend the influence of true
religion, and give us that peace of mind, which the world cannot give: that he will be our shield
in the day of battle, our comforter in the hour of death, and our kind parent and merciful judge
through time and through eternity.”48 This is an inspiring prayer even for Christians today. It is
more than simply suggestive of II Chronicles 7:14: “If my people, which are called by my name,
shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will
I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.”49
Congress issued a special proclamation following the signing of the Treaty of Paris in
1783. The proclamation stated that “whereas it hath pleased the Supreme Ruler of all human
events, to dispose the hearts of the late belligerent powers to put a period to the effusion of
human blood, by proclaiming a cessation of all hostilities by sea and land….And whereas in the
progress of a contest on which the most essential rights of human nature depended, the
interposition of Divine Providence in our favour hath been most abundantly and most graciously
manifested, and the citizens of these United States have every reason for praise and gratitude to
the God of their salvation. Impressed, therefore, with an exalted sense of the blessings by which
we are surrounded, and of our entire dependence on that Almighty Being, from whose goodness
and bounty they are derived, the United States in Congress assembled do recommend it to the
several States, to set apart the second Thursday in December next, as a day of public
thanksgiving, that all the people may then assemble to celebrate with grateful hearts and united
voices, the praises of their Supreme and all bountiful Benefactor, for his numberless favors and
mercies.”50
Page 21 of 36
The proclamation then listed several of the blessings for which the people were especially
thankful, including “above all, that he hath been pleased to continue to us the light of the blessed
gospel, and secured to us in the fullest extent the rights of conscience in faith and worship. And
while our hearts overflow with gratitude, and our lips set forth the praises of our great Creator,
that we also offer up fervent supplications, that it may please him to pardon all our offenses…, to
smile upon our seminaries and means of education, to cause pure religion and virtue to flourish,
to give peace to all nations, and to fill the world with his glory.”50
It must be stressed that each of the proclamations we have seen are only examples. Space
does not allow all of the proclamations the attention they deserve, although each is equally clear
evidence for the Christian worldviews of the Founders. The proclamations leave no doubt as to
whom our nation was founded on. They need no additional comment.
We have now traced the development of the Founding Fathers’ worldview by looking at
the political theorists who influenced them. We have also analyzed the historical documents
they wrote and seen their actions as the Second Continental Congress. Now that we have done
so, their Christian worldview is obvious. Next we will carefully look to their private
correspondence for manifestations of that worldview. Specifically, we will look at quotations
from Gouverneur Morris, George Mason, Alexander Hamilton, Benjamin Franklin, Patrick
Henry, Samuel Adams, John Adams, and John Jay.
Gouverneur Morris, a Pennsylvania delegate to the Constitutional Convention, actually
drafted the Constitution.51 He wrote to General Anthony Wayne on May 21, 1778: “Your good
Morals in the Army give me sincere Pleasure as it hath long been my fixed Opinion that Virtue
and Religion are the great sources of human Happiness. More especially is it necessary in your
Profession firmly to rely upon the God of Battles, for his Guardianship and Protection in the
Page 22 of 36
dreadful Hour of Trial.”52 Gouverneur Morris believed that religion is the foundation of
happiness. He and the other Founders therefore made certain to establish America on Christian
principles.
George Mason was another important Founding Father, described by Thomas Jefferson
as the “author of the bill of rights and of the Constitution founded on it.”53 In a 1778 case before
the General Court of Virginia, Mason stated that the “laws of nature are the laws of God; whose
authority can be superseded by no power on earth. A legislature must not obstruct our obedience
to him from whose punishments they cannot protect us. All human constitutions which
contradict his laws, we are in conscience bound to disobey.”54 Mason, standing solidly in the
stream of Rutherford, Locke, and Blackstone, believed that God’s laws carried supreme authority
over man’s laws.
