1776 IN THE UNITED STATES: LAND OF THE FREE? Thomas Brewton has a website that presents "The View From 1776". Brewton has an 'Unwritten Constitution, which like David Barton's website, makes claims from the viewpoints of heritage and tradition, not the legal principles of the Constitution. Brewton's first sentence is full of error claiming that the United States was founded on the Judeo-Christian ethic that is the substance of Western civilization. Theocracies like the Massachusetts Bay Colony were founded on strict and intolerant Christian values. But the United States was not. This nation, under our Constitution, was founded, in spite of the Judeo-Christian ethic, on the deepest western intellectual traditions that preceded Christianity. Democracy, the Senate, constitutions, separate powers, intellectual and religious diversity. Classical ideas allowed for great diversity and much freedom; Judeo-Christian values do not. The fundamentalists like to downplay the influence of the enlightenment and the classical. Thomas Jefferson wrote to Admantios Coray of Greece on October 31, 1823, reflecting a view of the American enlightenment's thinkers. Again, no mention of Christian ethics but praise for Greece where the first examples of democracy emerged in classical times. "No people sympathize more feelingly than ours with the sufferings of your countrymen, none offer more sincere and ardent prayers to heaven for their success. . . Possessing ourselves the combined blessing of liberty and order, we wish the same to other countries, and to none more than yours, which, the first of civilized nations, presented examples of what man should be." The so-called Judeo-Christian ethic prevented democracy and liberties of conscience from emerging by declaring by law what is good for us in the eyes of God. David Barton's Wallbuilder website is also graced with the same kind of heritage and tradition strategy found on Brewton's site. He tells us the site is about "Presenting America's forgotten history and heroes, with an emphasis on our moral, religious, and constitutional heritage". Sorry, Dave, Christian heritage is not the source of Constitutional principles. The west, including the United States, is the product of many different intellectual, political and religious currents, some of which crystallized during the classical periods of Greece and Rome. And they have some influences from Crete, Egypt, Sumeria and even Persia. With the Wallbuilder site there is again that attempt to subvert the real Constitution by appealing to people's religious, historical and sometimes nationalist sentiments. Combined with a distortion of what true US Constitutional principles are, this strategy works great with people who prefer some kind of church-state alliance like days of old. America's forgotten history and David Barton is going to tell you all about it. The history of Christianity has been very unfriendly towards both democracy and liberty. Christian leaders in the church-state alliances preferred a much more rigid form of government. According to the 4TH century Christan historian Eusebius, in Constantine's monarchy, the nations of the world "found rest and respite from their ancient miseries, a system and method of government for all states." In Chapter 3 of 'The Oration in Praise of the Emperor Constantine', Eusebius attacked equality and democracy, claiming ">monarchy far transcends every other constitution and form of government: for that democratic equality of power, which is its opposite, may rather be described as anarchy and disorder." Right from the start they had it all wrong. In 1797, the full Senate and President John Adams had ratified without contention every article and clause of the Treaty of Tripoli. This seems to go over a lot of heads that the full Senate ratified this clause without contention. Contrary to our revisionist times, the members of the Senate knew this and had no problem with it. Article 11 of the Treaty clearly states, ">As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion -- as it has itself no character of enmity against the law, religion or tranquility of Musselmen, and as the said states never have entered into an war or act of hostility against any Mohametan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce." Not in any sense founded on the Christian religion. How can anyone misunderstand that statement? And to support that, there is not one religious principle found in the Constitution; not one hint of anything Biblical. Even during the Federalist Papers debates, Rome and Greece were mentioned far more times than the Bible which is mentioned twice. In 1787, John Adams wrote a book at that time titled, A Defense of the Constitutions of the United States of America where he spends a great deal of time on different Governments, praising the Greek and the Roman models the most. He even has chapters onPolybius, 200-118BCE, who wrote of separate government powers of Roman Republicanism. Polybius was a big enlightenment subject. On the title page of Adams book he has a quote by Pope: "All nature's difference keeps all nature's peace. Well, that certainly sticks it to Christianity's uniform society model. For some strange reason, Mr. Brewton and his fundamentalist allies think that a view from 1776 reflects some kind of interpretation of the Constitution and view church-state relationships. It does not, and in a serious way. In 1776, did we became a nation of religious liberty?  No, we did not. Not even close. Religious bigotry was ingrained in colonial charters and state constitutions. Other than being finally independent from the repressive whims of the British Crown and the English Parliament, the state constitutions still had the same kind of highly discriminatory religious tests from the Old World. Even after the Continental Congress's mandate for every state to rewrite their constitutions after declaring independence, almost all of them still wrote religious discrimination into their new documents. What a let-down that must have been for non-Protestant immigrants. More of the same.  They were the same kind of religious tests and oaths that led to so many problems for Europe for so centuries. After declaring independence, the states kept to much of the old legal order of government and religion alliances, subsidizations and special treatments. The Revolution gave us freedom from England but not freedom from the Medieval religious framework we inherited from England, Europe and before that the Christianized Roman Empire. We had old world church establishments and old world religious tests. Nothing to brag about. Our Articles of Confederation didn't help any, either. They did not mention religion once, leaving the discriminations of the states in power. Below are examples of the pre-ratification laws found in the state constitution after the States were ordered by the Continental Congress to draw up new constitutions. In their constitutions they continued an embrace of some sort of the church-state model. Lets take a tour of the religious discrimination of the colonies and states. Biblically speaking, Judeo-Christian ethics tolerate no other religions. "God loves you but if you don't believe it you will suffer for eternity in hell". Both the Bible and the Quran declare this. What a load. Article 35 of the Maryland Constitution of 1776 stated, "That no other test or qualification ought to be required, on admission to any office of trust or profit, than such oath of support and fidelity to this State, and such oath of office, as shall be directed by this Convention or the Legislature of this State, and a declaration of a belief in the Christian religion." In the Maryland Constitution of 1867, this was reworded and changed to Article 37, stating "That no religious test ought ever to be required as a qualification for any office of profit or trust in this State, other than a declaration of belief in the existence of God; nor shall the Legislature prescribe any other oath of office than the oath prescribed by this Constitution." Ninety years later and they still hadn't gotten it. This was a half measure and still unconstitutional as the Supreme Court ruled in 1961 (case is described below). They had no idea what liberty of conscience really meant. Delaware's 1776 Declaration of Rights and Fundamental Rules went no farther than its Charter of 1701, declaring: "That all Persons professing the Christian Religion ought forever to enjoy equal Rights and Privileges in this State..." But it was not all bad because Delaware instituted several things that were very similar to some of our Federal Bill of Rights. Laws regarding self incrimination, confronting accusers, soldiers in your house, and cruel and unusual punishments are examples. Although seemingly ignorant of or plainly against the principles of free conscience, Delaware also framed a rule that religious conservatives should take note of: Judicial Independence. Section 22 states: "That the independency and uprightness of judges are essential to the impartial administration of justice, and a great security to the rights and liberties of the people." Continuing to Article 22 of the Delaware Constitution of 1776 mandated, "Every person who shall be chosen a member of either House, or appointed to any office or place of trust, before taking his seat, or entering upon the execution of his office, shall take the following oath, or affirmation, if conscientiously scrupulous of taking an oath, to wit: I _____, do profess faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ His only Son, and in the Holy Ghost, One God, blessed for evermore; and I do acknowledge the holy scriptures of the Old Testament and New Testament to be given by Divine Inspiration". There isn't much room for religious freedom in that oath. This same Delaware State Constitution stated, "That all Persons professing the Christian Religion ought forever to enjoy equal Rights and Privileges in this State, unless, under Colour of Religion, any Man disturb the Peace, the Happiness or Safety of Society." Only Christians have full religious liberty and equality in the Christian reconstructionist crowd's colonial world. The Dominionists seek nothing less that to destroy diversity. There can be no equal rights for non-Christians. This the same way Islamists think. Delaware's Article 29 went on to end church establishment, a huge development, but you still had to be a Christian to enjoy equal Rights and Privileges in Delaware. On top of that, you had to believe in the - yes, the Nicene Trinity and the divine inspiration of the Bible to become a member of either House. Who wudda thunk it? It is abundantly clear that many early Constitutions were contaminated with contradictions regarding the liberties of conscience. Any degree of liberty granted by these governments still rested on protecting and perpetuating Christianity as they saw it. That's not true liberty of conscience. Liberty of conscience is here seen from such a diminished intellectual capacity that it entails barb-wiring the borders of freedom in order to keep people's conscience within the confines of Nicene Christian articles of faith. Your church could have a new name or an old name; a new litany or an old one, just as long as it's articles of faith complied with what the state considered Christian definitions of faith. Yale's Avalon Project, which is an essential source for reading the documents of colonial and revolutionary America noted, "This constitution was framed by a Convention which assembled at New Castle, August 27, 1776, in accordance with the recommendation of the Continental Congress that the people of the Colonies should form independent State Governments. It was not submitted to the people but was proclaimed September 21, 1776." The people had little say in what the Delaware Constitution said. The New Jersey Constitution of 1776, Article 19, declares that if you're a Protestant you can't be denied any civil right. What of others? This is still very English. It also declares clearly that Protestants only are eligible of being elected to the legislatures: "[T]here shall be no establishment of any one religious sect in this Province, in preference to another; and that no Protestant inhabitant of this Colony shall be denied the enjoyment of any civil right, merely on account of his religious principles; but that all persons, professing a belief in the faith of any Protestant sect, who shall demean themselves peaceably under the government, as hereby established, shall be capable of being elected into any office of profit or trust, or being a member of either branch of the Legislature, and shall fully and freely enjoy every privilege and immunity, enjoyed by others their fellow subjects." No Catholics, Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, pagans, Muslims, or doubters allowed in our State! "Sorry sir, sorry ma'am, Protestants only, please." Section Two of the Declaration of Rights in the Pennsylvania Constitution of 1776 stated, "nor can any man, who acknowledges the being of a God, be justly deprived or abridged of any civil right as a citizen, on account or his religious sentiments or peculiar mode of religious worship". Section Ten of Pennsylvania's Plan or Frame of Government section requires this religious test-oath of all legislators, ordering that "before he takes his seat, shall make and subscribe the following: I do believe in one God, the creator and governor of the universe, the rewarder of the good and punisher of the wicked. And I do acknowledge the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by Divine inspiration. And no further or other religious test shall ever hereafter be required of any civil officer or magistrate in this State." So, the law really does interfere with the liberties of conscience by disqualifying from holding office anyone who does not believe in the being of God. Someone wasn't thinking on the meaning of the rights of conscience. They were not walking any liberty talk, just keeping the status quo. North Carolina's Constitution of 1776 declared, "That no person, who shall deny the being of God or the truth of the Protestant religion, or the divine authority either of the Old or New Testaments, or who shall hold religious principles incompatible with the freedom and safety of the State, shall be capable of holding any office or place of trust or profit in the civil department within this State." OUCH! Land of the free? Article 38 in the South Carolina Constitution of 1778 declared, "That all persons and religious societies who acknowledge that there is one God, and a future state of rewards and punishments, and that God is publicly to be worshipped, shall be freely tolerated. The Christian Protestant religion shall be deemed, and is hereby constituted and declared to be, the established religion of this State." The law continued a little ways down with the requirements for anyone wishing to incorporate as a legitimate Protestant church in South Carolina: "That all denominations of Christian Protestants in this State, demeaning themselves peaceably and faithfully, shall enjoy equal religious and civil privileges. . . . That every society of Christians so formed shall give themselves a name or denomination by which they shall be called and known in law,  . . . each society so petitioning shall have agreed to and subscribed in a book the following five articles, without which no agreement or union of men upon pretense of religion shall entitle them to be incorporated and esteemed as a church of the established religion of this State: First. That there is one eternal God, and a future state of rewards and punishments. 2d. That God is publicly to be worshipped. 