![\"\"](\"https:\/\/muscularchristianityonline.com\/platform\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/03\/25_Inconvenient_2-300x200.jpg\")
\nThe Separation of Church and State is a phrase often used by people who want to insist that Christianity had no real role in our nation’s founding – cerntainly nothing that had any significant influence on those that articulated our cause, created our Constitution and fought the battles that culminated in the surrender of Great Britain.<\/p>\n
You see this in comments like what you see below from the “Freedom From Religion<\/strong><\/a>” website:<\/p>\n The Christian Right is trying to rewrite the history of the United States, as part of their campaign to force their religion on others who ask merely to be left alone. According to this Orwellian revision, the Founding Fathers of this country were pious Christians who wanted the United States to be a Christian nation, with laws that favored Christians and Christianity.<\/em><\/p>\n Not true! The early presidents and patriots were generally Deists or Unitarians, believing in some form of impersonal Providence but rejecting the divinity of Jesus and the absurdities of the Old and New Testaments.<\/span><\/em><\/p>\n You have to be very selective in the information you use to validate such a statement. At the same time, you have to be willfully oblivious to the specific references to God and Christ that punctuate the relevant events and documentation that established the United States.<\/p>\n Below is a brief yet potent list:<\/p>\n <\/p>\n What qualified our statement to King George as a legitimate cause as opposed to a mere complaint is the way in which our Founders showed how his monarchy violated Divine Absolutes. However unjust or belligerent his adminstration may have been, it was the manner in which his rule restricted rights that were not his to dispense as much as they were God’s to guarantee – that is what gave our cause the Substance it needed to resonate as something that was True and not just preferred.<\/p>\n We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are\u00a0endowed by their Creator<\/u>\u00a0with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.1<\/sup><\/em><\/p>\n That is the starting point. The rights we have are God-given and the governments that are established by men to ensure those rights, but…<\/p>\n …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 foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.<\/em>2<\/sup><\/p>\n We are founded on a Biblical Absolute and not a legal argument.<\/p>\n During the eight years we were at war with Great Britain, Congress proclaimed a National Day of Fasting, Prayer and Humiliation 16 different times. You can view an image of those proclamations as they are preserved in the Library of Congress as well as a readable transcription by clicking here<\/strong><\/a>.<\/p>\n The verbiage of these proclamations is not conducive to an all-inclusive dynamic as far as it being something that accommodates all faiths. Rather, it specifies Christ and a need to seek His Forgiveness and Direction.<\/p>\n For example, a portion of the Proclamation from March 20, 1781<\/strong><\/a> reads as follows:<\/p>\n The United States in Congress assembled, therefore do earnestly recommend, that Thursday the third 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 Savior, obtain pardon and forgiveness:<\/em><\/p>\n There’s a couple of things that are worth noticing: First, the commitee that was tasked with drafting this proclamation included James Madison<\/strong><\/a> who many want to believe to be a Deist. Someone with that kind of spiritual temperment would not be advocating Christ as “our blessed Savior.”<\/p>\n Secondly, to characterize Congress as a humanistic enterprise that placed no priority on the Reality and the Necessity of Divine Intervention requires a willful disregard for the repeated directives that came from their collective pen that recommended an intentional timeframe dedictated to an intensely focused and humble posturing before Jesus Christ.<\/p>\n In 1854, James Meacham, the Representative from Vermont, delivered a report<\/strong><\/a> pertaining to an issue involving the First Amendment. At one point, he said this:<\/p>\n Down to the Revolution, every colony did sustain [the Christian] religion in some form. It was deemed peculiarly proper that the religion of liberty should be upheld by a free people. Had the people, during the Revolution, had a suspicion of any attempt to war against Christianity, that Revolution would have strangled in its cradle. At the time of the Constitution and the amendments, the universal sentiment was that Christianity should be encouraged, not any one sect. Any attempt to level and discard all religion would have been viewed with universal indignation.3<\/sup><\/em><\/p>\n In the same report, Meacham concluded by saying:<\/p>\n In this age there can be no substitute for Christianity; that, in its general principles, is the great conservative element on which we must rely for the purity and permanence of free institutions. That was the religion of the founders of the Republic, and they expected it to remain the religion of their descendants.4<\/sup><\/em><\/p>\n The first words of the Treaty<\/strong><\/a> that represented Great Britain’s surrender to America in 1783 were:<\/p>\n In the Name of the most Holy & undivided Trinity.