Alexander Hamilton, New York delegate to the Constitutional Convention, coauthor of
the Federalist Papers, and first Secretary of the Treasury, also demonstrated a Christian
worldview in his writings. He proposed that “an association be formed to be denominated ‘The
Christian Constitutional Society.’ Its objects to be:
1st. The support of the Christian religion.
2d. The support of the Constitution of the United States.55
In a letter to his wife the night before his famed duel with Aaron Burr, Hamilton wrote, “This
letter, my dear Eliza, will not be delivered to you, unless I shall first have terminated my earthly
career, to begin, as I humbly hope, from redeeming grace and divine mercy, a happy
immortality….The consolations of religion, my beloved, can alone support you; and these you
have a right to enjoy. Fly to the bosom of your God, and be comforted. With my last idea I shall
cherish the sweet hope of meeting you in a better world.”56 Later in the day he wrote again that
Page 23 of 36
“Heaven can preserve me, and I humbly hope will; but, in the contrary event, I charge you to
remember that you are a Christian. God’s will be done! The will of a merciful God must be
good.”57 While our purpose is not to judge whether Hamilton was what we would term a “born-
again” Christian, these letters clearly prove that his worldview was Christian.
Benjamin Franklin was probably a Deist, but again, his relationship with God is
irrelevant to our purposes. His worldview was unmistakably Christian. His most eloquent
demonstration of this worldview was in a speech to the Constitutional Convention on June 28,
1787. Franklin said that in “this Assembly, groping as it were in the dark to find political truth,
and scarce able to distinguish it when presented to us, how has it happened, Sir, that we have not
hitherto once thought of humbly applying to the Father of lights to illuminate our
understandings? In the beginning of the Contest with G. Britain,…we had daily prayer in this
room for the divine protection. – Our prayers, Sir, were heard, and they were graciously
answered…To that kind of providence we owe this happy opportunity of consulting in peace on
the means of establishing our future national felicity. And have we now forgotten that powerful
friend? Or do we imagine that we no longer need his assistance?
“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. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground
without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured,
Sir, in the sacred writings, that “except the Lord build the House they labour in vain that build
it.” I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without his concurring aid we shall succeed in
this political building no better than the Builders of Babel….I therefore beg leave to move – that
henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations, be
Page 24 of 36
held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more of the
Clergy of this City be requested to officiate in that service.”58
Patrick Henry did not attend the Constitutional Convention, but he too deserves a
prominent place among the Founding Fathers. Now famous for his “give me liberty or give me
death” speech, Patrick Henry was a delegate to the First Continental Congress, a governor of
Virginia, and a driving force behind the Revolution. His worldview was unmistakably Christian.
He wrote, “whilst I see the dangers that threaten [our government] from [France’s] intrigues and
her arms, I am not so much alarmed as at the apprehension of her destroying the great pillars of
all government and of social life, – I mean virtue, morality, and religion. This is the armor, my
friend, and this alone, that renders us invincible….If we lose these, we are conquered, fallen
indeed.”59 Patrick Henry cited religion as part of the foundation of government.
Patrick Henry again demonstrated his Christian worldview in a letter to his daughter,
written shortly before his death. “The view which the rising greatness of our country presents to
my eyes, is greatly tarnished by the general prevalence of deism; which, with me, is but another
name for vice and depravity. I am, however, much consoled by reflecting, that the religion of
Christ has, from its first appearance in the world, been attacked in by, by all the wits,
philosophers, and wise ones,…and its triumph has been complete….Amongst other strange
things said of me, I hear it is said by the deists that I am one of the[ir] number; and indeed, that
some good people think I am no Christian. This thought gives me much more pain than the
appellation of tory [being named a traitor]; because I think religion of infinitely higher
importance than politics and I find much cause to reproach myself, that I have lived so long, and
have given no decided and public proofs of my being a Christian. But, indeed, my dear child,
this is a character which I prize far above all this world has or can boast.”60
Page 25 of 36
Like Patrick Henry, Samuel Adams left no doubt as to the Christian nature of his
worldview. In his Rights of the Colonists, Adams wrote that as “neither reason requires nor
religion permits the contrary, every man living in or out of a state of civil society has a right
peaceably and quietly to worship God according to the dictates of his conscience. ‘Just and true
liberty, equal and impartial liberty,’ in matters spiritual and temporal, is a thing that all men are
clearly entitled to by the eternal and immutable laws of God and nature, as well as by the law of
nations and all well-grounded municipal laws, which must have their foundation in the former.
