Infallibility of Councils Refuted From the Erroneous Jewish Council That Condemned Christ in George Gillespie Monday, Nov 28 2011

Aaron’s Rod Blossoming, pg. 14:

“1. There was a council of the priests, and elders, and scribes, Matt. ii. 4; xvi. 21; xxi. 23; xxvi. 57, 59; xxvii. 1,12; Mark xiv. 43; Luke xxii. 66; Acts iv. 5. The Centurists say that those elders were joined with the priests in the government of the church, with ecclesiastical persons in ecclesiastical affairs, which had been rightly taken for a precedent of our ruling elders.1 2. That council…Luke xxii. 66; Acts xvii. 5, the presbytery or eldership, the very name which Paul gives to that assembly of church-officers who ordained Timothy, 1 Tim. iv. 14. Is it credible that the Apostle would transfer the name of a civil court to signify an assembly which was merely ecclesiastical and not civil?…This council did examine Jesus concerning his disciples, and his doctrine, and received witnesses against him, and pronounced him guilty of blasphemy, Matt. xxvii. 57; Mark xiv. 53,55; Job xviii. 10; hence Protestant writers draw an argument against Papists, to overthrow their infallibility of councils, unto which argument Bellarmine deviseth four answers, but it came not once into his thoughts to reply that this council was civil, not ecclesiastical, which had been his best answer if any probability for it. It hath been supposed, both by Protestant and Popish writers, that it was an ecclesiastical council such as the controversy is about, otherwise our argument had been as impertinent as their answer was insufficient. 4. Our opposites have no evasion here, but that which Bilson, Saravia, and others of the prelatical party did answer in opposition to ruling elders, namely, that the Jewish elders were judges or magistrates; but the reply which served them will serve now: the elders are plainly distinguished from judges, rulers and princes, Josh. viii. 33; xxiii. 2; Deut. v. 23; Judg. viii. 14;”

Leave a Response »

 

The Mistaken Infallibility of the Jewish Church the same Mistake as the Romanists In George Gillespie Monday, Nov 28 2011

Aaron’s Rod Blossoming, pages 10-11,

“The sixth place which intimateth an ecclesiastical sanhedrim, is Jer. xviii. 18, where the adversaries of Jeremiah say among themselves, “Come and let us devise devices against Jeremiah, for the law shall not perish from the priest, nor counsel from the wise, nor the word from the prophet. Come, and let us smite him with the tongue.” The force of their argument (as not only our interpreters, but Maldonat also, and Sanctius, following Aquinas and Lyra, tell us) stands in this, those who are of greatest authority in the church, the priests, prophets, and elders, with whom are the oracles of truth, do contradict Jeremiah, therefore he is a false prophet. But what was the ground of this consequence? Surely the ground was that which Bullinger and the late English annotations do observe, namely, the Popish error was also their error,—the church cannot err. But let us yet follow the argument to the bottom. How came they to think the church cannot err? or what was that church which they thought infallible? No doubt they had respect to the law of the sanhedrim, Deut. xvii. 10— 12, “And thou shalt do according to the sentence which they of that place (which the Lord shall choose) shall show thee; and thou shalt observe to do according to all that they inform thee : according to the sentence of the law which they shall teach thee, and according to the judgment which they shall tell thee, thou shalt do: thou shalt not decline from the sentence which they shall show thee, to the right hand, or to the left; and the man that will do presumptuously, and will not hearken unto the priest (that standeth to minister there before the Lord thy God) or unto the judge, even that man shall die.” From this scripture misapplied they drew an argument against Jeremiah, wherein their meaning could not be this, that the doctrine of every individual priest, or of every individual scribe, is infallible (for as the law now cited did speak of the sanhedrim, not of individual priests, so neither the Jews of old, nor the Papists after them, have drawn the conceited infallibility so low as to every particular priest); but they mean collectively, and point at an assembly or council of priests, wise men, and prophets, which, as they apprehended, could not err, and whose determination they preferred to the word of the Lord by Jeremiah; “for the law (that is, saith Menochius, the interpretation of the law) cannot perish from the priest, nor counsel from the wise.” Now this was an ecclesiastical, not a civil sanhedrim, which may appear thus: 1. They do not make mention of the judge mentioned Deut. xvii. (where the priest and the judge are distinguished), only they mention the priest, the prophet (for which the Chaldee hath scribe: which is all one, as to the present argument; for we find both prophets and scribes in ecclesiastical assemblies, as was said before), and the wise. By the wise,

