CALVINISM IN AMERICA [Happy "Presbyterian Rebellion" Day, everybody!]

Reformed Theology.org ^ | Loraine Boettner

[Alex Murphy]

When we come to study the influence of Calvinism as a political force in the history of the United States we come to one of the brightest pages of all Calvinistic history. Calvinism came to America in the Mayflower, and Bancroft, the greatest of American historians, pronounces the Pilgrim Fathers "Calvinists in their faith according to the straightest system."¹ John Endicott, the first governor of the Massachusetts Bay Colony; John Winthrop, the second governor of that Colony; Thomas Hooker, the founder of Connecticut; John Davenport, the founder of the New Haven Colony; and Roger Williams, the founder of the Rhode Island Colony, were all Calvinists. William Penn was a disciple of the Huguenots. It is estimated that of the 3,000,000 Americans at the time of the American Revolution, 900,000 were of Scotch or Scotch-Irish origin, 600,000 were Puritan English, and 400,000 were German or Dutch Reformed. In addition to this the Episcopalians had a Calvinistic confession in their Thirty-nine Articles; and many French Huguenots also had come to this western world. Thus we see that about two-thirds of the colonial population had been trained in the school of Calvin. Never in the world's history had a nation been founded by such people as these. Furthermore these people came to America not primarily for commercial gain or advantage, but because of deep religious convictions. It seems that the religious persecutions in various European countries had been providentially used to select out the most progressive and enlightened people for the colonization of America. At any rate it is quite generally admitted that the English, Scotch, Germans, and Dutch have been the most masterful people of Europe. Let it be especially remembered that the Puritans, who formed the great bulk of the settlers in New England, brought with them a Calvinistic Protestantism, that they were truly devoted to the doctrines of the great Reformers, that they had an aversion for formalism and oppression whether in the Church or in the State, and that in New England Calvinism remained the ruling theology throughout the entire Colonial period.

With this background we shall not be surprised to find that the Presbyterians took a very prominent part in the American Revolution. Our own historian Bancroft says: "The Revolution of 1776, so far as it was affected by religion, was a Presbyterian measure. It was the natural outgrowth of the principles which the Presbyterianism of the Old World planted in her sons, the English Puritans, the Scotch Covenanters, the French Huguenots, the Dutch Calvinists, and the Presbyterians of Ulster." So intense, universal, and aggressive were the Presbyterians in their zeal for liberty that the war was spoken of in England as "The Presbyterian Rebellion." An ardent colonial supporter of King George III wrote home: "I fix all the blame for these extraordinary proceedings upon the Presbyterians. They have been the chief and principal instruments in all these flaming measures. They always do and ever will act against government from that restless and turbulent anti-monarchial spirit which has always distinguished them everywhere."² When the news of "these extraordinary proceedings" reached England, Prime Minister Horace Walpole said in Parliament, "Cousin America has run off with a Presbyterian parson" (John Witherspoon, president of Princeton, signer of Declaration of Independence).

History is eloquent in declaring that American democracy was born of Christianity and that that Christianity was Calvinism. The great Revolutionary conflict which resulted in the formation of the American nation, was carried out mainly by Calvinists, many of whom had been trained in the rigidly Presbyterian College at Princeton, and this nation is their gift to all liberty loving people.

J. R. Sizoo tells us: "When Cornwallis was driven back to ultimate retreat and surrender at Yorktown, all of the colonels of the Colonial Army but one were Presbyterian elders. More than one-half of all the soldiers and officers of the American Army during the Revolution were Presbyterians."³

The testimony of Emilio Castelar, the famous Spanish statesman, orator and scholar, is interesting and valuable. Castelar had been professor of Philosophy in the University of Madrid before he entered politics, and he was made president of the republic which was set up by the Liberals in 1873. As a Roman Catholic he hated Calvin and Calvinism. Says he: "It was necessary for the republican movement that there should come a morality more austere than Luther's, the morality of Calvin, and a Church more democratic than the German, the Church of Geneva. The Anglo-Saxon democracy has for its lineage a book of a primitive society — the Bible. It is the product of a severe theology learned by the few Christian fugitives in the gloomy cities of Holland and Switzerland, where the morose shade of Calvin still wanders . . . And it remains serenely in its grandeur, forming the most dignified, most moral and most enlightened portion of the human race."⁴