3d. That the Christian religion is the true religion. 4th. That the holy scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are of divine inspiration, and are the rule of faith and practice. 5th That it is lawful and the duty of every man being thereunto called by those that govern, to bear witness to the truth." Setting very strict limitations on free speech, Article 38 also declared, "No person whatsoever shall speak anything in their religious assembly irreverently or seditiously of the government of this State." As backward and Medieval as these laws look, there was one good thing to come of this section that was a positive change: "No person shall, by law, be obliged to pay towards the maintenance and support of a religious worship that he does not freely join in, or has not voluntarily engaged to support." Article Six of Georgia's Constitution of 1777 keeps to the old legal framework regarding faith by requiring that the representatives chosen from each county "The representatives shall be chosen out of the residents in each county, ...they shall be of the Protestant religion". Chapter Six of the Massachusetts Constitution of 1780 required this discriminating religious test for officials: "Any person chosen governor, lieutenant-governor, councillor, senator, or representative, and accepting the trust, shall, before he proceed to execute the duties of his place or office, make and subscribe the following declaration, viz: I _____, do declare that I believe the Christian religion, and have a firm persuasion of its truth; and that I am seized and possessed, in my own right, of the property required by the constitution, as one qualification for the office or place to which I am elected". Article 6 of New Hampshire's Bill of Rights in the Constitution of 1784 provided some rudimentary rights for every Christian denomination but still required one to be Protestant in order to get full liberties. (And to tax us in order to instruct us in Christian morality.) Still living in the ancient and misguided English church-state framework that caused so many problems, New Hampshire still believed in 1784 that pious evangelical principles gave the best and greatest security to government. The one thing good about this new constitution was that it gave liberties to every Christian denomination which went beyond the original requirements to be a member of the approved Church. "Morality and piety, rightly grounded on evangelical principles, will give the best and greatest security to government, and will lay in the hearts of men the strongest obligations to due subjection; and as a knowledge of these is most likely to be propagated through a society by the institution of the public worship of the DEITY, and of public instruction in morality and religion; therefore, to promote those important purposes the people of this State have a right to empower, and do hereby fully empower, the legislature to authorize, from time to time, the several towns, parishes, bodies-corporate, or religious societies within this State, to make adequate provisions, at their own expense, for the support and maintenance of public Protestant teachers of piety, religion, and morality: "Provided notwithstanding, That the several towns, parishes, bodies corporate, or religious societies, shall at all times have the exclusive right of electing their own public teachers, and of contracting with them for their support and maintenance. And no person, or any one particular religious sect or denomination, shall ever be compelled to pay toward the support of the teacher or teachers of another persuasion, sect, or denomination. "And every denomination of Christians demeaning themselves quietly and as good subjects of the State, shall be equally under the protection of the law; and no subordination of any one sect or denomination to another shall ever be established by law. This last clause was a copy of Article 3 from the Massachusetts Constitution of 1780. New Hampshire's Constitution of 1784 didn't allow anyone but Protestants to hold office. Article 6 had made clear the several towns raised funds for Protestant teachers only. In 1784, New Hampshire was very backward regarding religious liberty. Article 14 stated regarding the Senate, "Provided, nevertheless, That no person shall be capable of being elected a senator who is not of the Protestant religion,.." Article 29 stated regarding the House of Representatives, "Every member of the house of representatives shall be chosen by ballot, ... shall be of the Protestant religion,". In 1792, New Hampshire amended some of its constitution including the requirements for the Executive which were replaced by those for the Governor of the State in Section 42: "And no person shall be eligible to this office unless at the time of his election he shall have been an inhabitant of this State for seven years next preceding, and unless he shall be of the age of thirty years and unless he shall at the same time have an estate of the value of five hundred pounds,, one-half of which shall consist of a freehold in his own right within this State, and unless he shall be of the protestant religion." Not only did you have to be a Protestant to be a Senator, a Representative, or the Governor, you had to be a property owner! New Hampshire was not the only state that had these feudal property laws but that is another major liberty topic in itself. It is a reminder of the Feudal laws and customs found in Medieval European societies. Like the Christianists of today, New Hampshire politicians and voters at the time of the revolution and ratification felt that since NH had always required office holders to be Protestants, why change things? Even though the US Constitution banned religious tests, New Hampshire fought to keep theirs intact. It was clearly unconstitutional. After the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868, the states finally starting to behave. One was New Hampshire. In 1877, the Protestant requirement for being a Representative and Senator was taken out of the NH Constitution. That is a period of 88 years in which New Hampshire had illegal articles in their constitution. Slow to catch on, NH also repealed the property holding requirements for those positions in 1852. Pennsylvania's 1790 Constitution changed somewhat from its 1776 Constitution, but still held to the old framework's test-oaths in principle, stating in Article 9, Section 4, "That no person, who acknowledges the being of God and a future state of rewards and punishments, shall, on account of his religious sentiments, be disqualified to hold any office or place of trust or profit under this commonwealth." This is a bit odd because right before this statement, Section 3 says, "..that no human authority can, in any case whatever, control or interfere with the rights of conscience; and that no preference shall ever be given, by law, to any religious establishment or modes of worship." Stranger still was that the US Constitution had recently been ratified and it stated that "no religious test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." Right above that clause it states that the US Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land and that no state, no constitution, no judge and no law can be contrary to the US Constitution. Many states did not get this or refused to comply. Slavery and religious tests still ran amuck and that required a Fourteenth Amendment in 1868.

THE ORIGIN OF CHRISTIAN TESTS IN OATHS OF OFFICE So where did all these militant demands for uniform religious belief come from? How did the governments of Europe and then the colonies become the protectors and enforcers of a Christian doctrine's total authority in society? Where did these religious test-oaths come from? How did it come to be that the state supported the clergy and the building of churches? What the Roman government did with paganism was largely symbolic, not contributing much at all to policy making for most of Roman history. In Rome, with few exceptions, one had religious liberty. Manicheanism was one. Christians were persecuted because they attacked the public order of religious diversity and liberties by condemning all religions and demanding that all be Christians. This perception was correct because when Trinitarian Christians got their liberty after Emperor Galerius' Edict of Tolerance, they sought imperial power and then progressively outlawed all other religions, including variants of Christianity. Before that, one could still have the religion of your choice in your private life. At the time of Constantine, the oath at the Altar of Victory had been a custom for several hundred years. In the empire it was common to do things like honor another's deity when visiting their home or town. It built social capital and that is what the Roman public order sustained. Rome went from mutual respect to disrespect as social and religious virtues. The alliance of the Christian leaders and the state was a very different animal than the largely symbolic Roman government's use of religion. It was kind of on the same scale as our government's "ceremonial deism" which is still unconstitutional under our constitution. By the same scale I mean unlike Christianity, it isn't much of a coercive religious policy maker. The religious policies and laws these people enacted and enforced were laws that trampled down the freedoms of others. In fact, they trampled the religious rights of the vast majority. For their own good, of course. Rome had succeeded with religious diversity for a thousand years, yet the clergy and the imperial court believed religious conformity was essential to a stable empire. Right under their noses, history had already proven this notion utterly wrong. Neither the clergy nor the Christian emperors embraced the ideals of Roman Republicanism, which was the guiding force in the framing of the United States Constitution. Christianity then and now, because it is based on the Bible, is thoroughly antithetical to republicanism. (Even during the revolution, people wore the Roman Freedom Cap to show support for the patriots.) So how did it come that you and your officials' civic responsibility was promoting the public worship and acknowledgment of God? When did the state become so ruthless and demanding regarding the advancement of Christianity and the recognition of God in the public square? When did the State and the Church start allying themselves together in such a dictatorial way and start mandating everybody and their elected official's religious belief? Almost 1700 years ago. EMPEROR CONSTANTINE AND THE NICENE CREED It all began with the Emperor Constantine's recognition, subsidization, and establishment of Trinitarian Christianity as taught by the Catholic Church. At that time catholic church was a term meaning universal church. It was not used in the same way as we now use the capitalized term Catholic Church. There were many Sees or Patriarchies that made decisions for their areas. During the fourth century the catholic church was empire wide, with centers in Rome, Alexandria, Antioch and when built by Constantine in the 330s, Constantinople. The Roman See liked to be first in primacy' but the catholic church was not just the Roman Church. Rome was full of pagan temples and Constantinople was a Christian city in its design and building by Constantine. The Byzantine Empire centered in Constantinople, not Rome, continued the Empire until Muslims invaded and captured Constantinople in the fifteenth century. Christians and the state turning pagan temples into Christian churches changed to Muslims and the state turning churches into Mosques. The Protestant religious test was basically the same because the Reformation taught the Trinitarian creed of the councils of Nicaea (325), Constantinople (381), Ephesus (431), and Chalcedon (451) that defined late antiquity's church-state alliances. They created the same kind of religious tests based on the belief in the consubstantial Trinity. Like the Trinitarians of old, the Protestants claimed Jesus was no less God than the Father and no less human than any person. The Reformation started off telling the Church in the Confession of Augsburg of 1530 that it believed these same things and condemned the same heresies the church did. They were Trinitarians, too, who believed the heretics were idolaters and insulters of God. They wanted to reform the way the church operated, not create new creeds. Let's take a look at the fundamental events in late antiquity that gave rise to the religious tests of Europe, England and their colonies. In 323, Emperor Constantine issued an edict, recorded as Codex Theodosianus 16.5.1. making sure that the privileges regarding the growth of religion were held by Catholics only, decreeing "It is necessary that the privileges which are bestowed for the cultivation of religion should be given only to followers of the Catholic faith. We desire that heretics and schismatics be not only kept from these privileges, but be subjected to various fines." Not to be outdone by the church's religious intolerance, Protestants did the same thing when declaring their religion the true orthodox religion to be cultivated. Beginning with the magisterial Reformation when leaders embraced Protestantism, these leaders required Protestantism of their subjects just as Catholic leaders in league with the church had required Catholicism of theirs. Both required a belief in the Nicene Trinity. And much more so if a citizen wished to hold a public office or position of trust. That required public declarations in oaths of office. State promoted churches with government subsidies and protections went from being Catholic to being Protestant. England did it both as a Catholic nation and a Protestant nation. In 1669, Carolina's Constitution supported religious intolerance, claiming its state supported Protestantism was orthodox and true. Exactly like the special treatment of Trinitarian Catholics, when Protestants broke away, only Trinitarian Protestants could hold office in lands that were Protestant. Only official churches got funding. The same Carolina constitution also withheld protections of the law from anyone who did not make the necessary religious declaration which was required for church membership and entrance to a profession. It was the same thing in most of the colonies and the states for a long time. Papists, atheists and Jews were dogs in England and so they were in the colonies. In 325, Constantine persuaded Bishops from around the empire to hold a Council in Nicaea to settle the Christological dispute of the time. There were 318 Bishops that met at Nicea. The Christological dispute regarded the very popular Arianism or Arian Christianity. The religious situation of the early fourth century is where all the Christian test-oaths have their roots. Roman Catholic, Orthodox/Byzantine, or Protestant, they are rooted deep in late antiquity's early Imperial Church. Presbyter Arius of the See of Alexandria taught that the Son was not co-equal and consubstantial with the Father because he was begotten. The Father was unbegotten, said the Arian Christian Church, so how could they be equals? This drove Nicenes crazy because the Arian arguments used scripture. Knowing that their attempts to use scripture to develop the Nicene Creed would be scoffed at, the Bishops just decreed it so and then Constantine put the laws in motion. (Jehovah's Witnesses are modern day Arian Christians and are today disrespected by Trinitarians in the same way, claiming that they are not Christians.) When the Bishops were done at Nicaea, they issued hisory's first installment of what became