In the spirit of Samuel Adams, the Father of the American Revolution, and the Committees of Correspondence, Adams’ great work among the Colonies, we agree that people of Virtue and Truth are the truest friends of Liberty:

He therefore is the truest Friend to the Liberty of his country who tries most to promote its Virtue, and who, so far as his power and influence extend, will not suffer a man to be chosen into any office of power and trust who is not a wise and virtuous man… The sum of all is, if we would most truly enjoy this gift of Heaven, let us become a Virtuous People.

The Friends of Liberty Blogroll is a network of blogs dedicated to promoting Virtue and Truth. We invite people from all walks of life and countries to join the Friends of Liberty Blogroll. Here are the requirements:

1. You understand the concepts of the words Virtue and Truth as primarily and traditionally defined by Jesus Christ in the Holy Scriptures.

Virtue as in “you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength” and “you shall love your neighbor as yourself.” (Matt. 22:37-40). Truth as in “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through Me” (Jn. 14:6) and “All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.” (II Tim 3:16)

“To promote true religion is the best and most effectual way of making a virtuous and regular people. Love to God and love to man is the substance of religion; when these prevail, civil laws will have little to do. … The magistrate (or ruling part of any society) ought to encourage piety … [and] make it an object of public esteem. Those who are vested with civil authority ought … to promote religion and good morals among all their government.” John Witherspoon

2. You must post a Friends of Liberty Blogroll button somewhere on your blog, and link the button back to this page, or have a text link linking back to this page. See below for button images and html codes.

3. You must agree with the tenets outlined in the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. These documents are not “living, breathing” documents that change with the times or every whim of man.

“Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government.” James Madison

“The Constitution is not a panacea for every blot upon the public welfare, nor should this Court, ordained as a judicial body, be thought of as a general haven for reform movements.” Chief Justice John Marshall

4. You pledge to encourage the godly values of Virtue and Truth in your own life and in your blog.

“The only foundation for… a republic is to be laid in Religion. Without this there can be no virtue, and without virtue there can be no liberty, and liberty is the object and life of all republican governments.” Benjamin Rush.

“Good government generally begins in the family, and if the moral character of a people once degenerate, their political character must soon follow.” Elias Boudinot

5. You recognize that the United States has its inalienable rights from God, not from the state or from man. You recognize that the United States form of government and its culture stems from the Christian values of the Old and New Testament, and that the present problems in our government and culture are because the nation has abandoned these values.

“The moral principles and precepts contained in the Scripture ought to form the basis of all our civil constitutions and laws. All the miseries and evil men suffer from vice, crime, ambition, injustice, oppression, slavery, and war, proceed from their despising or neglecting the precepts contained in the Bible.” Noah Webster “[O]ur citizens should early understand that the genuine source of correct republican principles is the Bible, particularly the New Testament, or the Christian religion.” Noah Webster

6. You cannot be an atheist or a humanist.

“Shun, as a contagious pestilence, … those especially whom you perceive to be infected with the principles of infidelity or enemies to the power of religion. Whoever is an avowed enemy of God, I scruple not to call him an enemy to his country.” John Witherspoon.

“Without morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion, whose morality is so sublime and pure (and) which insures to the good eternal happiness, are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments.” Charles Carroll

“… And thus be our motto In God We Trust.” Francis Scott Key

“An oath is an appeal to God, the Searcher of hearts, for the truth of what we say and always expresses or supposes an imprecation of His judgment upon us if we prevaricate. An oath, therefore, implies a belief in God and His Providence and indeed is an act of worship. … Persons entering on public offices are also often obliged to make oath that they will faithfully execute their trust. … In vows, there is no party but God and the person himself who makes the vow.” John Witherspoon

Ready to join? Just leave a comment with your blog’s URL. I will add you to the blogroll as soon as possible.

Here are the buttons and codes. Feel free to download the buttons for yourself and link back to this post. Please be sure to have the button or text link back to this blogroll. Thanks!