Says Motley: "In England the seeds of liberty, wrapped up in Calvinism and hoarded through many trying years, were at last destined to float over land and sea, and to bear the largest harvests of temperate freedom for great commonwealths that were still unborn.⁵ "The Calvinists founded the commonwealths of England, of Holland, and America." And again, "To Calvinists more than to any other class of men, the political liberties of England, Holland and America are due."⁶

The testimony of another famous historian, the Frenchman Taine, who himself held no religious faith, is worthy of consideration. Concerning the Calvinists he said: "These men are the true heroes of England. They founded England, in spite of the corruption of the Stuarts, by the exercise of duty, by the practice of justice, by obstinate toil, by vindication of right, by resistance to oppression, by the conquest of liberty, by the repression of vice. They founded Scotland; they founded the United States; at this day they are, by their descendants, founding Australia and colonizing the world."⁷

In his book, "The Creed of Presbyterians," E. W. Smith asks concerning the American colonists, "Where learned they those immortal principles of the rights of man, of human liberty, equality and self-government, on which they based their Republic, and which form today the distinctive glory of our American civilization ? In the school of Calvin they learned them. There the modern world learned them. So history teaches," (p. 121).

We shall now pass on to consider the influence which the Presbyterian Church as a Church exerted in the formation of the Republic. "The Presbyterian Church," said Dr. W. H. Roberts in an address before the General Assembly, "was for three-quarters of a century the sole representative upon this continent of republican government as now organized in the nation." And then he continues: "From 1706 to the opening of the revolutionary struggle the only body in existence which stood for our present national political organization was the General Synod of the American Presbyterian Church. It alone among ecclesiastical and political colonial organizations exercised authority, derived from the colonists themselves, over bodies of Americans scattered through all the colonies from New England to Georgia. The colonies in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, it is to be remembered, while all dependent upon Great Britain, were independent of each other. Such a body as the Continental Congress did not exist until 1774. The religious condition of the country was similar to the political. The Congregational Churches of New England had no connection with each other, and had no power apart from the civil government. The Episcopal Church was without organization in the colonies, was dependent for support and a ministry on the Established Church of England, and was filled with an intense loyalty to the British monarchy. The Reformed Dutch Church did not become an efficient and independent organization until 1771, and the German Reformed Church did not attain to that condition until 1793. The Baptist Churches were separate organizations, the Methodists were practically unknown, and the Quakers were non-combatants."

Delegates met every year in the General Synod, and as Dr. Roberts tells us, the Church became "a bond of union and correspondence between large elements in the population of the divided colonies." "Is it any wonder," he continues, "that under its fostering influence the sentiments of true liberty, as well as the tenets of a sound gospel, were preached throughout the territory from Long Island to South Carolina, and that above all a feeling of unity between the Colonies began slowly but surely to assert itself? Too much emphasis cannot be laid, in connection with the origin of the nation, upon the influence of that ecclesiastical republic, which from 1706 to 1774 was the only representative on this continent of fully developed federal republican institutions. The United States of America owes much to that oldest of American Republics, the Presbyterian Church."⁸

It is, of course, not claimed that the Presbyterian Church was the only source from which sprang the principles upon which this republic is founded, but it is claimed that the principles found in the Westminster Standards were the chief basis for the republic, and that "The Presbyterian Church taught, practiced, and maintained in fulness, first in this land that form of government in accordance with which the Republic has been organized." (Roberts).

The opening of the Revolutionary struggle found the Presbyterian ministers and churches lined up solidly on the side of the colonists, and Bancroft accredits them with having made the first bold move toward independence.⁹ The synod which assembled in Philadelphia in 1775 was the first religious body to declare openly and publicly for a separation from England. It urged the people under its jurisdiction to leave nothing undone that would promote the end in view, and called upon them to pray for the Congress which was then in session.

The Episcopalian Church was then still united with the Church of England, and it opposed the Revolution. A considerable number of individuals within that Church, however, labored earnestly for independence and gave of their wealth and influence to secure it. It is to be remembered also that the Commander-in-Chief of the American armies, "the father of our country," was a member of her household. Washington himself attended, and ordered all of his men to attend the services of his chaplains, who were clergymen from the various churches. He gave forty thousand dollars to establish a Presbyterian College in his native state, which took his name in honor of the gift and became Washington College.