the Nicene Creed. It declared the Trinity in no uncertain terms: "We believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, Very God of Very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father by whom all things were made." "And we believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life, who proceedeth from the Father and the Son, who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified, who spoke by the prophets." After the Creed was issued, Constantine seized Arian churches and exiled their clergy. In a letter preserved in Socrates Scholasticus' Ecclesiastical Histories, Book 1, Chapter 9, Constantine eventually decreed that Arius should be executed and Arian literature be burned: "Constantine the King to the Bishops and nations everywhere. Inasmuch as Arius imitates the evil and the wicked, it is right that, like them, he should be rebuked and rejected. As therefore Porphyry, who was an enemy of the fear of God, and wrote wicked and unlawful writings against the religion of Christians, found the reward which befitted him, that he might be a reproach to all generations after, because he fully and insatiably used base fame; so that on this account his writings were righteously destroyed; thus also now it seems good that Arius and the holders of his opinion should all be called Porphyrians, that he may be named by the name of those whose evil ways he imitates:" "And not only this, but also that all the writings of Arius, wherever they be found, shall be delivered to be burned with fire, in order that not only his wicked and evil doctrine may be destroyed, but also that the memory of himself and of his doctrine may be blotted out, that there may not by any means remain to him remembrance in the world. Now this also I ordain, that if any one shall be found secreting any writing composed by Arius, and shall not forthwith deliver up and burn it with fire, his punishment shall be death; for as soon as he is caught in this he shall suffer capital punishment without delay." Mind you, these Arians who believed in the Gospel just as much as the Nicenes did were evil, wicked, unlawful and enemies of God. The Arian Church thrived nonetheless, with two powerful Arian emperors as benefactors between Constantine and Theodosius. They were Constantine's son Constantius and Valentinian's brother Valens. Aside from persecuting all non-Christians, Arians treated Nicenes the same way Nicenes treated Arians. As sole owners of God's truth, they closed Nicene churches and exiled their leaders. Arians had more churches than the Nicenes did in many cities. Arian Churches were said to be richly decorated with gems and precious metals and Arians were a majority in many places. It took Emperor Justinian's (r. 527-565) Magister Militum Belisarius' invasion of Sicily, Italy, and North Africa to end the Arian domination. (When Rome fell in the fifth century, it was then ruled by the invaders from the north who were Arian Christians) Under Justinian, Arian Churches were once again seized, the clergy was punished, and the religion was outlawed by the state and enforced by Roman soldiers. Arianism was widespread throughout Gaul and Spain in the Fourth Century and it took a Nicene alliance with the state to suppress it. This Arian majority was also true in Constantinople when the devout Nicene General Theodosius became emperor. Arianism was hugely popular in the fourth century. If it hadn't been for the clergy being in bed with the imperial court, Arianism would have certainly thrived. Who knows which sect would have been the most successful if the Emperors and the Army didn't do the Nicene Church's dirty work? BISHOP AMBROSE AND EMPEROR THEODOSIUS: ALL OTHER RELIGIONS ARE OUTLAWED So, in February, 380, Emperors Theodosius in the east and Gratian in the west issued their joint decree that sought to completely wipe out religious diversity and liberty in the empire. Recorded as Codex Theodosianus 16.1.2, the edict stated, "We desire that all peoples subject to Our benign Empire shall live under the same religion that the Divine Peter, the Apostle, gave to the Romans, and which the said religion declares was introduced by himself, and which it is well known that the Pontiff Damascus, and Peter, Bishop of Alexandria, a man of apostolic sanctity, embraced; that is to say, in accordance with the rules of apostolic discipline and the evangelical doctrine, we should believe that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit constitute a single Deity, endowed with equal majesty, and united in the Holy Trinity." "We order all those who follow this law to assume the name of Catholic Christians, and considering others as demented and insane, we order that they shall bear the infamy of heresy; and when the Divine vengeance which they merit has been appeased, they shall afterwards be punished in accordance with Our resentment, which we have acquired from the judgment of Heaven." In Theodosius: Empire at Bay, historians Williams and Freil write regarding the decree of Theodosius and Gratian: "The decree was characterized by an absolute intransigence towards local traditions that can be compared to the one of a dictatorial atheistic regime which criminalized Easter eggs, the Palm, Christmas Cards, Halloween pumpkins and even some universal habits, as a toast". That was just the beginning. In November 380, Theodosius ordered all Arian churches to be confiscated and their meetings banned.  Patriarch Gregory of Naziaznus was given all of the churches confiscated by Theodosius, which he then turned into Nicene Churches. The decree stated that the Doctrine of the Trinity became the state religion and all of his subjects must adhere to it. And now, nobody could publicly teach otherwise regarding the consubstantiality of the Trinity. Outlawing speech on these matters didn't happen only once. This was a habit of the Nicene alliance of church and state. Religious tests were here to stay. Sozomen in his Ecclesiastical Histories, Book VII, chapter VII, tells us that, "The emperor enacted a law, ordination on bishops or others. Some of the heterodox were expelled from the cities and villages, while others were disgraced and deprived of the privileges enjoyed by other subjects of the empire. Great as were the punishments adjudged by the laws against prohibiting heretics from holding churches, from giving public instructions in the faith, and from conferring heretics, they were not always carried into execution, for the emperor had no desire to persecute his subjects; he only desired to enforce uniformity of view about God through the medium of intimidation." In January 381, Theodosius and Gratian issued another tyrannical decree aimed at closing the heretic Arianist churches and others that denied the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father and Holy Spirit. Here one can see an order for public worship and a government's shield around the consubstantial Trinity, both found in colonial charters. Parts of this decree read: "Let no place be afforded to heretics for the conduct of their ceremonies, and let no occasion be offered for them to display the insanity of their obstinate minds." "Let all bodies of heretics be prevented from holding unlawful assemblies, and let the name of the only and the greatest God be celebrated everywhere, and let the observance of the Nicene Creed, recently transmitted to Our ancestors, and firmly established by the testimony and practice of Divine Religion, always remain secure." "Moreover, he who is an adherent of the Nicene Faith, and a true believer in the Catholic religion, should be understood to be one who believes that Almighty God and Christ, the son of God,"as well as the belief in the undivided substance of a Holy Trinity, which true believers indicate by the Greek word These things, indeed do not require further proof, and should be respected." "Let those who do not accept those doctrines cease to apply the name of true religion to their fraudulent belief; and let them be branded with their open crimes, and, having been removed from the threshhold of all churches, be utterly excluded from them, as We forbid all heretics to hold unlawful assemblies within cities." "If, however, any seditious outbreak should be attempted, We order them to be driven outside the the walls of the City, with relentless violence, and We direct that all Catholic Churches, throughout the entire world, shall be placed under the control of the orthodox bishops who have embraced the Nicene Creed." THE EMPERORS AND THE GENERAL COUNCIL OF CONSTANTINOPLE: FINE TUNING THE NICENE CREED Called by Theodosius and Gratian in May of 381, the Ecumenical Council of Constantinople met to address not only Arianism but the Macedonian heresy. That particular Christian belief did not see the Holy Spirit as God, So they didn't believe in any Trinity, either. This council revised the Nicene Creed, reiterating the Spirit's consubstantiality with the Father and the Son. The Exposition of the One hundred eighty Fathers reads: "We believe in one God the Father all-powerful, maker of heaven and of earth, and of all things both seen and unseen. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten from the Father before all the ages, light from light, true God from true God, begotten not made, consubstantial with the Father, through whom all things came to be; for us humans and for our salvation he came down from the heavens and became incarnate from the holy Spirit and the virgin Mary, became human and was crucified on our behalf under Pontius Pilate; he suffered and was buried and rose up on the third day in accordance with the scriptures; and he went up into the heavens and is seated at the Father's right hand; he is coming again with glory to judge the living and the dead; his kingdom will have no end. And in the Spirit, the holy, the lordly and life-giving one, proceeding forth from the Father, co-worshipped and co-glorified with Father and Son, the one who spoke through the prophets; in one, holy, catholic and apostolic church. We confess one baptism for the forgiving of sins. We look forward to a resurrection of the dead and life in the age to come. Amen." The First and Seventh Canons of Constantinople present a list of heresies not of the mind of God. Anathematized or simply described as not of the same mind as the church of God: The First states: "The profession of faith of the holy fathers who gathered in Nicaea in Bithynia is not to be abrogated, but it is to remain in force. Every heresy is to be anathematised and in particular that of the Eunomians or Anomoeans, that of the Arians or Eudoxians, that of the Semi-Arians or Pneumatomachi, that of the Sabellians, that of the Marcellians, that of the Photinians and that of the Apollinarians." The Seventh Canon adds the heresies of Macedonians, Sabbatians, Novatians, Cathars and Aristae, Quartodeciman or Tetradites, Montanists (or Phrygians, and the Sabellian belief, "which is not of the same mind as the holy, catholic and apostolic church of God." Later, many of these specific heresies of late antiquity will also condemned by the Protestants, too. The Augsburg and Belgic Confessions shows striking similarities in the condemnations regarding the heresies and the affirmation of the Trinity. The emperors and the clergy worked well together in arranging councils that defined both church doctrine and civil law. After a council, at which most Emperors were participaters to some degree, the emperors issue edicts that reflected and enacted the declarations of the council. For instance, Constantine officiated the Nicaean council while Marcianus attended Chalcedon during the most important phases of the Council towards the end. The Catholic Encyclopedia article on the Council ends with this statement: "At the close of this council Emperor Theodosius issued an imperial decree (30 July) declaring that the churches should be restored to those bishops who confessed the equal Divinity of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and who held communion with Nectarius of Constantinople and other important Oriental prelates whom he named" Its a real treat to read some of the letters that went back and forth between the clergy and the emperors. In my separate and more detailed articles on Emperors Theodosius the Younger and Marcianus, I excerpt some very interesting and rather curious stuff from the letters of Pope Leo, the emperors, the empress Pulcheria, and the battling, complaining clergy. It shows us exactly what we don't want to become. It shows us the mind of those that have no tolerance for any other belief. And this was only the beginning of the long night. We haven't left the fourth century, yet. In those articles I track and excerpt the letters for several years before the Council of Chalcedon finally is ordered and convened. THEODOSIUS THE YOUNGER, CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA, AND THE ECUMENICAL COUNCIL OF EPHESUS From the Synodical letter of the Council of Ephesus about the expulsion of the eastern bishops, we see that Emperors Theodosius the Younger and Valentinian III are once again in league with the Nicene clergy. "The holy and ecumenical synod, gathered together in Ephesus at the behest of the most pious princes [Emp Theodosius & Valentinian], greetings to the bishops, priests, deacons and the whole people in every province and city." Behest means a command, decree or authoritative directive. In 431, the General Council of Ephesus convened to settle another Trinitarian argument about the Trinity and the nature of Christ. It concerned the teachings of Nestorius, the new Patriarch of Constantinople, whom Theodosius II had approved and consecrated. Nestorius was from Antioch and was not warmly welcomed in the See of Constantinople. Both Nestorius and his opponents wanted a council and both emperors Theodosius the Younger and Valentinian III encouraged it. Bishop Nestorius is said to have taught a creed which said Christ had two separate natures or persons. Not the fully God and fully human Jesus of the Nicene Creed. Nestorius also unsettled the Nicene fathers in the way he defined Mary. Nestorius attacked the growing Theotokos, or Mother of God movement. Tokos means giving birth to. Bishop Nestarius got into big trouble for saying "I cannot speak of God as being two or three months old," Instead, he referred to Mary as the Mother of Christ, not God. The Christ-bearer. This angered the Nicenes in just the same way the Arians did when they said, how can Christ the begotten of the Father be coequal to the unbegotten Father? Nestorius was condemned and deposed by the authorities of the church-state alliance. His teachings were condemned by the Council and Theodosius the Younger enforced it. Bishops were exiled, and their churches were taken and given to the Nicenes. Like most of these fellows, Nestorius was no saint. He received the nickname the incendiary for burning down heretic churches. This he began to do immediately after his own consecration by Theodosius as Patriarch of Constantinople. In his first sermon he sought a union of church and state with the imperial court, saying to the emperor, "Purge me, 0 Caesar, the earth of heretics, and I in return will give thee heaven. Stand by me in putting down the heretics and I will stand by thee in putting down the Persians." One of the things that happened at the Council of Ephesus was the synod's acceptance of Cyril's Twelve Anathemas which came from Cyril's letters to Nestorius. I will list five that are important to this discussion. 2. If anyone does not confess that the Word from God the Father has been united by hypostasis with the flesh and is one Christ with his own flesh, and is therefore God and man together, let him be anathema. 