Large Button

Image Source: http://i221.photobucket.com/albums/dd192/CatoofUtica/FriendofLiberty.jpg
Link back to: http://thefoundationforum.blogspot.com/2007/10/friends-of-liberty-blogroll.html

Small Button

Image Source: http://i221.photobucket.com/albums/dd192/CatoofUtica/FriendofLiberty_small.jpg
Link back to: http://thefoundationforum.blogspot.com/2007/10/friends-of-liberty-blogroll.html

Tiny Button

Image Source: http://i221.photobucket.com/albums/dd192/CatoofUtica/FriendLibertyTinyButton.png
Link back to: http://thefoundationforum.blogspot.com/2007/10/friends-of-liberty-blogroll.html

FRIENDS OF LIBERTY BLOGROLL

Adventures in the Life of Upstate NY
The Foundation Forum<
Meet the Founding Fathers
Alexander Hamilton Patriot
New York Traveler
Our Founding Truth
Brainbiter
Principled Discovery
New York Traveler (website)
The Cause of Liberty
New York Renovator<
Mrs. Mecomber’s Scrapbook
Fida Abbott
Yeah, Right …
The Thinker
American Age

Please keep in mind that comments are solely for joining the blogroll.

The Rights of the Colonists as Christians – These may be best understood by reading and carefully studying the institutes of the great Lawgiver and head of the Christian Church: which are to be found closely written and promulgated in the New Testament. (1)

Here, the Father of the American Revolution says that our rights come from God, and may be BEST understood by reading and carefully studying the words of Jesus, as recorded in the New Testament. The Founding Fathers certainly used their reason, but they did not rely upon man’s reason ALONE; they relied heavily upon Biblical principles, as the quotes I shall present will unequivocally demonstrate.

Some may object: “Samuel Adams was most probably an orthodox Christian, so of course he would say such a thing. But the more important Founding Fathers like John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, James Madison, and Alexander Hamilton, who were more than likely religious rationalists, did not hold that same views as the orthodox Founders like Sam Adams.”

Such an argument has many blatant falsehoods. (1) What Founder can be more important than Sam Adams, the “father of the American Revolution”?* (2) We shall see what the other named Founders believed about revelation, that this argument is largely false, (3) and hence we shall find that several of the individuals named were NOT rationalists, and (4) allow me to point out that MOST of the Founding Fathers were most likely orthodox Christians. Now, when I say “orthodox,” I do not mean that that Founder(s) agreed with any particular denomination’s creed, but rather with the doctrines which are clearly written in the Bible. I think that these “basic doctrines” are best delineated in the Apostles’ Creed. The writings of the Founding Fathers (ahem, THEIR writings, not the analysis of some scholar, either secular humanist or evangelical), and may be easily searched for key words online, in order to substantiate this claim. I have an “online library” of such rare writings of theirs (a library which is being continually expanded, so be sure to bookmark this great resource): The Founders’ Bookshelf. This collection is the result of 4+ years of hunting for the Founders writings online, as they are hardly available to the average citizen (such as myself) and not for convenient use. Here, however, their writings may be viewed and studied by any American at his or her own convenience.

*Some of the Founding Fathers named above, such as Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin certainly did contribute to the Founding Era in important ways, but there are many more Founding Fathers that contributed much more than those two men, but Americans never hear of them often or learn about them, and the modern public (reads: government-regulated) school system is largely to blame. The public school system is the evangelism center for secular humanism, and so the least Christian of the Founders have been emphasized at the expense of other Founders such as Benjamin Rush, George Mason, John Jay, William Livingston, Elias Boudinot, Johnathan Trumbull, Sr., and many others. It must also be pointed out that many of the Founders disagreed vehemently with those two men (especially with Jefferson) on many important points. So, just because Jefferson or Franklin said something about the Founding Era or their fellow Founders, or the Constitution doesn’t necessarily make their words pure gold. I will discuss this in the future on my Meet the Founding Fathers blog.

But back to the Sam Adams quote. Was Sammy Adams the only one to hold such a belief? Did the less “orthodox” Christian Founders disagree? Not his cousin John Adams:

The GENERAL PRINCIPLES on which the fathers achieved independence, were the only principles in which that beautiful assembly of young men could unite, and these principles only could be intended by them in their address, or by me in my answer. And what were those GENERAL PRINCIPLES? I answer, the general principles of Christianity, in which all those sects [the Roman Catholics, Quakers, Presbyterians, Methodists, Moravians, and Universalists] were united, and the GENERAL PRINCIPLES of English and American liberty, in which all those young men united, and which had united all parties in America, in majorities sufficient to assert and maintain her independence. 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; and that those principles of liberty are as unalterable as human nature and our terrestrial, mundane system. (2)