In regard to religion, mutual toleration in the different professions thereof is what all good and
candid minds in all ages have ever practiced….And it is now generally agreed among Christians
that this spirit of toleration, in the fullest extent consistent with the being of civil society, is the
chief characteristical mark of the Church.
“Insomuch that Mr. Locke has asserted and proved, beyond all possibility of
contradiction on any solid ground, that such toleration ought to be extended to all whose
doctrines are not subversive of society. The only sects which he thinks ought to be, and which
by all wise laws are excluded from such toleration, are those who teach doctrines subversive of
the civil government under which they live. The Roman Catholics or Papists are excluded by
reason of such doctrines as these ….” Later in the pamphlet, Samuel Adams stated that the
“right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in the power of man to alienate this
gift and voluntarily become a slave.” As to the “Rights of the Colonists as Christians,” Adams
wrote that they “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.”61 Adams, like the other Founders (as we saw in the state
constitutions and various acts of the Second Continental Congress) defined “freedom of religion”
Page 26 of 36
quite differently from how we do today. To them, freedom of religion was the freedom to
worship God according to the “dictates of conscience,” not the freedom to worship Buddha, or
Allah, or no God at all.
John Jay had a similar view of religious freedom. Like Samuel Adams and Patrick
Henry, he did not attend the Constitutional Convention, but he is certainly a Founding Father.
Jay was coauthor of the Federalist Papers, first Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court,
delegate to both Continental Congresses, and president of the Second Continental Congress in
1778. John Jay also left sure evidence of his Christian worldview. As chief justice of the New
York State Supreme Court, he told a grand jury that in America, “adequate security is…given to
the rights of conscience and private judgment. They are by nature subject to no control but that
of the Deity, and in that free situation they are now left. Every man is permitted to consider, to
adore, and to worship his Creator in the manner most agreeable to his conscience. No opinions
are dictated, no rules of faith prescribed, no preference given to one sect to the prejudice of
others.
“The [New York State] constitution, however, has wisely declared, that the ‘liberty of
conscience thereby granted shall not be so construed as to excuse acts of licentiousness, or justify
practices inconsistent with the peace and safety of this State. In a word, the Convention by
whom that constitution was formed were of the opinion that the gospel of Christ, like the ark of
God, would not fall, though unsupported by the arm of flesh: and happy would it be for mankind
if that opinion prevailed more generally.”62 In other words, John Jay believed that government
was justified in granting full freedom of conscience because Christianity needs no human
support. Again, their view of religious freedom, so different from ours today, was solidly
founded on Christianity.
Page 27 of 36
As we saw in the manifesto issued by Congress, the Founders believed that the
Revolutionary War was justified according to Biblical principles. John Jay was no exception. In
answer to the question of whether war is “prohibited by the gospel,” he wrote that wars that do
not proceed from “culpable desires and designs (or in Scripture language from lusts)” are as
“lawful to the unoffending party in our days, as they were in the days of Abraham. He waged
war against and defeated the five kings. He piously dedicated a tenth of the spoils; and, instead
of being blamed, was blessed….If wars of every kind and description are prohibited by the moral
law, I see no way of reconciling such a prohibition with those parts of Scripture which record
institutions, declarations, and interpositions of the Almighty which manifestly evince the
contrary. If every war is sinful, how did it happen that the sin of waging any war is not specified
among the numerous sins and offenses which are mentioned and reproved in both the
Testaments?