3. If anyone divides in the one Christ the hypostases after the union, joining them only by a conjunction of dignity or authority or power, and not rather by a coming together in a union by nature, let him be anathema. 5. If anyone dares to say that Christ was a God-bearing man and not rather God in truth, being by nature one Son, even as "the Word became flesh", and is made partaker of blood and flesh precisely like us, let him be anathema. 6. If anyone says that the Word from God the Father was the God or master of Christ, and does not rather confess the same both God and man, the Word having become flesh, according to the scriptures, let him be anathema. 7. If anyone says that as man Jesus was activated by the Word of God and was clothed with the glory of the Only-begotten, as a being separate from him, let him be anathema. The Council also agreed to a Definition of the Nicene Creed that began with the original Nicene Creed and then went on to say, "It seems fitting that all should assent to this holy creed. It is pious and sufficiently helpful for the whole world. But since some pretend to confess and accept it, while at the same time distorting the force of its expressions to their own opinion and so evading the truth, being sons of error and children of destruction, it has proved necessary to add testimonies from the holy and orthodox fathers that can fill out the meaning they have given to the words and their courage in proclaiming it. All those who have a clear and blameless faith will understand, interpret and proclaim it in this way. When these documents had been read out, the holy synod decreed the following. 1. It is not permitted to produce or write or compose any other creed except the one which was defined by the holy fathers who were gathered together in the holy Spirit at Nicaea. 2. Any who dare to compose or bring forth or produce another creed for the benefit of those who wish to turn from Hellenism or Judaism or some other heresy to the knowledge of the truth, if they are bishops or clerics they should be deprived of their respective charges and if they are laymen they are to be anathematized. 3. In the same way if any should be discovered, whether bishops, clergy or laity, thinking or teaching the views expressed in his statement by the priest Charisius about the incarnation of the only-begotten Son of God or the disgusting, perverted views of Nestorius, which underlie them, these should be subject to the condemnation of this holy and ecumenical synod. A bishop clearly is to be stripped of his bishopric and deposed, a cleric to be deposed from the clergy, and a lay person is to be anathematised, as was said before. The Nicene Trinitarian Creed, the central Christological dogma of both Catholicism and Protestantism, was putting down roots and shutting everybody's mouth with the help of the State. This trend of defining and shielding Nicene Christianity while also demanding a belief in it is the foundation that gave western civilization its Christian religious tests in political oaths of office. Under persecution went more groups of Christians that didn't embrace the Nicene Creed version of Christianity. In Ephesus, Arians, Macedonians and Messalians were the main targets this time around the ecumenical merry-go-round. Those tests continued to be enforced for fifteen centuries by the alliances of Roman, Orthodox and Protestant churches with the state. There is no difference in the arrogance and obstinacy of each denomination when they are the ones in alliance with the state. In 433, in an attempt to bring some unity in the church, especially between the Antiochan and Alexandrian Churches, the The Creed of Union was issued. It was drawn up by Cyril of Alexandria and signed by John of Antioch. John had opposed Cyril at the Council of Ephesus. John had deliberately shown up six days late and then called his own council nearby. John's council condemned Cyril, while Cyril's condemned Nestorian teachings and deposed its church leaders. Churches were confiscated after Ephesus but in doctrine, most held their ground. The Emperor wanted this situation remedied so with imperial coaxing, John and Cyril moved towards meeting or at least having representatives meet. Eventually Cyril drew it up and John signed it. When that happened the Antiochan's declared John fallen from the faith. John kept his job. He was moderately tolerant towards the Nestorians but did use troops once during a Nestorian uprising in Edessa. The Creed stated: "We confess, then, our lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God perfect God and perfect man of a rational soul and a body, begotten before all ages from the Father in his godhead, the same in the last days, for us and for our salvation, born of Mary the virgin, according to his humanity, one and the same consubstantial with the Father in godhead and consubstantial with us in humanity, for a union of two natures took place." "Therefore we confess one Christ, one Son, one Lord. According to this understanding of the unconfused union, we confess the holy virgin to be the mother of God because God the Word took flesh and became man and from his very conception united to himself the temple he took from her. As to the evangelical and apostolic expressions about the Lord, we know that theologians treat some in common as of one person and distinguish others as of two natures, and interpret the god-befitting ones in connexion with the godhead of Christ and the lowly ones with his humanity." "We confess, then, our lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God perfect God and perfect man of a rational soul and a body, begotten before all ages from the Father in his godhead, ...one and the same consubstantial with the Father in godhead and consubstantial with us in humanity, for a union of two natures took place." Well, there they go again with consubstantiality. There was some important Mary business but the core of the creedal statement concerned defining the exact nature of God the Trinity. EMPEROR MARCIAN, POPE LEO AND THE COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON: THE EUTYCHIAN CONTROVERSY Beginning in the 440s, a new controversy arose regarding the nature of Christ and God. It was the Trinity again. The very old Archimandrate Eutyches was a monophysite Christian. Monophysites preached Christ had one nature, not two. Eutyches headed a monastery of up to three hundred monks on the outskirts of Constantinople and was very well connected to the imperial court. He was afforded a degree of special treatment and protections, with the Emperor mostly looking the other way. Theodosius is said to have thought Eutyches was orthodox, but it sounds convenient given the players and the situation. Eutyches' Godson was Chrysaphius, the Emperor's closest advisor. With the untimely death of Theodosius from a fall off a horse, all that protection ended with the acclamation of Emperor Marcianus. Besides being an accomplished military leader from the top tier of power, Marcian was a devout Nicene. The Empress Pulcheria was Mad about Mary, too. The Empress and the military and the Empress had brokered a deal and arranged her marriage to General Marcian so things were about the change fast in Eutyches' world. Even though Aspar out ranked Marcian, Aspar was a Germanic Alani and Arian Christian, too, like most converts from the north. A heretic and a barbarian, he was not the one to continue the Theodosian line of emperors with. Aspar could protect the empire but he could not rule it. Arians and other heretics were supposed demented and insane. They had mental a illness. How else could you explain a mind that didn't believe the Nicene Creed of the Holy and Apostolic Church?  The clergy was very pleased with the choice of Marcian. The Sees of Rome and Constantinople now had an ally sitting on the throne with Empress Pulcheria. To monophysites of this period, Christ had one nature; it was divine. Period. Like the Arian, Macedonian and Nestorian controversies, the arguments were centered around the Trinity and the nature of the Incarnation. To the Monophysites, the Nicene bishops, Nestorius, and Arius had lost their way in heresy. The people with an alliance with the state won. And like the previous Trinitarian disputes, the church and state allied to repress the other beliefs even if they were the majority belief in an area. Monophysites made up the majority of Christians in Palestine and Egypt. These militant demands for uniformity 'throughout the kingdom' continue into Protestant Confessions (definitions of faith), colonial charters and state constitutions prior to the first ratifications of the Constitution. On May 17, 451 Emperor Marcian issued an edict ordering a General Council in Nicaea with the intention of clearing up the festering Eutychian controversy. Because of rumblings on the Persian front, the Emperor changed the venue to Chalcedon. Due to the violence of the so-called Robber Council at Ephesus in 449, Chalcedon's proceedings were under the watchful eye of imperial troops and commissioners. A panel of imperial commissioners had the job of keeping order, bringing consensus, and ratifying the council's declarations at the end of the sessions. Some representatives were separated from the main mass of the 600 Bishops for their own safety. Like the Robber Council at Ephesus, which was called because of timult at a previous local synod in Constantinople, this was again all about the Trinity and the Incarnation and people were steaming about it. It was a loud and tumultuous affair but the troops managed to keep violence from breaking out. At the Robber council people were beaten and threatened and it was reported that Constantinople's aged Patriarch Flavian died of his wounds after three days. The Monophysites at Ephesus had shouted that they who want to cut Christ in two should also be cut in two. The troops at Ephesus were also responsible for some of the violence. You can a detailed story of the how and why these three councils Marican Chapter of the section on the Rise of Church-State Alliances. After over a month of sessions in the cathedral, the clergy crafted their declarations, the imperial commissioners ratified them, and in February the Emperor put his stamp of approval on them, making them the law of the land. The Chalcedonian Definition of Faith stated: "So, following the saintly fathers, we all with one voice teach the confession of one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ: the same perfect in divinity and perfect in humanity, the same truly God and truly man, of a rational soul and a body; consubstantial with the Father as regards his divinity, and the same consubstantial with us as regards his humanity; like us in all respects except for sin; begotten before the ages from the Father as regards his divinity, and in the last days the same for us and for our salvation from Mary, the virgin God-bearer as regards his humanity; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only-begotten, acknowledged in two natures which undergo no confusion, no change, no division, no separation; at no point was the difference between the natures taken away through the union, but rather the property of both natures is preserved and comes together into a single person and a single subsistent being; he is not parted or divided into two persons, but is one and the same only-begotten Son, God, Word, Lord Jesus Christ, just as the prophets taught from the beginning about him, and as the Lord Jesus Christ himself instructed us, and as the creed of the fathers handed it down to us. " "Since we have formulated these things with all possible accuracy and attention, the sacred and universal synod decreed that no one is permitted to produce, or even to write down or compose, any other creed or to think or teach otherwise..." Forbidden to think otherwise? What kind of people are these? The last General Council in Ephesus issued similar demands, making it illegal to "produce or write or compose any other creed....". This is the worst kind of authoritarianism and can be observed in dictatorships and theocracies. This religious test stuff is getting damn serious, wouldn't you say? It was one thing if this was the rule for members who chose to be a part of this association of believers, but its not. The plan is to have the imperial court ratify and promulgate the council's definitions as civil society's law. And at this point in our story, 125 years after the Nicene Creed was first defined, the Christian test-oath story has just started its long trek through most of the next two millenniums. Soon after the Council adjourned, on November 12, 451, the emperor issued a decree that made reopening closed pagan temples a capital crime. The decree included the crimes of burning incense, offering libations (ritual 'pouring out' offerings of their best Wine or Olive Oil), and decorating the temples with flowers, inside or out. Valentinian in the West had already decreed non-Trinitarian and pagan views to be treason to the state. Then on February 7, 452, the emperors issued an edict which enforced Chalcedon and made its creed the civil law of the empire. This didn't mean the mundane things like church expenditures would effect you; it meant the correct belief in God the Trinity because that is what the fight was almost always about. Early colonies like Virginia, New Hampshire, Connecticut, and the Massachusetts Bay closely resembled these early models of religious doctrine as law. If you had to believe rightly to be saved, it followed, after a millennia and a half of habit, that you had to believe correctly to be a full citizen or serve the citizenry. Error can't be allowed to destroy society. One had to religiously correct in order to live unmolested. Together, the church and the government insisted you believed rightly. EMPEROR LEO AND MORE MONOPHYSITE INSURRECTIONS The next emperor was Leo I. Leo's coronation was the first instance of an emperor being crowned by a major leader of the Church. This was a logical outcome of the loss of borders between such a demanding, 'exclusivist' religion and the state. In the courts of Protestant nations, monarchs were also crowned by religious leaders. Powerful figures still had to have the blessings of religious leaders in order to be acclaimed Emperor. On February 7, 457, Emperor Leo the First was crowned by Constantinople's Patriarch Anatolius in the presence of the Senate, government officials, the clergy and the Scholarian Guard of Constantinople. After Leo was crowned, the assembly exclaimed, "God will keep thee. A long reign! God will protect the Christian Empire!" Leo was also involved in the debates about the Trinity and the consubtantiality of Christ. JB Bury noted in his tome, The Later Roman Empire (Vol I, Ch 11, pg 358): "Throughout the reign of Leo I the dispute over the incarnation led to scenes of the utmost violence in Alexandria and to occurrences hardly less scandalous in Antioch" As soon as the news of Marcian's death reached Palestine and Alexandria, riots broke out in the streets as the Monophysites reclaimed their churches. People died. Marcian had used troops to force Nicene beliefs on an unhappy majority in the Antiochan and Alexandrian Sees and they took their chances as soon they heard he had died. But alas, the Nicene clergy had a friend in Leo, who sent troops to put the right bishops and the right beliefs in the churches. Well, for now at least. Leo didn't persecute heretics only. In his desire to repress Judaism and make the Nicene life the only choice left even for Jewish people, he declared in Constitution