are meant those that were chief or did excel among the scribes or doctors of the law. So Grotius, annot. in Matt. xxiii. 34, and it may be collected from Jer. viii. 8, 9. This is certain, that these wise men were churchofficers; for as they are distinguished from the judges, Isa. iii. 2, so Jesus Christ, speakmg of apostles and other ministers of the gospel whom he was to send forth, expresseth himself by way of allusion to the ecclesiastical ministers of the Jews, Matt, xxiii. 34, “Behold I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes,” which Luke xi. 49, hath thus, “I will send them prophets and apostles.” 2. The civil sanhedrim at this time did (so far as we can find) contradict Jeremiah; but when his cause came afterward before them, Jer. xxvi., they show much favour and friendship to him. 3. That which is added, “Come and let us smite him with the tongue,” may be three ways read, and every way it suiteth to the ecclesiastical sanhedrim (whether themselves be the speakers in the text, or whether the people be the speakers of it, as of that which they would desire and move the sanhedrim to do in the name of them all), either thus, “Let us smite him for the tongue,” that is, for an ecclesiastical cause, for false doctrine; or thus, “Let us smite him in the tongue” (so the Septuagint, and Arias Montanus), that is, let us smite him with an ecclesiastical censure, and silence him, and discharge him to preach any more to the people; or thus, “Let us smite him with the tongue,” that is, with an ecclesiastical sentence or declaration; smite him not with the sword (which belonged only to the civil magistrate) but with the tongue, by declaring him to be a false prophet, and by determining the case de jure, what ought to be done with him according to the law.”

Leave a Response »

 

Abortion From A Historical Christian Perspective and Roe Court Shown to be Erroneous by the Eastern Church Monday, Nov 28 2011

I Read this great piece by the Eastern Church today on abortion. I thought I would offer it to me readers:  An Orthodox View of Abortion The Amicus Curiae Submitted to the Supreme Court

 

Leave a Response »

 

The Book of Daniel Defended by Gleason L. Archer Sunday, Nov 27 2011

The prophetic arguments from the book of Daniel have driven the secular world insane. They affirm that Daniel had to be written after the events it prophesied because an admission that it was written before these events is an inevitable return to the Christian Church as the principle of unity in the world. This they cannot believe, so they resurrected and old theory from the pagan philosopher Porphyry that Daniel is a forgery and a lie. Originally Porphyry was refuted by Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea, Appollinarius and Methodius.  Jerome catalogues this in the Prologue of his Commentary on Daniel. Sadly, these works were lost to the advantage of the modern Secular Establishment. Scholars have made some arguments that there is hope these will be found.  However, Gleason L. Archer, Jr. in his A Survey of Old Testament Introduction has taken the task upon himself to answer the arguments of the liberals against the book of Daniel. I offer this book to my readers.

The liberal theory is that Daniel was written by an unknown author during the life of  Antiochus IV Epiphanes (215 B.C. to 164 B.C.). Here is the primary problem with this theory:  Dan 8 says 21 The shaggy goat represents the kingdom of Greece, and the large horn that is between his eyes is the first king. 22 The broken horn and the four horns that arose in its place represent four kingdoms which will arise from his nation, although not with his power.

Daniel states that Alexander’s kingdom will be divided into four parts. This is uncontested history. The empire of Alexander was divided into four parts. Four of the great generals of Alexander made the division: Cassander, Lysimachus, Seleucus and Ptolemy. The four kingdoms were Syria, Egypt, Macedonia, and Asia Minor-Pergamon. However, later on, the Ptolemaic Kingdom is supplanted under Antiochus IV Epiphanes’ Seleucid Empire in 170 B.C. Now get this, the liberal theory states that the Anonymous author of Daniel wrote the book at this exact time. Why then no mention of the revision in the kingdoms in the account in Daniel 8? Some historians argue that there were actually only two Kingdoms at this time due to some struggles for power at the time.

 

 

 

Leave a Response »

 

What is a Humanist? Saturday, Nov 26 2011

Ever wonder what Secular Humanism really is? In 1933 a number of educators and “Ministers” summarized what Humanism was in their A Humanist Manifesto.

Leave a Response »

 

David Hume Destroys Natural Theology and the Possibility of Knowledge of God Through the Senses; Knowledge of God Through Divine Revelation Alone, Buttressed Saturday, Nov 26 2011

I offer my readers David Hume’s Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion to drive their Thomist  and Van Tillian friends our of their minds.