<\/em>5<\/sup><\/p>\n The Liberty Bell was used to summon delegates to Pennslyvania Hall to discuss the matters of the day. Benjamin Franklin wrote to Catherine Ray in 1755, “Adieu, the Bell rings, and I must go among the Grave ones and talk Politicks.”6<\/sup><\/p>\n It’s most famous tolling, however, was on July 8, 1776 when it was used to summon the townspeople to hear the public reading of the Declaration of Independence.7<\/sup><\/p>\n Yet, up until that point, the bell wasn’t seen as an icon as much as it is today because of the way the text that’s inscribed on the bell was applied to the issue of slavery in 1844.<\/p>\n The inscription is Leviticus 25:10:<\/p>\n Proclaim liberty throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants thereof. (Lev 25:10 [KJV])<\/strong><\/p>\n William Lloyd Garrison, abolitionist and publisher of\u00a0The Liberator,<\/em> reprinted a poem<\/strong><\/a> written by H.R.H. Moore which represented the first documented use of the name, “The Liberty Bell.” Garrison saw it as an appropriate and effective way to combine the Biblical substance of the verse inscribed on the bell with the poetry of Moore which included the line, “Ring it, till the slave is free” and let the collective meaning serve as a rebuke against those who supported slavery.<\/p>\n In an article printed in Time Magazine<\/strong><\/a>, Dr Ben Carson tells of how when the body of Abraham Lincoln was laid in Independence Hall, he was placed<\/strong><\/a> in a manner where the Liberty Bell and the inscription was directly overhead. During the 20 hour public viewing, over 150,000 people paid their respects to the Great Emancipator<\/strong><\/a>.<\/p>\n In the article<\/strong><\/a> penned by Dr Carson<\/strong><\/a>, he concludes by saying:<\/p>\n Whether you\u2019re black or white, Democrat or Republican, The Liberty Bell\u2019s true story reminds Americans of all stripes that our nation\u2019s history\u2014and future\u2014belongs to us all. It challenges us to tear down systems that hold us captive and honor the price great men and women have paid to cast and re-cast the American mold to form a more perfect union.8<\/sup><\/em><\/p>\n The story of the Liberty Bell and the nation it represents possesses the profound and essential content that it does because of how it points to a Divine Absolute and not just a desired political climate.<\/p>\n On May 2, 1778, General Washington issued the following General Orders<\/strong><\/a>:<\/p>\n The Commander in Chief directs that divine Service be performed every Sunday at 11 o\u2019clock in those Brigades to which there are Chaplains\u2014those which have none to attend the places of worship nearest to them\u2014It is expected that Officers of all Ranks will by their attendance set an Example to their men.<\/em>\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n While we are zealously performing the duties of good Citizens and soldiers we certainly ought not to be inattentive to the higher duties of Religion\u2014To the distinguished Character of Patriot, it should be our highest Glory to add the more distinguished Character of Christian\u2014The signal Instances of providential Goodness which we have experienced and which have now almost crowned our labors with complete Success, demand from us in a peculiar manner the warmest returns of Gratitude & Piety to the Supreme Author of all Good.9<\/sup><\/em><\/p>\n George Washington made frequent references to the Power and Goodness of God throughout his career as the Commanding General of the Continental Army as well as his time as Commander in Chief.<\/p>\n The fact that he made a point of ensuring that Christian worship services were held throughout the army he commanded and made it clear that he expected<\/span> his officers to lead by example by being both present and engaged reveals the priority he placed on the acknowledgement of the “Supreme Author of all Good.”