LV (55) of The Constitutions of Leo: "Therefore We, desiring to accomplish what Our Father failed to effect, do hereby annul all the old laws enacted with reference to the Hebrews, and We order that they shall not dare to live in any other manner than in accordance with the rules established by the pure and salutary Christian Faith. And if anyone of them should be proved to, have neglected to observe the ceremonies of the Christian religion, and to have returned to his former practices, he shall pay the penalty prescribed by the law for apostates." Like the Medieval England that didn't let Jews into the country for the longest time because they were Christ killers and blasphemers of God, Leo and the church afforded Jews few rights of conscience. Before Christians took over the throne of the Monarchy, Judaism was an officially accepted religion in the Empire. And Jew who was a Roman Citizen was equal to other Romans under the law. But that changed with the Christianized empire. Between Emperors Leo I and Justinian, the Monophysites and the Nicenes still fought it out in the marketplaces, in the churches, at the imperial court and sometimes violently in the streets. After Leo died, Emperor Zeno crafted  the Henotikon. The Henotikon was an attempt to unify the church through a compromise between the monophysites and the Nicenes. But neither the leading Nicenes and Monophysites would have none of it. They were not going to compromise their values. Because Leo had Aspar, Marcian's closest advisor, murdered along with his sons, Leo earned the nickname the butcher. Aspar had wielded a great deal of power for a long time. Aspar was the Magister Militum of the Empire, as was his father before him and son afterward, both named Arbaduras. Marcian was Arbaduras' and then Aspar's right hand man in the military leadership. Aspar became Marcian's. Aspar the military and political power-broker was responsible for not only Marcianus' rise to imperial power, but Leo's rise instead of the next in line, Anthemius. Anthemius eventually became emperor in the west. Before that incident, Leo had made one of Aspar's son Caesar. Mobs of fanatics and monks rioted in the streets, bringing death and destruction to Constantinople because they could not bear the idea that an Arian and~! a barbarian was in line for the throne. The Monophysites still had power and influence to be reckoned with and Arians were still on the loose. Emperor Anastasius was a Monophysite even though he declared the Chalcedonian faith. He too, was bitten by the intractable Monophysite problem when in 511, he replaced the Patriarch of Constantinople with a Monophysite and riots broke out in the streets of Constantinople. After that, Emperor Justin, ruling 518-527, joined other emperors in decreeing heresy illegal. Justin targeted Arians the most. After 523, Arians were watched and actively persecuted much like police states do. Between Leo and Justinian, with reigns of Zeno, Anastasius and Justin, the Trinity again played center stage again in the doctrinal battles of the clergy, the court, homes and the streets. THE AGE OF EMPEROR JUSTINIAN 527-565: In 527, Emperor Justinian decreed (Codex Justinianus 1.5.12) that non-Nicenes could not hold political office, rise in the military or enter the profession of law. The Colony of Carolina in 1669, was also clear about a religious test-oath before entering a professional career. It was the same religious test you needed to swear to in order to join a church in the Carolina colony. Justinian's rather fascist decree states: "It is our intention to restore the existing laws which affect the rest of the heretics of whatever name they are, (and we label as heretic whoever is not a member of the Catholic Church and of our orthodox and holy faith); likewise the pagans who attempt to introduce the worship of many gods, and the Jews and the Samaritans, we have resolved not only to reinforce them with this present law, but also to enforce other measures which will provide those who share our shining faith with greater security, order and honor... We forbid any of the above mentioned persons to aspire to any dignity or to acquire civil or military office or to attain to any rank." "It is more than enough for them merely to be alive. Heretics are all such as do not belong to the Catholic faith including Jews. They are not to hold any office; or follow profession of law" It is more than enough for them merely to be alive. In 528, recorded as Codex Justinianus 1.11.9-10, he ordered the execution of those who practice sorcery, divination, magic or idolatry. In one translation, Justinian refers to them as "the ones suffering from the blasphemous insanity of the Hellenes". Theodosius the Great called heretics, 'demented and insane'. This was a very common way of talking about your opponents in those days. Pope Leo's letters are must-reads in this regard. He patronizes the imperial court and uses untrue or exaggerated statements and ad hominem attacks against heretics and Manicheans. In this decree of 528, Justinian demands that "All those who have not yet been baptized must come forward, whether they reside in the capital or in the provinces, and go to the very holy churches with their wives, their children, and their households, to be instructed in the true faith of Christians." The true faith, according to Nicenes,  is exclusive to the Nicene faith. Everyone else is in error and should be treated differently. Muslims tell others the same thing about their exclusive hold on the truth. Shia and Sunni Muslims tell each other that only their belief is the truth just as Protestants and Catholics did. Millions died due to this madness from the realm of the superstitious and the supernatural. Here we see the church-state foundations that evolved into the religious requirements found in Europe and its colonies. The Church and state worked hand in had to make it exceedingly difficult for anyone to 'live unmolested' if they held a different religious belief. Justinian continued with the state's threats, warning of the punishments if they should disobey, "let them know that they will be excluded from the State and will no longer have any rights of possession, neither goods nor property; stripped of everything, they will be reduced to penury, without prejudice to the appropriate punishments that will be imposed on them" The colonies did similar things. England didn't even let Jews into their country at one time during the Middle Ages. It was all about the correct religious declaration and oath. How could anyone but a Protestant rule Protestants? Above, I showed that the 1669 Carolina laws prohibited anyone not professing a belief in God any rights to live in, or own property in that colony. You could not be a freeman in Carolina if you didn't believe in God. In the Early 530s, Justinian decreed in Codex Justinianus 1.5.17, that "The synagogues of the Samaritans shall be destroyed, and if they dare to build others, they shall be punished. They may have no testamentary or other legal heirs except Orthodox Christians". In this law, nobody could inherit any property except those with the proper beliefs about the Son and the Trinity. In Protestant England after the Glorious Revolution of 1688 and the Constitution of 1689, Catholics had no testamentary rights. The Protestant state decided where things went. There were even laws that prohibited one from marrying a Catholic. This kind of church doctrine goes all the way back to the Council of Elvira around 306 that forbade marrying, socializing or even eating with a Jew, heretic or Pagan. In the world of Elvira, it was Catholic girls and boys who were being told who they couldn't marry. Catholic girls couldn't marry the last available male in the region if he was a pagan. In 535, Justinian kept up the pressure on dissident beliefs and issued what is called Novella Six in the Justinian Code. This Novella not only decreed the rules on church hierarchy and operation, but further legitimized the church-state alliance by further linking the Priesthood and Kingdom, for the purpose of guarding the true dogmas of God. It stated: "The greatest blessings granted to human beings by God's ultimate grace are priesthood and kingdom, the former taking care of divine affairs, while the latter guiding and taking care of human affairs, and both, come from the same source, embellishing human life." "Therefore, nothing lies so heavy on the hearts of kings as the honour of priests, who on their part serve them, praying continuously for them to God. And if the priesthood is well ordered in everything and is pleasing to God, then there will be full harmony between them in every thing that serves the good and benefit of the human race." "Therefore, we exert the greatest possible effort to guard the true dogmas of God and the honour of the priesthood, hoping to receive through it great blessings from God and to hold fast to the ones which we have". Following the Emperor Marcianus' example in 545, Justinian issued Novella 131. In Chapter 1, it declared the canons of the first four ecumenical councils to be the law of the empire: "Concerning Four Holy Councils: Therefore We order that the sacred, ecclesiastical rules which were adopted and confirmed by the four Holy Councils, that is to say, that of the three hundred and eighteen bishops held at Nicaea, that of the one hundred and fifty bishops held at Constantinople, the first one of Ephesus, where Nestorius was condemned, and the one assembled at Chalcedon, where Eutyches and Nestorius were anathematized, shall be considered as laws. We accept the dogmas of these four Councils as sacred writings, and observe their rules as legally effective." OUCH! Church doctrine as the Supreme law of the land! JUSTINIAN AND THE SECOND COUNCIL OF CONSTANTINOPLE In 553, the Council of Constantinople was called by the order of Justinian. The disputes regarding the Trinity and Incarnation still dominated the proceedings. Once again, defining the nature of the Trinity and the Incarnation. The Monophysite controversy was still a big problem for Rome and Constantinople. And there were always Arians lurking about. Justinian is also targeting those that follow what was being called Origen's teachings. In the end the Council issued 14 Anathemas. In Anathema 1, we are told "If anyone shall not confess that the nature or essence of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost is one, as also the force and the power; a consubstantial Trinity, one Godhead to be worshipped in three subsistences or Persons: let him be anathema. Anathema 2 threatens, "If anyone shall not confess that the Word of God has two nativities, the one from all eternity of the Father, ..let him be anathema. Anathema 3 warns, "If anyone shall say that the wonder-working Word of God is one and the Christ that suffered another; or shall say that God the Word was with the woman-born Christ, or was in him as one person in another, but that he was not one and the same our Lord Jesus Christ, the Word of God, incarnate and made man, and that his miracles and the sufferings which of his own will he endured in the flesh were not of the same: let him be anathema." Anathema 11 adds, IF anyone does not anathematize Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, Apollinaris, Nestorius, Eutyches and Origen, as well as their impious writings, as also all other heretics already condemned and anathematized by the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, and by the aforesaid four Holy Synods and all those who have held and hold or who in their impiety persist in holding to the end the same opinion as those heretics just mentioned: let him be anathema. Origen? Speaking of demented and insane! Origen castrated himself for God because he hated the flesh! During the period of Constantine through Justinian, the first to the fifth General Council, the Nicene Creed increasingly dominated civil law on matters of religion. This was the foundational period for the religious test-oaths of the future. Over the centuries the alliance worked towards destroying past religions, traditions and conventions and replacing them with their religion. It was the conservative religious politicians in the Roman Senate that fought the changes the most. "It is our tradition. It is our heritage. It is our duty. This is the way its always been. We can't turn our backs on the Gods who have blessed Rome with so much.". History is going through another religious change because this sounds like Jay Sekulow, Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson. Heritage this, tradition that. Never mind the written law.

PROTESTANT CONFESSIONS: NICENE TEST-OATHS CONTINUE When Martin Luther came on the scene a millennium later, belief in the Nicene Creed had been the standard for a very long time. It had been tradition for so long people knew of nothing else except through legend. Nobody would dare question the doctrines of consubstantiality and if they did, they were in a world of trouble. After the Reformation it remained as the dogmatic standard to both. Nobody was arguing over anything in the Nicene Creed during the Reformation and nobody was arguing about it when Protestants finally broke from Rome. From the start, Protestants organized their churches used the same kinds of religious tests and government alliances that were created before the Reformation. The names of churches had changed, the litanies changed some, and the church hierarchy's relationship with both God and the people definitely changed. But one thing didn't change. It was the same militancy regarding the Nicene Trinity Creed vs other Christological beliefs. It was the same militancy that decreed and required assenting to, that your church was spreading God's word and the others weren't. All these alliances seek Nicene tests for oaths of office regarding public service and positions of authority, secular and religious because they are Nicenes and are making the laws. Making it so nobody but Nicenes could serve government puts the government in the hands of the Nicenes. This is the loathsome combination of church and state Jefferson spoke of in his letter to Charles Clay on January 29, 1815. If you were a heretic who didn't believe in the Trinity as defined in the Nicene Creed you would be in as much danger in a Protestant society as you would be in a Catholic one. Let's start with the In 1530, the Augsburg Confession was presented by Protestants to Holy Roman Emperor Charles V at the Diet (Assembly) of Augsburg. It was a response authored mainly by Luther's ally, Phillip Melanchthon, addressing the condemnation of Martin Luther by the imperial decree after the Diet of Worms, held in 1521. Charles had stated, "We want him to be apprehended and punished as a notorious heretic". The Diet of Worms was another assembly of church and state allies seeking to silence religious dissent. Because Jan Hus had been burned alive by a lying and conspiring council that never intended to honor a safe passage gurantee to and from the council, Luther had a powerful benefactor that protected him and sped him away after the Diet. They knew how empty those promises could be when it came to religion. The clergy did anything they could to stifle dissent and any change and that's just what the reformers wanted. In a hall full of civil magistrates and clergymen, Luther was prosecuted by an attorney who was an assistant to the Archbishop. Not learning the hard lessons of history, Protestants did just the same when they achieved power in the governments. In some places, saying Mass became a capital offense. Churches were plundered. When Sweden went Protestant, the state confiscated all Catholic property. This is exactly what early Nicene orthodoxy had done to pagans, Jews and heretics to establish a uniform religious society. Demolition, arson, and plunder joined religious tests and the state's official religion in establishing conformity. The purpose of the Confession of Augsburg was to show the church and the authorities that Luther, his friends, and his followers believed the same important doctrines as the Catholic Church did. Protestants denied the temporal authority of the Papacy over the world's body of believers and rejected the corruption of the priesthood and the magistrates. They didn't want to start a new church; they wanted to clean the old one up. Simply put, they were Catholics without the clutter of the Papacy. In the preface of the Confession, it sounds very much like the communications between religious leaders and the Roman imperial court. Similar to the situations surrounding the General Councils, it was the Emperor Charles who called for the assembly at Augsburg in 1530. With the Preface, the Protestants began their case: "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,  ...