“…It certainly is very desirable that a pacific disposition should prevail among all
nations. The most effectual way of producing it, is by extending the prevalence and influence of
the gospel. Real Christians will abstain from violating the rights of others, and therefore will not
provoke war. Almost all nations have peace or war at the will and pleasure of rulers whom they
do not elect, and who are not always wise or virtuous. Providence has given to our people the
choice of rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest, of our Christian nation to
select and prefer Christians for their ruler” [emphasis added].63
Jay believed that war was as lawful in his day as it was in Abraham’s because the moral
law does not change. He wrote, “It appears to me that the gospel not only recognises the whole
moral law, and extends and perfects our knowledge of it, but also enjoins on all mankind the
observance of it. Being ordained by a legislator of infinite wisdom and rectitude, and in whom
Page 28 of 36
there is ‘no variableness,’64 it must be free from imperfection, and therefore never has, nor ever
will require amendment or alteration. Hence I conclude, that the moral law is exactly the same
now that it was before the flood.”65 Jay’s worldview was unquestionably Christian. He again
evidenced that worldview in a letter to Rev. Uzal Ogden, in which he wrote that he had “long
been of the opinion, that the evidence of the truth of Christianity, requires only to be carefully
examined to produce conviction in candid minds…”66
The last Founding Father whose writings we will examine is John Adams. He too
believed that the Revolutionary War was justified biblically, writing, “My conscience was clear
as a crystal glass, without a scruple or a doubt. I was borne along by an irresistible sense of duty.
God prospered our labors…”67 John Adams also believed that religion is part of the foundation
of government. He wrote that “religion and virtue are the only foundations, not only of
republicanism and of all free government, but of social felicity under all governments and in all
the combinations of human society.”68 He also believed that liberty is derived from God. In his
Dissertation on the Canon and the Feudal Law, he argued that it must be “remembered,
however, that liberty must at all hazards be supported. We have a right to it, derived from our
Maker.”69
John Adams’s writings are frequently misquoted, misconstrued, and taken out of context.
Those who contend that America was not founded on Christian principles often quote Adams as
saying, “Twenty times, in the course of my late Reading, have I been upon the point of breaking
out, ‘This would be the best of all possible Worlds, if there were no Religion in it.’!!!”70 This
makes Adams appear to be opposed to religion; the quotation, however, continues: “But in this
exclamation I should have been as fanatical as Bryant or Cleverly. Without Religion this World
would be Something not fit to be mentioned in polite Company, I mean Hell.”70 Adams was
Page 29 of 36
clearly not against religion, or even Christianity, as he revealed in his diary: “The Christian
religion is, above all the religions that ever prevailed or existed in ancient or modern times, the
religion of wisdom, virtue, equity, and humanity, let the blackguard [scoundrel] Paine say what
he will; it is resignation to God, it is goodness itself to man.”71
Another commonly misconstrued quotation deals with Adams’s response to a “National
Bible Society, to propagate King James’s Bible, through all Nations. Would it not be better, to
apply these pious Subscriptions, to purify Christendom from the Corruptions of Christianity;
than to propagate those Corruptions in Europe, Asia, Africa and America!” Even this does not
condemn Christianity, but its corrupted form, and Adams further clarified this later in the letter:
“Conclude not from all this, that I have renounced the Christian Religion, or that I agree with
Dupuis in all his Sentiments. Far from it. I see in every Page, Something to recommend
Christianity in its Purity, and Something to discredit its Corruptions.”72
In another letter to Jefferson, Adams specifically stated that America was founded on
Christian principles. He wrote that the Founders were members of countless religious
denominations, but that they were “[n]ever the less all Educated in the general Principles of
Christianity: and the general Principles of English and American Liberty….The general
Principles, on which the Fathers Achieved Independence, were the only Principles in which…
[they] could unite….And what were those general Principles? I answer, the general Principles of
Christianity, in which all those Sects were United….Now I will avow, that I then believed, and
now believe, that those general Principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable, as the
Existence and Attributes of God….”73 We may say that this quotation is itself conclusive
evidence for the Christian worldview of the Founders and thus, for the Christian founding of
Page 30 of 36
America. John Adams, himself a Founding Father, specifically stated that the Founders’
worldviews were Christian and that America was founded on Christian principles.