This statement makes you think twice about the assertion that the Founders rejected the Bible and embraced “reason” instead. Is this statement by Adams isolated? Did he express different positions as he grew older, and began to more seriously doubt several basic tenets of Christianity? It is worth pointing out that the above quote comes from a letter written to Thomas Jefferson in 1813, 13 years before Adams passed away. Here are some other quotes from Adams on the subject of revelation, the Bible, and American government:

“Thus we are equally obliged to the Supream [sic] Being for the Information he has given us of our Duty, whether by the Constitution of our Minds and Bodies or by a supernatural Revelation. For an instance of the latter let us take original sin. Some say that Adams sin was enough to damn the whole human Race, without any actual Crimes committed by any of them. Now this Guilt is brought upon them not by their own rashness and Indiscretion, not by their own Wickedness and Vice, but by the Supream Being. This Guilt brought upon us is a real Injury and Misfortune because it renders us worse than not to be, and therefore making us guilty upon account of Adams Delegation, or Representing all of us, is not in the least diminishing the Injury and Injustice but only changing the mode of conveyance.” (3)

“No Priest nor Pope has any Right to say what I shall believe, and I will not believe one Word they say, if I think it is not founded in Reason and in Revelation. Now how can I judge what My Bible justifies unless I can read my Bible. … “A Man who can read, will find in his Bible, in the common sermon Books that common People have by them and even in the Almanack [sic] and News Papers, Rules and observations, that will enlarge his Range of Thought, and enable him the better to judge who has and who has not that Integrity of Heart, and that Compass of Knowledge and Understanding, which form the Statesman.” (4)

“The gallant Struggle in America, is founded in Principles so indisputable, in the moral Law, in the revealed Law of God, in the true Constitution of great Britain, and in the most apparent Welfare of the Nation as well as the People in America, that I must confess it rejoices my very Soul.” (5)

“Suppose a nation in some distant Region, should take the Bible for their only law Book, and every member should regulate his conduct by the precepts there exhibited. Every member would be obliged in Concience [sic] to temperance and frugality and industry, to justice and kindness and Charity towards his fellow men, and to Piety and Love, and reverence towards almighty God. In this Commonwealth, no man would impair his health by Gluttony, drunkenness, or Lust-no man would sacrifice his most precious time to cards, or any other trifling and mean amusement-no man would steal or lie or any way defraud his neighbour [sic], but would live in peace and good will with all men-no man would blaspheme his maker or prophane [sic] his Worship, but a rational and manly, a sincere and unaffected Piety and devotion, would reign in all hearts. What a Eutopia [sic], what a Paradise would this region be. ” (6)

“Gilbert Livingston, who took the Reflection to himself and his Party and grew warm, ‘Nothing says he mortifies me so much in the misconduct in France and America too, as to see that the Fools are all playing the Game into the hands of that Mr. John Adams.’

‘Why?’ Said Benson to Livingston who it seems is a serious Man. ‘Mr. Adams reads the Scriptures and there he finds that Man is as stupid as the Wild Asses Colt. He believes what he reads and infers his necessary Consequences from it. That is all. Mr. Adams is not to blame. He did not write the Scriptures, He only reads and believes.’ ” (7)

John Adams didn’t agree with everything in the Bible, but did he think that it’s principles were contrary or alien to the form of government that the Founders established? Hardly. Here are what some other Founding Fathers had to say about revelation, and the role of the Bible in American government:

SAMUEL ADAMS
“A PROCLAMATION FOR A DAY OF PUBLIC THANKSGIVING AND PRAISE. FORASMUCH as the occasional meeting of a People for the exercise of Piety and Devotion towards God, more especially of those who enjoy the Light of Divine Revelation, has a strong tendency to impress their minds with a sense of Dependence upon HIM and their Obligations to HIM.