<\/p>\n While enduring the hardship and lethal challenges of the winter spent at Valley Forge, Washington directed his troops to set aside a day for thanksgiving and fasting. On December 18, 1777, Reverend Israel Evans delivered one of the sermons and Washington later wrote him to thank him. In that letter, he said:<\/p>\n …it will ever be the first wish of my heart to aid your pious endeavours to inculcate a due sense of the dependence we ought to place in that all-wise and powerful Being, on whom alone<\/span> our success depends.10<\/sup><\/em><\/p>\n Our national motto is derived from the third verse or our National Anthem<\/strong><\/a>:<\/p>\n Praise the Pow’r that hath made and preserv’d us a nation!<\/em> Yet again another example of how many recognize that the “separation” of church and state doesn’t mean the elmination of the church and its influence on the state.<\/p>\n Thomas Jefferson did not believe in the divinity of Christ, but he nevertheless looked to the Bible as the greatest source of moral teachings known to man:<\/p>\n …there never was a more pure and sublime system of morality delivered to man than is to be found in the four evangelists.24<\/sup><\/em><\/p>\n That was Jefferson’s primary justification for admiring the Christian faith, while not subscribing to it completely. But before one can dismiss Jefferson’s perspective as being inconsequential to the way in which it contributed to the philsophical structure of the American government, you have to first acknowledge the way in which he pointed to the Scriptures as being the Standard that defined moral behavior:<\/p>\n …the religion of Jesus is founded on the Unity of God, and this principle chiefly, gave it triumph over the rabble of heathen gods then acknoleged. thinking men of all nations rallied readily to the doctrine of one only god, and embraced it with the pure morals which Jesus inculcated.25<\/sup><\/em><\/p>\n The following quote is anecdotal, meaning that you won’t find it in anything written by Jefferson himself. But it’s nevertheless preserved in the Library of Congress as an exchange between Jefferson and a friend of his that was observed\u00a0 by Reverend Ethan Allen who was the pastor of Christ Church where Jefferson attended. Seeing him on his way to church one Sunday, Jefferson’s friend asked him where he was going. Jefferson responded by saying he was on his way to church to which his friend responded with a bit of surprise asking him why he would go to church when he didn’t believe a word of it. Jefferson replied by saying,<\/p>\n No nation has ever existed or been governed without religion nor can be. The Christian religion is the best religion that has been given to man and I, as Chief Magistrate of this nation, am bound to give it the sanction of my example.26<\/sup><\/em><\/p>\n Again, it isn’t documented anywhere in Jefferson’s writings, but it’s credibility is believable given it’s place within the Library of Congress and the fact that it captures both the outward behavior and the documented inner workings of Jefferson’s mind when it came to the substance of the Christian faith.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n Thomas Jefferson’s orthodoxy wasn’t at all with what most would regard as doctrinally sound. While he believed that Jesus represented the greatest expositor of moral standards ever, Jefferson did not subscribe at all to His Deity.11<\/sup><\/p>\n In a letter<\/strong><\/a> to Thomas B. Parker in 1819, he said:<\/p>\n my fundamental principle would be the reverse of Calvin\u2019s, that we are to be saved by our good works which are within our power, and not by our faith which is not within our power.12<\/sup><\/em><\/p>\n But while his convictions pertaining to the Gospel of Jesus Christ may have been questionable, he still saw religion as being a necessary component to the philosophical foundation a government had to be based on in order to define and defend an individual’s rights.<\/p>\n You see this in a letter<\/strong><\/a> he wrote to P.H. Wendover in 1813. Jefferson, referring to the discourses of a Mr. McCloud, says…<\/p>\n I feel my portion of indebtment to the reverend author for the distinguished learning, the logic and the eloquence with which has proved that religion<\/span>, as well as reason, confirms that soundness of those principles on which our government has been founded and its rights asserted.<\/em>13<\/sup><\/p>\n In addition, while serving in the House of Burgesses, Thomas Jefferson worked alongside Patrick Henry and Richard Henry Lee to craft a resolution for the state of Virginia to set aside a day of fasting and prayer. He said<\/strong><\/a>…<\/p>\n We were under conviction of the necessity of arousing our people from the lethargy into which they had fallen as to passing events; and thought that the appointment of a day of general fasting and prayer would be most likely to call up and alarm their attention.14<\/sup><\/em><\/p>\n Later, he wrote that the reaction was like a “shock of electricity…”<\/p>\n We returned home, and in our several counties invited the clergy to meet assemblies of the people on the 1st of June [actually at various times in June and July], to perform the ceremonies of the day, and to address to them discourses suited to the occasion. The people met generally, with anxiety and alarm in their countenances, and the effect of the day thro\u2019 the whole colony was like a shock of electricity, arousing every man and placing him erect and solidly on his centre.