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; ..." "Of God" the Confession states "Our Churches, with common consent, do teach that the decree of the Council of Nicaea concerning the Unity of the Divine Essence and concerning the Three Persons, is true and to be believed without any doubting; that is to say, there is one Divine Essence which is called and which is God: eternal, ...and yet there are three Persons, of the same essence and power, who also are coeternal, the Father the Son, and the Holy Ghost." "They [the Lutherans] condemn all heresies which have sprung up against this article, as the Manichaeans, who assumed two principles, one Good and the other Evil- also the Valentinians, Arians, Eunomians, Mohammedans, and all such. They condemn also the Samosatenes, old and new, who, contending that there is but one Person, sophistically and impiously argue that the Word and the Holy Ghost are not distinct Persons, but that "Word" signifies a spoken word, and "Spirit" signifies motion created in things." In the Article,"Of the Son of God", it states, "Also they teach that the Word, that is, the Son of God, did assume the human nature in the womb of the blessed Virgin Mary, so that there are two natures, the divine and the human, inseparably enjoined in one Person, one Christ, true God and true man,...". Later, after Catholic writings attacked the Augsburg Confession, Melanchthon presented Emperor Charles with the Defense of the Confession of Augsburg, or Defense of Augsburg which again tried to point out their unity on what is important: "Article I: Of God. The First Article of our Confession our adversaries approve, in which we declare that we believe and teach that there is one divine essence, undivided, etc., and yet, that there are three distinct persons, of the same divine essence, and coeternal, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. This article we have always taught and defended, and we believe that it has, in Holy Scripture, sure and firm testimonies that cannot be overthrown. And we constantly affirm that those thinking otherwise are outside of the Church of Christ. and are idolaters, and insult God." 1534: KING HENRY THE EIGHTH GIVES ROME THE BOOT The First Act of Supremacy was issued by Henry in 1534. King Henry declared that he was "the only supreme head on earth of the Church in England" and that the English crown shall enjoy "all honours, dignities, preeminences, jurisdictions, privileges, authorities, immunities, profits, and commodities to the said dignity." After the Act of Supremacy of 1534, the Treason Act of 1534 made it a crime of treason, punishable by death, to disagree with the Act of Supremacy. Thomas More, a loyal Catholic before a loyal Brit, was executed under this Act. Valentinian III's decree of treason if one didn't see the Roman See's primacy over all the rest of the Patriarchies. The Acts were Repealed by Catholic Queen Mary I. The Act of Uniformity 1549 established the Book of Common Prayer as the sole legal form of worship in England. Up until 1549 the churches in England had uses the Latin-language missal with slight alterations to separate is from the Catholics. The law was very controversial led to rioting in some areas of England. By 1552 a new Act of Conformity was passed and it came with a revised Book of Common Prayer. In 1559, the Act of Supremacy made Queen Elizabeth the Supreme Governor of things spiritual and ecclesiastical. The oath stated: "I, A. B., do utterly testify and declare in my conscience that the queen's highness is the only supreme governor of this realm and of all other her highness's dominions and countries, as well in all spiritual or ecclesiastical things or causes as temporal, and that no foreign prince, person, prelate, state, or potentate hath or ought to have any jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence, or authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual, within this realm; and therefore I do utterly renounce and forsake all foreign jurisdictions, powers, superiorities, and authorities, and do promise that from henceforth I shall bear faith and true allegiance to the queen's highness, her heirs, and lawful successors, and to my power shall assist and defend all jurisdictions, pre-eminences, privileges, and authorities granted or belonging to the queen's highness, her heirs, and successors, or united or annexed to the imperial crown of this realm: so help me God and by the contents of this Book" 1563 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES In 1563, the Church of England presented The Thirty-nine Articles. They were based on the Forty-two Articles of 1553, which were primarily authored by Thomas Cranmer. Like the Forty-two, the Thirty-nine deliberately made life less than free for Anabaptists and Catholics. It began with "Of faith in the holy Trinity. There is but one living and true God, everlasting, without body, parts, or passions, of infinite power, wisdom, and goodness, the maker and preserver of all things both visible and invisible. And in unity of this Godhead there be three persons, of one substance, power, and eternity, the father, the son, and the holy ghost". Continuing its emphasis on the consubstantiality of the Triune God and the fully human, fully God Jesus, it said "Of the word or Son of God which was made very man. The Son, which is the word of the Father, begotten from everlasting of the Father, the very and eternal God, of one substaunce with the father, took man's nature in the womb of the blessed Virgin, of her substaunce: so that two whole and perfect natures, that is to say the Godhead and manhood, were joined together in one person, never to be divided,..." In Article 5, "Of the holy ghost", it continues defining the Trinity and the Incarnation: "The holy ghost, proceeding from the father and the son, is of one substance, majesty, and glory,' with the father and the son, very and eternal God." Well, that is certainly as Nicene as it gets. Next, the document supports the divine authority of the scriptures, which is also part of some colonial and early state religious tests. True to the form of Christianity's continuing obsession with making church-state alliances with which to influence the people through, in 1571, the Parliament enacted the Subscription Act, against the wishes of Queen Elizabeth, which made it mandatory for every member of the clergy to subscribe openly to them. In 1618 there came the Protestant Belgic Confession. It, too, stressed strict and unquestionable Nicene declarations regarding the scriptures and the consubstantiality of Trinity . Article 8 reads: "The Trinity, In keeping with this truth and Word of God we believe in one God, who is one single essence, in whom there are three persons, really, truly, and eternally distinct according to their incommunicable properties -- namely, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit." Like the Nicene Creed, the Protestants firmly believed and demanded of others the belief in a consubstantial Trinity and a fully human, fully God Jesus Christ. Like the Augsburg Confession, the Belgic Confession names and supports the condemnation of the same heresies that were condemned by the early General councils and the ratifying imperial edicts I have outlined above. The Augsburg Confession condemned, just like the orthodox Councils and emperors of late antiquity did, the Manicheans, Pelagians, Valentinians, 'Jewish opinions', Arians, Eunomians, Mohammedans, Samosatenes, Donatists, and Novatians. Justinian and the Second Council of Constantinople clearly decreed, "IF anyone does not anathematize Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, Apollinaris, Nestorius, Eutyches and Origen, as well as their impious writings, as also all other heretics already condemned and anathematized by the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, and by the aforesaid four Holy Synods and all those who have held and hold or who in their impiety persist in holding to the end the same opinion as those heretics just mentioned: let him be anathema." There is no difference between the required religious declarations of the past and the one devised by the Reformation. The First Council of Constantinople layed out this list of heresies of which some are found in Protestant Confessions: Eunomians or Anomoeans, Arians or Eudoxians, Semi-Arians or Pneumatomachi, Marcellians, Photinians, Apollinarians, Macedonians, Sabbatians, Novatians, Cathars and Aristae, Quartodeciman or Tetradites, Montanists or Phrygians, and Sabellians. In Article 9, the Belgic Confession agrees with the Definitions of Faith that emerged from the Ecumenical Councils that defined the Nicene Creedcalled by the clergy and the Emperors Constantine, Theodosius, Theodosius II, Marcian and Justinian. "This doctrine of the holy Trinity has always been maintained in the true church, from the time of the apostles until the present, against Jews, Mohammedans, and certain false Christians and heretics, such as Marcion, Mani [Manicheans], Praxeas, Sabellius, Paul of Samosata, Arius, and others like them, who were rightly condemned by the holy fathers. And so, in this matter we willingly accept the three ecumenical creeds-- the Apostles', Nicene, and Athanasian,.." In the Augsburg Confession, the Lutherans condemned the heretical notion that "Spirit" meant something other than the third consubstantial person of the Trinity. In line with this, Article Eleven of the Belgic Confession, states, "We believe and confess also that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son-- neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but only proceeding from the two of them. In regard to order, he is the third person of the Trinity-- of one and the same essence, and majesty, and glory, with the Father and the Son." On May 3, 1641, the English Parliament enacted the Oath of Protestation which was to be taken by every member of the Houses of Lords and Commons. On top of that, every male 18 or older had to swear this oath. Each person's name was recorded with wether they took the oath or not. Many of these still exist to this day. Rectors, Church wardens and Overseers of the Poor were required to swear before a Justice of the Peace in their region. The oath declared allegiance to the Protestant religion and to the Protestant rulers of an exclusively Protestant nation. I, _____ do, in the presence of Almighty God, promise, vow, and protest to maintain, and defend as far as lawfully I may, with my Life, Power and Estate, the true Reformed Protestant religion, expressed in the Doctrine of the Church of England, against all Popery and Popish Innovations, within this Realme, contrary to the same Doctrine, and according to the duty of my Allegiance, His Majesties Royal Person, Honour and Estate, as also the Power and Privileges of Parliament, the lawful Rights and Liberties of the Subjects, and any person that maketh this Protestation, in whatsoever he shall do in the lawful Pursuance of the same; and to my power, and as far as lawfully I may, I will appose and by all good Ways and Means endeavour to bring to condign Punishment all such as shall, either by Force, Practice, Councels, Plots, Conspiracies, or otherwise, doe any Thing to the contrary of any Thing in this present Protestation contained: and further, that I shall, in all just and honourable ways, endeavour to preserve the Union and Peace betwixt the Three Kingdoms of England, Scotland and Ireland: and neither for Hope, Fear, nor other Respect, shell relinquish this Promise, Vow and Protestation. In 1643, at a time when civil strife was high, the English Parliament ordered the greatest religious minds of England to meet at the Westminster Abbey to create the Westminster Confession. It was to be a Calvinist Confession which addressed Christian doctrine, Godly government and reforming the Church of England. England's Church and State alliance was switching from Episcopal to Calvinist Puritanism. By 1649, the Westminster Confession had been ratified and decreed law of the realm by both the Scottish and English Parliaments. Like the church and state alliances of late antiquity, the Protestant church and the civil government were in bed together. (The American Episcopal Church removed the theocratic articles from the Westminster Confession in 1789.) The new confession made the same claims as the most valent General councils regarding the Trinity and the Incarnation. There is no difference between the Nicene Creed of old and the Protestant declarations regarding the Trinity. Under a different church's name, the same Nicene declarations are found in the Westminster Confession: "In the unity of the Godhead there be three Persons of one substance, power, and eternity: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost. The Father is of none, neither begotten nor proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father; the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son." John Locke and the Earl of Shaftsbury, forces of England's Glorious Revolution of 1688, had new ideas, but they still loathed unbelievers and Catholics. They were not really enlightenment thinkers but Whig politicians with a natural law political platform. Popish princes violated their natural law beliefs. Neither had the desire to establish true liberty of conscience. They wanted to change the form of government and increase the rights of Protestants. They wanted England to be a strict Protestant nation. The English Constitution of 1689 was an improvement with its broader Bill of Rights and limiting the King's power. Parts of the English Bill of Rights were used in the American Bill of Rights. Due the record of the Papacy, England reacted zealously against Catholicism, demonizing Catholics and denying them civil rights. It was revenge, not justice or any attempt to fix the problems. It was more of the same; the persecuted becoming the persecutors. The Protestants even created religious tests that articulated a condemnation of Rome. Protestant confessions condemned same the heresies the Catholic church had condemned. The same discrimination against Catholics was found in most of the American colonial charters. The English Constitution of 1689 stated: "And whereas it hath been found by experience that it is inconsistent with the safety and welfare of this Protestant kingdom to be governed by a popish prince, ...that all and every person and persons that is, are or shall be reconciled to or shall hold communion with the see or Church of Rome, or shall profess the popish religion, or