We have now traced the development of the Founders’ worldviews. We have analyzed
founding documents for reflections of that worldview. We have looked at the Founders’ private
correspondences for corroboration of that worldview. We now see three outstanding pieces of
evidence that could alone support the belief that America was founded on Christian principles.
First, the men who shaped the Founders’ worldviews based their philosophies on the Bible and
Christianity. Thus, principles such as “all men are created equal,” “governments derive their
powers from the people,” and “no man is above the law” all were derived from Biblical
reasoning. Such principles may not seem Christian on the surface, but as we have seen, their
philosophical justifications were thoroughly Christian. This alone is reason to believe that the
Founders’ worldview was Christian.
Second, state constitutions were inarguably Christian. State constitutions not only
influenced America’s founding; they were America’s founding. In addition, the U. S.
Constitution embraced the state constitutions as they stood; it made no effort to lessen their
Christian stance. The state constitutions support the Christian worldview of the Founders
without any additional evidence.
Third, many of the actions of the Second Continental Congress were unapologetically
Christian. The Declaration of Independence contained some principles that were overtly
Christian, and others that were based on Christian reasoning. Other documents issued by
Congress, such as those supporting missionaries to the Indians, a manifesto to Great Britain, the
Northwest Ordinance, and the many proclamations of national days of thanksgiving and prayer,
also demonstrated a Christian worldview. The actions of the Second Continental Congress, a
Page 31 of 36
particularly important group of Founding Fathers, are by themselves ample justification to
believe that America was founded on Christian principles.
Taken together, the influences on the Founding Fathers, the state constitutions, and the
actions of the Second Continental Congress are overwhelming evidence for the Christian
worldviews of the Founders. The Founders’ private correspondence corroborated and even
added to this already compelling evidence. It is only reasonable to conclude that America was
founded on Christian principles.
With such a preponderance of evidence to the contrary, why do some still claim that the
Founding Fathers were “strongly opposed to Christianity” and that America was not founded on
Christian principles?
Endnotes:
1 “Our Founding Fathers Were Not Christians.” http://freethought.mbdojo.com/foundingfathers.html (accessed October 22, 2007).
2 Filmer, Robert. Patriarcha, or, the Natural Power of Kings. (Broadway, NY: George Rutledge and Sons, 1884) 44.
3 Filmer. Patriarcha, 54.4 Rutherford, Samuel. Lex, Rex, or, the Law and the Prince. (Edinburgh, Scotland: Robert
Ogle and Oliver & Boyd, 1843) 4.5 Rutherford. Lex, Rex, 5.6 Rutherford. Lex, Rex, 6.7 Locke, John. Two Treatises of Civil Government. (London, Great Britain: J. M. Dent &
Sons Ltd., 1924) 142.8 Locke. Two Treatises of Civil Government, 119.9 Locke. Two Treatises of Civil Government, 119-120.10 Locke. Two Treatises of Civil Government, 25.11 Montesquieu, Charles Baron de. The Spirit of Laws. (New York, NY: Hafner Press, 1949)
Volume II, 27.12 Montesquieu. The Spirit of Laws, I:3.13 America Government in Christian Perspective. (Pensacola, FL: A Beka Book, 1997, 1984).14 Blackstone, Sir William. Commentaries on the Law of England. (Philadelphia, PA: William
Young Birch & Abraham Small, 1803), http://www.constitution.org/tb/tb-0000.htm (accessed September 16, 2007) Book I, Part I, Section II.