Leave a Response »

 

Is Grace Alien to Man’s Original State or Was the Covenant of Works Itself Gracious? The former I deny the later I affirm. Thursday, Nov 24 2011

Most apologetical works of the Eastern Orthodox against Calvinism are aimed at a Hyper-Calvinist straw man. The Eastern Orthodox apologists try to make grace something alien to nature in Reformed Theology so that they can corner it in an accusation that the entire system is Pelagian.  InAmerica, since the rejection of nationally established Protestant nations a view of the covenant of grace has been taken to buttress the idea of pluralism and it is loaded with Hyper-Calvinism. It is the system of Thomas Boston which shares many similarities with the Reformed Baptist system which is Hyper-Calvinism Par Excellence. In opposition to these errors I affirm  with Rutherford that the  Covenant of Works was ITSELF a gracious covenant.

Samuel Rutherford says,

“In all pactions between the Lord and man, even in a Law-Covenant there is some outbreakings of grace. It is true, there was no Gospel-Grace, that is a fruit of Christ’s merit in this Covenant. But yet if grace be taken for undeserved goodness: There are these respects of grace. 1. That God might have given to Adam something inferior to the glorious image of God, that consists in true righteousness, knowledge of God, and holiness, Gen 1:26, Eph 4:24, Col 3:10 … 2. Being and dominion over the creatures is of undeserved goodness … 3. The Covenant of Works itself, that God out of sovereignty does not command, is undeserved condescending; that God bargains for hire, do this and live, whereas he may … [as] Sovereign Lawgiver … charge and command us, is overcoming goodness. Law is honeyed with love, and hire; it is mercy that for our penny of obedience, so rich a wage as communion with God is given…”

Samuel Rutherford, The Covenant of Life Opened: Or, A Treatise on the Covenant of Grace (Edinburgh: Robert Broun for Andrew Anderson), 35.

One Response »

 

The American Mind vs. The Christian Mind; Thomas Paine vs. The Augsburg Confession Tuesday, Nov 22 2011

In Thomas Paine’s Common Sense Page 46 he says,

“As to religion, I hold it to be the indispensible duty of all governments to protect all conscientious professors thereof, and I know of no other business which government hath to do therewith. Let a man throw aside that narrowness of soul, that selfishness of principle, which the niggards of all professions are so unwilling to part with, and he will be at once delivered of his fears on that head. Suspicion is the companion of mean souls, and the bane of all good society. For myself, I fully and conscientiously believe, that it is the will of the Almighty, that there should be a diversity of religious opinions among us: it affords a larger field for our Christian kindness. Were we all of one way of thinking, our religious dispositions would want matter for probation, and on this liberal principle, I look on the various denominations among us, to be like children of the same family, differing only in what is called their Christian names.”

Is this the historical Christian and Biblical attitude toward human society? In the The Augsburg Confession 1530 A.D. Preface to the Emperor Charles V we read,

“1] Most Invincible Emperor, Caesar Augustus, Most Clement Lord: Inasmuch as Your Imperial Majesty has summoned a Diet of the Empire here at Augsburg to deliberate concerning measures against the Turk, that most atrocious, hereditary, and ancient enemy of the Christian name and religion, in what way, namely, effectually to withstand his furor and assaults by strong and lasting military provision; 2] and then also concerning dissensions in the matter of our holy religion and Christian Faith, that in this matter of religion the opinions and judgments of the parties might be heard in each other’s presence; and considered and weighed 3] among ourselves in mutual charity, leniency, and kindness, in order that, after the removal and correction of such things as have been treated and understood in a different manner in the writings on either side, these matters may be settled and brought back to one simple truth and Christian concord, 4] that for the future one pure and true religion may be embraced and maintained by us, that as we all are under one Christ and do battle under Him, so we may be able also to live in unity and concord in the one Christian Church.

And inasmuch as we, the undersigned Elector and 5] Princes, with others joined with us, have been called to the aforesaid Diet the same as the other Electors, Princes, and Estates, in obedient compliance with the Imperial mandate, we have promptly come to Augsburg, and—what we do not mean to say as boasting—we were among the first to be here.

6] Accordingly, since even here at Augsburg at the very beginning of the Diet, Your Imperial Majesty caused to be proposed to the Electors, Princes, and other Estates of the Empire, amongst other things, that the several Estates of the Empire, on the strength of the Imperial edict, should set forth and submit their opinions and judgments in the German and the Latin 7] language, and since on the ensuing Wednesday, answer was given to Your Imperial Majesty, after due deliberation, that we would submit the Articles of our Confession for our side on next Wednesday, therefore, in obedience to Your Imperial Majesty’s 8] wishes, we offer, in this matter of religion, the Confession of our preachers and of ourselves, showing what manner of doctrine from the Holy Scriptures and the pure Word of God has been up to this time set forth in our lands, dukedoms, dominions, and cities, and taught in our churches.