shall marry a papist, shall be excluded and be for ever incapable to inherit, possess or enjoy the crown and government of this realm and Ireland and the dominions thereunto belonging or any part of the same, or to have, use or exercise any regal power, authority or jurisdiction within the same;.. and the said crown and government... be enjoyed by such person or persons being Protestants, ... make, subscribe and audibly repeat the declaration mentioned in the statute,.. An Act for the more effectual preserving the king's person and government by disabling papists from sitting in either House of Parliament." The mentioned Coronation Oath Act of 1689 mandated a religious declaration in the oath. In Westminster Abbey, the Archbishop asks, among other things, "Will you solemnly promise and swear to govern the people of this Kingdom of England, and the dominions thereto belonging, according to the statutes in Parliament agreed on, and the laws and customs of the same?" "Will you to your power cause law and justice in mercy to be executed in all your judgments?" "Will you to the utmost of your power maintain the laws of God, the true profession of the gospel and the Protestant reformed religion established by law, and will you preserve unto the bishops and clergy of this Realm, and to the churches committed to their charge, all such rights and privileges as by law do or shall appertain unto them, or any of them?" Again, this isn't new. All that has changed is the name of the church that guards the "Holie and Blessed Trinitie". In 979 England, Catholic King Ethelred II swore his oath in much the same way: "In the name of the Holy Trinity, three things do I promise to this Christian people, my subjects; first, that I will hold God's church and all the Christian people of my realm in true peace; second, that I will forbid all rapine and injustice to men of all conditions; third, that I promise and enjoin justice and mercy in all judgments, in order that a just and merciful God may give us all His eternal favor, who liveth and reigneth." Whether Catholic or Protestant, the same kind of Trinitarian test-oaths oaths spanned those seven centuries in the coronations. More than three centuries after the Coronation Oath of 1689, the test-oath has changed very little. In 1953, still administered by the Archbishop of Canterbury at Westminster Abbey, the oath that Queen Elizabeth took had barely changed. In Recent times have come challenges to Britain's Protestant status. There are groups that want Britain to take the neutral and secular positions on religion that the United States Constitution does. The logic of our religion-neutral Constitution, both temporal and historical is impecable and brilliant. In Britain, actual religious liberty came for different groups came in a haphazard way. In 1699, Quakers were given the right to affirm, not swear. It was not until 1858 with the Jewish Relief Act that Jews could take the Oath of Abjuration, omitting the words, "on the true faith of a Christian", first introduced in 1609. Jews were not allowed in England in 1609 so Jews were not a target of the oath in 1609. With the Catholic Relief Act of 1829, Catholics could finally hold office but they still had to support the Church of England and the Protestant throne. That is one hundred and forty years of making Catholics second-rate citizens. That same anti-Catholic bigotry officially ended in the United States with the US Constitution, but we, as traditionally a Protestant continernt continued to discriminate against Catholics and Jews. This went on until high courts stepped in to remind people what the Federal Constitution declared on the issues of equality and liberty. Many states did what they could to ignore the First and Third sections of the Sixth Article, which is why the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868. Not until 1868, in the case of Charles Bradlaugh, were atheists allowed to take the oath or affirm without a religious declaration. After being elected five times by his constituency and having to repeatedly go to court, the religious conservatives (them again!) in Parliament finally gave in. It would not be for another ninety-three years before the USSC ended the same kind of discrimination and gave atheists the same right by striking down the last remaining religious tests in state constitutions. Even though the Article was illegal, it restricted liberty and equality. Anti-atheism has been harder to overcome here than there, because of all the polemics and propganda of the Cold War. Those Godless Communists! We had not taken all of our Calvinist clothes off, which is why slavery and anti-suffragism kept alive for so long. Calvinism is our anti-theater sabbath laws. In fact, President Bush the first made a statement once that atheists were not real Americans. That sentiment is the result of our long history of church-state alliances and the successful strategy of the conservatives in demonizing and marginalizing non-Christian leaders and patriots. Jefferson defended the atheist's religious liberty in 1808 but in reality, it took several states almost two hundred years to comply with the Sixth Article's ban on religious tests. Having these old laws around made people have a twisted conception of what the US Constitution declared as the Supreme Law of the Land in which no State, no Judge, no law and no Constitution could be contrary to the Federal Constitution. It is easy to see the many important similarities shared by Protestant and Catholic religious test-oaths. With that link from late antiquity known, we can see exactly where our colonial religious tests originated: The doctrines of the Sees of Rome and Constantinople at the first five General Councils. The Trinity and the consubstantiality of Christ are of paramount importance to both antiquity's and Protestant churches. That Trinitarian dominance and importance continued with Protestant Confessions of Faith. Protestants protected Nicene-Chalcedonian Trinity dogma in their Confessions just as zealously as the orthodoxy of late antiquity did. So how did the change come about from the antiquated Medieval legal order? The Enlightenment had made a great deal of ground in America and it was ready for more than being free of just England. At the time, British America was in the midst of a neo-classical revival and was deeply influenced and excited by the European Enlightenment and the classical writers of ancient Greece and Rome. Many of the leaders of the American Enlightenment were classically educated. They had liberal arts educations and were erudite in the matters of classical and enlightenment philosophies. They took the ideas of the enlightenment and the neo-classical revival in America seriously. That is why there is so much Classical Tradition in America. Let's take a look at state constitutional changes that began after the Continental Congress but before the ratifications. Although minor, some of them take steps unheard of because they allowed for diversity within Christianity. Both American and European Christians had been so intolerant and militant that rarely were there provisions protecting any Christian heterodoxy. It was a black and white world. Up until and including this period, your brand of Christian orientation was dictated by the laws of the church-state alliance. One Church for one society. The sad part was that believers believed "Individual Conformity to social and religious uniformity for a stable, tamed, obedient society before God." would bring about a more peaceful society. Throughout history, it has been anything but peaceful with nations that militantly enforce uniformity. Secular and religious, governments that try to force conformity in cultural, racial, religious, and political are the least free and have the most to fear from their people. Most of the state changes between 1776 and 1787 still fall far short of the principles and standards set by the US Constitution but they were still positive changes away from the legal and religious framework of the old world order. Almost all the colonies and states had Protestant only laws before the Continental Congress' mandate that every state was to craft a new constitution. That was the first test: to break out of the one denomination, one dimensional box and increase religious liberties to a variety of Christians. First they had to increase liberties to other Protestants. Then they would include non-Protestants. This eventually increased religious freedom but you still had to be some kind of Christian, declaring a belief in God. Even though many states didn't change their religious test clauses, they became illegal with the Constitution. One argument of religious conservatives against the ratification of the Religious Test Ban clause of the Sixth Article was because atheists, pagans, Muslims and Jews could be elected. That shouts a shuttered mindset full of itself, self-righteousness and bigotry. But the Patrick Henries and the Noah Websters lost that battle. These old world Christians could not bear the idea of a free marketplace of ideas within either religion and government. They still can't bear it and like Pope Leo, have little more than ad hominems and misinformation with which to fight the opposition with. THE TRANSITION FROM THE OLD ORDER TO THE NEW Article 27 of New York's 1683 Constitution had stated, "That No person or persons which profess faith in God by Jesus Christ Shall at any time be any ways molested punished disquieted or called in Question for any Difference in opinion or Matter of Religious Concernment,.." This was certainly an early colonial move beyond respecting only those of the Protestant Establishment but it still required religious belief "in God by Jesus Christ". The NMicene Trinity makes Jesus God. This article does not present full liberties of conscience by any definition. But New York was quick to act when given the chance. After the Continental Congress, like the US Constitution, New York omitted the words God, Jesus and savior in its new Constitution. The new Constitution made some other interesting changes. Momentous ones, too. New York's Constitution was progressive for 1683 but Article 35 of New York's Constitution of 1777 made some real headway towards the creation of a new legal epoch. New York was one the first states to disestablish state churches and they did it as soon as they could. The article makes clear that revolutionary era New Yorkers are doing away with: "all such parts of the said common law, and all such of the said statutes and acts aforesaid, or parts thereof, as may be construed to establish or maintain any particular denomination of Christians or their ministers, or concern the allegiance heretofore yielded to, and the supremacy, sovereignty, government, or prerogatives claimed or exercised by, the King of Great Britain and his predecessors, over the colony of New York and its inhabitants, or are repugnant to this constitution, be, and they hereby are, abrogated and rejected." The new constitution also replaced 'creator' with 'nature's God', a vague deist term that became popular during the enlightenment. Its has to be vague because the deists don't claim to know anything much about nature's God. Just that he or it is the author of nature. To the general deist, faith rests on natural reasoning, not revelation. Deism is more like a generic Intelligent Design hypothesis than a religious doctrine. On the other hand, the believers of revelatory religions think they know so much about God from the Bible or the Quran that they have allied themselves with the state, installing one repressive government after another that lead to the deaths of millions while they were getting their points across. Using 'nature's God' could also be seen as a one-size fits all vagueness that respects all theists and deists alike. It certainly doesn't offend across the board because I have heard many  co-opt the statement as coming from their belief about the Bible and its teaching natural laws (actually, their morality). The Bible's meanings have little to do with the general use of the term, but they still try to adopt as theirs it as a way to get religion and government more cozy together. If not Christianity, then Ceremonial Deism which is still unconstitutional religious accomodationism even if it is accomodationism light. They fall all over the Declaration of Independence's deist language telling us that YHWH is "nature's God" or that Jefferson couldn't have meant anyone else but the Bible's deity when he used the term, "creator". (New York didn't take any chances, keeping Nature's God and omitting creator.) The Declaration was mainly written by a known deist and follower of the enlightenment, a higher critic of Christianity, and one who was hostile towards organized religion. Jefferson was writing for everyone in a time when all but two the states (NY,VA) had religious tests that made it impossible for a Catholic, a Jew, a Muslim, a pagan, a heretic, or an atheist to serve the public trust. With those kind of laws, people couldn't tell anyone if they were atheists. One had to be silent about atheistic beliefs if they wanted to influence their communities, states and nation. Nature's God worked great on both shores of the Atlantic and those who were actually atheist found deism very convenient in places where atheism was a crime. The atheist and the deist both agree that God does not send messages or communicate with humans. God doesn't meddle in human affairs. Morality is humanity's concern, not God's. When someone tells us that they are hearing the voice of God, that is where the trouble starts. Echoing some of Jefferson's sentiments, Article 38 then stated, "whereas we are required, by the benevolent principles of the rational liberty, not only to expel civil tyranny, but also to guard against that spiritual oppression and intolerance wherewith the bigotry and ambition of weak and wicked priests and princes have scourged mankind.." Another relevant document of the period is the 1778 Essex Result of Massachusetts. The problem with limited conceptions of religious liberty in the proposed constitution was addressed in Essex and contributed to the 3-1 rejection of the 1778 Constitution by the voters. The Essex Result, a meeting in Essex of many townships to scrutinize the proposed constitution, had stated, "That the thirty fourth article is exceptionable, because the rights of conscience are not therein clearly defined and ascertained; and further, because the free exercise and enjoyment of religious worship is there said to be allowed to all the Protestants in the State, when in fact, that free exercise and enjoyment is the natural and uncontrollable right of every member of the State". Points 2 and 10 of the Essex Result stated: "That a bill of rights, clearly ascertaining and defining the rights of conscience, and that security of person and property, which every member in the State hath a right to expect from the supreme power thereof, ought to be settled and established, previous to the ratification of any Constitution in the State.." The Vermont Constitutions of 1777 and 1786, Chapter 1, Article 3 made a tiny move away from the old order governments. Its like letting your mind leave your cell but you're in the prison's yard. The notions are still mostly representative of English, not the coming American Constitutional law. In its somewhat vague and contradictory language it states: "That all men have a natural and unalienable right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences and understandings,"  and "no man ought, or of right can be compelled to attend any religious worship, or erect or support