Page 32 of 36
15 Bradford, William. Of Plymouth Plantation. (New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., 1952) 75.
16 Bradford. Of Plymouth Plantation, 76.17 Jefferson, Thomas. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson. (Washington, D. C.: The Thomas
Jefferson Memorial Association, 1903) 118.18 Fundamental Orders of 1639. http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/order.htm (accessed
October 18, 2007).19 Constitution of Delaware (1776). http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/states/de02.htm
(accessed October 2007).20 Constitution of North Carolina (December 18, 1776).
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/states/nc07.htm (accessed October 2007).21 Constitution of New Jersey (1776). http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/states/nj15.htm
(accessed October 2007).22 Constitution of Virginia (June 29, 1776). http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/states/va05.htm
(accessed October 2007).23 Constitution of Vermont (July 8, 1777). http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/states/vt01.htm
(accessed October 2007).24 Constitution of Pennsylvania (September 28, 1776).
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/states/pa08.htm (accessed October 2007).25 Constitution of Massachusetts (1780). http://www.mass.gov/legis/const.htm (accessed
October 2007).26 Constitution of Maryland (November 11, 1776).
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/states/de02.htm (accessed October 2007).27 Constitution of South Carolina (March 19, 1778).
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/states/sc02.htm (accessed October 2007).28 Constitution of New York (April 20, 1777).
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/states/ny01.htm (accessed October 2007).29 “Our Founding Fathers Were Not Christians.”
http://freethought.mbdojo.com/foundingfathers.html (accessed October 23, 2007).30 The Declaration of Independence. Image of actual document.
http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=rbc3&fileName=rbc0001_2004pe76546page (accessed October 24, 2007).
31 See Journals of the Continental Congress, March 17, 1784; January 12, 1784; September 12, 1782; August 18, 1778; June 30, 1779 for examples of references to these chaplains.
32 Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774 – 1789. (ed. Worthington C. Ford et. al. Washington, D. C., 1904-37) October 12, 1778, 12:1001.
33 Journals of the Continental Congress. September 20, 1776, 5:788-789.34 Journals of the Continental Congress. September 11, 1777, 8:734.35 Journals of the Continental Congress. September 12, 1782, 23:573.36 Journals of the Continental Congress. September 12, 1782, 23:574.37 “To Form a More Perfect Union: Documents from the Continental Congress and the
Constitutional Convention, 1774-1789.” http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/collections/continental/flames.html (accessed October 26, 2007).
Page 33 of 36
38 “By the Congress of the United States of America: Manifesto.” Facsimile of original document retrieved from http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/h?ammem/bdsbib:@field-(NUMBER+@od1(bdsdcc+05201)) (accessed October 26, 2007).
39 Journals of the Continental Congress. June 12, 1788, 34:214. For other examples, see also the entries for July 10, 1787 (32:312) and for June 20, 1788 (34:249).
40 Journals of the Continental Congress. July 13, 1787, 32:339-340.41 Journals of the Continental Congress. April 10, 1776, 4:267. See also the record for
February 5, 1776, 4:111.42 Journals of the Continental Congress. December 27, 1785, 29:903.43 Journals of the Continental Congress. March 16, 1776, 4:208-209.44 Journals of the Continental Congress. November 1, 1777, 8:854-855.45 Journals of the Continental Congress. March 19, 1782, 22:137-138.46 Journals of the Continental Congress. March 20, 1781, 20:284-285.47 Journals of the Continental Congress. October 11, 1782. 23:647.48 Journals of the Continental Congress. March 20, 1779, 13:343.49 II Chronicles 7:14, King James Version50 Journals of the Continental Congress. October 18, 1783. 25:699-700.51 “America’s Founding Fathers: Delegates to the Constitutional Convention.”
http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/constitution-_founding_fathers_pennsylvania.html#Morris_G (accessed October 27, 2007).