<\/em>15<\/sup><\/p>\n The bottom line is that Thomas Jefferson saw in Christianity a reliable and needed foundation that, while it could not be coerced, could nevertheless support a legitimate assertion of individual rights and justify a national pursuit of independence.<\/p>\n John Adams and Thomas Jefferson corresponded frequently after they had both retired from public life. In one particular letter, Adams and Jefferson were discussing a recent comment that had found its way into print that suggested that \u201cScience and Morals are the great Pillars on which this Country has been raised to its present population, Opulence and prosperity, and these alone, can advance, Support and preserve it.\u201d16<\/sup><\/p>\n In his letter to Jefferson, Adams disagreed and he articulated his position in part by saying\u2026<\/p>\n The general Principles, on which the Fathers Achieved Independence, were the only Principles in which, that beautiful Assembly of young Gentlemen could Unite, and these Principles only could be intended by them in their Address, or by me in my Answer. And what were these general Principles? I answer, the general Principles of Christianity, in which all those Sects were United…<\/em>17<\/sup><\/p>\n Among those that comprised the Second Continental Congress you had men that owned slaves and those that despised the slave trade. In addition, you had varying temperaments, vocations, as well as different philosophies when it came to loyalty to the crown.<\/p>\n Adams was part of the five-man team tasked with writing the \u201cDeclaration of Independence.\u201d Whatever was getting ready to be sent to King George had to be both substantial and unanimous. But how do you unite a group of statesmen with such different backgrounds and perspectives given the risks that were involved?<\/p>\n As one who was there to witness it first hand, Adams could confidently say that it was because of the way each of the delegates could come together beneath the umbrella of their Christian faith that they were able to outline our country\u2019s position with one voice.<\/p>\n A remarkable incident at the beginning of the Revolutionary War testifies to the great evangelist’s hold on the imagination of ordinary Americans. In the fall of 1775, a New England force, commanded by Benedict Arnold (1741-1801), was recruited to invade Canada and capture Quebec. Arriving in Newburyport, Massachusetts, where Whitefield was buried in 1770, the officers descended into the church crypt, opened Whitefield’s coffin, removed his clerical collar and wristbands, cut them in pieces, and passed them out to the troops. The distribution of these Great Awakening amulets showed in its eerie way that men facing stress and anxiety wanted links to a preacher of a living God, not the latest London edition of Locke.21<\/sup>\u00a0One need look no farther for the reason evangelicalism demolished deism in eighteenth-century America.22<\/sup><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n Anytime your relationship with Christ becomes defined more by a routine and an institution as opposed to a personal rapport with your King, your perspective on yourself and the world around you suffers. You see yourself exclusively in terms of your circumstances and the Purpose, Peace and Power that flows from an intentional focus on God and His Truth is overshadowed by the thought of who you are as opposed to Whose you are (Is 43:1; Matt 10:30-31; Phil 2:13; Rev 20:15).<\/p>\n From 1735-1743, preachers like George Whitefield and Jonathan Edwards were able to profoundly impact the colonies by proclaiming the Gospel in a way that emphasized the personal aspect of an authentic relationship with Christ. As opposed to sacraments and religious gestures, ministers like Whitefield and Edwards directed their listeners to the Gospels where it could be readily seen that it was a personal decision to believe in the empty tomb that secured one’s salvation.<\/p>\n The basic themes of the Great Awakening included:<\/p>\n While the essential doctrines being espoused may not have directly impacted the colonies’ collective dispostion towards Independence, between 1700 and 1740, an estimated 75-80 percent of Americans were actively attending churches which were, “…being built at a headlong pace.”19<\/sup> This was a result of the Great Awakening and it was this ever growing constituency of believers that provided the material and philosophical support for the Revolution because of the way they were now rethinking the manner in which their rights were, in fact, guaranteed by God and not dispensed by a monarch.