N. S. McFetridge has thrown light upon another major development of the Revolutionary period. For the sake of accuracy and completeness we shall take the privilege of quoting him rather extensively. "Another important factor in the independent movement," says he, "was what is known as the 'Mecklenburg Declaration,' proclaimed by the Scotch-Irish Presbyterians of North Carolina, May 20, 1775, more than a year before the Declaration (of Independence) of Congress. It was the fresh, hearty greeting of the Scotch-Irish to their struggling brethren in the North, and their bold challenge to the power of England. They had been keenly watching the progress of the contest between the colonies and the Crown, and when they heard of the address presented by the Congress to the King, declaring the colonies in actual rebellion, they deemed it time for patriots to speak. Accordingly, they called a representative body together in Charlotte, N. C., which by unanimous resolution declared the people free and independent, and that all laws and commissions from the king were henceforth null and void. In their Declaration were such resolutions as these: 'We do hereby dissolve the political bands which have connected us with the mother-country, and hereby absolve ourselves from all allegiance to the British crown' .... 'We hereby declare ourselves a free and independent people; are, and of right ought to be, a sovereign and self-governing association, under control of no power other than that of our God and the general government of Congress; to the maintenance of which we solemnly pledge to each other our mutual cooperation and our lives, our fortunes and our most sacred honor.' ... That assembly was composed of twenty-seven staunch Calvinists, just one-third of whom were ruling elders in the Presbyterian Church, including the president and secretary; and one was a Presbyterian clergyman. The man who drew up that famous and important document was the secretary, Ephraim Brevard, a ruling elder of the Presbyterian Church and a graduate of Princeton College. Bancroft says of it that it was, 'in effect, a declaration as well as a complete system of government.' (U.S. Hist. VIII, 40). It was sent by special messenger to the Congress in Philadelphia, and was published in the Cape Fear Mercury, and was widely distributed throughout the land. Of course it was speedily transmitted to England, where it became the cause of intense excitement.

"The identity of sentiment and similarity of expression in this Declaration and the great Declaration written by Jefferson could not escape the eye of the historian; hence Tucker, in his Life of Jefferson, says: 'Everyone must be persuaded that one of these papers must have been borrowed from the other.' But it is certain that Brevard could not have 'borrowed' from Jefferson, for he wrote more than a year before Jefferson; hence Jefferson, according to his biographer, must have 'borrowed' from Brevard. But it was a happy plagiarism, for which the world will freely forgive him. In correcting his first draft of the Declaration it can be seen, in at least a few places, that Jefferson has erased the original words and inserted those which are first found in the Mecklenberg Declaration. No one can doubt that Jefferson had Brevard's resolutions before him when he was writing his immortal Declaration."¹⁰

This striking similarity between the principles set forth in the Form of Government of the Presbyterian Church and those set forth in the Constitution of the United States has caused much comment. "When the fathers of our Republic sat down to frame a system of representative and popular government," says Dr. E. W. Smith, "their task was not so difficult as some have imagined. They had a model to work by."¹¹

"If the average American citizen were asked, who was the founder of America, the true author of our great Republic, he might be puzzled to answer. We can imagine his amazement at hearing the answer given to this question by the famous German historian, Ranke, one of the profoundest scholars of modern times. Says Ranke, 'John Calvin was the virtual founder of America.'"¹²

D'Aubigne, whose history of the Reformation is a classic, writes: "Calvin was the founder of the greatest of republics. The Pilgrims who left their country in the reign of James I, and landing on the barren soil of New England, founded populous and mighty colonies, were his sons, his direct and legitimate sons; and that American nation which we have seen growing so rapidly boasts as its father the humble Reformer on the shore of Lake Leman."¹³

Dr. E. W. Smith says, "These revolutionary principles of republican liberty and self-government, taught and embodied in the system of Calvin, were brought to America, and in this new land where they have borne so mighty a harvest were planted, by whose hands? — the hands of the Calvinists. The vital relation of Calvin and Calvinism to the founding of the free institutions of America, however strange in some ears the statement of Ranke may have sounded, is recognized and affirmed by historians of all lands and creeds."¹⁴

All this has been thoroughly understood and candidly acknowledged by such penetrating and philosophic historians as Bancroft, who far though he was from being Calvinistic in his own personal convictions, simply calls Calvin "the father of America," and adds: "He who will not honor the memory and respect the influence of Calvin knows but little of the origin of American liberty."