52 Smith, Paul H., et al., eds. Letters of Delegates to Congress, 1774-1789. 25 volumes, (Washington, D.C.: Library of Congress, 1976-2000), 9:730-731.
53 Jefferson, Thomas. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson. (Washington, D. C.: The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1903) 117.
54 Robin et. al. v. Hardaway, et. al., April 1778. Jefferson, Thomas. Reports of Cases Determined in the General Court of Virginia, From 1730 to 1740, and from 1768 to 1772. (Charlottesville, VA: The Michie Company Law Publishers, 1903) 61.
55 Letter to James A. Bayard, April 1802. Alexander Hamilton, The Works of Alexander Hamilton, ed. Henry Cabot Lodge (Federal Edition) (New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1904). In 12 vols. Vol. 10. Accessed from http://oll.libertyfund.org/title/1387/93528 on 2007-10-27.
56 Letter to Eliza Hamilton, July 10, 1804. Alexander Hamilton, The Works of Alexander Hamilton, ed. Henry Cabot Lodge (Federal Edition) (New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1904). In 12 vols. Vol. 10. Accessed from http://oll.libertyfund.org/title/1387/93528 on 2007-10-27.
57 Letter to Eliza Hamilton, July 10, 1804. Alexander Hamilton, The Works of Alexander Hamilton, ed. Henry Cabot Lodge (Federal Edition) (New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1904). In 12 vols. Vol. 10. Accessed from http://oll.libertyfund.org/title/1387/93528 on 2007-10-27.
58 Farrand, Max, ed. The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787. (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1911) 451-452..
59 Letter to Archibald Blair, January 8, 1799. Tyler, Moses, Coit. American Statesman: Patrick Henry, 1887. (Boston and New York: Houghton, Mifflin and Company, 1887) 365.
60 Letter to “Betsy,” August 20, 1796. Wirt, William. Sketches of the Life and Character of Patrick Henry. (New York: Derby & Jackson, 1860) 402-403.
61 Samuel Adams. The Rights of Congress: The Report of the Committee of Correspondence to the Boston Town Meeting, November 20, 1772, http://history.hanover.edu/texts/adamss.html (accessed September 19, 2007).
Page 34 of 36
62 Jay, William, ed. The Life of John Jay: With Selections from His Correspondence and Miscellaneous Papers. (New York, NY: J. & J. Harper, 1833) I:82.
63 Letter to John Murray, Jr., October 12, 1816. Jay, The Life of John Jay. II:375-376.64 See James 1:17.65 Letter to John Murray, Jr., October 12, 1816. Jay, The Life of John Jay. II:375.66 Letter to Uzal Ogden, February 17, 1796. Jay, The Life of John Jay. II:266.67 Letter to Benjamin Rush. Adams, Charles Francis, ed. The Works of John Adams. (Boston,
MA: Little, Brown, and Company, 1854) IX:635.68 Letter to Benjamin Rush. Adams, The Works of John Adams. IX:636.69 “Dissertation on the Canon and Feudal Law.” Adams, The Works of John Adams. III:456.70 Letter to Thomas Jefferson, April 19, 1817. Cappon, Lester J, ed. The Adams - Jefferson
Letters: The Complete Correspondence Between Thomas Jefferson and Abigail and John Adams. (University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, 1959) II(1812-1826):509.
71 Diary entry for June 26, 1795. Adams, The Works of John Adams. III:421.72 Cappon, ed.. The Adams - Jefferson Letters, II:339-340.
Bibliography:
Note: Many of the historical books cited, such as Patriarcha and Lex, Rex, were retrieved from Google Books. Many of the early political records, such as the Journals of the Continental Congress and the Senate and House Journals, were retrieved from the Library of Congress website at http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lawhome.html.
Adams, Charles Francis, ed. The Works of John Adams, Volume III, Boston: Little, Brown, and Company, 1865.