<\/p>\n This change in their perspective was due in a large part to the way in which Revolutionary War era ministers were endorsing America’s resistance to the crown as a biblically sanctioned cause. And\u00a0 because you had such a large majority of colonists now attending worship services, the result was a unified group of patriots that were linking arms across those borders previously defined by state sanctioned churches and vivid denominational differences.<\/p>\n Dr. James Hutson from the Library of Congress explains…<\/p>\n The plain fact is that, had American clergymen of all denominations not assured their pious countrymen, from the beginning of the conflict with Britain, that the resistance movement was right in God’s sight and had His blessing, it could not have been sustained and independence would not been achieved. Here is the fundamental, the indispensable, contribution of religion and its spokesmen to the coming of the American Revolution.20<\/sup><\/em><\/p>\n While serving as President, he made a point of attending church every Sunday and he made available Federal Buildings and the Marine Band for worship services. Dr. James Hutson, in his book “Religion and the Founding of the American Republic,” states…<\/p>\n It is no exaggeration to say that, on Sundays in Washington during Thomas Jefferson’s presidency, the state became the church.<\/em>23<\/sup><\/p>\n Today’s interpretation of the “separation of church and state” does not square at all with Jefferson’s allocation of state resources for expressly Christian worship services. In order for his adminstrative acts to not conflict with his letter to the Danbury Baptists, it is logically mandated to rethink the notion that the First Amendment refers to the elimination of all reference to Scripture as a basis for our laws and political philosophy.<\/p>\n The issue was not the Authority of the Word of God. Rather, the issue of the separation of church and state was whether or not the government could impose a uniform approach to the Throne of God. It was the way that different states and their sanctioned churches could tax their constituents and take from those monies a portion to support a specific denomination, or the manner in which certain states required you to be a member of a particular church in order to run for public office. This was the sort of politically mandated spirituality that permeated 18th century America. The “separation of church and state” had nothing to do with whether or not you could legally kill your child before it was born or if it was legally feasible to redefine the institution of marriage.<\/p>\n The first meeting of the Continental Congress happened on September 5, 1774<\/strong><\/a>. Among the first things that was decided was that each session should be opened up in prayer by Rev. Jacob Duche<\/strong><\/a>‘. While his intial presentation was typical of what might be expected from a man of the cloth, he then began to pray in a manner that was obviously unscripted.<\/p>\n Silas Deane<\/strong><\/a>, the Connecticut delegate, recorded that…<\/p>\n He read the lessons of the day, which were accidentallly extremely applicable, and they prayed without book about ten minutes so pertinently, with suchfervency, purity and sublimity of style and sentiment, and with such an apparent sensibility of the scenes and business before, that even Quakers shed tears.<\/em>24<\/sup><\/p>\n The starting point for the First Continental Congress was not a casual, “remove your hat” kind of prayer. It was an intentional and passionate appeal for wisdom that resonated with everyone, regardless of their orthodoxy.<\/p>\n June 28, 1787 was a Thursday. The Revolutionary War had been won and representatives of each state from the newly formed “United States of America” were now meeting to create a Constitution.<\/p>\n Progress had been very slow. Several weeks of unproductive deliberation inspired Dr. Benjamin Franklin to stand up and make a suggestion. His words are recorded by James Madison and can be read in the minutes of the Federal Convention as they’re preserved in “Elliot’s Debates, Volume 5, p253<\/strong><\/a>.”<\/p>\n Mr. President, the small progress we have made after four or five weeks’ close attendance and continual reasonings with each other – our different sentiments on almost every question, several of the last producing as many noes as ayes–is, methinks, a melancholy proof of the imperfection of the human understanding. We indeed seem to feel our own want of political wisdom, since we have been running about in search of it. We have gone back to ancient history for models of government, and examined the different forms of those republics which, having been formed with the seeds of their own dissolution, now no longer exist. And we have viewed modern states all round Europe, but find none of their constitutions suitable to our circumstances.