I have thought fit, according to the ancient and laudable Practice of our renowned ancestors, to appoint a day of Public Thanksgiving to God, for the great benefits which HE has been pleased to bestow upon us, in the Year past.”
~Thanksgiving Proclamation by Massachusetts Governor Samuel Adams, Oct. 14, 1795; The Writings of Samuel Adams, volume 4

ALEXANDER HAMILTON
Opinions, for a long time, have been gradually gaining ground, which threaten the foundations of religion, morality, and society. An attack was first made upon the Christian revelation, for which natural religion was offered as the substitute. The Gospel was to be discarded as a gross imposture, but the being and attributes of GOD, the obligations of piety, even the doctrine of a future state of rewards and punishments, were to be retained and cherished.

In proportion as success has appeared to attend the plan, a bolder project has been unfolded. The very existence of a Deity has been questioned and in some instances denied. The duty of piety has been ridiculed, the perishable nature of man asserted, and his hopes bounded to the short span of his earthly state. DEATH has been proclaimed an ETERNAL SLEEP; “the dogma of the immortality of the soul a cheat, invented to torment the living for the benefit of the dead.” Irreligion, no longer confined to the closets of conceited sophists, nor to the haunts of wealthy riot, has more or less displayed its hideous front among all classes.

Wise and good men took a lead in delineating the odious character of despotism, in exhibiting the advantages of a moderate and well-balanced government, in inviting nations to contend for the enjoyment of national liberty. Fanatics in political science have since exaggerated and perverted their doctrines. Theories of government unsuited to the nature of man, miscalculating the force of his passions, disregarding the lessons of experimental wisdom, have been projected and recommended. These have everywhere attracted sectaries, and everywhere the fabric of government has been in different degrees undermined.~“Fragment on the American Revolution” (unknown date of authorship; estimated to have been authored in the 1790s); The Works of Alexander Hamilton, ed. by Henry C. Lodge, vol. 8

JAMES WILSON
That law, which God has made for man in his present state; that law, which is communicated to us by reason and conscience, the divine monitors within us, and by the sacred oracles, the divine monitors without us. This law has undergone several subdivisions, and has been known by distinct appellations, according to the different ways in which it has been promulgated, and the different objects which it respects.
As promulgated by reason and the moral sense, it has been called natural; as promulgated by the holy scriptures, it has been called revealed law.

As addressed to men, it has been denominated the law of nature; as addressed to political societies, it is has been denominated the law of nations.

But it should always be remembered, that this law, natural or revealed, made for men or for nations, flows from the same divine source: it is the law of God.

Nature, or, to speak more properly, the Author of nature, has done much for us; but it is his gracious appointment and will, that we should also do much ourselves. What we do, indeed, must be founded on what he has done; and the deficiencies of our laws must be supplied by the perfections of his. Human law must rest its authority, ultimately, upon the authority of that law, which is divine.

Of that law, the following are maxims — that no injury should be done — that a lawful engagement, voluntarily made, should be faithfully fulfilled. We now see the deep and the solid foundations of human law.

Those parts of natural philosophy, which more immediately relate to the human body, are appropriated to the profession of physick [sic].

The law eternal, the law celestial, and the law divine, as they are disclosed by that revelation, which has brought life and immortality to light, are the more peculiar objects of the profession of divinity.

The law of nature, the law of nations, and the municipal law form the objects of the profession of law. The Works of the Honorable James Wilson, L.L.D.; vol. 1, pp. 104-105 –”Lectures on Law”

[H]ow shall we, in particular instances, learn the dictates of our duty, and make, with accuracy, the proper distinction between right and wrong; in other words, how shall we, in particular cases, discover the will of God? We discover it by our conscience, by our reason, and by the Holy Scriptures. The law of nature and the law of revelation are both divine: they flow, though in different channels, from the same adorable source. It is, indeed, preposterous to separate them from each other. The object of both is — to discover the will of God — and both are necessary for the accomplishment of that end.
~The Works of the Honorable James Wilson, L.L.D.; vol. 1, page 120

GEORGE WASHINGTON
The foundation of our Empire was not laid in the gloomy age of Ignorance and Superstition, but at an Epocha when the rights of mankind were better understood and more clearly defined, than at any former period, the researches of the human mind, after social happiness, have been carried to a great extent, the Treasures of knowledge, acquired by the labours of Philosophers, Sages and Legislatures, through a long succession of years, are laid open for our use, and their collected wisdom may be happily applied in the Establishment of our forms of Government; the free cultivation of Letters, the unbounded extension of Commerce, the progressive refinement of Manners, the growing liberality of sentiment, and above all, the pure and benign light of Revelation, have had ameliorating influence on mankind and increased the blessings of Society. At this auspicious period, the United States came into existence as a Nation, and if their Citizens should not be completely free and happy, the fault will be intirely their own.
~The Writings of George Washington, ed. by Fitzpatrick, “Circular to the States” (26:485)