When we remember that two-thirds of the population at the time of the Revolution had been trained in the school of Calvin, and when we remember how unitedly and enthusiastically the Calvinists labored for the cause of independence, we readily see how true are the above testimonies.

There were practically no Methodists in America at the time of the Revolution; and, in fact, the Methodist Church was not officially organized as such in England until the year 1784, which was three years after the American Revolution closed. John Wesley, great and good man though he was, was a Tory and a believer in political non-resistance. He wrote against the American "rebellion," but accepted the providential result. McFetridge tells us: "The Methodists had hardly a foothold in the colonies when the war began. In 1773 they claimed about one hundred and sixty members. Their ministers were almost all, if not all, from England, and were staunch supporters of the Crown against American Independence. Hence, when the war broke out they were compelled to fly from the country. Their political views were naturally in accord with those of their great leader, John Wesley, who wielded all the power of his eloquence and influence against the independence of the colonies. (Bancroft, Hist. U.S., Vol. VII, p. 261.) He did not foresee that independent America was to be the field on which his noble Church was to reap her largest harvests, and that in that Declaration which he so earnestly opposed lay the security of the liberties of his followers."¹⁵

In England and America the great struggles for civil and religious liberty were nursed in Calvinism, inspired by Calvinism, and carried out largely by men who were Calvinists. And because the majority of historians have never made a serious study of Calvinism they have never been able to give us a truthful and complete account of what it has done in these countries. Only the light of historical investigation is needed to show us how our forefathers believed in it and were controlled by it. We live in a day when the services of the Calvinists in the founding of this country have been largely forgotten, and one can hardly treat of this subject without appearing to be a mere eulogizer of Calvinism. We may well do honor to that Creed which has borne such sweet fruits and to which America owes so much.

Footnotes:

¹Hist. U. S., I, p. 463.
²Presbyterians and the Revolution, p. 49.
³They Seek a Country, J. G. Slosser, editor, p. 155.
⁴Harper's Monthly. June and July, 1872.
⁵The'United Netherlands, III., p. 121.
⁶The United Netherlands, IV., pp. 548, 547.
⁷English Literature, II., p. 472.
⁸Address on, "The Westminster Standards and the Formation of the American Republic.
⁹Hist. U.S., X., p. 77.
¹⁰Calvinism in History, pp. 85-88.
¹¹The Creed of Presbyterians, p. 142.
¹²Id. p. 119.
¹³Reformation in the Time of Calvin, I., p. 5.
¹⁴The Creed of Presbyterians, p. 132.
¹⁵Calvinism in History, p. 74.

[MarkBsnr]

Cronos, my friend.

Do you really think that our friends will be swayed by facts or reality or anything like that?

[Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus]

LOL - So, you reject the testimony of Gano’s own family, but are willing to believe a Catholic fable with no substantiation whatsoever?

Sure.

Sorry, but Hughes’ testimony in the matter is of little value. As with most other documentary evidences, we don’t have the complete set of data - we don’t have all of Gano’s correspondences, we don’t have all of the correspondences from the witnesses, etc. In short, trying to say that we know it didn’t happen because it doesn’t appear in an imcomplete data set is a logical fallacy - it’s trying to prove a negative from a negative.

[BlueDragon]

"The concept of liberty from Kings that swept the world from the time of the American and French Revolutions right up until the expelling of the Kings/Emperors/Tsars/Kaisers/Caliphs in 1911-1918 owed more to the Greek concepts of individual freedoms rather than to Calvin...

Historically, that was the understanding in this country, and what was taught. The founders were aware enough of the other forms of government which had been tried throughout recorded history, enough to see that the European monarchical model left a lot to be desired.

The idea wasn't exactly promoted by the popes of old -- so my previous points stand, regardless of your own distortion of them.

[BlueDragon]

It is wrong to claim that this was just the Calvinists who liberated our country.

I didn't say that. You're twisting my words. Is it deliberate?

What I did say is that the idea of freedom did not arise from papal sources! No it's your turn. Name that pope! or shut up!