9] And if the other Electors, Princes, and Estates of the Empire will, according to the said Imperial proposition, present similar writings, to wit, in Latin and German, giving their opinions in this 10] matter of religion, we, with the Princes and friends aforesaid, here before Your Imperial Majesty, our most clement Lord are prepared to confer amicably concerning all possible ways and means, in order that we may come together, as far as this may be honorably done, and, the matter between us on both sides being peacefully discussed without offensive strife, the dissension, by God’s help, may be done away and brought back to one true accordant 11] religion; for as we all are under one Christ and do battle under Him, we ought to confess the one Christ, after the tenor of Your Imperial Majesty’s edict, and everything ought to be conducted according to the truth of God; and this it is what, with most fervent prayers, we entreat of God.

12] However, as regards the rest of the Electors, Princes, and Estates, who constitute the other part, if no progress should be made, nor some result be attained by this treatment of the cause of religion after the manner in which Your Imperial Majesty has wisely held that it should be dealt with and treated namely, by such mutual presentation of writings and calm conferring together among ourselves, 13] we at least leave with you a clear testimony, that we here in no wise are holding back from anything that could bring about Christian concord,—such as could be effected with God and a good conscience,—as14] also Your Imperial Majesty and, next, the other Electors and Estates of the Empire, and all who are moved by sincere love and zeal for religion, and who will give an impartial hearing to this matter, will graciously deign to take notice and to understand this from this Confession of ours and of our associates.

15] Your Imperial Majesty also, not only once but often, graciously signified to the Electors Princes, and Estates of the Empire, and at the Diet of Spires held A.D. 1526, according to the form of Your Imperial instruction and commission given and prescribed, caused it to be stated and publicly proclaimed that 16] Your Majesty, in dealing with this matter of religion, for certain reasons which were alleged in Your Majesty’s name, was not willing to decide and could not determine anything, but that Your Majesty would diligently use Your Majesty’s office with the Roman Pontiff for the convening of a General Council. 17] The same matter was thus publicly set forth at greater length a year ago at the last Diet which met at Spires. 18] There Your Imperial Majesty, through His Highness Ferdinand, King of Bohemia and Hungary, our friend and clement Lord, as well as through the Orator and Imperial Commissioners caused this, among other things, to be submitted: that Your Imperial Majesty had taken notice of; and pondered, the resolution of Your Majesty’s Representative in the Empire, and of the President and Imperial Counselors, and the Legates from other Estates convened at Ratisbon, 19] concerning the calling of a Council, and that your Imperial Majesty also judged it to be expedient to convene a Council; and that Your Imperial Majesty did not doubt the Roman Pontiff could be induced to 20] hold a General Council, because the matters to be adjusted between Your Imperial Majesty and the Roman Pontiff were nearing agreement and Christian reconciliation; therefore Your Imperial Majesty himself signified that he would endeavor to secure the said Chief Pontiff’s consent for convening, together with your Imperial Majesty such General Council, to be published as soon as possible by letters that were to be sent out.

21] If the outcome, therefore, should be such that the differences between us and the other parties in the matter of religion should not be amicably and in charity settled, then here, before Your Imperial Majesty we make the offer in all obedience, in addition to what we have already done, that we will all appear and defend our cause in such a general, free Christian Council, for the convening of which there has always been accordant action and agreement of votes in all the Imperial Diets held during Your Majesty’s reign, on the part of the Electors, Princes, and other Estates of the Empire. 22] To the assembly of this General Council, and at the same time to Your Imperial Majesty, we have, even before this, in due manner and form of law, addressed ourselves and made appeal in this matter, by far the greatest and gravest. To this 23] appeal, both to Your Imperial Majesty and to a Council, we still adhere; neither do we intend nor would it be possible for us, to relinquish it by this or any other document, unless the matter between us and the other side, according to the tenor of the latest Imperial citation should be amicably and charitably settled, allayed, and brought to Christian concord; 24] and regarding this we even here solemnly and publicly testify.”

The whole idea that a nation should be obliged to no established religion and no principle of unity is completely absurd and comes straight out of the insanity of atheism. Baptists, atheists and most importantly Romanists love it because it keeps them from being held accountable for their devilish deceits and most importantly the Roman Catholic Church can keep sucking society dry of their money as they hoard up riches for their antichristian beast which will most likely be the only refuge for western society after the economy collapses.