For certainly it is more consonant to all the principles of reason and religion (natural and revealed) to replenish the earth with inhabitants, rather than to depopulate it by killing those already in existence, besides it is time for the age of Knight-Errantry and mad-heroism to be at an end. Your young military men, who want to reap the harvest of laurels, don’t care (I suppose) how many seeds of war are sown; but for the sake of humanity it is devoutly to be wished, that the manly employment of agriculture and the humanizing benefits of commerce, would supersede the waste of war and the rage of conquest; that the swords might be turned into plough-shares, the spears into pruning hooks, and, as the Scripture expresses it, “the nations learn war no more.”

~ Letter to Francois Jean, Comte de Chastellux, April 25, 1788 (manuscript from Library of Congress)

If the blessings of Heaven showered thick around us should be spilled on the ground or converted to curses, through the fault of those for whom they were intended, it would not be the first instance of folly [34] or perverseness in short-sighted mortals. The blessed Religion revealed in the word of God will remain an eternal and awful monument to prove that the best Institutions may be abused by human depravity; and that they may even, in some instances be made subservient to the vilest of purposes. Should, hereafter, those who are intrusted [sic] with the management of this government, incited by the lust of power and prompted by the Supineness or venality of their Constituents, overleap the known barriers of this Constitution and violate the unalienable rights of humanity: it will only serve to shew, that no compact among men (however provident in its construction and sacred in its ratification) can be pronounced everlasting and inviolable, and if I may so express myself, that no Wall of words, that no mound of parchmt. can be so formed as to stand against the sweeping torrent of boundless ambition on the one side, aided by the sapping current of corrupted morals on the other.

~proposed address to Congress, April ?, 1789; Writings of Washington, ed. by Fitzpatrick (30:301-302)

BENJAMIN FRANKLIN
We should remember the character which the Scripture requires in Rulers, that they should be men hating covetousness. This Constitution will be much read and attended to in Europe, and if it should betray a great partiality to the rich will not only hurt us in the esteem of the most liberal and enlightened men there, but discourage the common people from removing to this Country.
~speech on the floor of the Constitutional Convention, Friday, August 10; from Madison’s “Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787″<

JAMES MADISON
It is impossible for any man of candor to reflect on this circumstance [the creation of the US Constitution] without partaking of the astonishment. It is impossible for the man of pious reflection not to perceive in it a finger of that Almighty hand which has been so frequently and signally extended to our relief in the critical stages of the revolution.
~Federalist #37

ELIAS BOUDINOT
He wrote the pamphlet “The Age of Revelation” in rebuttal to Thomas Paine’s “Age of Reason.”

FOUNDING DOCUMENTS
And each member, before he takes his seat, shall make and subscribe the following declaration, viz:
I do believe in one God, the creator and governor of the universe, the rewarder of the 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.
~ Pennsylvania Constitution, Article XVI, Section 10 (1776) (drafted by, among others, influential Founding Father Benjamin Franklin)

Every person who shall be chosen a member of either house, or appointed to any office or place of trust, before taking his seat, or entering upon the execution of his office, shall take the following oath, or affirmation, if conscientiously scrupulous of taking an oath, 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 by divine inspiration.”

And all officers shall also take an oath of office.
~Delaware Constitution, Article 22 (1776) (drafted by, among others, Declaration-signers Thomas McKean and George Reed)

… [A]nd they [members of the state house of representatives] shall be of the Protestent [sic] religion…
~Georgia Constitution, Article VI (1777)

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, or who shall hold religious principles incompatible with the freedom and safety of the State, shall be capable of holding any office or place of trust or profit in the civil department within this State.
~North Carolina Constitution, Article XXXII (1776)

And that whenever fifteen or more male persons, not under twenty-one years of age, professing the Christian Protestant religion, and agreeing to unite themselves In a society for the purposes of religious worship, they shall, (on complying with the terms hereinafter mentioned,) be, and be constituted a church, and be esteemed and regarded in law as of the established religion of the State, and on a petition to the legislature shall be entitled to be incorporated and to enjoy equal privileges. That every society of Christians so formed shall give themselves a name or denomination by which they shall be called and known in law, and all that associate with them for the purposes of worship shall be esteemed as belonging to the society so called. But that previous to the establishment and incorporation of the respective societies of every denomination as aforesaid, and in order to entitle them thereto, each society so petitioning shall have agreed to and subscribed in a book the following five articles, without which no agreement fir union of men upon presence of religion shall entitle them to be incorporated and esteemed as a church of the established religion of this State:

1st. That there is one eternal God, and a future state of rewards and punishments.