Wow -- so the reformatters created the USA? Despite the separation of 2 centuries or more between the events? That's utterly incorrect

You're trying to make people think the Reformation began and ended with Calvin? How convenient. Then all one needs to do is hold up Calvin like some sort of pinata and bash away. But that's typical of the Catholic historical distortions and gyrations displayed on this forum--- to cover up for the former crimes and ungodliness of prior popes.

Freedom, including freedom of religious expression --- not exactly a "Roman Catholic" idea (as can be found ample evidence of in the preceding centuries, in Europe, for papal authorities fought the very idea tooth & nail) although many Catholics in America took a shine to the notion, particularly since at the time they were decidedly in minority.

If not for the Reformation, there would doubtfully been the cultural climate in which the idea would have even been discussed. It surely didn't flow from 1400's-1700's Rome, as I have clearly stated before. If you are aiming to refute my words, refute those. NAME THAT POPE!

[Dr. Eckleburg]

It's not "Catholicism;" it's the superstitions and Scriptural errors Roman Catholicism teaches which lead away from Christ and glorify the creature.

"Every man is brutish in his knowledge: every founder is confounded by the graven image: for his molten image is falsehood, and there is no breath in them.

They are vanity, and the work of errors: in the time of their visitation they shall perish." -- Jeremiah 10:14-15

[Natural Law]

We have the Calvinists to thank for the Bill of Rights. Were it not for the threat of sectarian oppression posed by the Presbyterian “Popes of Boston” the colonies would not have demanded and received the first 10 Amendments as a condition of ratification.

[Diamond]

The original false assertion that I rebutted (by giving specific examples) was that Calvinists didn't believe in missionary work. Your 4 points here are unresponsive as to why the particular Calvinists I listed engaged in missionary work.

1. This is incompatible with Calvin's own Limited Atonement and double predestination philosophy. If one follows Calvinist philosophy on this, then none can "do" (do = work) anything to bring anything to Christ's fold as it's already pre-programmed.

Though unresponsive to the original point of contention, I can say that your characterization is a caricature of Limited Atonement and Double Predestination. in any event, your theological assessment does not explain why the particular Calvinists I listed engaged in missionary work.

2. Calvin did not evangelize France. Remigius did that in 496 AD

False dichotomy. The two are not necessaryily mutually exclusive.

3. Prove your statement that Calvin sent out more missionaries than the BAptist, Pentecostals, Methodists of today.

Good and valid point. First, I should note that it was not my statement. I was quoting the author in context, and that particular assertion is probably an overstatement at best. It is weak on its face, and unsupported by any statistical evidence. You are right to question it. The point in the paragraph that caught my attention, however, and which can be substantiated is that, "just in one year, 142 missionaries were sent out by Calvin to go around the world and reach people with the gospel message."

4. The missionary movement was founded by Christ. There is no such thing as "modern missionary movement" indicating a discontinuation with the original message to spread the Word of Christ -- the commission given by Christ Himself.

There is no dispute that the missionary movement was founded by Christ. I think it should go without saying, though, that one can accept the Great Commission as given by Christ Himself and at the same time distinguish for the sake of clarity between different time periods of missionary activity in Church history, without any contradiction, denial or discontinuation with the Original Commission.

Once again, my major point here is that your theological disputation does not account for why the particular Calvinists I listed engaged in the extensive missionary work that they did.

Cordially,

[Natural Law]

"As the Reformation, so went the Revolution. Thank God."

That is a load of star-spangled bull feathers. The very preamble of the Declaration of Independence is a complete refutation of the Calvinist doctrine of election. Calvinism does not teach that "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with unalienable rights". They believe that a very special few are selected before the dawn of time to special and spiritually superior.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Wonderful post, Diamond. I've added it to my homepage.

And your link is terrific. I've sent it to several friends...

SEVEN MISCONCEPTIONS PEOPLE HOLD ABOUT CALVINISM

[Natural Law]

"Yes, the Presbyterians and Methodists whom were a majority among the framers of the Constitution,..."

Sorry BD, you are flat out wrong. Don't confuse the "signers" of the Declaration of Independence with the Framers of the Constitution.