Leave a Response »

 

Monty Collier’s Embarrassing Video on Thomas Paine Tuesday, Nov 22 2011

In typical Americanist “Christian Constitutionalist” form, Monty Collier argues for the Calvinistic roots in Thomas Paine’s Political Theory. No you did not misread me. I said Thomas Paine! You can watch his video here where, quite frankly, the man embarrasses himself when from 1:38- 2:00 he argues that long after Paine’s work in Common Sense and the American Revolution he then has a change of heart and attacks Christianity. His quotes from Common Sense did not commit Paine to those doctrines. He was simply appealing to his Protestant audience to convince the Calvinists to make the same conclusion from Scripture as his Deistic and Atheist friends had from nature, namely the tyranny of Divine Right. Listen to what Thomas Paine says about himself since he was a young child:

The Age of Reason page 37,

“From the time I was capable of conceiving an idea, and acting upon it by reflection, I either doubted the truth of the Christian system, or thought it to be a strange affair; I scarcely knew which it was: but I well remember, when about seven or eight years of age, hearing a sermon read by a relation of mine, who was a great devotee of the church, upon the subject of what is called redemption by the death of the Son of God. After the sermon was ended, I went into the garden, and as I was going down the garden Steps (for I perfectly recollect the spot) I revolted at the recollection of what I had heard, and thought to myself that it was making God Almighty act like a passionate man that killed his son, when he could not revenge himself any other way; and as I was sure a man would be hanged that did such a thing, I could not see for what purpose they preached such sermons. This was not one of those kind of thoughts that had anything in it of childish levity; it was to me a serious reflection, arising from the idea I had, that God was too good to do such an action, and also too almighty to be under any necessity of doing it. I believe in the same manner to this moment; and I moreover believe, that any system of religion, that has anything in it that shocks the mind of a child, cannot be a true system.

It seems as if parents of the Christian profession were ashamed to tell their children anything about the principles of their religion. They sometimes instruct them in morals, and talk to them of the goodness of what they call Providence; for the Christian mythology has five deities—there is God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Ghost, the God Providence, and the Goddess Nature. But the Christian story of God the Father putting his son to death, or employing people to do it (for that is the plain language of the story) cannot be told by a parent to a child; and to tell him that it was done to make mankind happier and better, is making the story still worse, as if mankind could be improved by the example of murder; and to tell him that all this is a mystery, is only making an excuse for the incredibility of it.

How different is this to the pure and simple profession of Deism! The true Deist has but one Deity; and his religion consists in contemplating the power, wisdom, and benignity of the Deity in his works, and in endeavoring to imitate him in every thing moral, scientifical, and mechanical.”

Don’t let Monty fool you folks. Paine did not believe Christianity from the time he was a child.

Leave a Response »

 

The Pretext and Origin of the American Revolution; Was Protestantism the Moving Force Behind the Revolution? I Deny Tuesday, Nov 22 2011

The following is from Common sense: Addressed to the Inhabitants of America by Thomas Paine with Explanatory Notice by J. Watson 1848.

In Watson’s Explanatory Notice he described the pretext and beginning of the American Revolution,

“From the time that the commerce of the North American Colonies became worth the notice of the British Government, it was put under the most pernicious and absurd restraints, for the supposed advantage of the mother country, and laws were occasionally passed here to regulate their internal affairs.

In the war which preceded the peace of 1762, the Colonists took a very decided part, and greatly contributed to the conquests made from the French. Canada, which had been taken from that people, was retained by the British, and Florida was ceded to us by Spain. Thus secured from attack by foreign neighbors, Great Britain and her Colonies were more than ever attached to each other. The Americans were proud of the land of their ancestors and gloried in their descent from Englishmen. This state of harmony was, however, of short duration. The unexampled expenses of the war required additional taxes to a large amount, and the difficulty this occasioned led the government in 1764 seriously to contemplate the levying of taxes in the colonies. This was objected to by the colonists, unless they were permitted to send representatives to the British Parliament; to this the government would not consent, and a dispute commenced which ended in the separation of the two countries.

Some at least if not all the colonies contended that j they possessed every legislative power not surrendered f by compact: whilst in Britain it was contended on the part of the government, that “Parliament possessed the power of binding them in all cases whatever.”