Adams, Charles Francis, ed. The Works of John Adams, Volume IX, Boston: Little, Brown, and Company, 1854.
Annals of Congress, 1st Congress, 1st Session.
Blackstone, Sir William. Commentaries on the Law of England. Philadelphia: William Young
“Blackstone, Sir William.” Encyclopaedia Britannica Ready Reference 2004, CD-ROM. Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc., 2004. 1994-2004 ed.
Birch & Abraham Small, 1803. http://www.constitution.org/tb/tb-0000.htm (accessed September 16, 2007).
“Constitution of the United States.” Encyclopaedia Britannica Ready Reference 2004, CD-ROM. Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc., 2004. 1994-2004 ed.
“Continental Congreso.” Encyclopaedia Britannica Ready Reference 2004, CD-ROM. Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc., 2004. 1994-2004 ed.
Page 35 of 36
Cappon, Lester J., ed. The Adams-Jefferson Letters: The Complete Correspondence Between Thomas Jefferson and Abigail and John Adams. Chapel Hill, North Carolina: University of North Carolina Press, 1959.
Elliot, Jonathan, ed. The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution. (Often referred to as Elliot’s Debates.) Washington, D.C.: 1836.
Farrand, Max, ed. The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787. (Often referred to as Farrand’s Records). New Haven: Yale University Press, 1911.
Filmer, Robert. Patriarcha, or, the Natural Power of Kings. Broadway, New York: George Rutledge and Sons, 1884.
Jay, William, ed. The Life of John Jay: With Selections from His Correspondence and Miscellaneous Papers. New York: J. & J. Harper, 1833.
Jefferson, Thomas. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson. Washington, D. C.: The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1903.
Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774 - 1789, ed. Worthington C. Ford et. al. Washington, D. C., 1904-37.
Locke, John. Two Treatises of Civil Government. London: J. M. Dent & Sons Ltd., 1924.Lutz, Donald S. The Origins of American Constitutionalism. Baton Rouge, Louisiana: Louisiana State University Press, 1988
“Locke, John.” Encyclopaedia Brittanica Ready Reference 2004, CD-ROM. Encyclopaedia Británica, Inc., 2004. 1994-2004 ed.
Montesquieu, Charles Baron de. The Spirit of Laws. New York: Hafner Press, 1949.
“Montesquieu, Charles-Louis de Secondat, Baron de.” Encyclopaedia Brittanica Ready Reference 2004, CD-ROM. Encyclopaedia Brittanica, Inc., 2004. 1994-2004 ed.
Moses Coit Tyler, American Statesman: Patrick Henry. Boston and New York: Houghton, Mifflin, and Company, 1887.
Paine, Thomas. Common Sense. Great Britain: Penguin Books Ltd., 1976.
“Religion and the Congress of the Confederation,” Library of Congress exhibit, http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel04.html (accessed September 2007).
Rutherford, Samuel. Lex, Rex, or, the Law and the Prince. Edinburgh, Scotland: Robert Ogle and Oliver & Boyd, 1843.
Schaeffer, Francis A. A Christian Manifesto. Westchester, Illinois: Crossway Books, 1981.
Page 36 of 36
Sidney, Algernon. Discourses On Government. New York: Deare and Andrews, 1805
Smith, Paul H., et al., eds. Letters of Delegates to Congress, 1774-1789. 25 volumes, Washington, D.C.: Library of Congress, 1976-2000
U. S. House Journal. 1st Congress, 1st Session.
U. S. Senate Journal. First Congress, First Session
Various eighteenth century documents, from the Avalon Project at Yale Law School, http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/18th.htm (accessed September – October 2007).
Wells, William V. The Life and Public Services of Samuel Adams, Boston, MA: Little, Brown, and Company, 1865.
Whitehead, John W. The Second American Revolution. Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway Books, 1982.
William Wirt, Sketches of the Life and Character of Patrick Henry, Philadelphia: Thomas, Cowperthwait & Co., 1841.