Of the Delegates who actually met to negotiate the Constitution history recognizes six as actual authors of the Constitution. Of these six none were Presbyterians or Methodists:

John Adams - Unitarian
Benjamin Franklin - Deist
Thomas Jefferson - Deist
John Jay - Episcopalian
James Madison - Episcopalian
George Washington - Church of England (converted to Catholicism)
Alexander Hamilton - Episcopalian (Converted from Presbyterian)

[Salvation]

Excellent factual post! Thanks!

[Salvation]

What is your source for this list?

I have never seen Episcopalians referred to as Calvinists. Can you explain that?

[xone]

ph

[BlueDragon]

So you jump on the George Washington became a Catholic rumour? Such thin gruel...

Don't confuse the signers with the framers you say? What of those who attended (over a span of years) and discussed what would or should be the form of government to come? All conveniently swept under the rug by your own selective presentation of the facts.

What did the writers put to paper, but what could be assented to by a majority? Or would you have the various writers operating in a vacuum (of thought & idea).

Name that pope. Can't do it, can you?

Next!

Oh wait, true to form, some uber-catholic here will dig up some obscure quote concerning freedom or dignity (most likely from years AFTER the American Revolution) and try and claim it was all a "catholic" idea, in the first place. It's only a matter of time until such rubbish appears here...

If not for the cultural climate brought about in large part by the preceding Reformation, there would have been no Episcopalians, no Anglicans, no alleged Deists in positions of influence in Colonial America. Why can't you see that?

Prefer to argue the minutia of the matter, rather than the broader sweep? That is plain enough to me. I'm certain it is plain enough to most others, too.

Name that pope.

[Natural Law]

"Ok--- can you name that pope?"

However, Fr. Joel Panzer wrote extensively on this and did a fine job of it.

Eugene IV: Sicut Dudum, 1435

On January 13, 1435, Eugene IV issued from Florence the bull Sicut Dudum. Sent to Bishop Ferdinand, located at Rubicon on the island of Lanzarote, this bull condemned the enslavement of the black natives of the newly colonized Canary Islands off the coast of Africa. The Pope stated that after being converted to the faith or promised baptism, many of the inhabitants were taken from their homes and enslaved:

"They have deprived the natives of their property or turned it to their own use, and have subjected some of the inhabitants of said islands to perpetual slavery (subdiderunt perpetuae servituti), sold them to other persons and committed other various illicit and evil deeds against them.... Therefore We ... exhort, through the sprinkling of the Blood of Jesus Christ shed for their sins, one and all, temporal princes, lords, captains, armed men, barons, soldiers, nobles, communities and all others of every kind among the Christian faithful of whatever state, grade or condition, that they themselves desist from the aforementioned deeds, cause those subject to them to desist from them, and restrain them rigorously. And no less do We order and command all and each of the faithful of each sex that, within the space of fifteen days of the publication of these letters in the place where they live, that they restore to their pristine liberty all and each person of either sex who were once residents of said Canary Islands ... who have been made subject to slavery (servituti subicere). These people are to be totally and perpetually free and are to be let go without the exaction or reception of any money."

The date of this Bull, 1435, is very significant. Nearly 60 years before the Europeans were to find the New World, we already had the papal condemnation of slavery as soon as this crime was discovered in one of the first of the Portuguese geographical discoveries.

Eugene IV was clear in his intentions both to condemn the enslavement of the residents of the Canary Islands, and to demand correction of the injustice within 15 days. Those who did not restore the enslaved to their liberty in that time were to incur the sentence of excommunication ipso facto.

With Sicut Dudum, Eugene was clearly intending to condemn the enslavement of the people of the Canaries and, in no uncertain terms, to inform the faithful that what was being condemned was what we would classify as gravely wrong. Thus, the unjust slavery that had begun in the newly found territories was condemned, condemned as soon as it was discovered, and condemned in the strongest of terms.

Paul III: Sublimis Deus, 1537

The pontifical decree known as "The Sublime God" has indeed had an exalted role in the cause of social justice in the New World. Recently, authors such as Gustavo Gutierrez have noted this fact: 'The bull of Pope Paul III, Sublimis Deus (June 2, 1537), is regarded as the most important papal pronouncement on the human condition of the Indians." It is, moreover, addressed to all of the Christian faithful in the world, and not to a particular bishop in one area, thereby not limiting its significance, but universalizing it.