2d. That God is publicly to be worshipped [sic].

3d. 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.

5th. That it is lawful and the duty of every man being thereunto called by those that govern, to bear witness to the truth.
~South Carolina Constitution, Article XXXVIII (1778)

And each member, before he takes his seat, shall make and subscribe the following declaration, viz. “I ____ do believe in one God, the Creator and Governor of the Diverse, the rewarder of the good and punisher of the wicked. And I do acknowledge the scriptures of the old and new testament to be given by divine inspiration, and own and profess the protestant religion.”
~Vermont Constitution, Chapter II, Section IX (1777)

The governor shall be chosen [annually]; and no person shall be eligible to this office, unless at the time of his election, he shall have been an inhabitant of this commonwealth for seven years next preceding; [and unless he shall at the same time, be seised [sic] in his own right, of a freehold within the commonwealth of the value of one thousand pounds; and unless he shall declare himself to be of the Christian religion.] …

[Any person chosen governor, lieutenant governor, councillor [sic], senator or representative, and accepting the trust, shall before he proceed to execute the duties of his place or office, make and subscribe the following declaration, viz.–”I, A. B., do declare, that I believe the Christian religion, and have a firm persuasion of its truth; and that I am seised [sic] and possessed, in my own right, of the property required by the constitution as one qualification for the office or place to which I am elected.”
~Massachusetts Constitution, Chapter II, Section I, Article II; Chapter VI, Article I (1780) (drafted by, among others, John and Samuel Adams)

The Founders believed in revelation and reason without the Bible? Hardly. The Founders thought that Christianity and the Bible were incompatible with civil government? Don’t think so.

In spite of this mountain of glaring evidence above, it will probably be objected by some that the basic ideas of law, nature, God, etc, are still compatible with “theistic rationalism,” or (if I understand the implied definition correctly), accepting the existence of God, but rejecting direct revelation and the seemingly “irrational” Scriptures (the miraculous, Jesus’ divinity and atonement, the Trinity, etc.). It is true that there were some Founders whose beliefs do line up with this definition (Jefferson, probably Franklin, John Adams, and James Wilson). But this was not the overall view of the Founders.

This post is long enough already, and I think I have made my point by now.

My next post will be “Thoughts on Reason, Revelation, and the Bible.” It will explain my ideology and logic on this point, and therefore help explain why I believe that the Founders had a Biblical concept of government, and that, though they did heavily rely upon reason (and it is purely Scriptural to do so, as I will show in my next post), they did not place man’s reason above God’s law (in GENERAL; Jefferson’s writings show that he believed reason was above the Bible, though he believed the Bible was a great, if not the best, book).

“Is it a government in which God’s moral law is not recognized as the ultimate source of justice….” [quoting a previous post of mine]

I don’t mean to pick on you and your blog. I’ll scram if you want me to. But when it came to that God-given “higher” law, Founders like Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Franklin and Hamilton (especially the quotation that you offer) didn’t mean “open the Bibles and there you will find it.” Rather, as theistic rationalists, they believed God primary revealed Himself through nature not scripture. Therefore, man’s reason, not revelation was the primary mechanism for ascertaining such higher law.

As John Adams put it:

“To him who believes in the Existence and Attributes physical and moral of a God, there can be no obscurity or perplexity in defining the Law of Nature to be his wise benign and all powerful Will, discovered by Reason.”– John Adams to Thomas Boylston Adams, March 19, 1794. Adams Papers (microfilm), reel 377, Library of Congress. Seen in James H. Hutson’s, “The Founders on Religion,” p. 132.

Or as Adams put it again:

“The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses.”

…Thirteen governments [of the original states] thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, and which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favor of the rights of mankind.”