The dispute became serious, but so contemptible was the power of the colonists considered in the eyes of the English government, that in a debate in the House of Commons, General Grant, who should have known better, declared that ” with five regiments of infantry he would undertake to traverse the whole country and drive the inhabitants from one end of it to the other.” This contempt was not only entertained by the government and its adherents, but by the people, who were eager to compel their American brethren to submission by force of arms, against which the voice of a few wise men was of no avail. The colonists continuing to refuse the unconditional submission demanded, recourse was had to arms, and on the night of the 18th of April, 1775, they were attacked by the king’s troops at Lexington, and here the first American blood was spilt by their English brethren. The Americans repelled the aggression, appointed GEORGE Washington Commander-in-chief, and a desultory civil war desolated the colonies. The people were undecided in opinion; some were for submission, and others who deprecated the conduct of government, and publicly declared their detestation, disapproved of resistance as useless, and few were disposed to risk their lives and property in a contest of which none appeared able to foretell the consequences. The doctrine of independence was a novelty hitherto but slightly advocated by its friends, and they, from the want of numbers and the timidity always attendant on newly started notions, were looked upon as rash and dangerous, or treacherous and designing men, more deserving of suspicion and censure than of applause and imitation.” (IV-V)

Now this is the point at which so called Christian Constitutionalists will start proselytizing their theory that Calvinistic Protestant principles began to be heralded as the salvation of the colonies. Rutherford and Junius’ Brutus’ spirit is revived and the echoes of the St. Bartholomew’s Day massacre are heard once again. Is that what happened? Watson says,

“It was in this crisis, this interval between fear and principle, that Thomas Paine, then unknown as a public character, published the pamphlet Common Sense. Taking a broader and longer view than his contemporaries, seeing the inevitable consequence of submission, the probable result of a declaration of independence, correctly appreciating the reasons which could be urged on either side, and pre-eminently possessing the power of clearly stating what he strongly conceived, he addressed himself to the Americans in language which everyone could understand, and none could successfully controvert. This remarkable and inestimable production may be described from the anathemas of the enemies of liberty. It has received the highest possible praise from the pen of Cheetham, one of Thomas Paine’s most venal and shameless calumniators, who thus characterizes the work:

” This pamphlet of forty-seven octavo pages, holding out relief by proposing Independence to an oppressed and despairing people, was published in January, 1776. Speaking a language which the colonists had felt, but not thought, its popularity, terrible in its consequences to the mother country, was unexampled in the history of the press. At first involving the colonists, it was thought, in the crime of rebellion, and pointing to a road leading inevitably to ruin, it was read with alarm and indignation, but when the reader, (and every body read it), recovering from the first shock, re-perused it, its arguments, ravishing his feelings and appealing to his pride, re-animated his hopes and satisfied his understanding, that Common Sense, backed by the resources and force of the colonies, poor and feeble as they were, could alone rescue them from the unqualified oppression with which they were threatened. The unknown author, in the moments of enthusiasm which succeeded, was hailed as an angel sent from heaven to save from all the horrors of slavery, by his timely, powerful, and unerring councils, a faithful but abused,—a brave but misrepresented people.”

” When Common Sense arrived at Albany, the Convention of New York was sitting there. General Scott, a leading member, alarmed at the boldness and novelty of its arguments, mentioned his fears to several of his distinguished colleagues, and suggested a private meeting in the evening, for the purpose of writing an answer. They accordingly met, and Mr. McThesson read the pamphlet through. At first it was deemed necessary and expedient to answer it without delay, but casting about for the requisite arguments, they concluded to adjourn and meet again. In a few evenings they re-assembled, but so rapid was the change of opinion in the colonies at large in favor of independence, that they agreed not to oppose it.”

Dr. Gordon in his History of the American Revolution, writes thus, “The publications which have appeared have greatly promoted the spirit of independency, but no one so much as the pamphlet under the signature of Common Sense, written by Thomas Paine, an Englishman. [Not Rutherford? Not Calvin? Not Brutus?-DS] Nothing could have been better timed  than this performance—it has produced astonishing effects.”

Testimonies of this sort from friends and enemies could easily be multiplied, and proofs almost without end could be adduced to show how much the cause of mankind was promoted by Thomas Paine in thus assisting to lay the foundation of the American Republic,— the example of which will in time be followed by every people on the earth.

The principles maintained in Common Sense are applicable to all times, and to all mankind. They should be carefully studied by every one who is at all desirous to possess that information without which he must ever remain a slave at heart.”

Oh the bitter reality of the so-called American Protestant. It is almost a contradiction in terms.

Leave a Response »