Sublimis Deus was intended to be issued as the central pedagogical work against slavery. Two other bulls would be published to implement the teaching of Sublimis, one to impose penalties on those who fail to abide by the teaching against slavery, and a second to specify the sacramental consequences of the teaching that the Indians are true men.

The first central teaching of this beautiful work is the universality of the call to receive the Faith and salvation:

"And since mankind, according to the witness of Sacred Scripture, was created for eternal life and happiness, and since no one is able to attain this eternal life and happiness except through faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, it is necessary to confess that man is of such a nature and condition that he is capable to receive faith in Christ and that everyone who possesses human nature is apt for receiving such faith . . . Therefore the Truth Himself Who can neither deceive nor be deceived, when He destined the preachers of the faith to the office of preaching, is known to have said: 'Going, make disciples of all nations.' 'All,' he said, without any exception, since all are capable of the discipline of the faith."

The teaching of Sublimis continued:

"Seeing this and envying it, the enemy of the human race, who always opposes all good men so that the race may perish, has thought up a way, unheard of before now, by which he might impede the saving word of God from being preached to the nations. He has stirred up some of his allies who, desiring to satisfy their own avarice, are presuming to assert far and wide that the Indians of the West and the South who have come to our notice in these times be reduced to our service like brute animals, under the pretext that they are lacking the Catholic Faith. And they reduce them to slavery (Et eos in servitutem redigunt), treating them with afflictions they would scarcely use with brute animals."

The common pretext of the allies of "the enemy of the human race," i.e. Satan, for enslaving the Indians was that they lacked the Faith. Some of the Europeans used the reasoning that converting the Indians should be accomplished by any means necessary, thus making the Faith an excuse for war and enslavement. Paul III stated that the practice of this form of servitude was "unheard of before now." This clearly indicates that the practice of enslaving an entire ethnic group of people - the Indians of South America-for no morally justifiable reason was indeed different from anything previously encountered.

The second core teaching of Sublimis Deus which follows from this is the necessity of restoring and maintaining the liberty of the Indians:

"Therefore, We, . . . noting that the Indians themselves indeed are true men and are not only capable of the Christian faith, but, as has been made known to us, promptly hasten to the faith' and wishing to provide suitable remedies for them, by our Apostolic Authority decree and declare by these present letters that the same Indians and all other peoples-even though they are outside the faith-who shall hereafter come to the knowledge of Christians have not been deprived or should not be deprived of their liberty or of their possessions. Rather they are to be able to use and enjoy this liberty and this ownership of property freely and licitly, and are not to be reduced to slavery, and that whatever happens to the contrary is to be considered null and void. These same Indians and other peoples are to be invited to the said faith in Christ by preaching and the example of a good life."

Thus, we see that Eugene IV and Paul III did not hesitate to condemn the forced servitude of Blacks and Indians, and they did so once such practices became known to the Holy See. Their teaching was continued by Gregory XIV in 1591 and by Urban VIII in 1639. Indeed Urban, in his document Commissum Nobis, appealed to the teaching of his predecessors, particularly Paul III. The pontifical teaching was continued by the response of the Holy Office on March 20, 1686, under Innocent XI, and by the encyclical of Benedict XIV, Immensa Pastorum, on December 20, 1741. This work was followed by the efforts of Pius VII at the Congress of Vienna in 1815 to have the victors over Napoleon outlaw slavery.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Calvinism doesn’t deny the Preamble.

In fact, Calvinism affirms the Preamble.

All men are indeed created equal — equally fallen and equally in need of God’s grace. And the Creator has endowed all men with the right of life (who else gives life), liberty (who else gives liberty) and the pursuit of happiness (we each seek happiness according to our inclinations.)

[Dr. Eckleburg]

George Washington did not convert to Catholicism. What a riot your “death bed conversions” have become.

[HossB86]

Nailed it in one.

Amen. Amen!!!

Hoss

[Natural Law]

"George Washington did not convert to Catholicism. What a riot your “death bed conversions” have become."

From the Denver Register, February 24, 1957

In addition to Salvation's links in post #33 there are the following news stories. Collectively, they are far more plausible than much of the tripe you push on these threads.