For more, see this post.The post he mentions is his own argument that the Founders used essentially “rationalistic” (basically equivalent to “deistic”) methods to establish our government, and to establish the foundations of our jurisprudence. This post will tackle the controversy more in-depth then my previous comments.

In the above-mentioned post, Jonathan states:

The Founders believed in both man made “positive” law, and God given “natural” law, which positive law, by right could not contradict. However the content of natural law was ascertainable entirely by man’s reason, arguably unaided by revelation. Or, if revelation had any role to play in determining “the laws of nature and nature’s God,” it was to assist or provide support for man’s reason, not the other way around. Further, though these Founders believed that reason and revelation mostly agreed, they also believed that some revelation was not legitimately given by God and had to pass the “reason” smell test to be true or part of the “higher” law that rules us and which no positive law could contradict.

In American jurisprudence, there are classified TWO categories of God-given law, not just the law of nature. The second category is the “law of nature’s God,” made reference to in the Declaration of Independence. If one reads the quotes Jonathan presents after the above section more carefully, such as the one by James Wilson (who spoke the second most frequently at the Constitutional Convention), one cannot totally agree that the Founding Fathers only recognized the “law of nature” by reason alone, and not the law of revelation. If Jonathan’s statement that “‘nature’ by its very definition in the Founding era refers to what man can discover from reason as opposed to revelation” is true, then why did James Wilson say:

“But it should always be remembered that this law, natural or revealed, made for men or for nations, flows from the same Divine source: it is the law of God”?

Apparently, Wilson saw that the “law of nature” and the “revealed law” weren’t contrary, but they were distinct, in order for there to be a law “natural and revealed.”

The other two quotes presented along with Wilson’s above, trace their origin to Sir William Blackstone‘s Commentaries on the Laws of England (the Hamilton quote that Jonathan presented is right out of Blackstone’s four-volume book).

Some background on Blackstone:Commentaries on the Laws of England was required reading for law students in America until about the 1920s. The Founding Fathers praised and recommended his work (though the more rationalistic ones, and those peeved by English monarchy criticized his defense of the British Constitution and government), and it is obvious from the quotes above that the Founders quoted him as a chief authority on matters of law. Blackstone was the universally recognized legal authority in America, though they did not adopt the monarchy philosophy.After Blackstone made the statement quoted by Hamilton above (in Jonathan’s afore-mentioned post), he said this:

But in order to apply this to the particular exigencies of each individual, it is still necessary to have recourse to REASON; whose office it is to discover, as was before observed, what the law of nature directs in every circumstance of life; by considering, what method will tend the most effectually to our own substantial happiness. >PAY ATTENTION TO THIS STATEMENT:< And if our reason were always, as in our first ancestor [Adam] before his transgression, clear and perfect, unruffled by passions, unclouded by prejudice, unimpaired by disease or intemperance, the task would be pleasant and easy; we should need no other guide but this. But every man finds the contrary in his own experience; that his reason is corrupt, and his understanding full of ignorance and error. This has given manifold occasion for the benign INTERPOSITION OF DIVINE PROVIDENCE; which, in compassion to the frailty, the imperfection, and the blindness of human reason, hath been pleased, in sundry times and diverse manners, to discover and enforce it’s laws by an IMMEDIATE AND DIRECT REVELATION. The doctrines thus delivered we call the revealed or divine law, and they are to be found ONLY IN THE HOLY SCRIPTURES. These precepts, when revealed, are found upon comparison to be really a part of the original law of nature, as they tend in all their consequences to man’s felicity. But we are not from thence to conclude that the knowledge of these truths was attainable by reason, in it’s present corrupted state; since we find that, UNTIL THEY WERE REVEALED, they were hid from the wisdom of ages. As then the moral precepts of this law are indeed of the SAME ORIGINAL with those of with those of the law of nature, for their intrinsic obligation is of equal strength and perpetuity. Yet undoubtedly the human law is (humanly speaking) of infinitely for more authority than what we generally call the natural law. Because one is the law of nature, expressly declared for to be by God himself; the other is only what, by the assistance of human reason, we imagine to be that law. If we could be as certain of the latter as we are of the former, both would have an equal authority; but till then, they can never be put in competition together.” (1)