any place of worship, or maintain any minister, contrary to the dictates of his conscience." That sounds like a good start but this move is half-hearted because we are then told that "their opinion shall be regulated by the word of God" and .."nor can any man who professes the Protestant religion, be justly deprived or abridged of any civil right.." Where's the freedom in that? Freedom is a state of being unrestrained to choose your view and path in life. Full and equal civil rights in Vermont still depended on your Protestantism. Unfortunately, the wisdom of the Essex assembly was ignored for another 55 years, when in 1833 the state finally disestablished its church and put all beliefs on the same footing. Article 11 of their new Constitution: "All religious sects and denominations, demeaning themselves peaceably, and as good citizens of the commonwealth, shall be equally under the protection of the law; and no subordination of any one sect or denomination to another shall ever be established by law." The public religious requirement of the Vermont Constitution required you to "believe in one God, the Creator and Governor of the Diverse, the rewarder of the good and punisher of the wicked. And I do acknowledge the scriptures of the old and New Testament to be given by divine inspiration, and own and profess the protestant religion." Aside from the 1777 New York statutes, laws loosened slightly on the matter but nothing momentous happened. In 1786, a Religious Liberty Statute, drafted by Jefferson back in 1779 was passed in Virginia. This law was different from many other religious liberty law ever passed in Christianized Europe or its colonies. Although it has some religious language, which is absent in the National Constitution, people are given religious liberty and the test-oath laws are invalidated. The goal of a secular and equality-promising government was not reached but this was still a giant step towards religious neutrality in government. Jefferson was a deist and just as he did in the Declaration of Independence he used mostly the universalist language of deism in this statute. Although many deists border on pantheism, words like Providence, Almighty God, nature's God, natural rights and natural law are imbedded in the deist-universalist lexicon. Many deists use the word God closer to how Einstein did. With Einstein, God was more a metaphor, not the theists' personality they call God that we can  communicate with. Among deists, Almighty God is not the Judeo-Christian God. That was the point from the very start with deism, to reject Christian doctrines but still be a believer in God. After a religious and historical introduction outlining what the problem had been all along, that is, church-state alliances, the Virginia Statute ordered, "Be it enacted by the General Assembly, That no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burdened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish enlarge, or affect their civil capacities." "And though we well know that this assembly elected by the people for the ordinary purposes of legislation only, have no power to restrain the acts of succeeding assemblies, constituted with powers equal to our own, and that therefore to declare this act to be irrevocable would be of no effect in law; yet we are free to declare, and do declare, that the rights hereby asserted are of the natural rights of mankind, and that if any act shall be hereafter passed to repeal the present, or to narrow its operation, such act shall be an infringement of natural right." This new law derived itself from a blend of enlightenment and religious humanist thought. It incorporated some of the secular principles that ended up as the religious test ban clause in the Sixth Article and both the establishment and free exercise clauses of the First Amendment. The clause protected individual choice and religious diversity, a bold step after 15 centuries of religious tests. A key part of the enactment was that 'their civil capacities' could not be diminished or enlarged by their beliefs". This statute banned religious tests for oaths of office and the state ended its promotion and support of religion. It was entirely new. The story of this Virginia law is very interesting, pitting the religious conservatives like Patrick Henry against Madison, Jefferson, a those not willing to look backwards. The old world against the new. New York had changed its State Motto in 1778 to EXCELSIOR! meaning Ever Upward! In 1787, the Excelsior Cent was minted in New York. On the obverse was a shield in which a Sun is rising over three mountains and a sea before it. Above the shield is an Eagle perched on a globe. On the left of the shield is Libertas, the Roman Goddess of individual freedom. Here we see Libertas with her staff and a Roman slave's Freedom Cap on top. On the right of the shield is a blindfolded Justitia, the Roman Goddess of Justice, with her balanced scales and her sword of justice. The legend underneath says EXCELSIOR. On the reverse is the date and a Heraldic Eagle and its shield, clutching an Olive Branch of Peace and a group of arrows. Around the outside edge is written E PLURIBUS UNUM. The Virginia House had two laws before them to choose from. One was Patrick Henry's law which established state support for Christian teachers just as England and the colonies had before the revolution. The other was Jefferson's now famous ground breaking religious liberty statute. In December of 1784, Patrick Henry's Bill for Establishing a Provision for Teachers of the Christian Religion was proposed in the Virginia House of Delegates. The first two paragraphs of Henry's law were more of the same that that they inherited from England. Its the world the religious right of today wants to return to. Henry's Bill would have kept Virginia stuck in the past. Some of it reads: "Whereas the general diffusion of Christian knowledge hath a natural tendency to correct the morals of men, restrain their vices, and preserve the peace of society; which cannot be effected without a competent provision for learned teachers, ...Be it therefore enacted by the General Assembly, That for the support of Christian teachers, per centum on the amount, or in the pound on the sum payable for tax on the property within this Commonwealth, is hereby assessed, and shall be paid by every person chargeable with the said tax" Supporting Jefferson's religious liberty statute, James Madison addressed the Virginia General Assembly on June 20, 1785 with his now famous A Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments. Jefferson was serving the administration in Paris at the time so Madison steered Jefferson's groundbreaking law through. Here are some of Madison's statements: "During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution." "Torrents of blood have been spilt in the old world, by vain attempts of the secular arm, to extinguish Religious discord, by proscribing all difference in Religious opinion." "Because the proposed establishment is a departure from the generous policy, which, offering an Asylum to the persecuted and oppressed of every Nation and Religion, promised a lustre to our country, and an accession to the number of its citizens. What a melancholy mark is the Bill of sudden degeneracy? Instead of holding forth an Asylum to the persecuted, it is itself a signal of persecution. It degrades from the equal rank of Citizens all those whose opinions in Religion do not bend to those of the Legislative authority. Distant as it may be in its present form from the Inquisition, it differs from it only in degree. The one is the first step, the other the last in the career of intolerance." To James Madison, Henry's law was a melancholy mark, a Bill of sudden degeneracy, a signal of persecution, a degrading of equal rank of Citizens, and the first step of many towards an Inquisition. That is what the religious right will give us if they can ever get the power they want. Jefferson, Madison, and other Enlightenment thinkers not only won the important Virginia battle, they won in both the Constitutional Convention and the state ratification conventions. Henry's Bill never made it to the floor for a third reading. When Christian reconstructionists tell you that we are a Christian nation founded on Christian principles and they will do everything they can to Christianize American government - think melancholy, degeneracy, persecution, inquisition, and the degradation of equality. Seemingly unknown to the voices of the religious right, Jefferson, Madison and other Enlightenment thinkers of America not only won the Virginia battle against the religious right, but they won in the Constitutional Convention and the ratification process. Henry and the religious right lost and they have been fighting back ever since. In fact, they fought Jefferson's law, keeping it from being part of Virginia's Constitution until 1830 when it was added to the Constitution. That's 44 years that Virginia's right wing managed to hold off a constitutional measure which brought Virginia into compliance with the Federal Constitution. The measure stated: "No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested or burdened, in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief: but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge or affect their civil capacities." "And the legislature shall not prescribe any religious test whatsoever; nor confer any peculiar privileges or advantages on any one sect or denomination; nor pass any law requiring or authorizing any religious society, or the people of any district within this commonwealth to levy on themselves or others any tax for the erection or repair of any house for public worship or for the support of any church or ministry, but it shall be left free to every person to select his religious instructor, and make for his support such private contract as he shall please. In 1789 Georgia removed the Protestant requirement from its Constitution and its oath of office became free from religious references. One of America's first. Georgia also ended all government support of any church. This was expanded upon in the Constitution of 1798/1799. Delaware faired well, too, stating in Article I, Section 2 of its 1792 Constitution, that "No religious test shall be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, under this State." This ban is very similar in wording and identical in meaning to the Federal Constitution's religious test ban clause. Connecticut, like Massachusetts, hung on to an established state church for a while. Connecticut's Constitution of 1818 finally disestablished the Congregational Church in Article I, Section 4: "No preference shall be given by law to any Christian sect or mode of worship." Unfortunately, the laws of Connecticut stay very evangelical when stating in Article 7, Section 1, that although one can't be told how to worship, it is still "the duty of all men to worship the Supreme Being, the great Creator and Preserver of the Universe, and their right to render that worship in the mode most consistent with the dictates or their consciences.." The great minds at the Constitutional Convention knew the people of the United States needed to totally break away from the old ways and create something superior. Luther sought to reform the church but America was in no mood for reforming a failed system of government with no checks and balances and no safeguards for liberty. With the US Constitution we broke completely from the old world legal traditions born in the Times of Constantine. In fact it was the emperors and the Church that attempted to extirpate everything classical in their rise over Europe. In those times, evangelists, the army and mobs went from city to city, from village to village, and through the countryside plundering and destroying buildings looking for pagan buildings and designs like Washington, DC's buildings. But the repression of everything classical and pagan failed in the long run. From the classical, from the Renaissance and from the Enlightenment, our bravest thinkers synthesized and came up with a new and wonderful system that was greater than the sum of its parts.

Until recently, there were still laws and state constitutions that contained articles supporting religious discrimination. Old ways are ard to shed. Due to the 1961 USSC ruling in the case of Torcaso v Watkins, its all be cleared up rather well. It was said over and over in our founding period but nobody seemed to get it or possibly they just didn't want to let go of tradition and held on to the end. The 1961 case contested the constitutionality of Article 37 in Maryland's Declaration of Rights, which stated, "No religious test ought ever to be required as a qualification for any office of profit or trust in this State, other than a declaration of belief in the existence of God." The case involved an atheist who had been appointed by the Governor to a position. Because of his atheism, he was subsequently denied the position because he could not make "a declaration of belief in the existence of God". After going through the court system, the USSC unanimously agreed with the atheist. Justice Black wrote for the court, "This Maryland test for public office cannot be enforced against appellant, because it unconstitutionally invades his freedom of belief and religion guaranteed by the First Amendment and protected by the Fourteenth Amendment from infringement by the States." "There is, and can be, no dispute about the purpose or effect of the Maryland Declaration of Rights requirement before us - it sets up a religious test which it was designed to and, if valid, does bar every person who refuses to declare a belief in God from holding a public 'office of profit or trust' in Maryland. The power and authority of the State of Maryland thus is put on the side of one particular sort of believers - those who are willing to say they believe in 'the existence of God.' It is true that there is much historical precedent for such laws. Indeed, it was largely to escape religious test oaths and declarations that a great many of the early colonists left Europe and came here hoping to worship in their own way. It soon developed, however, that many of those who had fled to escape religious test oaths turned out to be perfectly willing, when they had the power to do so, to force dissenters from their faith to take test oaths in conformity with that faith. This brought on a host of laws in the new Colonies imposing burdens and disabilities of various kinds upon varied beliefs depending largely upon what group happened to be politically strong enough to legislate in favor of its own beliefs. The effect of all this was the formal or practical 'establishment' of particular religious faiths in most of the Colonies, with consequent burdens imposed on the free exercise of the faiths of nonfavored believers. ... When our Constitution was adopted, the desire to put the people 'securely beyond the reach' of religious test oaths brought about the inclusion in Article VI of that document of a provision that 'no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States'....." The ruling negated many similar state laws. They may remain on the books but they are unenforceable. Many point out State Constitutions of old and new, trying to get religion promoted in government. Many of the statutes are on the books because nobody has taken the time and energy to challenge them as was done in Maryland. Until a law actually creates harm to liberties, it will remain on the books in most cases. It is not evidence for honoring God in government. Its evidence of resistance to the Supreme Law of the Land.