CONVERSION OF GEORGE WASHINGTON

New York- It was a long tradition among both the Maryland Province Jesuit Fathers and the Negro slaves of the Washington plantation and those of the surrounding area that the first President died a Catholic. These and other facts about George Washington are reported in the Paulist INFORMATION magazine by Doran Hurley.

The story is that Father Leonard Neale, S.J, was called to Mount Vernon from St. Mary‘s Mission across the Piscatawney River four hours before Washington‘s death. Tradition also holds that shortly after Washington‘s death Father Neale sent a heavily sealed packet to Rome. If this be true, it may yet turn up in the Vatican archives, or it may have been lost during the Jesuits’ hidden years.

Washington’s body servant Juba is authority for the fact that the General made the Sign of the Cross at meals. He may have learned this from his Catholic lieutenants, Stephen Moylan or John Fitzgerald. At Valley Forge, Washington forbade the burning in effigy of the Pontiff on “Pope’s Day.” Several times as President he is reported to have slipped into a Catholic church to hear Sunday Mass.

From The Denver Register, May 11, 1952

GEORGE WASHINGTON KEPT PICTURE OF BLESSED VIRGIN, RECORDS SHOW

Washington (Special)-A picture of the Blessed Virgin Mary and one of St. John were among the effects found in an inventory of the articles at Mount Vernon at the death of George Washington, first president of the U.S.A. The Rev. W C. Re­petti, S.J., archivist at Georgetown University, reports he has discov­ered this information in an appendix to a biography of Washington.

The book is a LIFE OF GEORGE WASHINGTON by Edward Everett, published by Sheldon & Co. in New York in 1860. Appendix No. 2, pages 286-7, lists an official “inventory of articles at Mt. Vernon with ap­praised values annexed. Taken by sworn appraisers after the decease of General Washington,” the list includes:

1 Likeness of St. John 15.00
1 Likeness of Virgin Mary 15.00

“The fact that he had a picture of the Blessed Virgin is rather unex­pected, and, to the best of my knowledge, has not been brought out,” says Father Repetti.

The long report among slaves of Mount Vernon as to Washington‘s deathbed conversion would be odd unless based on truth. These were not Catholic Negroes; it is part of the tradition that weeping and wail­ing occurred in the quarters that Massa Washington had been snared by the Scarlet Woman of Rome, whom they had been taught to fear and hate. Supposedly, Father Neale was rowed across the Piscatawney by Negro oarsmen,’ and men often talked freely when slaves were nearby, confidently ignoring their presence.

Now, care to comment on the Alexander Hamilton conversion riot while you are at it?

[Matchett-PI]

“I have never seen Episcopalians referred to as Calvinists. Can you explain that?”

Traditional Protestant Episcopal Church
One Foundation: An American Reformation Movement
http://www.reformer.org/Home/One-Foundation—An-American-Reformation-Movement

[snip]

THE DOCTRINES OF THE CHURCH + that the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion, standing among the historic confessions of Protestantism such as the Augsburg, Westminster, and Heidelberg Confessions, as adopted by the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States in 1801, continue to serve as a confession of faith for American Protestant churchmen

[snip]

Mission: to restore and promote the heritage and witness of the Protestant Reformation to those churches of North America whose faith was founded on the Doctrines of Grace, expressed by the English and Continental Reformers.

Particulars:
[snip]
Promoting the acceptance of the historic Thirty-Nine Articles of the American Church as the standard of faith for all churchmen:

<>

Reformed Anglicanism
39 Articles of Religion
http://reformationanglicanism.blogspot.com/2010/07/39-articles-of-religion.html

The 39 Articles of Religion is one of the earliest Protestant doctrinal statements of any detail penned. It is a summary of several things: the teaching of the historic church back through the centuries; a refutation of some Roman Catholic doctrines; a refutation of some Anabaptists teachings; and a summary of Protestant understanding of the Gospel. One will find the Articles at times Lutheran, at times historic with its emphasis on the three ancient creeds (Apostles’, Nicene, Athanasian), at times Reformed and Calvinistic (especially on predestination and the sacraments), sacramental, balanced, and at all times gracious and pastoral (as in the Article on predestination). It has often been commented that one cannot understanding Anglicanism without understanding the Book of Common Prayer and the 39 Articles of Religion.