Now, before we can successfully examine this particular debate, some key terms must be defined. This step is perhaps the most essential in debating and deciding the truth on a “yes” or “no” issue. The general definition of “reason” seems to be well-established. It merely means thinking things through, utilizing logic, human experience, and common sense. The “clincher” term in this debate, however, is the term “revelation.” This term, and its use, has been abused by the religious and “non-religious” throughout the centuries. Let me make clear that “revelation,” in the sense that I shall use it, does NOT mean “knowledge and wisdom magically falling down from the sky.” God simply does not just drop words on people, and expect them to blindly believe Him. When God spoke to the prophets of the Old Testament, they asked Him hard questions (Jeremiah, Isaiah, and Habakkuk did just that), and God did not strike them dead. He answered their questions. Now, as was sometimes true in their cases, God expects us to trust Him, even when we cannot fully comprehend what He is doing or why. But to trust in Him in such a circumstance is not to have blind faith, because experience clearly demonstrates that God has always been faithful and He always knew what He was doing. God never made a mistake in the (approximately) 6,000 years that mankind has inhabited this planet. To trust Him is to accept the evidence He has already given us of His goodness and faithfulness.

Revelation, in our case (the case of higher law and the source of good government) means, in my argument, the words of God revealed to mankind directly, and, as Blackstone said, are available to us “only in the holy scriptures.” Most of the time, when the Founders referred to divine revelation, or the revealed law, they were referring to God’s commandments and words to man as written in the Bible. We shall examine the Founders’ writings on “divine revelation” and “revealed law” in order to determine the truth of the matter.

Now here is where skeptics of my belief may interject that some things in the Bible (accounts of the miraculous, the divinity of Jesus, His atonement, etc.) are beyond human reason, and therefore must pass the “smell test” of man’s logical powers. But to say that our Founders enthroned man’s brain above the Bible defeats the purpose of having a government of law. One understands this statement if one understands Blackstone’s logic above. Mankind is not uniform in his reasoning; his reason is and is prone to distortion from many things — often by natural human selfishness and bias (man simply does not have the ability to prolong his life that he may obliterate all his short-sightedness, selfishness, and prejudice, and humanity continues to make the same mistakes that he always did make, in spite of improvements in technology, hygiene, etc.). Men may reason on the same subject but come up with different conclusions. A good example of this is the Founding Fathers themselves when they discussed issues in collective assemblies. They were all very smart men, and tried to be as unbiased and indifferent as they could, but failed numerous times to ever agree on crucial issues. In fact, so heated did their debates get that even Benjamin Franklin, who (especially when a young man) never agreed with the idea of divine revelation, requested regular prayers at the Constitutional Convention, “humbly applying to the Father of lights to illuminate our understandings.” (2)

The point is that mankind in general, no matter how much he reasons, will never agree on anything for certain, because every mankind’s reason is not uniform. Absolute truth, and in our case, the source of absolute law, must therefore be derived from some other source than man’s reason, though we should certainly utilize it (“Come, let us reason together, saith Jehovah” Isaiah 1:18). Law must ultimately come from God. God has revealed Himself directly in the Scriptures and (in the case of Christians) through the Holy Spirit, which confirms His word in the Scriptures, and God has revealed Himself indirectly through His creation and through history. With reason, humanity can discover God and come to know Him, but we will never comprehend Him, or understand the deep mysteries of law and government on reason ALONE; the “Father of Lights” must “illumine our understandings.”

Absolute law (“higher law”) must come from a more authoritative source than man, for as we have seen, even man’s reason, though useful and essential to the protection of his rights, is reliant upon man’s fallen nature. Any structure of government or human society that places man’s reason at the top of the “authority ladder” is a government of man, because it is man’s reason, and no higher authority, that makes the laws. Absolute, higher law, must come from a super-human being, a being without flaw, and that being would be GOD. His law is revealed in the Scripture, and this law is completely reasonable (but this does not mean that God’s law must be subject to man’s reason, because man does not know better than God does). In my next and soon-coming post, we shall see what the Founders said on this subject, and the answer to the question of “Did the Founders base their ideology on reason alone, on revelation, or on both?” will determine whether America really is a government of man or of Law. The answer to this question will also decide whether Christianity or secular humanism is a more rational belief system, based upon the experiment of American government.

Stay tuned!