<\/em><\/p>\n In this situation of 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?<\/em><\/p>\n In the beginning of the contest with Great Britain, when we were sensible of danger, we had daily prayer in this room for the divine protection. Our prayers, sir, were beard, and they were graciously answered. All of us who were engaged in the struggle must have observed frequent instances of a superintending Providence in our favor. To that kind 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?<\/em><\/p>\n 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 labor 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. We shall be divided by our little partial local interests; our projects will be confounded; and we ourselves shall become a reproach and by-word down to future ages. And, what is worse, mankind may hereafter, from this unfortunate instance, despair of establishing governments by human wisdom, and leave it to chance, war. and conquest.25<\/sup><\/em><\/p>\n Franklin’s suggestion authenticates the way in which the Continental Congress collectively sought the Wisdom of God during the War of Independence and it also shows the disposition of one of its elder statesmen as far as the Reality and Necessity of God’s Assistance in establishing an enduring and effective government.<\/p>\n For more reading on this, click here<\/strong><\/a>.<\/p>\n Remember the \u201cBoston Tea Party?\u201d<\/p>\n Today it would\u2019ve been around $1,000,000.00 worth of tea. It took the colonists 3 full hours to empty the British ship of its 342 chests of tea into the harbor.26<\/sup><\/p>\n America had repeatedly asked for representation in Parliament in order to facilitate a more comprehensive approach to taxes only to be taxed with even greater indifference and aggression. The colonies decided the best way to respond was to simply eliminate one of the major things that was being taxed. Perhaps then King George would be willing to pay more attention to the petition of his subjects.<\/p>\n The \u201dBoston Tea Party\u201d did succeed in getting King George\u2019s attention. But instead of a more productive dialogue, Boston harbor was closed, free elections of town officials were ended, colonists were required to quarter British soldiers on demand and Massachusetts was placed under martial law.<\/p>\n When Virginia learned of the crown\u2019s tyrannical disposition, rather than taking to the streets and staging demonstrations, instead the House of Burgesses proclaimed a day of fasting and prayer to avert \u201cthe heavy calamity which threatens destruction to our civil rights.\u201d27<\/sup><\/p>\n This was the Fast that was written in part by Thomas Jefferson referenced earlier. The thing to be noticing is that you have a collective resolve to respond to current events by seeking out the Assistance and the Power of God.<\/p>\n The first part of the Proclamation reads as follows:<\/p>\n This House being deeply impressed with Apprehension of the great Dangers to be derived to British America, from the hostile Invasion of the City of Boston, in our Sister Colony of Massachusetts Bay, whose Commerce and Harbour are on the 1st Day of June next to be stopped by an armed Force, deem it highly necessary that the said first Day of June be set apart by the Members of this House as a Day of Fasting, Humiliation, and Prayer, devoutly to implore the divine Interposition for averting the heavy Calamity, which threatens Destruction to our civil Rights, and the Evils of civil War; to give us one Heart and one Mind firmly to oppose, by all just and proper Means, every Injury to American Rights, and that the Minds of his Majesty and his Parliament may be inspired from above with Wisdom, Moderation, and Justice, to remove from the loyal People of America all Cause of Danger from a continued Pursuit of Measures pregnant with their Ruin.<\/em><\/p>\n Ordered, therefore, that the Members of this House do attend in their Places at the Hour of ten in the Forenoon, on the said 1st Day of June next, in Order to proceed with the Speaker and the Mace to the Church in this City for the Purposes aforesaid; and that the Reverend Mr. Price be appointed to read Prayers, and the Reverend Mr. Gwatkin to preach a Sermon suitable to the Occasion.<\/em><\/p>\n Ordered, that this Order be forthwith printed and published. By the House of Burgesses.28<\/sup><\/em><\/p>\n This was the way in which both the populace and those that represented them positioned both their resolve and their perpsective. This was not secular statesmanship nor was it reckless rebellion. It was a determined effort to qualify every word and every action according to the Wisdom and Provision of God.<\/p>\n Peter Oliver was a lawyer and by the time of the Revolution had risen to the position of chief justice of the Superior Court in Massachusetts. He was incredibily wealthy and served in a variety of community and church positions and was fiercely loyal to the crown.<\/p>\n His perspective on the Revolutionary War was that of a Tory. Unlike the way in which most historians present John Adams and other such Patriots as noble statesmen, Oliver saw them as deluded troublemakers.<\/p>\n Not long after Cornwallis’ surrender, Oliver published a book entitled, “Origin and Progress of the American Rebellion: A Tory View.” What makes his perspective valuable is that he has nothing to gain by glamorizing or exaggerating any one aspect of the American effort to win their independence, in that he views all of it as a form of sedition.<\/p>\n At one point, he sets aside an entire section of his text to describe the “Black Regiment.”<\/p>\n He begins by saying…<\/p>\n It may not be amiss, now, to reconnoitre<\/strong><\/a> Mr. Qtis’s<\/strong><\/a> black Regiment<\/span>, the dissenting Clergy, who took so active a Part in the Rebellion.29<\/sup><\/em><\/p>\n He elaborates on the “dissenting clergy” as flawed ministers, who according to Oliver, were ordained only because of a grave mistake having been made by the Governors of the Church of England. He identifies several men of the cloth including Jonas Clark, Dr. Charles Chaucy and others as being, not only members of the Regiment, but also extremely influential. He references two annual conferences that hosted pastors from all of the state and it was there that the “Black Regiment” was able to exert a substantial amount of influence in the name of rebellion and evil.<\/p>\n In this Town was an annual Convention of the Clergy of the Province, the Day after the Election of his Majestys Charter Council; and at those Meetings were settled the religious Affairs of the Province; & as the Boston Clergy were esteemed by the others as an Order of Deities, so they were greatly influenced by them. There was also another annual Meeting of the Clergy at Cambridge, on the Commencement for graduating the Scholars of Harvard College*, at these two Conventions, if much Good was effectuated, so there was much Evil. And some of the Boston Clergy, as they were capable of the Latter, so they missed no Opportunities of accomplishing their Purposes. Among those who were most distinguished of the Boston Clergy were Dr. Charles Chauncy, Dr. Jonathan Mayhew & Dr. Samuel Cooper?* & they distinguished theirselves in encouraging Seditions & Riots, untill those lesser Offences were absorbed in Rebellion.<\/em>30<\/sup><\/p>\n You see Oliver’s “concern” reiterated on multiple occasions and in different ways.<\/p>\n The bottom line is that the mindset of the Patriot looking to separate from England was more than just a political preference, it was something justified and endorsed by the Word of God and it was the clergy that reinforced that message in the context of the sermons they preached and the example they set.<\/p>\n\n\u00a01) The Declaration of Independence<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n2) Sixteen Congressional Proclations for Fasting<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n3) The Treaty of Paris<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\u00a04) The Liberty Bell<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n5) Washington’s General Orders<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n6) Third Verse of our National Anthem<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\nThen conquer we must, when our cause is just,<\/em>
\nAnd this be our motto: “In God is our trust<\/span>“<\/em><\/p>\n\n7) The Thoughts of Thomas Jefferson<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\nThe Four Evangelists<\/div>\n\n\n\u00a08) The Testimony of John Adams on the Second Continental Congress<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\u00a09) The Impact of the Great Awakening<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\nA Remarkable Incident<\/div>\n\n\n
\n\u00a010) Jefferson’s Approval of Federal Resources for Christian Worship Services<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\u00a011) The Resolve of the First Continental Congress to Begin with Prayer<\/strong><\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n12) The Comments of Benjamin Franklin<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\u00a013) The Reaction of the House of Burgesses to the Boston Tea Party<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\u00a014) The Black Robe Regiment<\/div>\n<\/div>\n